Donle’s Daily Dispatches

Volume 1 Issue 143             Today’s News and Views         Saturday, May 20, 2006

Donle's Daily Dispatches RSS News Feeds

Latest news and opinion headlines from NPR, BBC, NY Times, etc.

See the cost in your community

Update of US Casualties in Iraq: 2455

Update of US Casualties in Afghanistan: 295

Figures provided by the Iraq Coalition Causality website

Listen to Air America Radio while reading today's news and views

Today's News and Views

The Rude Pundit

Proudly lowering the level of political discourse

5/18/2006

The Religious Right Wants Meat (Updated):
There's a reason that you have to kill a dog that's tasted human blood. Once it gets that taste in its palate, it becomes hungrier and hungrier for more of that chewy meat, that tangy blood, that human flesh. So there's precious few options. You can try to keep it locked away, deny it what it so deeply desires, hope it'll go back to being the nice little weimariner it always was. And you can believe it, and perhaps it would be true, that one day you'll have a happy chappy again. But that's a lie until it gets that scent of a cut, a nosebleed, a tampon. Then you learn, as we so often do, whether on the shores of Florida canals or in the sprawl of California exurbs, just where you really are on the food chain. You're better off just putting that fucker down. Don't believe it? Lock yourself in a room with a big dog without food for a few days. The only advice that'll help you is "Don't fall asleep."

Oh, how Karl Rove thought he had placated the beast of the religious right. How he thought that John Roberts and Samuel Alito would be all they needed to keep them loyally licking his hand, bringing him his slippers, all the while as he watched them gleefully jam their muzzles into the crotches of his enemies and rip their nutsacks off. Now, Rove has learned: once you feed it, it will want more.

See, while, sure, the religous right is pissed about Bush's "approach" to immigration, they can't make that the focus, because, you know, from the perspective of wackoid Jeeezus-lovin' PACs, you piss off the Hispanic community, you are pissing away mucho dinero. So, not only are they expressing disappointment with the immigration "plan" Bush wants, but they are extra-ultra-special pissed off about the lack of movement on (and, indeed, the possible loss of) the marriage amendment as an issue.

The Family Research Council's Tony "Ironically the Same Name as a Gay Actor Who Died of AIDS" Perkins said on the Today Show yesterday about the White House, "They've got to follow through on promises that were made in the 2004 election cycle, which so far they have not done very much in that area." Yes, you might think a pair of Dobson-approved Supreme Court justices would be more than enough, but when Churchy wanna get paid, you better pay Churchy large or Churchy's gonna break you knees, motherfucker. That's what Perkins said to Bill O'Reilly yesterday over on Fox "News" regarding the President: "I think there's a great risk to him and to the Republican Party if they do not advance these issues that were central to the 2004 campaign. It motivated the value voters, marriage being chief among them." Or, in other words, Churchy's gonna whack the shit out of you with a big ol' Bible.

The Family Research Council (motto: "Making sure you forget that Jesus gave a shit about the poor and weak") and Perkins, in his Washington Update, said about Bush's immigration speech: "I should also point out that the President has not given a prime-time address on the marriage amendment. It's not that we are demanding this, but when the First Lady is disparaging the issue and when the Vice President lets stand unrebutted Mary Cheney's claims, we think some demonstration of Presidential leadership is warranted--and overdue." And that's why Tony Perkins received an honorary doctorate from Jerry Falwell at the same commencement where John McCain spoke.

As Americablog pointed out, the Christian press turned viscerally on Laura Bush for saying (what she was told to say) that the gay marriage amendment ought not be a campaign issue. Leaving aside that, really, and c'mon, Laura Bush's thoughts on anything carry as much weight as flea shit, the ol' Agape Press quoted the Pennsylvania American Family Association's Diane Gramley: "[P]oliticians should stand up for marriage and should support the marriage amendments and voice their support for the marriage amendments during this campaign." On the AFAP's own website, Gramley goes on a bit more frothily, "The federal Marriage Protection Amendment is not discriminatory. Our proposed Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment is not discriminatory. People want to protect traditional marriage and any individual running for public office would be well-advised to make marriage amendments a campaign issue." It's a little like saying that placing the military at the border is not militarization or that fucking a passed out sorority girl isn't rape. Just 'cause you say it...

Some things happen at a velocity that leaves you breathless. The woodpecker tapping away on that bug-filled branch. The way storms grow out of nowhere over Kansas sunflower fields. Elevator sex with Helen Thomas at the Watergate on a misty August night in 1986. And now the rapid descent into mutually assured destruction going on within the right wing. As the crazed religious right ironically eats its own tail over the marriage amendment, it's being attacked by the crazed secular right, like George Will. Karl Rove's gotta be lookin' around at all the wreckage being lain by the unchained beast and thinking, "Oh, shit."

It's so much fuckin' fun, it's hard to know who's the monkey and who's the bears. (Keep sending in those analogies, though. The best'll be posted tomorrow.)

Update: And meat they shall get.

// posted by Rude One @ 9:56 AM

The measure failed in the Senate in 2004 and is not expected to pass this year either. Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) said he expects it to be brought up for a vote in the full Senate in early June.

Gay marriage has been a hot topic since a Massachusetts court ruled in 2003 the state legislature could not ban it, paving the way for America's first same-sex marriages in May the following year.

At least 13 states have passed amendments banning gay marriage while two -- Vermont and Connecticut -- have legalized civil unions. California, New Jersey, Maine, the District of Columbia and Hawaii each offer gay couples some legal rights as partners.

Legal challenges seeking permission for gays and lesbians to marry are pending in 10 states.

"This issue's either going to be resolved by the courts or by this body," Brownback said.

