Month: November 2007

Bush Goading Congress Into Historic First Veto Override; Look Out Now!

Trish
Congress?

Something momentous is about to happen, and it could mean the end of the Bush administration’s dominance over Congress. The Legislative branch is finally set to rear back on its hind legs and take a swipe at Bush by handing him his first veto override.

I’m betting that once it gets started, Congress will keep right on ripping.

The issue at hand is innocuous enough. On Friday, Bush exercised his fifth presidential veto to refuse legislation passed overwhelmingly to address one of this country’s worst domestic problems: water issues.

Bush brushed aside significant objections from Capitol Hill, even from Republicans, in vetoing legislation that provides $23 billion for projects like repairing hurricane damage, restoring wetlands and preventing flooding in communities across the nation…

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, pledged to work to override the veto. “We are facing a water infrastructure crisis and our national investment in water resources has not kept pace with our level of economic expansion,” Voinovich said.

You know Bush has blown it when even the Republicans are vowing to fight.

Bush never vetoed spending bills under the Republican Congress, despite budgetary increases then, too. Attempting to demonstrate fiscal toughness in the seventh year of his presidency, Bush risked being criticized for doing too little, too late and of waging a transparently partisan attack against the Democrats who now run Capitol Hill.

The president took the gamble, though without any public fanfare, as part of a broader effort to take on Democratic leaders frequently and more pointedly.

This is one bet Bush is going to lose. There are just too many good reasons to support the bill, and almost none to oppose it. The evidence of that is the bill’s easy passage — in the House the vote was 381-40, and in the Senate, 81-12.

One story labeled his strategy, “government by minority.”

But I think Bush miscalculated. He’s teasing the dog that’s always been tied to the tree one too many times. When the rope breaks and Congress gets a taste of blood — remembering what it feels like to be an equal participant in the governing process — who knows where it will stop?

House to Vote on Cheney Impeachment

Jon Ponder

Tomorrow:

House Resolution 333, the impeachment of Dick Cheney for High Crimes and Misdemeanors will be brought to the House floor by Congressman Dennis Kucinich as a privilege vote on Tuesday, Nov. 6th. American Research Group Poll says 54 percent of Americans favor the impeachment of Cheney and the National Lawyer’s Guild passed a Resolution for Impeachment on Friday, Nov. 2nd, giving further support for the impeachment proceedings.

Tell Schumer and Feinstein to Vote No on Torture, Vote No on Mukasey – Here Are the Numbers

Jon Ponder

Late on Friday, two Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee announced that they intend to vote to confirm Michael Mukasey, Bush’s nominee to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general of the United States.

Mukasey has indicated that while he finds the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding on suspects to be personally repugnant, he will not object to it when he becomes the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

The Judiciary Committee’s vote on Mukasey is scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2007.

If you find the use of torture by the United States to be abhorrent, please call these two Democratic senators on Monday to urge them to vote against torture — and vote against Mukasey.

Sen. Charles Schumer:

United States Senate
313 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-6542
Fax: 202-228-3027
TDD: 202-224-0420

New York City
757 Third Avenue
Suite 17-02
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-486-4430
Fax: 212-486-7693
TDD: 212-486-7803

Albany
Leo O’Brien Building, Room 420
Albany, NY 12207
Phone: 518-431-4070
Fax: 518-431-4076

Buffalo
130 South Elmwood Avenue #660
Buffalo, NY 14202
Phone: 716-846-4111
Fax: 716-846-4113

Binghamton
15 Henry Street, Room M103
Binghamton, NY 13901
Phone: 607-772-6792
Fax: 607-772-8124

Hudson Valley
One Park Place, Suite 100
Peekskill, NY 10566
Phone: 914-734-1532
Fax: 914-734-1673

Long Island
145 Pine Lawn Road #300
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: 631-753-0978
Fax: 631-753-0997

Rochester
100 State Street, Room 3040
Rochester, NY 14614
Phone: 585-263-5866
Fax: 585-263-3173

Syracuse
100 South Clinton Street, Room 841
Syracuse, NY 13261-7318
Phone: 315-423-5471
Fax: 315-423-5185

Sen. Dianne Feinstein:

United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501

San Francisco
One Post Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 393-0707
Fax: (415) 393-0710

Los Angeles
11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 915
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 914-7300
Fax: (310) 914-7318

San Diego
750 B Street, Suite 1030
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 231-9712
Fax: (619) 231-1108

Fresno
2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4290
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: (559) 485-7430
Fax: (559) 485-9689

D.C. Insiders Doubt an Attack on Iran — Don’t Tell the Public

Buck Banks

In recent months the U.S. population has become more “hawkish” according to some polls. A recent Zogby poll found that 53 percent of those polled think the U.S. will mount strikes against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. I’m not so sure it’s due to increasing hawkishness or more an increasing realization that George W. Bush seems bent leaving a legacy of scorched earth — in healthcare, social services, education and war.

