H.Res. 333

Congressman Schiff:

Please support Kucinich's resolution to impeach Dick Cheney, H.Res. 333.

I don't understand the reasoning behind not going forward with impeachment proceedings because there aren't enough votes for it to succeed. You yourself know how important it is to be seen as taking a stand on an important issue. Not going forward with impeachment proceedings, regardless of the reason, communicates to the rest of the world that we as a country condone Cheney's criminal actions. It is the attempt itself to bring the lawbreaker to justice that is important. Impeachment must be attempted. If it doesn't succeed, at least the attempt to bring justice will have been made.

When Speaker Pelosi said that if anyone can show her that any crimes were committed by the Vice President she would consider the evidence seriously, I imagine her email inbox was flooded with long, exhaustive emails explaining in exacting detail what laws were broken, by whom, how, and when. It's incredible that she would say, much less believe, something like that. The message Congress is now communicating to the world is that impeachment proceedings will not be undertaken because the Vice President did nothing wrong.

Please support H.Res. 333. The effort itself is extremely important. Making no effort at all looks like collusion.

DiFi, listen up!

Senator Feinstein:

Regarding Judge Mukasey, is it your age? Is it your ethnicity? I honestly don't know what you're thinking. It may actually be that you have been working too long past the traditional age of retirement. Born in 1933, you are currently 74? It may be that your impressive cognitive abilities actually have begun to slow down in the normal aging process. Nothing to be ashamed of, but something to be considered in an office as important as yours.

Is it your ethnicity? You believe that torture is wrong, unless it's Muslims who are being tortured?

Regarding waterboarding as torture, you yourself know that it has been prosecuted as torture in military courts in the U.S. since the Spanish-American War in 1898. What's to be unsure about?

I see from a quick glance at Wikipedia's profile of you that there has been some concern over an alleged conflict of interest regarding your voting billions of dollars in appropriations to your husband's firms. You know from observing the Bush Administration that denying any ethical conflict is not the same as there being no ethical conflict.

Not long ago I learned from one of the political commentators on CNN that, because you will be 80 in 2012, you will not be seeking reelection. Does that mean you will be spending the next five years being unrepresentative of the people you represent? I do believe that the possibility exists, since you now truly have no real need to be concerned about voter approval. Your voting with the Republicans in August to modify FISA to allow bypassing the special intelligence court established by FISA may be an indication of that. Your voting for Mukasey as Attorney General will also be an indication of that. As the New York Times put it, "He believes the President has the power to negate laws" and he hasn't committed himself "to enforcing Congressional subpoenas." Why would you even consider voting for him as Attorney General?

I feel betrayed by you in what I perceive as your migration to the right. I feel betrayed by you in what I perceive as your declining interest in voter approval. Along with all the other Californians who elected you, I request that you listen to us and vote No on Mukasey's nomination, and continue listening to us for the remaining years of your term. We. Hired. You. Get it?

$2 trillion??

America's Favorite GameshowWORLDWIDE PREEMPTIVE WAR

From PeaceTeam.net:

Announcer: [cue peppy marching music] Here it is, the exciting TV game all America is playing . . . whether they like it or not . . . Worldwide Preemptive War, where members of our studio audience compete for fantastic prizes, like getting out of here alive without a serious injury. Our first contestant is Joe Grunt, from the Topeka, Kansas National Guard . . . COME ON DOWN!

Contestant 1: Hey, wait a minute, I just signed up for a weekend a month.

Announcer: [laughing] Read your contract, son, including the part about stop loss extensions. And our second contestant is George W. Bush from the Texas Air National Guard . . . COME ON DOWN!

Announcer: George W. Bush, COME ON DOWN! . . . [pause] Now they're telling me he never reported for duty after he was transferred out to Alabama. OK then, Dick Cheney, COME ON DOWN!!

Announcer: [pause] What do you mean he said he had other priorities? Hell, just grab three more people without an "R" after their name . . . And now . . . here's the star of our show . . . Booooooooob BURKA!

Bob Burka: Welcome to Worldwide Preemptive War, and the first item we have up for bid is an invasion and occupation of Iraq, estimated to take 6 days, or 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months. Who will guess the closest to the real cost plus, without going over?

Contestant 1: I don't even want to go. I bid 100 billion, Bob, it could never possibly be that much.

Contestant 2: 5 billion.

Contestant 3: 20 billion.

Contestant 4: One dollar, leave me out of it too.

Bob Burka: And the actual final cost of the Iraq war and occupation to the American taxpayer is . . . at least 2 TRILLION DOLLARS. Contestant 1, you WIN! You get to play our first game, "Kill An Insurgent." And if you do, what do we have to give you today?