Just over half of all Americans oppose same-sex marriage, according to a March poll by the Pew Research center, down from 63 percent in February 2004.

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), the committee's top Democrat, said the gay marriage ban was a waste of time for a committee that needs to tackle a wide range of other pressing issues, from judicial nominations to oversight of the National Security Administration's domestic-spying program.

"I didn't realize marriages were so threatened. Nor did my wife of 44 years," Leahy said.

Leahy said Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), who supports the gay-marriage ban, has expressed support for polygamists in his home state of Utah. "I never said that," Hatch responded.

"I know some (polygamists) that are very sincere. ... Don't accuse me of wanting to have polygamy."

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc.

I believe that this blindness of the Bush faithful, this unwillingness or maybe inability to admit even a micro-fault in their President, is as dangerous to the nation, in a way, as any terrorist attack could be, for the desire and goal of such people is obviously not to enter into civil, reasoned discussions of Bush’s failed policies, but instead to silence the opposition completely in a country whose chief claim to fame, ironically, is precisely freedom of expression. And I have little doubt that the die-hards among the Bush worshippers, if they could, would gleefully resort to stronger methods than mere verbal slurs to ensure that silence.

The current scene in America, I think, is beginning to bear a frightening similarity to the situation that existed in Germany in the 1930s, when dissent against the Nazi regime was not tolerated to any degree. Dissenters were at first verbally assaulted, then publicly humiliated, then fired from their jobs, then beaten, then shot or sent to prison or concentration camps and almost invariably killed. Things are certainly not at that point in the U.S., obviously, but the process of the erosion of our civil liberties, of the suppression of anti-government views, and of vehement opposition to those who publicly express disagreement with the regime begins with the kind of intimidation we are beginning to witness and usually ends in a martial state that punishes all dissent.

The idea of America as the pure, resplendent symbol of a free society becomes dimmer with each passing day -- and there are, alas, 32 long months to go before a new administration can take charge.

Why are such a large number of Bush adorers so fanatic? There are many reasons, naturally, and I do not pretend to understand them all. One thing is clear, however: the more George Bush slips up, the more vociferously his camp followers defend him and the more viciously they attack his detractors. This happens because his policies and actions are increasingly indefensible.

How can any sane person, for example, seriously defend the Bush invasion of Iraq, which has turned into a tragedy not just for the Iraqis but for America and perhaps the entire world? No, his followers can scarcely point with pride to that horrendous event and its awful consequences. Furthermore, they are hard-pressed to defend his other policies -- such as his intransigent, corporate-backed opposition to joining the rest of the planet in finding a solution to global warming, a phenomenon he refuses to admit even exists; the dangerous cronyism that infects his administration; the illegal wiretaps; the secret prisons abroad; the outing of a CIA agent, and on and on.

Faced with a seemingly endless list of obvious presidential failures and his sad record of mismanagement, the faithful are reduced to one barbaric recourse: demonizing Bush’s critics, a medieval tactic that may grow in intensity as we near January 2009.

I do not doubt that it will take uncommonly courageous people to withstand the coming fury of the President’s uncritical, purblind idolaters. I plead, therefore, with those who love their country and its traditions to speak out often and bravely and with strong words that ring with truth until this administration is consigned to the oblivion it so richly merits.

Those who have surrendered their power to reason and who bow to the current regime as if lobotomized are committing a kind of treason, for they have abandoned their clear duty to question the policies of this President -- and of any future President -- to point out and weigh the consequences of those policies, to examine with care his ideas and proposals, to judge his effectiveness as a leader, and above all to be well informed; in a word they have abandoned their primary civic responsibility: to think critically.

Those who are willing to ask why, to demand answers, to point out mistakes, to hold their elected officials to the highest standards and who do all this without fear of the inevitable opprobrium that awaits them -- they are America’s real patriots. They deserve the nation’s eternal gratitude.

Copyright © 2005 Progressive Daily Beacon

Our brave veterans made those sacrifices while Congressman Tom DeLay managed to draw a high draft number and then orchestrate some convenient deferrals, while stating that he really wanted to serve, but that all the slots were taken by blacks and Hispanics.

Our brave veterans made those sacrifices while House Speaker Dennis Hastert avoided duty due to bad knees - the same knees that didn't stop his college wrestling career.

And so on.

Okay, so these guys don't have what it takes to earn the title of veteran. But they do seem to have what it takes to be hypocrites and punish those veterans who actually had the nerve to serve, while at the same time praising them for their selfless sacrifices.

Yes, these self-proclaimed "compassionate conservatives" are punishing our veterans.

Some examples:

Earlier this year, Republican leaders in Congress blocked $2 billion in emergency funding for veterans' health care from the $82 billion supplemental funding bill. They felt that the money would be better spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we're producing more and more injured soldiers for whom we cannot afford adequate medical care.

Then the Bush administration requested a mere 2.7 percent increase in Veterans Affairs (VA) spending, even though the VA's under-secretary testified last year that the VA health care system needs a 13 to 14 percent increase annually to maintain their current level of services.

Thousands of veterans of the first Gulf War are suffering the effects of exposure to depleted uranium, or have died from that exposure, yet the U.S. government denies the effects and continues to ship depleted uranium munitions for use in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Some wounded U.S. soldiers have returned home from the current war in Iraq only to learn that they are being referred to credit agencies who want the soldiers to pay for equipment they lost when they were injured; or for charges for military housing.

And about one-fourth of all homeless Americans are veterans. According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. Two percent of them are female. Most of these cases are attributed to lingering effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and substance abuse, compounded by a lack of family and social support networks.

This is how our government treats those who have so bravely fought for their country. It's no wonder that the military recruiters are finding it so difficult to meet their quotas, even in the "red states."