But today’s PollTrack from National Journal gives some insight into the topic from a different angle — Beltway insiders — and the breakdown of opinion between parties might surprise you:

Of the 41 Republican insiders surveyed, over half said a strike was ‘not very likely,’ and one in five called it ‘very unlikely.’

In National Journal’s latest survey of 84 congressional insiders, Republicans were much more skeptical than Democrats of the chances the administration would attack Iran, but few members of either party considered an attack to be “very likely.” Whether they were optimistic about the effectiveness of diplomatic pressure and sanctions or merely distracted by the growing foreign policy challenges in Pakistan, respondents were generally less concerned about Iran than is the public at large.

Of the 41 Republican insiders surveyed, over half said a strike was “not very likely,” and one in five called it “very unlikely.” Asked about the chances of attack, one GOP member dismissed the possibility, saying, “The administration swung its bat in Iraq…. They don’t have the energy, backing or resources to attack Iran.” Another Republican who said the U.S. was not very likely to launch a strike added, “Israel will, however.”

Democrats were more convinced that President Bush would attack Iran, with over half saying that attacks were likely. “They’re that crazy,” said one insider. While 14 percent of Democrats said attacks seemed probable, a 49-percent plurality were less sure, deeming military action only “somewhat likely.” “The administration may bomb or attack by air if Congress is in recess; but no invasion, because we lack the troops for that,” said a Democratic respondent.

What do they know that we don’t know? And why won’t they tell us, their constituents why they think it’s unlikely that Bush won’t attack Iran?

there’s the argument that we don’t have enough troops, but we certainly have enough planes and bombs. And what was that bit about Israel? Are these Republicans confident that the U.S. isn’t going to attack because they know there’s a plan to have Israel be the aggressor? And are the Dems less sure because they’re not in on the plan?

Glass Booth Helps You Choose Your Perfect Presidential Candidate

Buck Banks

Somebody was bound to come up with a mechanism of choosing a presidential candidate for people who are too stoopid to understand the issues or too disengaged to learn about the candidates but who still, for some reason, feel compelled to vote. Oh, and to make it really simple for those MySpace fools, it’s Web-based, too, as a social media tool should be.

It’s called Glass Booth, and it’s really simple. Place your finger on the screen and follow the words closely. Glass Booth provides a series of issues. It gives you 20 points. You assign points to the issues depending on how important you think they are, keeping in mind you only have 20 points to spread over 14 issues. Then you take a little quiz on your orientation on a number of issues from gay rights to abortion to funding the war in Iraq, complete with links to (of course) Wikipedia, in case you forget what the Second Amendment is about.

I suspected who would be the candidate whose views most closely matched mine, and I was right. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and I share 89 percent of the same positions on the issues. If only he hadn’t seen that UFO …. It was close, though. I share 83 percent with Mike Gravel and 75 percent with John Edwards. What a relief — Obama and Hillary were nowhere in sight.

Check it out for yourself and let the Internets decide who you should vote for. It’s easy, it takes just a couple of minutes and it’s painless. Best of all, it takes almost zero cogitation. Really.

Bush: Mukasey Needs to Know If We Do It Before He Can Say If It’s Torture

Trish

He did it again. Bush tried to scare the Senate into confirming the open-minded (when it comes to torture, anyway) Michael Mukasey to replace former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Follow me closely here — Mukasey needs to know whether we waterboard because if we do it, it’s automatically not torture.

Bush later linked the debate to national security and suggested that senators were hampering his administration’s ability to pursue suspected terrorists by failing to swiftly approve Mukasey, a retired judge and former prosecutor.

“This is no time for Congress to weaken the Department of Justice by denying it a strong and effective leader,” Bush told the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank…

“There’s an enemy out there. I don’t want them to understand, to be able to adjust one way or the other,” Bush told reporters. “The American people have got to understand the program is important and the techniques used are within the law.”

Got that? If you don’t confirm Bush’s pick, you are aiding and abetting the enemy. Pretty soon, the terrorists have won. Because of you, you, you!

And see, the terrorists don’t know what might happen to them if we catch them. Waterboarding, hooking them up electrodes and having them stand in water with a hood over their head, siccing dogs on them…all these things are a complete surprise to terrorists when we do them, and we want to keep it that way.

And here’s the important part, folks, if we’re doing it, it’s not torture. Because, you know, we don’t torture. Bush said this about asking Mukasey about waterboarding.

“I believe the questions he’s been asked are unfair,” Bush said in an Oval Office session with reporters. “He’s been asked to give opinions of a program — or techniques of a program — on which he has not been briefed.”

…Bush said of Mukasey, “He doesn’t know whether we use that technique or not.”

And — follow me closely here — he needs to know whether we do it because if we do it, it’s automatically not torture. Because, as Bush has said many times, we don’t torture. So before Mukasey can say if it’s torture, he needs to know if America does it.

Read it a few more times, preferably like Bush, with your lips moving, and you’ll get it.