Over at the National Review on Saturday, Kathryn Jean Lopez suggested a novel future for George W. Bush after he completes his disastrous tenure in the White House.  The most unpopular President in modern times, Lopez insists, would "make an awesome high-school government teacher."  But leaving aside for the moment his obvious aversion to academic study and the English language (as well as the U.S. Constitution), Bush has already made up his mind about his "post-service service."  Upon leaving office, President Bush has said he plans to "replenish the ol' coffers."

Last week, I observed with incredulous disbelief as the mainstream American media asserted that Obama had flipped on Iraq and essentially created an opening to manoeuvre on his numerously stated position that upon being sworn in, he will stipulate to his Joint Chiefs of Staff that they have a new mission in Iraq – which is ending the war and bringing American forces home. Apparently, this confusion was created by the statement that Obama made in an interview in which he stated that he would continue to "refine" his position on Iraq as dictated by the facts on the ground when he eventually travels to Iraq sometime this month. It wasn’t long after he made this statement that the depraved hyenas pounced, like a herd of starving carnivores in an African Serengeti.

A Declaration for Our Times,

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

We, the people of the twenty-first century may not have been present when the original Constitutional Congress met; still, we feel the depth of distress our forefathers did.  Today, we express as our ancestors had.  It is time to submit our own Declaration of Independence.  Perchance, this statement of duress is long overdue.

Congratulations to Bush for achieving one of America's most wanted strategic objective.  Truly, with friend like Bush who needs enemy?

Have you ever been in the middle of a game with someone who was losing?  They don't like the way things look so they throw the Monopoly board across the room.  Or see two small kids playing and one of them takes his trucks to the other side of the room so the other kid can't play with it.  We generally dislike this bratty behavior in ourselves and our children.  So I have to say, a lot of Democrats have been acting like two year olds lately.  "Barack Obama didn't do something I wanted him to so I want all my donations back and I am going to withdraw my support and sit in the corner and pout!"  Seriously?  If you were my child you would be sitting in a time-out thinking about your actions and how it relates to everyone else in the room.  And for some of you, that time out would last for a real, long time!

That's right!  Today is George W. Bush's 62nd birthday.  Laura sent me a letter a while back to remind me that "this is the last birthday he will celebrate in the White House."  All I can say to that is, thank God for small favors!  It's a crying shame such a small, weak, pitiful excuse for a leader as George W. Bush was allowed to celebrate any birthdays in our White House, let alone 8 of them.

(Cross-posted from Left in Alabama.)

There is something about a certain slant of light, that casts images in a different context from how one usually sees them.

It occurred to me as I read Tommywonk's Declaration of Independence in very familiar territory, that ominous parallels existed between then and now.....   Perhaps by not straining my eyes deciphering 18th Century handwriting i was assisted in the revelation, but in any regards, I decided to post how Bush/Cheney would have been eternally represented had Jefferson fast forward through time into today.

Keep in mind, just three years earlier, 1773, had their been an election, King George would have still had a plurality of support as well.

He has refused his Assent to Laws

No contest there.  If he doesn't like the law, he ignores it.  Add one to the   + column.

Everybody has wondered when Obama was going to push back against the flip-flop meme that the media was tarring and feathering him with. Paul Krugman today went so far as to suggest that it had Rove's fingerprints written all over them. But Obama has begun pushing back against the flip-flop meme by releasing a fact sheet on Iraq. The fact sheet points out that Obama has the same positions on Iraq now that he did several months ago. You can read the fact sheet here.

The President
The White House
July 11, 2008*:

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The Act authorizes critical intelligence gathering activities designed to defend the United States and its interests at home and abroad and provides much-needed flexibility to manage effectively the personnel and taxpayer resources devoted to the national defense.

Section 301(b) of the Act purports to place require the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, and any other element of the intelligence community that participated in the President's Surveillance Program, to complete a comprehensive review of all of the facts necessary to describe the establishment, implementation, product, and use of the product of the Program; access to legal reviews of the Program and access to information about the Program; communications with, and participation of, individuals and entities in the private sector related to the Program; interaction with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and transition to court orders related to the Program; and any other matters identified by any such Inspector General that would enable that Inspector General to complete a review of the Program, with respect to such Department or element.

The executive branch shall construe the requirements on the Inspectors General in section 301(b) as advisory in nature, so that the provisions are consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and to supervise the unitary executive branch.

What then?

*What you're looking at is an adaptation of one of Bush's oft-used signing statements. Since the "administration" claims that the AUMF and the president's "inherent powers" under the Constitution authorize his domestic spying as a "military" operation, a signing statement simply rejecting the obligation of the Inspectors General (a part of the "unitary executive") to produce these reports would be entirely consistent with everything the White House has argued to date, on this and other related subjects.