Announcer: It's a NEW CAR!! . . . The latest model armored Humvee with stylish V-shaped underbody to try to deflect some of the many roadside IED explosions you're sure to encounter in your daily patrols. The fact is, you'll be getting one of the very few of these actually out there. A prize worth 150,000 dollars, for which the Pentagon paid five times that much.

Bob Burka: You know how the game is played, you have 15 seconds to open fire on anything that moves, and if you kill an insurgent, you WIN! Go.

Contestant 1: STOP! [rat-tatta-tat] HALT!! DON'T MOVE!! [ker-pow, boom]

Bob Burka: Well, let's see how you did . . . Oh, I'm so sorry, you killed 19 civilians, including a family of four who could not understand the commands you were shouting at them in English, but you didn't get any insurgents. But wait . . . our judges have ruled that because some of their RELATIVES will now join the insurgency . . . you WIN! Let's have another contestant.

Announcer: Rush Limbaugh, COME ON DOWN!

Announcer: [pause] What are you talking about he had an ingrown hair follicle on his butt, and can't have a job where he has to sit for extended periods of time? Look, just draft . . . uh, I mean take, some high school student with no other chance of sustaining employment in this globally outsourced economy.

Bob Burka: Let's tell our contestants the next item up for bid.

Announcer: Now that we're in Iraq, next we want you to guess how many more years we're going to have to stay there.

Contestant 1: One year, Bob.

Contestant 2: Three years.

Contestant 3: Two years.

Contestant 4: Bring the troops home now! [gets tackled by a dozen security guards and dragged off the stage]

Bob Burka: And the actual length of the occupation is . . . at least 10 years, since none of the leading presidential candidates will even promise we'll be out of there by 2013. You're a winner, Contestant 2! And what do we have for you in our next game.

Announcer: It's a fabulous vacation in sunny Ramadi! . . . Yes, you will be sent on an ENDLESS deployment to the city where the action never stops, conveniently located in the famous Sunni Triangle, with all your expenses paid EXCEPT for long term medical care and rehabilitation, courtesy of the Walter Reed Army Hospital bureaucracy. Estimated cost to the American taxpayer 36 thousand a year, unless you're a contract mercenary, in which case as much as ten times that.

Bob Burka: Now, to win this prize all you have to do is guess which of these quotes is a lie.

[Recording 1] We don't torture.

[Recording 2] We don't eavesdrop without a court order.

[Recording 3] We have not yet decided to bomb Iran.

Contestant 2: But, Bob, they're ALL lies.

Bob Burka: See how easy it is. You're going to Ramadi! And now we come to our final Showcase. Behind one of the doors is an exit strategy, but behind the other is yet more senseless and counterproductive death and destruction. Contestant 1, you have
selected door on the left. Let's see what you've won.

Announcer: It's a hopeless quagmire!! . . . The proportion of the Iraqi people who approve of attacks on Americans will increase ultimately from the current 60 percent to a full 100, while the homegrown insurgency continues to defeat billion dollar technology with weapons improvised from the massive explosives stockpile they looted just after the initial invasion.

Bob Burka: And behind the door on the right, what do we have for Contestant 2?

Announcer: It's a full on regional conflagration precipitated by an attack on Iran without evidence or justification, including the possible fall of Pakistan to jihadist militants, putting operational nuclear weapons in their hands immediately, plus collapse of the global economy from skyrocketing oil prices, and asymmetric terrorist attacks against American interests all around the world.

Bob Burka: Hey, let's give everybody BOTH showcases!

Contestant 2: But you promised there was an exit strategy.

Bob Burka: So I lied. We're not planning on leaving ever.

Bob Burka: [cue music out] Be sure to tune in tomorrow for another Worldwide Preemptive War show. Until then, rest in peace! I mean, bye bye!

Regress is the new progress in Iraq

From MoveOn.org:

This was one of the bloodiest summers for US troops in Iraq, Iraqi casualties are running at twice the pace of last year, and 15 of 18 of President Bush's own benchmarks remain unmet.

Farenheit 1600

In email from Democrats.com:

Recently in Salon, noted correspondent Sidney Blumenthal wrote that the film No End In Sight "has the White House spooked" by the prospect of former high level officials like Colin Powell being inspired by the insiders in the film to speak out against the shortsightedness of the disastrous Iraq policy, destroying the last vestiges of the administration's credibility.

Time Magazine has called the film "Without a doubt the most important film you are likely to see this year," and it is possibly the best reviewed film of the entire year, as you can see from the selection of critic quotes below.

