Bush v. Democracy: Bush wins, again

Once again, President Bush has subverted the will of the American people, and certainly the spirit of our democracy. The only question that remains is, what will Congress and the Democrats do about it?

Actually, that's not the most important question. Even a passive follower of politics knows that the Democrats are all opposed to most of Bush's foreign and domestic policies. The most burning question now is, when will enough Congressional Republicans get sick and tired enough to do something about it? So far, scant few voiced opposition; Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter are among the prominent who come to mind. But, it's going to take many more than that to be able to legislatively and legally do anything about Bush and Cheney's subversion of our democracy.

The latest outrage - earlier this month, both houses of Congress, by large margins, passed a bill taking away the Justice Department's right to appoint interim U.S. attorneys (for an indefinite period) without Senate approval. The bill has been on Bush's desk since June 4. A president must sign a bill into law within 10 days (not counting Sundays), or the bill automatically becomes law. Not even Bush would be stupid enough to let this bill become law without his signature. Today was the deadline.

However, Bush had one maneuver left yesterday before signing the bill into law - he appointed one more U.S. attorney, in this case installing George Cardona as an interim U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was not pleased. Today in a hearing, Leahy ripped Bush over the controversial move:

That bill, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, has been on the president's desk since June 4th. Do you know it seems he just can't bring himself to sign it? Instead, we were informed yesterday through the Justice Department that the attorney general has used the power that we voted to repeal again.

It's almost like they live in an alternate world, as though they're not realizing the reaction of Democrats and Republicans about this misuse of this power. That's wrong.

Well, Senator Leahy, that's a start. It's more than "just wrong," it's giving the middle finger to the American people and our way of government.

It's important to note that the Justice Department (and by extension, President Bush) should NEVER have had the power to appoint U.S. attorneys in the first place - the provision was furtively put into the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Act of 2005 at the very last minute by someone in Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) office, under Specter's name. Specter was recovering from cancer treatment. I don't know if that account is true, but I've heard it from some credible sources, most notably liberal talk show host Thom Hartman. The guy who was instrumental in getting that provision into the bill? Timothy Griffin, who was later appointed interim U.S. attorney for Arkansas.

More on Griffin in a future post, and his role in caging during the 2004 election.

That only question now is, what will Congress do about Bush's final appointment? I'm sure Sen. Harry Reid is planning the Bush "no confidence" vote right now. What a joke. Alberto Gonzales really should be forced to resign or impeached. But, with the backbone this Congress is proving to have, neither is likely probable.

It's time to write our legislative leaders to tell them what we think of this latest move. I'll share my letter to my two senators with you tomorrow.

Think Progress has more.

The dog ate White House's e-mails

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy has reason to be angry.

The Bush Administration is expecting us to believe that it's simply "lost" e-mails the Senate Judiciary Committee is demanding to see? No one puts that one better than Leahy himself: it really is the 21st century's version of "the dog ate my homework," and this smacks of the Nixon Administration's attempts to willfully lie and deceive Congress. It didn't work in 1973-1974, and it won't work now.

Leahy rightly points out that e-mails go through too many servers - if one looks hard enough, they can be found. The bad news for the Bush Administration is that the Judiciary Committee is looking.

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) reports that the Bush Administration "has lost over FIVE MILLION e-mails in a two year period... generated between March 2003 and October 2005." You can read the whole report CREW Report Here.

It should be crystal clear to anyone even passively following what is happening up on Capitol Hill that this administration is willfully breaking the law.

The case is slowly being made, step by step.

Hat tip to C&L about this story.

A must-read book on cable news

This looks like a pretty good book I'd like to check out - Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media, by Jeff Cohen.

Cohen has worked for MSNBC, CNN, and Fersatz News, so he has a fair amount of insight into not just how one cable news channel operates, but from a multitude of sources. I'm particularly interested in this book, since I've come to despise cable news so much recently. That doesn't mean I don't watch, but I'm extremely annoyed at what passes for news these days.

Hat tip to Truthdig for doing an interview with Cohen. Click Here to read an excerpt from the interview, and you can also download an MP3 file of the entire interview.