So, shorter version without legalese: The people supporting this FISA bill say it has accountability built right into it, because it requires the Inspectors General to conduct inquiries and produce reports on what happened.

What if Bush says, "Yeah, but I'm not going to do it"?

Let's see.  According to Chuck K., Obama's the flip-flopper supreme, changing his mind on every issue from guns to abortion to Iraq.  First of all let's get something straight, politics is not about 100% pure consistency from birth till death.  It's about reviewing facts and circumstances and making decisions that foster enough concensus to lead in a general direction.  Successful politics is about big ideas, general themes, and gaining trust.  It's also absolutely about finesse, ambiguity and nuance.  It has to be.  No one can or should be 100% consistent about every issue all of the time.  To think so is to simply not understand human nature.  

Senator Obama has said that he will vote for the pending FISA bill. Some of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate, however, have pledged to vote against that piece of legislation and have offered their reasons for choosing to do so. Let us look at comments by some of those who stand in opposition to Senator Obama's position and why they stand in oppostion. This may better help us to assess where Senator Obama stands on the left/right political continuum.

Chris Satullo, a writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, made the suggestion in his column the other day that, instead of Fourth of July celebrations this year, we should sit in quiet contemplation of the plain fact that our country over the past seven years has engaged in torture, indefinite detention without charges, rendition, and other unspeakable acts.  It was a clear and provocative call to stand up for liberty in the face of fear, for honest criticism of our leaders as an act of patriotism.

We have betrayed the July 4 creed. We trample the vows we make, hand to heart.

Don't imagine that only the torturer's hand bears the guilt. The guilt reaches deep inside our Capitol, and beyond that - to us.

Our silence is complicit. In our name, innocents were jailed, humans tortured, our Constitution mangled. And we said so little.

Today, Satullo wrote a follow-up column, explaining the authoritarian response to his initial offering.  

Rep. Mark Udall, running for Senate in Colorado, is among the House Dems who recently voted for the FISA bill.

That by itself isn't particularly remarkable. It's symptomatic of running for higher office, just as the votes of Bob Menendez and Sherrod Brown for the heinous Military Commissions Act was. They both voted for it, and almost immediately after winning announced how deeply they regretted it and that they'd be working to repeal it as soon as possible.

The MCA, of course, remains on the books. Its repeal never stood a chance so long as George W. Bush held his veto crayon. And both Brown and Menendez knew that when they said it.

But that's (political) life. It is what it is, and we say so out loud even though it's one of those dirty-but-open little secrets that Serious People^TM don't talk about. Actually, that's probably why we say so out loud.

So now Mark Udall finds himself in the same position. And just as Brown and Menendez bet it all on their promises to repeal, Udall now bets it all on committing the next administration -- yet to be elected, by the way -- to extensive criminal investigations penetrating into the very heart of years and years of executive operations.

Well, he's not really betting it all on it. There are literally hundreds of other critical issues and as many equally critical reasons why you absolutely must vote for him if you're a Colorado voter, despite anything that could possibly be said about FISA. And he's just one of dozens of Democrats running for higher office or for reelection to their current offices in November about whom I'd say the exact same thing. But FISA and the core issues underlying it are getting the same exact same glossing over from those other candidates as we're about to read from Udall. And all of the people saying it are actually rather hoping you won't notice if they eventually pick up their chips and drop the wager entirely.

So this is not important because Mark Udall said it. Mark Udall is just the vector we have under the microscope at the moment, and just as with Menendez and Brown, we are better off by far agreeing to live with the dirty little secret and electing him. What's important is that this letter or one like it is going out to millions of concerned constituents, in hundreds of districts around the country. You may be expecting one, yourself. I think you deserve a fuller discussion of the answers you're being offered. Then I think you should go out and vote for Udall and/or your local Democrat, anyway.

But here, via email to a constituent that was shared with us, is just one example of what we get when we're silly enough to actually ask why they voted for this thing:

This bill is designed to update FISA while putting an end to abusive domestic spying, and I voted for it in order to prevent a future program of warrantless surveillance by the executive branch. The bill is explicit that complying with FISA is the only way for the government to conduct surveillance. At the same time, it updates FISA, which was originally passed in 1978, to give us important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities. I fully understand why there is confusion and even anger that the legislation does not do more to require some telecommunications companies to respond to lawsuits for alleged privacy abuses in their actions to implement the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance after 9-11. But it does require a comprehensive review of that surveillance program by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department, including a report to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of Congress. This will mean that past abuses by the Bush Administration will not go uninvestigated. Also, the bill does not provide absolute or criminal immunity for these companies, and no government official will receive civil or criminal immunity for past abuses.