The film is playing in theatres in most major cities nationwide. For a list of dates and locations, visit http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/. If you care about where we're headed as a country, you owe it to yourself to see what the NY Times calls "an absolutely vital" film.

"PREPARE TO BE RIVETED. NO END IN SIGHT IS WITHOUT QUESTION THE MOST IMPORTANT MOVIE YOU ARE LIKELY TO SEE THIS YEAR." —Richard Schickel, Time

"THIS POWERHOUSE OF A MOVIE SHOULD BE REQUIRED VIEWING FOR EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS. Lucid, without partisan rhetoric, and not to be missed." —David Ansen, Newsweek

"TWO VERY BIG THUMBS UP. IT IS ESSENTIAL VIEWING FOR ANY PATRIOT. I LOVE THIS FILM BECAUSE I LOVE MY COUNTRY" —Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper

"AN ABSOLUTELY VITAL FILM. Exacting, enraging and revelatory. A clear, temperate and devastating account of high level arrogance and incompetence." —A.O. Scott, NY Times

"THE MOVIE IS A CLASSIC. An extraordinary, elegant looking film." —David Denby, New Yorker

"A TRUE RARITY. A model of concision and clarity, it's probably the onlyone of the Iraq documentaries with the potential to reach across partisan lines." —Dennis Lim, LA Times

"****" —Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

"**** IT MAY BE THE BEST FILM OF THE YEAR SO FAR. Devastating, factually air-tight and blessedly free of simplification." —Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune

"**** STAGGERING! A DAMNING POLITICAL THRILLER." —Wesley Morris, Boston Globe

"PLEASE SEND EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO SEE IT. The film convicts the Bush Administration more clearly, specifically and forcefully than any previous documentary, and more wrenchingly than any book could do." —Stuart Klawans, The Nation

A video supporting the Matthew Shepherd Act

From The Human Rights Campaign:

The radical right is out in force, spreading lies and flooding Congress with calls and letters against the Matthew Shepard Act. They're out-messaging us five to one.

Don't leave your senators with a distorted view of their constituents' beliefs. Make sure all your friends and family see the powerful video.

You can send a message to your senator from the HRC website.

Di Fi's statement of support for Feingold-Reid

Mr. President.

The time has come for those of us in the Senate who believe that the Iraq war is counterproductive to stand up and make our voice heard. That's why I voted in favor of the Feingold-Reid amendment that would bring this war to an end.

This is not a perfect amendment, nor a perfect resolution to this war. But the outlook for success in Iraq is bleak. And it grows bleaker by the day. This is no fault of the men and women of our armed forces. Our forces have done everything asked of them. They've fought bravely and admirably.

But - as our generals have said repeatedly - this war cannot be won by military means. A political solution is necessary, but there has been no meaningful progress on reconciliation. And the simple fact is failures of the Bush Administration have left our nation with no good options.

Either the bloody status quo can continue indefinitely - an endless string of bombings, IEDs, and sectarian violence. There is no end in sight. No strategy to change course. And no exit plan.

Or our nation can begin to reduce our troop levels in Iraq and remove our soldiers from this cauldron of violence.

The options in front of us might be different if this Administration had shown some willingness to change course, develop an exit strategy, and implement a timetable. And if this were the case, I would not vote for this amendment. But the Administration has signaled over and over and over again the lack of a clear-eyed appraisal of the situation in Iraq.

The American people made their voice heard last November that they wanted a change of course. Democrats in Congress have tried repeatedly to force the Administration to transition the mission. But the Bush Administration has refused. Over and over again. And most recently, President Bush vetoed responsible legislation to set benchmarks and a timetable for redeployment.

So I believe that the time has come for the Senate to assert its will and to carry out its responsibility under Article I of the Constitution "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." The time has come to recognize the reality of this civil war and the inability of an American fighting force to quell hundreds of years of hatred, combined with the view of the Iraqi people that our brave men and women are seen as an occupying force.

The time has come to take the strongest possible position.

The time has come to say this war must end.

Of the vehicles we have available for us to do this, this comes the closest. It may not be perfect in its timing, but it clearly says that the time has come for the Senate of the United States to exert its Constitutional obligation, which after all is the only finite option available to us to signal the seriousness of our view.

This is not a vote that I take lightly, and I wish that I did not have to take it. This situation - the Administration's lack of flexibility, its continuation of failed strategies, and current events in the evolution of the civil war - leave me with no alternative.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

10 mind-boggling reasons for impeachment

From Democrats.com:

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina and in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

Sign the petition for impeachment at Democrats.com. They're getting close to reaching their goal of 100,000 signatures.