The Bush administration would be wise to consider the words of George Washington, our first Commander-in-Chief, who said: "The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation."

Happy Veteran's Day.

Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist. She currently serves as Philadelphia Area Coordinator for Amnesty International, and her views on politics, human rights, and social justice issues have appeared in numerous online forums and in newspapers and magazines worldwide. Note that the ideas expressed in this article are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty or any other organization with which she may be associated. E-mail mary@maryshawonline.com.

the Guerrilla Campaign

posted by Tom Marshall @ 11/10/2005 05:52:00 AM

May 18, 2006

Bush's biggest fraud: the phony war on terrorism!

The Bush administration counts on Americans having short memories.

By Len Hart

Since the beginning of the year, the Bush administration has conducted a campaign of lies and misinformation about widespread domestic spying. Bushco has lied about it, denied it, acknowledged it, and, most egregiously, Bush has said that if he orders it, it's legal! Interestingly, none of the various cover stories are consistent with one another. How convenient for Bush should you forget one of his past lies!

But among the numerous and conflicting official cover stories is, not surprisingly, a most pernicious cover story: had there been an NSA domestic spying program in place prior to 911 the attacks might have been prevented.

That is, of course, an outrageous, bald-faced lie. The attacks might have been prevented anyway! But were not!

Moreover, the measures Bush has taken since then have utterly failed to address the issue of terrorism.

That Bush ignored numerous warnings is heavily documented. And there is yet another new story from AlterNet:

The 9/11 Story That Got Away

By Rory O'Connor and William Scott Malone, AlterNet. Posted May 18, 2006.

In 2001, an anonymous White House source leaked top-secret NSA intelligence to reporter Judith Miller that Al Qaida was planning a major attack on the United States. But the story never made it into the paper. ...

Back in the year 2004, Presidential advisor Richard Clarke was revealed by CBS News to have told Bush that was no link between Iraq and the attacks of 911. Clarke's admonition had legs, even then. [See: Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes] Saddam's was, after all, a secular regime! But Al Qaeda —we were repeatedly told —consisted of raving, militant Islamic fanatics. Even then, Bush's cover story made no sense whatsoever, but even now, you will find among Bush's dwindling faithful a few die hard idiots who still spread the bunkum that Bush's attack on Iraq was but a part of the larger "war on terror".

Nonsense! Bush has never waged a "war on terrorism"! Afghanistan —where bin Laden was allowed to escape was not it! And Iraq —which even Bush concedes had nothing to do with 911 —was not it!

Consider Bush's official conspiracy theory with respect to 911. It goes something like this. bin Laden sits at the head of a vast and super secret world wide conspiracy the likes of which has not been seen since Smersh. There are several things wrong with the official conspiracy theory but let's deal with the most obvious ones.

• Despite posturing by Bush and Cheney, the facts are these: Bush ignored hard evidence from top intelligence officials between April and September of 2001 about an impending attacks on U.S. soil. Why? If Bush really wanted Bin Laden, he blew SEVERAL opportunities. One of them in July, prior to 911. The Guardian and the French newspaper Le Figaro reported that bin Laden received dialysis treatment for a period of some 10 days at the American hospital in Dubai, and while there, he was visited by a local CIA agent. It was also about this time that U.S. State Department officials were threatening Afghanistan with carpet bombing if the Taliban didn't come to terms on the proposed Unocal pipeline across Afghanistan.
  
  Bush had other opportunities to seize bin Laden but didn't. See: Alexander Cockburn: Bush was offered bin Laden and Blew It.

• Keep in mind, when the CIA was reported to have visited bin Laden in Dubai, 911 had not happened. But, already the Bush State Department was spoiling for a war. All it needed was a pretext that the gullible American public would buy! It got it —conveniently —on 911!

Then there is the failed war against Iraq.

Even Bush concedes that Saddam had nothing to do with the events of 911! Then why does Bush continue to cite the war against Iraq has justification for a widespread domestic surveillance program?

Briefly, Bush lied to the nation and the world in order to begin the war on Iraq and "terrorism" had nothing whatsoever to do with it. It was about oil. There were, arguably, no "terrorists" in Iraq before the American attack and invasion and, if they are there now, it's because they are not stupid.

Bush likes to say that we fight them there rather than here. Rather, Bush took the bait. The terrorists are most surely telling their own constituencies they are killing Americans in Iraq!

But how many of what Bush calls "insurgents" are terrorists? How many are simply Iraqi defending their own country against an illegal occupation by an aggressor? To that extent, they are protected by International Law. William Pitt, Earl of Chatham put it this way to Parliament during Britain's occupation of the American colonies:

If I were an American as I am an Englishman, I would never lay down my arms! Never! Never! NEVER!

Now —about the real reasons for war against Iraq. Bush made promises to Dick Cheney's Halliburton, Condo Rice's Exxon-Mobil et al. It was not promised to them that oil prices would go down upon the American seizure of control over Iraqi oil fields and production! Rather, prices would go up and with them, the profits of big oil. Now —isn't that precisely what has happened?

Just keep this in mind: it's hard to go wrong when you realize that nothing that Bush has ever said about anything has ever been in anyway true.

Authors Website: http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/

Authors Bio: Len Hart is a Houston based film/video producer specializing in shorts and full-length documentaries. He is a former major market and network correspondent; credits include CBS, ABC-TV and UPI. He maintains the progressive blog: The Existentialist Cowboy

Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2006

May 17, 2006

Frameshop: Let's Change the Story!

U.S. Political Debate Stuck in 'Mob At The Gates' Story, Real Story Is 'Rot At The Top'

U.S. political debate is stuck in the wrong story and as a result, we see ourselves as heroes in the wrong plot.