My favorite passage of Cohen's from the interview, and I found myself saying out loud "YES!" as I read it:

Schooled in the protocols of cable news, the Bush administration brilliantly exploited the medium's worship of live events. When I was at MSNBC in 2002/2003, I witnessed producers nearly orgasm at word that the White House would soon be serving up a photo-op or briefing. Upon hearing of these events—called "pressers" — all else is put on hold to assure that the second the administration event starts, MSNBC and the other news channels are ready to air it live.

Team Bush might schedule a White House press secretary's briefing ("the president stands tough against terrorism") ... followed by a Pentagon briefing ("war on terror is on track") ... followed by an afternoon speech from President Bush in front of a patriotic flag backdrop and cheering handpicked crowd ... followed by a briefing on the latest terrorism arrest or scare from the Justice Department or Homeland Security. Through its ability to dictate the rhythms of the news day, the White House's often singular view of reality would air at length in near monologue fashion.

I've got a specific, contemporary example.

When the hearings on the U.S. Attorney firings started, on the first day, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was going to make an opening statement. At the exact moment Leahy was scheduled to begin the hearing, which was covered live on every cable network, Bush begins a press conference, and the networks cut away to him. Thom Hartmann talked about this at length on his show last week.

Yet another way that the Bush administration will do just about anything to control the news and to stay atop the polls. About the only thing this administration hasn't done to maintain popularity is use the military. Wait...

Anyway, this looks like a good book, and I'd like to get to it this year, but there are literally 20 other books ahead of it. I'm starting my political book reading schedule about 9 months ahead of time, and I've got a bunch to get to.

I'm also very behind on writing some book reviews, which I hope to get to in the coming weeks.

Orrin Hatch in denial more than Clay Aiken

This is a clip from a pretty combative Utah Senator Orrin Hatch during his appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday morning.

I really wonder what it would take for Hatch to criticize the Bush Administration for anything. I really can't think of anything.

Of course, toward the end of the show on Sunday, we get our answer - evidently, Hatch has been pimping himself all over town as a possible replacement once current AG Alberto Gonzales resigns or is fired.

Notice in the clip above that Hatch makes sure to mention that Gonzo "is the first Hispanic to serve as AG." Yea, we know, Orrin - quit trying to score points with voters on that point. If this keeps up, he's also going to be the first Hispanic AG who has resigned under fire, or dismissed.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but I find it very curious to hear Hatch intone that the "atmosphere on the Senate Judiciary Committee is so poisoned." I don't suppose that would have anything to do with the Clinton witch hunts in the late 1990s, would it?

For those who think I'm wrong to bring up Clinton, spend a few hours watching Fox News on any given day, and you'll hear Bill or Hillary Clinton's name come up at least once, but most likely multiple times. Repubes can't have it both ways - you can't bring up Clinton in one breath, and then decry someone bringing up the Clinton witch hunts in the next breath.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy showed remarkable restraint this morning on the same show, which I thought admirable, since Hatch was functioning as President Bush and Alberto Gonzales' press secretary.

A few final points...

Hatch mentions that there are over 100,000 people working at the Justice Department, thereby implying that it's tough for an attorney general to know what's going on all of the time. But, this scandal isn't about 100,000 people at the justice department, it's about decisions being made about federal prosecutors at the highest levels of the justice department. A nice try by Hatch to minimize Gonzo's fallibility here, but no cigar.

Hatch ridiculously mentions that "[Gonzales] isn't capable of lying." Are you kidding me? Sure Hatch, we'll just take your word for it.

Finally, Hatch mentions that he "sees no evidence of criminal activity" on the part of AG Gonzales. How does he know until the matter is fully investigated? Then, in the next breath, he opines that the Judiciary Committee should let Gonzo tell his side of the story, and that no one should rush to judgment on his guilt. That's a pretty wild contradiction.

What's more, I don't think Hatch has been paying attention to the document dumps the Justice Department has been putting out to the press, because there's plenty of evidence that Gonzo was involved in the politically motivated dismissals. Gonzo has changed his story at least twice, and from some things I've read, maybe more.