Turks rally for a secular government

One and a half million people protesting the encroachment of religious law into their secular state. Amazing. Who would've thought so many people capable of that?

The protest took place today in Izmir, Turkey, where the pro-Islamic ruling party tried to strong-arm a presidential candidate into office by passing a constitutional amendment allowing the people, rather than the parliament, to elect the president and then by calling for early elections. The current president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, is a secularist who keeps the government in check by vetoing bills and appointments. (Now isn't that a switch?)

You can learn more in the BBC article.

It's encouraging to learn that the judiciary of a Muslim country "fiercely guards" secular law and that there is such a strong will at the grassroots level to maintain secularism. Contrast this to Chief Justice Scalia and to the Dominionist movement in the U.S.

Dear Mr. President

The image links to Pink's page on MySpace, where "Dear Mr. President" can be played. I wanted to link directly to the song, but zey haf vays to keep me from doing zat. Thanks to Jonathan Versen of Hugo Zoom for letting me know about the song.

Listen. Imagine.

My email to Rudy Giuliani

Never ever again will this country ever be
on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack
us if I have anything to say about it. And
make no mistake, the Democrats want to
put us back on defense!

I'm not sure I understand what is wimpy about defending the nation. Keeping a ready military to defend the nation against outside attack sounds like something the Founding Fathers would have encouraged. I think you would agree with that.

But you're wanting the U.S. to be constantly on the offensive. Unfortunately, when you use offense as defense, you will never reach a point when you can stop the waging of war. You will have conflicts, which the U.S. itself provokes, in several theaters at once. The military will be stretched thin and will be unable to contain any of the conflicts effectively. I believe you would agree with this too.

Most likely, the provocative statments in your speech in New Hampshire were simply speechifying, revving up the crowd at a pep rally. Not even the most hawkish of Republican leaders would deny that being constantly on the offensive militarily would be an enormous drain on the economy. The entire nation would have to become employees of the corporations which benefit from the waging of war in order for it to make any economic sense.

The point you seem to miss, or to ignore for murky reasons, is that American aggressiveness fuels terrorism. If the U.S. were to "wimp out" and take a less aggressive stance in the world, the leaders of jihad would find that there is much less impetus for the ordinary guy to become a jihadist. The leaders of jihad could rant all they want about the evils of complacency, but the population would simply want to get back to the business of living, now that the evil giant no longer looms over them. Ask the terrorists themselves. Their primary motivation for waging war is the defense of the Islamic state. When that state is not under attack, they are not motivated to wage war. Ask the terrorists yourself. Go ahead. Ask them.

...

Addendum 5/12: Oh. Giuliani's pro-war rhetoric is intended to compensate for his pro-choice position. Actually, that combination makes more sense to me than pro-war plus pro-life. It's okay to terminate soldiers but it's not okay to terminate barely formed fetuses and stem cells? At least Giuliani's position treats fetuses and soldiers equally, rather than elevating the worth of the fetus and the stem cell far above the worth of the soldier.

A new way to grok Jesus

A sculpture of the crucified Christ made of chocolate and on display during the Easter season? Now there's an image loaded with ironic symbolism. I wonder, of all the people who loudly protested the display of the sculpture, how many of them have received or placed chocolate crosses in Easter baskets at one time or another? Probably a majority.

I remember chocolate crosses in my Easter baskets when I was a kid. My parents didn't like the secular aspects of Easter and chose crosses instead of bunnies to remind me of the real meaning of Easter.

So why all the protests? How does a chocolate Christ demean Easter more than a chocolate cross does? It's because the Christ sculpture is anatomically correct? So, if the sculpture had included the traditional loin cloth, there would've been no protests? But public sculptures have been anatomically correct for some time now. It's the medium? If Cavarallo's sculpture had been cast in bronze, there would be no protests? Is it the color? If it had been made of white chocolate, would that be more acceptable to the protestors? Is it the sheer size of the piece of chocolate? I'm sure chocolate Jesuses on the cross no more than several inches in length are currently available somewhere in the world, but we haven't heard any protests about them.

I don't know. I think the protestors are doing exactly what a very clever, shrewd sculptor intended. His name recognition has just skyrocketed around the world.

I'd like to see a companion sculpture of Christ in chocolate with almonds. Or companion sculptures could be available in plain and peanut.

A giant Pope-on-a-rope on public display would probably cause an equal amount of protesting by Catholics. Maybe that will be Cavallaro's next project. Or has it been done?

An atheist and a blonde walk into a bar...