This particular line of response is now in wide circulation, doubtless disseminated by the House Democratic Caucus to help Members deal with constituent inquiries. And it does its job well. It sounds like a nuanced and intelligent response, and in most cases is likely enough to shoo away follow-ups and lingering doubts. But it's got serious holes in it -- serious enough to render the whole thing worthless, actually -- and they deserve examination.

Regarding the claim that this bill can "prevent a future program of warrantless surveillance by the executive branch," I say you're living in a dream world:

The "administration's" lawyers -- people like John Yoo -- advised Bush that the president had the "inherent power" to ignore the FISA provisions in the name of "national security."  So he did it. Despite the existence of the exclusivity provisions.

In fact, Yoo's memo insisted that FISA's exclusivity provisions meant exactly the opposite of what they do mean:

Unless Congress made a clear statement in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that it sought to restrict presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches in the national security area -- which it has not -- then the statute must be construed to avoid [such] a reading.

Just days ago, of course, the federal court in the Al-Haramain case said Yoo did indeed have it exactly backwards:

Congress squarely challenged and explicitly sought to prohibit warrantless wiretapping by the executive branch by means of FISA, as FISA's legislative history amply documented.

Congress appears clearly to have intended to -- and did -- establish as the exclusive means for foreign intelligence surveillance activities to be conducted.

Now, we've got a new exclusivity provision that also purports to prevent the president from simply ignoring the law, and it's being presented as something new and improved, and good enough by itself to justify a vote for the bill.

But the truth of the matter, as the court's decision makes clearer than ever, is exactly as Glenn Greenwald puts it:

They're presenting as a "gift" something you already have, and telling you that you should give up critical protections in exchange for receiving something that you already have -- namely, a requirement that the President comply with eavesdropping laws. What they're doing is tantamount to someone who steals your wallet, takes all the money out, gives the empty wallet back to you, and then tells you that you should be grateful to them because you have your wallet.

There really is no way to write a law such that it prevents someone from ignoring it, of course. If you ignore the law, you ignore the provisions preventing you from ignoring it. That, it turns out, is actually what "ignoring" means.

Regarding the claim that the bill "updates FISA, which was originally passed in 1978, to give us important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities," it's arguably true that the bill does "update" FISA, but it is decidedly misleading to follow that up by simply stating that FISA was originally passed in 1978. If "updating" is the issue, Udall might have taken care to mention that FISA has actually been updated dozens of times over the years, and several times just since 9/11.

It might also have been helpful to explain that while some of the updates were arguably necessary (debatable, but arguable), retroactive immunity for the telecom companies is neither an update to FISA, nor a necessity. Udall might have taken the opportunity to explain that George W. Bush would not accept the updates that were arguably necessary and proper unless he also won his point on immunity, and that he had in fact threatened to veto these "important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities" if he didn't get his way.

Some actual grown-ups among his constituents might like to know that.

Regarding the claim that the bill will "require a comprehensive review of that surveillance program by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department, including a report to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of Congress," I offer this observation shared with me via email, by emptywheel:

The IG report, by law, cannot name a private citizen or entity that participated in the warrantless wiretap program. In other words, while a lot of people are pointing to the IG investigation as a great invention of transparency (though, without the Bingaman amendment [about which, see here], we have no way to force the Administration to carry out the investigation in good faith), but the IG investigation by design will continue to shield the telecoms that broke the law in assisting the Administration.

Sounds pretty "comprehensive," eh? Can't name names. That, I think, is going to be rather important when it comes to Udall's last and most ridiculous claim, that:

This will mean that past abuses by the Bush Administration will not go uninvestigated. Also, the bill does not provide absolute or criminal immunity for these companies, and no government official will receive civil or criminal immunity for past abuses.

This last claim has already been addressed thoroughly by bmaz, writing on emptywheel's blog at Firedoglake. And the issues with it utterly destroy the point. Just a few such issues:

WHAT CRIMES? - Neither Olbermann, Dean, Obama, nor anybody else discussing this hypothetical pipe dream has indicated exactly what crimes they think might be charged. Let us be clear on one thing, simply because a proscribed activity is unconstitutional does NOT make it criminal. For a crime to be charged, there needs to be a specific provision of the US Code (USC), or other statutory provision, making said conduct a crime. It is crystal clear, from the collective record to date, that the participating telcos were compelled by the Bush Administration to assist and were given written assurances that their cooperation was necessary for national security, legal and authorized by the President of the United States in a supposed time of war. That pretty much eliminates any crime that requires criminal intent by the perpetrator, and leaves only what, in criminal law, are known as strict liability crimes, of which none come to mind. The only cogent possibility is the criminal offense defined under the FISA law (18 USC 1809) which, you guessed it, requires specific intent. How are you going to prove that here?