On everything from immigration to national security, disaster relief to Social Security, energy to the environment, healthcare to education--Americans have been steered into the wrong story by a political system dominated by Republicans.   We are talking about America, but the plot we describe and the characters that we are following are all wrong.  And until Progressive Democrats drive the debate into a new story--the real story--America will continue to head down the wrong road.  So far, elected Democrats are not leading American to that new story.

What is the wrong story and what is the real story? 

Four Big Stories: Robert Reich's Useful Insight

The idea that there are 4 key 'stories' through which all Americans understand politics comes from a piece called 'The Lost Art Of Democratic Narrative' written by Robert Reich, former cabinet member under Bill Clinton.  This description from Democracy Arsenal is a good synopsis of Reich's point:

Robert Reich has an interesting piece in this week's New Republic where he talks about the need for progressives to reclaim the four basic narratives that have defined American politics:  The two hopeful variants are the Triumphant Individual (a la Horatio Alger and Erin Brockovich) and the Benevolent Community (barn raisers and It's a Wonderful Life).  The flip-side are two fearsome parables:  The Mob at the Gates (everything from Nazi Germany to Invasion of the Body Snatchers) and the Rot at the Top (from the robber barons to the latest accounting scandals).

(see the entire story at Democracy Arsenal)

Reich's use of the word 'stories' is a very good way to talk about the 'big ideas' that govern the entire political debate in America.  Individual issues may have internal logic that relates to one or another version of the facts, but the entire debate--the big discussion that cuts across every issue--the logic of that large conversation is defined by an overarching 'story' or 'narrative.'  The story has a plot, a good guy, a bad guy, and a moral. 

According to Reich, there are two 'hopeful' stories and two 'fearsome' stories--corresponding, roughly, to American ideas about what is good and bad, and to our ideas about how we should act in the world to solve problems.

In every moment in American history, in other words, what we as citizens believe is good or bad to do is being defined by the big story that frames the discussion. 

But keep in mind:  these stories do not accidentally emerge.  They are the product of powerful people driving the discussion into one or another story. 

Reich's argument is simple:  Democrats have given up interest in driving the debate into their stories. And as a result, the Republicans have driven the debate into their story.  So, when Americans try to decide what is right or wrong, and how we should act in the world to be good people--we do so according to the plot of the story chosen for us and dominated by Republicans. 

The 'Mob at the Gates' vs. 'Rot at the Top'

In our current political moment, every single political issue is being dominated by a Republican version of the 'mob at the gates' story.  And every decision we are making as Americans is based on how we see ourselves relative to the 'plot' in the story.

Every.  Single. issue.

The alternative to the Republican 'mob at the gates' story is for Democrats to drive the debate into a 'rot at the top' story. 

To understand what this looks like, consider the following recent debates in terms of 'story' and 'plot' from the perspective of these two stories:

IMMIGRATION
"Mob at the Gates" - America faces danger: hoardes of immigrants crossing our open borders.  To protect ourselves from this danger:  send troops to the border, build a wall.

"Rot at the Top" - America faces danger:  greedy and corrupt leaders in America and Mexico are breaking the law, creating problems by luring  workers across the southern border. To protect ourselves from this danger:  confront business leaders and politicians who take advantage of poor workers in Latin America,  break labor laws in the United States, and undermine the hard-working Middle Class.

SECURITY
"Mob at the Gates" - America faces danger: terrorists everywhere are trying to get into America to destroy our cities and kill our citizens. To protect ourselves from this danger:  attack and kill the terrorists before they can leave.

"Rot at the Top" - America faces danger:  Massive wealth accumulated in the hands of a greedy few at the top in the Middle East has led to deep anger and frustration towards the West.  To protect ourselves from this danger:  work for global equality and cooperation to eliminate radical economic injustice, smart growth and development, and creating new allies through long term fair investment and cooperation.

ENERGY
"Mob at the Gates" - America faces danger:  too many people want to use gasoline, creating huge demand and higher prices.  To protect ourselves from this danger: we must pay oil companies to find more oil, pay higher prices, use less, and open more and more of our natural reserves to corporations  who promise to supply us with gasoline.

"Rot at the Top" - America faces danger:  we are dependent on greedy oil companies for our energy, companies that manipulate markets, corrupt governments, and care only about obscene profit.  To protect ourselves fromm this danger:  we must confront oil companies, forcing them develop sustainable fuels.  We must confront automotive companies, forcing them to develop smaller, more efficient cars that run on those new fuels.  We must invest as a nation in a new vision of energy for the future.

HEALTH
"Mob at the Gates" - America faces danger:  to many people need insurance and as a result the cost is just too high.  To protect ourselves from this danger: free insurance companies from liability and responsibility, allowing the insurance companies to enroll as more people without the risk of losing profit.

"Rot at the Top" - America faces danger:  health has become a privilege of wealth.  To protect ourselves from this danger:  re-invent the entire medical system in America so that it focuses on basic, quality care for everyone.  Invest in more training of registered nurses, community and school clinics, and massive wellness education for the entire country. 

ELECTIONS
"Mob at the Gates" - America faces a danger:  special interest groups dominate politics.  To protect ourselves from this danger:  regulate the special interest groups with stringent donation laws, clamp down on freedom of speech on the Internet.

"Rot at the Top"- America faces a danger:  elections are open only the wealthiest in society.  To protect ourselves  from this danger:  immediately pass a Constitutional amendment requiring all elections in America--from the PTA to the Presidency--to be funded by public money.  Restore the democratic process in America immediately to the people.

Each story has a clear 'plot' and that plot dictates how we understand the issues.

On immigration, we are stuck in the story of hordes flowing across the border, when we should be talking about breaking down the doors  of unlawful employers and confronting the Mexican government for colluding to abuse Mexican workers and defraud American working-class citizens.