Dan Newman, a Democratic political strategist, recently said "Anti-atheism remains the last remaining prejudice that a majority of Americans don't mind fessing up to." For most Americans, the atheist/agnostic is in the same category as the dumb blonde. Nobody gets riled when they hear a demeaning joke about a dumb blonde like they would if the same demeaning joke were told about a Jew or an African-American or a handicapped person or a gay person. The same is true if an atheist is the butt of the joke. Who cares? Atheists are just grizzled, muttering, God-hating curmudgeons nobody listens to. We need to tell demeaning jokes about somebody, so telling them about dumb blondes and atheists is still politically correct.

It's significant that Congressman Pete Stark's recent acknowledgement of his agnosticism made headlines. Should something like that have been news at all? Newman said that a confession of non-belief is "political suicide." It remains to be seen if Stark will survive the suicide attempt.

What's even more significant is that, while Stark is the highest-ranking elected official who has acknowledged his agnosticism, Karl Rove is actually the highest-ranking official, elected or appointed, who has acknowledged his agnosticism. And that acknowledgement has not made headlines.

On the Amazon detail page for The Architect: Karl Rove and the Dream of Absolute Power, Vanessa Bush, in her review for Booklist, writes "Himself an agnostic, Rove has masterminded a strategy that has helped to broaden the Republican base beyond its pro-business, anti-government heritage to appeal to devout evangelicals. In a calculated effort to weaken the Democratic base, Rove has engineered plans to use the anti-abortion stance to attract Catholics, the anti-gay stance to attract black churchgoers, and the pro-Israel stance to attract Jews."

Oww. Information like that hurts my brain. Why did I have to learn that Rove is an agnostic? I thought he was probably an Episcopalean or a Catholic. But even more mystifying is the fact that, according to Larisa Alexandrovna's review of the same book on TheRawStory, Rove's adoptive father, Louis Rove, became openly gay when Rove was a young adult, and Rove loves and admires him and speaks of Louis' unselfish love during Rove's childhood. Alexandrovna continues "One might think that such a sensitive family situation might have kept Rove from using it as a political ace-in-the-hole. Instead, Rove made sexual orientation—specifically, gay marriage—the centerpiece of a presidential campaign aimed at getting out conservative voters in states like Ohio." Oww oww owww! Stop! Stop!

There's a word for the paradoxical divisions in the brain that Rove exhibits: schizophrenia. In looking over the explanation of schizophrenia (Greek for "divided mind") in the medical encyclopedia on the website of the National Institutes of Health, I see that about the only listed symptom that applies (as far as I know) is "delusional thoughts of persecution or of a grandiose nature." That certainly applies to Rove. As Bush writes in her Booklist review: "The authors maintain that these tactics are all part of a scheme to maintain Republican dominance of all aspects of American government for the next 30 years."

Could we have Rove undergo psychological testing? Aren't you curious to know how mentally healthy an extremely influential Deputy Chief of Staff is? Inquiring minds want to know.

There's no question of his intelligence. The authors of The Architect say Rove is "a man of almost startling intelligence." Nobody in his right mind would think that Rove develops political strategies that are in extreme contradiction to his personally held beliefs because he's too dumb to know any better. Naw, he ain't dumb. But it's true that high intelligence is often accompanied by mental illness of some type. A mild, subdiagnostic case of schizophrenia might explain how Rove can focus so exclusively on winning in the political game, to the exclusion of considering how winning affects him personally. If Rove's objective—the ideal, ultimate neoconservative government successfully taking over all three branches of government and nullifying all liberal influence—were to be achieved, Rove himself—the agnostic—and his father—the openly gay man—would be at significant risk.

Can great generals apologize and still be great?

My email to the Dept. of Defense:

Once again we need to remind people that no one chooses to be gay or lesbian. There is no advantage of any kind to being homosexual, and no gay man ever consciously chose to "forsake the natural use of the woman." Homosexuality occurs naturally and runs in families. So labeling as immoral the "acts" "committed" by homosexuals makes as much sense as labeling as immoral the "acts" "committed" by left-handers, those with brown eyes, or the French. A person consciously chooses to have brown eyes? Of course not. People must come to understand that being gay or lesbian arises from the same source as other physical and psychological traits.

I know that Gen. Pace means well in condemning homosexual acts. He simply wants to be a good person, a good follower of Christ and the Church. But the tens of thousands of gay men and women serving in the military also want to be good people, and Gen. Pace's comments demean them and negate their service to the country, service that is as courageous and honorable as that of non-homosexual members of the military.

Gen. Pace needs to apologize publicly for his comments regarding homosexuals. His comments were extremely inappropriate. An apology is required.