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: - Even if you could identify specific crimes to charge telcos and/or their owners, directors and personnel with, the crime must be viable and ripe for prosecution. The first question any criminal defense attorney is going to ask is "Gee, is this crime within the statute of limitations"? FISA is subject to the Federal general statute of limitation contained in 18 USC 3282, which is five years. And, remember, the statute starts to run when the crime is committed and/or when the government becomes aware of the conduct; in this case the Department of Justice knew about the conduct as, or before, it was being committed. When we, as citizens learned about it is not the relevant test. Obama, assuming he is indeed elected, will not be issuing indictments at the end of his inaugural address. The FISA Amendment Act provides for an investigation and report of the Bush/telco wiretapping/datamining and snooping to be completed by applicable Inspectors General within one year of passage; assuming Bush signs the FAA in mid-July, that would be mid-July 2009 for the report. The Bush Administration will not be working diligently to effect this while they are still in office; any meaningful work will have to be reviewed and/or performed under the new administration. It is unrealistic to expect that any charges could possibly be filed before said said report is due, so any act occurring prior to about July 15, 2004 will not be within the statute of limitations and will be barred from prosecution.

To these, I have still more to add.

1. Why, if you believe there are or may be grounds for criminal prosecution, would you immunize against civil liability? What sense does that make, exactly? Why make life easier for people you're telling us should be or could be subject to criminal liability?

2. Going the path in #1 says, "Don't press your rights by yourselves, Mr. or Ms. Citizen. Let the government that just finished stripping you of them take care of that for you. Maybe.

3. Who are these Congressmen commiting the Barack Obama administration to a major criminal investigation spanning eight years of the Bush White House's most secretive and most deeply shrouded abuses as its first official act, and have any of them asked Obama where he stands on this commitment?

4. The people promising you criminal prosecutions after '08 if you'll just shut up and trust them to read the law and take care of things after the election are the same people who promised you effective "subpoena power" after '06 if you'd just shut up and trust them to read the law and take care of things after the election.

Well, when they said it in '06, I read the law myself and saw very clearly (and dead accurately, I might add) what would happen to "subpoena power". Now we're back to trusting their reading of the law, their predictive powers, and their assumptions that Bush won't simply pardon everyone, out of some kind if pure shame, it is suggested, even though he hasn't exhibited such shame at any point in his life, much less during his "administration."

Absent the fact that Udall is hoping we'll all go away, this would be an intentionally stupid position to take at this point, 7 1/2 years into the Bush "administration." And if it weren't for the fact that we're all going to be hit with this telegraphed punch, I'd be more than happy to let those who subscribe to it take in on the chin while I laugh from ringside.

Too bad it's not that simple.

Well, as usual, we have members of this site saying they won't/might not vote for the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

It happened in the primaries, with mainly Obama supporters saying they wouldn't vote for Clinton if she became the nominee.

Clinton, and now Obama failed a "purity test" to some people.

To quote New York Mayor Ed Koch has often said that a one-issue candidacy isn’t sufficient to run on. "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, you should vote for me," Koch often has said. "If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, you should see a psychiatrist."

Just wanted to invite everyone in Houston to come see the Worst President Ever in River Oaks on Friday July 18. He'll be here to raise some bucks for Pete Olsen in CD22 - Tom DeLay's former district.

The case of Karl Rove refusing to comply with a subpoeana ordering him to appear before a House Judiciary Subcommiittee is just one more example of the Bush Administration dismissing the principle of Separation of Powers in order to concentrate all government powers in the executive.

It is impossible for Congress to fulfill any oversite function over the executive branch of government or act as a check on the powers of the executive when the President and his cronies routinely ignore the powers and responsibilities of Congress with complete impunity.

I am well aware that FISA is an oft-discussed issue here on Daily Kos. And I am well aware that some will consider this hysterical over-reaction. But, personally, I think this entire nation is suffering from a horrific complacency of inaction, and so I'm going to say my piece.

As I celebrate this July 4th weekend -- one of my favorite holidays; the anniversary of this website's birth; and the always joyous occasion of opening a play -- my thoughts are consistently drawn back to the pending FISA legislation in Congress and the issue of telecom immunity. This is not unnatural, because the pending FISA legislation is a betrayal of the principles of government which were laid down by our founding fathers more than two hundred years ago. Since I consider the July 4th holiday to be a celebration of those principles and the nation those principles established, I actually consider it a celebration of sorts to take these issues under consideration.

as it looks now, he won't even be punished.  Stories about President Nixon's indiscretions, which may have paved the way to today, end with a pardoned impeachment.  But his crimes are nothing compared with this man we have in power today.