On national security, we are stuck in the story of terrorist hordes trying to get into America, when we should be talking about taking a leading role in restoring equality and justice in the world.

On energy, we are stuck in the story of supply and demand, when we should be talking about confronting greedy corporations and investing in new fuel and transportation technologies.

On health, we are stuck in the story of market forces and costs, when we should be talking about basic care for every American right now, investing in education and training.

On elections, we are stuck in the story of special interest groups, when we should be talking about eliminating all corrupt private money from elections and returning our democracy to the hands of the people as it was intended.

When Democrats realize that they must drive the debate into a new story--a big story--then the debate will change.

Once Democrats switch the story from 'mob at the gates' to 'rot at the top,' Americans will not only reject Republican failure, but will begin to embrace the vision of Democrats--a basic vision of restoring Democracy to the people.

Until then, we will all be  stuck in the wrong story.

©  2006 Jeffrey Feldman

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on May 17, 2006 at 10:07 AM

© 2004-2006 Jeffrey Feldman.

Down to the Fourth Estate

What Congress hasn't done, the news media have — at least until those voices are silenced, too.

By Jonathan Turley

This month, Congress is faced with a most inconvenient crime. With the recent disclosure of a massive secret database program run by the National Security Agency involving tens of millions of innocent Americans, members are confronted with a second intelligence operation that not only lacks congressional authorization but also appears patently unlawful. In December, the public learned that the NSA was engaging in warrantless domestic surveillance of overseas communications — an operation many experts believe is a clear federal crime ordered by the president more than 30 times.

What is most striking about these programs is that they were revealed not by members of Congress but by members of the Fourth Estate: Journalists who confronted Congress with evidence of potentially illegal conduct by this president that was known to various congressional leaders.

In response, President Bush has demanded to know who will rid him of these meddlesome whistleblowers, and various devout members have rushed forth with cudgels and codes in hand.

Now, it appears Congress is finally acting — not to end alleged criminal acts by the administration, mind you, but to stop the public from learning about such alleged crimes in the future. Members are seeking to give the president the authority to continue to engage in warrantless domestic surveillance as they call for whistleblowers to be routed out. They also want new penalties to deter both reporters and their sources.

The debate has taken on a hopeful Zen-like quality for besieged politicians: If a crime occurs and no one is around to reveal it or to report it, does it really exist?

The plain fact is that neither party wants to acknowledge that the president might have ordered the commission of federal crimes in the name of national security. Thus, while there have been calls for another feeble hearing (possibly with telecom executives), Congress would prefer to investigate steroids in baseball and the selling of horses to France for gourmet dinners.

Congress has become a sad parody of itself. In his State of the Union address in January, Bush proudly said he had repeatedly ordered the domestic surveillance operation and would continue to do so. In perhaps the most bizarre moment in modern congressional history, members from both houses proceeded to give him a standing ovation — cheering their own institutional irrelevancy.

Willful blindness, however, will only go so far when newspapers continually put these acts on the front pages. In addition to new possible penalties for whistleblowers, members of Congress are blocking the enactment of a long-overdue federal shield law to protect journalists from having to disclose their sources to prosecutors — despite the fact that the majority of states have passed such laws as an essential component to good government.

In the meantime, the Bush administration has carried out a scorched-earth campaign against whistleblowers, including demanding that employees sign waivers of any confidentiality agreements with reporters and using polygraphs designed to uncover anyone speaking with the media. It has also sought to convince a federal court in Virginia to radically extend the reach of the 1917 Espionage Act to cover anyone who even hears classified information while researching or reporting on government policy.

In a case involving two lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the government is seeking stiff jail terms based on their receipt of classified information orally from a Pentagon employee on policy issues in the Middle East. (The Pentagon official has been sentenced to more than 12 years in prison.) Under the interpretation of the Bush administration, if a lobbyist or a reporter or a researcher is given such information, he can be charged with unlawful possession of classified information.

If successful in the AIPAC case, the Bush administration would make it a crime for a reporter to disclose classified information, even if the story reveals a criminal operation. Thus, even if the NSA program is a criminal enterprise, it is a classified criminal enterprise that cannot be disclosed. It would have been mob boss John Gotti's dream: Commit a crime and then stamp it classified.

It is time to separate true patriots from cringing politicians. The assertion of unchecked power by this president has created a danger to our constitutional system. Congress must demand an independent investigation of these programs. It must also pass a federal shield law and strengthen whistleblower protections to preserve the only current check on governmental abuse. It should change the federal law to prevent the abusive use of the Espionage Act, such as in the AIPAC case. Finally, it should revamp the intelligence oversight system, which has long been viewed as a pathetic paper tiger with either little interest or ability in checking abuses.

The Framers gave us a free press as the final safety net if all other checks and balances in the three branches of government should fail. With the failure of both parties in Congress to exercise oversight responsibilities, the importance of a free press has been vividly demonstrated. The public now has a choice. It can live in self-imposed ignorance, or it can fight for an open society. Not hearing about alleged crimes by your government is certainly a comfort, but not having crimes occur would be an even greater one.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University who has testified before Congress on both the NSA's surveillance operations and the need for a federal shield law to protect journalists. He is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Alter emphasizes that Roosevelt created an aura of hope that often superseded his slow start in actually accomplishing concrete goals in the beginning of his first administration. His first order of business was repairing a crisis of spirit among the American people. And, to that extent, he succeeded magnificently.

By 2006, FDR had become the whipping boy for the right wing nuts of all that is wrong with America, probably because he believed that the relationship between the people of American and their government is a sacred, mutually beneficial trust. This is anathema to the Bushes, Norquists and Cheneys of the world, whose motto is, "Give me and my friends all the loot and get lost."