There's plenty of reason, and precedent, to have not only Gonzo, but Harriet Miers and Karl Rove testify, under oath and in public, before Congress.

Only time will tell if this happens. If President Bush chooses to prevent subpoenaed members of his administration from testifying before Congress, we are going to have a Constitutional confrontation with far-reaching implications.

Subponea powers... ACTIVATE!

Shape of... impeachment!

You have to love a Wonder-Twins reference.

The Senate Judiciary Committee now has subpoena power, so it's just a matter of time until they use it. This is a bit dated, but Leahy appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann last Friday, and, as usual, he didn't mince words:

The reason I want to do it under oath..remember in the Valerie Plame thing, nobody had anything to do with this. Nobody outed her name. Nobody said she was a CIA operative, nobody at the White House did, until some of these people were under oath and then we find out, gosh, they did. It's amazing how that focuses ones attention.

A few things about this...

It's totally outrageous how Arlen Specter is trying to be almost apologetic for this administration. If you listen to Specter's words, he almost wants to back down in the face of Bush's bluster. That's exactly what Bush is hoping will happen. It seems to me that Specter would love it if this entire matter just died a quick death. Keep dreamin', Senator. Now keep your mouth closed, quit siding with the White House, and do your duty. You're in the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government, and you sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee ~ it's your responsibility to look into these matters as thoroughly as possible.

I'm writing a longer piece tonight on Specter, so stay tuned for that - there have been some impeachable offenses (and by that, I mean with Specter AND President Bush) that have recently gone virtually unnoticed in the mainstream media.

I hate to play the Watergate card, but there are some things here, so far, that remind me of Watergate. I didn't live through it, but I've read about Watergate at length. It's one of my favorite political topics to read about. Anyway, during the Watergate hearings, when White House Assistant Alexander Butterfield confirmed that President Nixon taped everything in the Oval Office and other surrounding offices, it set off a legal tug of war between the Nixon White House and Congress, which eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Once the Watergate tapes were revealed to exist, Nixon and his cadre of advisers and lawyers refused to turn over copies of the tapes. Then, they offered to turn over transcripts of the tapes, it what became known as The Stennis Compromise. When Archibald Cox, the Watergate Special Prosecutor, refused that offer, Nixon fired Cox.

There's a similar tug of war beginning on Capitol Hill between Congress and the White House. Instead of agreeing to his aides and cabinet members testifying under oath as other presidents have done, Bush has offered that they could testify privately, not under oath, and no transcript. What a load of b.s. and a non-starter. Thankfully, Leahy knows that, too, and he isn't budging. Nor should he.

It doesn't take a seasoned political analyst to understand Bush's offer. This is about accountability and transparency, and Bush is interested in neither one. Just like Nixon and his aides, who had plenty of reasons to want to conceal what was on those tapes, the Bush White House also has reason to not have cabinet members and advisers testify while under oath. If all of the testimony is in public, holes can be poked in it when other facts come to light.

This isn't the first time the Bush Administration has jerked around Congress, either. When the sham 9-11 Commission asked Bush and Dick Cheney to testify, they would only do so together, in private, and not under oath. There are a million jokes here that I'll resist the temptation to make, but, kidding aside, even Bush loyalists have to question why these two boobs would only testify together. I feel it's so they could keep their b.s. stories straight.

Also with the 9-11 Commission, anyone remember the saga that arose when Condi Rice was asked to testify? First she could, then she couldn't, then she could, but not under oath, then no, then finally, yes.

Again, if you don't have anything to hide, what's the big deal about testifying under oath before Congress?

It's a no-brainer. Congressional Democrats had better stick to their guns on this one - we must hear from Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under oath, with a transcript, no exceptions.

I'll write later on tonight why I believe even sworn testimony by the three figures above won't be successful in getting to the bottom of the attorney purge scandal, but it's important for Democrats to do all they can anyway, to get their actions on record. Then, the American people can decide who deserves to take the brunt of the political fallout.