The irony, of course, is that FDR was uniquely qualified to ensure the continuance of a democracy and the capitalist economic system in the United States, at a time when the discontent among the Depression's poor and unemployed WW I Veterans was ready to boil over into Communism or something akin to it.

So the man who saved capitalism is now the voodoo doll for the wing nuts. It just shows you how brain dead they are.

Alter is known to many BuzzFlash readers as a long-time liberal Newsweek columnist and commentator for NBC. He's a hometown boy for BuzzFlash, since he is from a prominent liberal Democratic family in Chicago and married to the sister of a friend of ours. He's also a great guy.

We like "The Defining Moment," because it is great to recall a time of hope, when leadership meant eliminating fear not fanning its flames.

Read his book. It's nice to remember when you could have pride in your government and trust your leadership.

BUZZFLASH REVIEWS

© BuzzFlash.

Why Are Gore and Kerry Polling Worse Than Bush?

By Jan Frel, AlterNet
Posted on May 19, 2006, Printed on May 19, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/36425/

Be pragmatic. Take a good, long look at reality, and recognize that even though there isn't a Democrat in Washington who will admit that our political system is profoundly sick and obsolete, in the real world, the Democratic Party is currently all we have. So support it anyway.

That's what I've been telling myself, but boy can it be hard to swallow. Take, for example, the sea of problems Hillary Clinton poses to any political idealist. Hillary Clinton may represent many awful things -- Iraq, corporatism, insane military spending -- but the truth is, millions of Americans may well have health care if she becomes president, and they won't if she loses to a Republican in the next election.

I know it's good when Jack Abramoff sinks six congressmen and a senator; I know it's good when Bush's ratings hover in the 30s. I choke down my speeches about how both of these things are symptomatic of systemic problems and not due to the virtue of elected Democrats. And I am intrigued and hopeful at the prospect of Al Gore running for president, even though I think it's bizarre to engage in the dominant political language surrounding presidential contests -- where the every little move of one human being is treated as representative of the political desires of 300 million. Still, that's all there is. So I'm going with it.

This kind of "pragmatism" isn't any easier when the wider public thinks there's something deeply wrong as well. They clearly aren't buying "John Kerry" or "Al Gore" at this point. A recent New York Times poll has both of them ranking below the worst president in history. Kerry is at 26 percent, and former vice president and presidential candidate Gore is at 28 percent. George W. Bush is pulling in at 31 percent.

There are a lot of numbers in the recent poll that would normally give me cause for joy -- the public hates everything about Bush. Only 13 percent think he's done a good job addressing rising gas prices. Twenty-nine percent are still favorably shocked and awed by his performance on Iraq. The surface-level political analysis making the progressive rounds on Bush's bad poll numbers is that they will automatically translate into success for Democrats: takeovers in Congress in 2006, etc.

But if that were the case, it would be fair to expect that a guy like Al Gore would look like the shiniest red apple in the basket. But to repeat, the same poll has Gore polling below George Bush. The Times called Gore one of "Bush's more vocal critics." What does that mean? Let's be pragmatic.

For starters, it means that Al Gore and John Kerry are big losers in the public eye; they weren't the guys at the inauguration. Even though the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections have been contested and remain in dispute, the truth is that neither Gore nor Kerry ever commanded any kind of massive public support for their positions.

If they had, Kerry wouldn't be still grumbling about those 60,000 votes that he needed in Ohio. But this poll that has Gore and Kerry well below Bush is about more than their being losers. If that were true, we might expect to see an untested national-name Democrat, like say, Hillary Clinton, polling at a higher level -- at least in the 40s. But only 31 percent of Americans say they will definitely vote for her, according to the most recent Rassmussen poll.

These bipartisan absurdly low numbers for our national politicians mean to me that there's something more profound going on in American society than our national politicians are willing to fess up to. I think it's something very close to what writer Matt Taibbi once explained about why he wanted to pack the 10 Democrats vying for the Democratic nomination in the 2004 election "into a missile and shoot them into space":

Here we are, in a world that is completely and utterly insane -- where giant fast-food companies spend fortunes researching the responses of three- and four-year-olds in order to exploit them, where billions of dollars are pissed away every day on shitty movies like "Finding Nemo" while schools are going down to the four-day week, and where the average New Yorker sees three or four thousand ads a day, most of which tell him he's fat and impotent, and a Nissan is a better buy than his wife -- and these candidates are up there tinkering, talking about a balanced budget and repealing tax cuts. There isn't a [candidate] among them who even hints at anything like horror before our fatuous, commercial lives.

The Democrats … don't want to be anything other than better caretakers for that museum of human history. They don't try to imagine a fundamentally better world, because they actually believe that there isn't one. They're buffoons straight out of Voltaire, running on a platform of "Our mild improvements to this best of all possible worlds."

The bigger point is that it seems like the political language that will put a president or presidential candidate way above the magic 50 percent has to channel something deeper than the tinkering BS you hear out of Mark Warner or Bill Frist's mouth. Even the queen of political pangloss, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, has been willing to admit to a more fundamental sickness in our politics. In an essay she penned last October, she conceded the sense that "we're at the end of something":

I think there is an unspoken subtext in our national political culture right now … a sense that the wheels are coming off the trolley and the trolley off the tracks. … It's beyond, 'The president is overwhelmed.' The presidency is overwhelmed.

In my case, I'd like to see just one establishment politician in Washington to come out of the closet and say it: that our political system hasn't changed since the 18th century; that the lower house of Congress has 435 people "representing" 300 million citizens, in some cases thousands of miles away from their constituents; that the Constitution is outdated, obsolete, virtually unmodified -- but that's just what I want to hear.

All this said, I still want to be pragmatic. And remember, I expect to remain a Democratic Party cheerleader. I know it will be good if there's a Democratic House majority decided on the eve of this Nov. 2, even if it's clear they don't have the capacity to do more than whisper in the graveyard. Because even a President Hillary Clinton still could mean health care -- for millions who don't have it.

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.

© 2006 Independent Media Institute.

Can Economic Populism -- or "Authenticity" -- Save the Democrats?

Last week, some of the Democrats' most engaged proponents of pushing the Democrats leftwards -- including Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana and author Thomas Franks -- gathered to promote economic populism at a panel discussion (scroll down to see video excerpts) about David Sirota's new book, Hostile Takeover.
The book is a useful compendium of the way big-money interests have corrupted our political process, leading to the screwing of the public through such legislation as our energy policy and Medicare Part D.

But Sirota and other progressives are spending too much of their ire targeting the Democratic Leadership Council as corporate sell-outs. In fact, the DLC, even if there's a reasonable critique to be made of their free-trade policy, offers a range of sensible ideas on security, health and the economy that may have a better shot at Congressional passage and public support than some of the ideas pushed by Sirota. Remember, only two centrist Southern Democrats, such as Clinton and Carter, have been elected to the presidency since 1964. (Full disclosure: I'm a freelance policy analyst for the DLC-affiliated Progressive Policy Institute, and did a scathing critique of the Bush administration's mental health policy last year -- hardly a flack for "Republican lite" policies.)

When I asked Sirota and the other panelists about previous Democratic presidential successes and past failures of populist messages nationally, he contended, "Any candidate who makes it clear that he will stand against big-money interests will inspire people on [their] authenticity beyond economic issues." Will that be enough? Walter Mondale and George McGovern believed what they said on issues, too, and that didn't seem to inspire people to vote for them. (The American Prospect's Harold Meyerson, pointed out, rightly, that Clinton, especially, campaigned to the left of where he actually governed, thus raising his hopes that a full-fledged populist could win the presidency.)

Yet Governor Schweitzer, a straight-talking Democrat who has won in a red state, contended it was the weakness of our candidates in articulating populist messages that doomed them. "A lot of candidates do the focus groups and pick the top five issues that test well," he noted. "They have to believe the stuff. Leaders don't lead by polling you. This is why we have to have issues presented in a way that validates character -- and explain it in a way that they're sure about me as a person." In other words, authentic candidates who strongly present their case can win election support, even if people don't agree with every position they take -- as long as they trust you as a person. That's the approach Bush used in his first election campaign, no matter how much we may have disliked his phony down-home act.

Schweitzer argued, "Our candidates haven't touched our heart -- and we haven't done that since Bill Clinton. The last two candidates for president just recited the polling. Until we find a candiate who can touch hears, we'll lose elections, one after another."

But even writers for The American Prospect, which co-sponsored the discussion, have raised questions about the new quest for authenticity among progressives. Under a posting called "Authenticity is Stupdi," Sam Rosenfeld
argues, "Authenticity is a pointless thing to care about in politics. Obsessing over the personal motivations and supposed core beings of individual political actors is, in fact, close to the opposite of what politics is actually all about. Institutional arrangements and historical contingencies largely determine political (and thus policy) outcomes, and outcomes are what matter."

But it wouldn't hurt if the Democrats offered stronger, more personable and more courageous candidates. And why does it take political losses for Al Gore and John Kerry to finally find their voices? After insisting throughout his election campaign that he didn't regret his vote to give the President the authority to go to war against Iraq, he finally conceded casually last month on "Meet the Press" that it was a mistake to vote for the war. Here's the exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go back to October of 2002, when you stood up on the floor of the Senate and said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical, the means to deliver them perhaps to the U.S., potentially nuclear weapons, and then voted to authorize the president to go to war. Your running mate, the man you selected to be the next president of the United States, John Edwards, was on this program. He wrote an op-ed piece first in The Washington Post, and he wrote this: “I was wrong. Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told - and what many of us believed and argued - was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda. It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake.” Was it a mistake for you to vote for the war in 2002?

SEN. KERRY: Absolutely. I’ve said so many times, many times since then. [Note: except when it counted, during the Presidential primaries and national campaign, when you might have inspired the Democratic base to turn out in larger numbers for you. But I'll let that pass].

MR. RUSSERT: And you take responsibility for it?

SEN. KERRY: You better believe I take responsibility for it. And that’s one of the reasons why I’m here today, Tim. You know, last night, late at night, I went down to the Wall, the Vietnam Wall. I was amazed by the numbers of people there, 10:30, 11:00 at night, it’s incredible. You walk down that ramp, and as you go down it gets deeper and deeper, and the wall gets higher and higher, and you see these names after names after names; thousands, tens of thousands. They were added to that wall. They died after our leaders knew the policy wasn’t working. And I believe I have a moral responsibility, as we all do in America, to get this right for our soldiers.

Of all the losing candidates we've fielded -- Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry -- which one was the worst? That's not an easy call, but as comedian Lewis Black said about Kerry, in a mean-spirit, politically-incorrect comment, "What's wrong with you Democrats? Having John Kerry lose to George Bush was like having a normal person lose in the Special Olympics."

Kerry talked up populism, but not in an effective way that anybody noticed. Can we find an effective candidate out there who is a)charismatic and telegenic b)courageous and c) can effectively articulate a populist message?

I'm willing to give it a chance, even if it hasn't worked on the national level before. (Sirota has made a compelling case that it can work at the local and state level.) . But with campaign fund-raising laws rigged to favor corporate interests -- even with public financing of presidential elections -- it's going to be hard finding such a bold candidate who can summon the resources to prevail. Any suggestions?

Posted by Art Levine on 05/15/06 at 07:46 PM

© 2006 The Foundation for National Progress

Wreckage of the Bush administration

Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

05.18.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- Looking at the wreckage of the Bush administration leaves one with the depressed query, "Now what?" The only help to the country that can come from this ugly and spectacular crack-up is, in theory, things can't get worse. This administration is so discredited it cannot talk the country into an unnecessary war with Iran as it did with Iraq. In theory, spending is so out of control it cannot cut taxes for the rich again; the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bushies is already among its lasting legacies.

As we all know, things can always get worse, and often do. I rather think it's going to be up to the Democrats to hold the metaphoric hands of this crippled administration until it limps off stage. The Republican National Committee has a new scare tactic for the faithful: You must give to the party, or else the Democrats will spend the next two years investigating the administration (horror of horrors). Those who recall the insanely trivial investigations of the Clinton years may indeed regard this as the ultimate waste of time and money (as even Ken Starr concluded, there never was anything to Whitewater), but in fact it could be a therapeutic use of the next biennium. In fact, the offenses are not comparable.

Suppose we really did stop to investigate why and how and who is responsible for the lies, the deformed policies and the inability to govern of this administration. There is a wealth of lessons to be learned about the dangers of ideological delusion and of contempt for governance.

Trouble is, the world is not apt to hold still for two years. It seems to me pointless to impeach Bush. In the first place, the Republicans so trivialized impeachment into partisan piffle, it would look like little more than payback. In the second place, I believe Dick Cheney is seriously off the rails, apparently deeply paranoid -- let's not put him in charge. The minimum we should expect of Bush in return for dropping impeachment (or not) is that he cease breaking the law. Despite the opinions of Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, etc., the president of the United States does not have the authority to set aside the law.

(If Bush were impeached, I would use as evidence his astounding statement in March that the matter of getting American troops out of Iraq "will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq." What a contemptible statement.)

It would be easier to contemplate a two-year holding period if Bush hadn't already wasted so much time. Of particular note in this department is "the inconvenient truth" -- global warming. Wasting eight years in the face of what we already knew when Bush came in is not only insane, but also unforgivable. A recent poll showed the majority of Americans feel the war in Iraq will be the overriding issue of Bush's presidency. I suspect future historians will fixate on his global warming record -- not only doing nothing to stop it, but letting the hole get dug deeper, as well.

Barring emergency, I suspect the wisest thing Democrats can do in the next two years is to begin steadily undoing what Bush hath wrought -- on tax and spending, on global warming, and on surveillance and other illegal lunges for power. George W. Bush ran in 2000 as a moderate. He did not bother to inform us at the time that he felt the government of this country needed a much stronger executive above the law. Congress has sat by passively while this administration accrued more and more power. If members of Congress think the legislative branch should be equal, it's time for them to stir their stumps.

Am I jumping to conclusions? Can Karl Rove yet steer his party away from electoral disaster in the fall? I learned long ago never to call elections closer than six weeks out, and normally I stick to that rule. But I do not think George W. can be put together again, so Rove's only option is go negative against the Democrats -- no surprise there. At this point, they could attack Democrats on almost anything, but that would leave the large question, "Compared to what?" And, we must watch out for those voting machines.

It would be interesting to see an election in which Bush is not a factor and the whole fight is over what Tom DeLay and the K Street Project have made of the Congress. If ever a gang of corrupt jerks deserved to be held accountable, this one does.

(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate

If current trends continue, we will see ever-increasing division and acrimony in our politics. That's partly because, as Christian nationalism spreads, secularism is spreading as well, while moderate Christianity is in decline. According to the City University of New York Graduate Center's comprehensive American religious identification survey, the percentage of Americans who identify as Christians has actually fallen in recent years, from 86 percent in 1990 to 77 percent in 2001. The survey found that the largest growth, in both absolute and percentage terms, was among those who don't subscribe to any religion. Their numbers more than doubled, from 14.3 million in 1990,when they constituted 8 percent of the population, to 29.4 million in 2001,when they made up 14 percent. "The top three 'gainers' in America's vast religious marketplace appear to be Evangelical Christians, those describing themselves as Non-Denominational Christians and those who profess no religion," the survey found. (The percentage of other religious minorities remained small, totaling less than 4 percent of the population).

This is a recipe for polarization. As Christian nationalism becomes more militant, secularists and religious minorities will mobilize in opposition, ratcheting up the hostility. Thus we're likely to see a shrinking middle ground, with both camps increasingly viewing each other across a chasm of mutual incomprehension and contempt.

In the coming years, we will probably see the curtailment of the civil rights that gay people, women and religious minorities have won in the last few decades. With two Bush appointees on the Supreme Court, abortion rights will be narrowed; if the president gets a third, it could mean the end of Roe v. Wade. Expect increasing drives to ban gay people from being adoptive or foster parents, as well as attempts to fire gay schoolteachers. Evangelical leaders are encouraging their flocks to be alert to signs of homosexuality in their kids, which will lead to a growing number of gay teenagers forced into "reparative therapy" designed to turn them straight. (Focus on the Family urges parents to consider seeking help for boys as young as five if they show a "tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy.")

Christian nationalist symbolism and ideology will increasingly pervade public life. In addition to the war on evolution, there will be campaigns to teach Christian nationalist history in public schools. An elective course developed by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a right-wing evangelical group, is already being offered by more than 300 school districts in 36 states. The influence of Christian nationalism in public schools, colleges, courts, social services and doctors' offices will deform American life, rendering it ever more pinched, mean, and divided.

There's still a long way, though, between this damaged version of democracy and real theocracy. Tremendous crises would have to shred what's left of the American consensus before religious fascism beco