Two-Fronted War in Defense of the Constitution in the House
The AP reported on Steven Bradbury’s tortured logic about water-boarding.
”The set of interrogation methods authorized for current use is narrower than before, and it does not today include waterboarding,” Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, says in remarks prepared for his appearance Thursday before the House Judiciary Constitution subcommittee.
”There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law,” he said.
That is, waterboarding is not legal today, but it could be tomorrow if Bradbury made it so at the bidding of David Addington.
That tortured logic is part of Bradbury’s prepared statements for an appearance before HJC’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties (click here to follow along).
Meanwhile, Chairman Conyers is appearing before the Rules Committee (on CSPAN1) supporting his contempt resolution, describing the importance of the contempt resolution to the balance of powers.
Some have said we risk more if we lose this fight. If we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness doesn’t even have to bother to show up or tell us that they’re not coming, then we’ve already lost. This is not a matter of vindicating the Judiciary Committee.
Republicans are playing nasty–interrupting the Lantos memorial for stupid parliamentary tricks. Lamar Smith thinks we shouldn’t pass this rule because we won’t also allow the government broad powers to wiretap us.
And Bradbury is assuring "the committee that every opinion I sign represents my best judgment regardless of political currents."
I’ll try to follow both hearings.
Nadler: Is waterboarding a violation of the Federal torture statute?
Bradbury: I think it was reasonable to say that it didn’t violate the Federal torture statute. Your description of the procedure is not accurate description of procedure used by CIA.
Nadler: My description is one given to us by former interrogators.
[Bradbury goes on to say we’re not doing what the Filipinos did.]
Nadler: AG said he is unable to share your OLC opinions on multiple techniques with us. You’re telling us the opinions we’re making about waterboarding are wrong because we don’t know what it is. So can you tell us precisely what the legal authority is for withholding the documents from the Committee other than the fact that they might be embarrassing.
Bradbury: I fully respect the oversight interest of this committee.
Nadler: We’ve seen no evidence of that.
[Bradbury keeps trying to filibuster]
Nadler: Will you give us the opinions?
Bradbury: We are giving that serious consideration. These are subject to extensive oversight of intelligence committees.
Nadler: Is there any legal basis for withholding those documents?
Bradbury: Protecting against disclosure.
Nadler: We all have top security clearance.
[Bradbury has almost as whiny a voice as Shorter Schlozman]
Nadler: What is the legal basis for your ability to have discretion to not turn over those opinions.
Bradbury: Not my place to make that decision.
Nadler: Are you head of OLC, isn’t it your job to give opinon on these issues? Have you advised AG that they have the legal right to withhold these opinions.
Bradbury: Executive Branch does have the right to withhold documents.
Nadler: You won’t commit to giving us those documents so your recognition of our interests is totally hollow. We’d like an explanation in writing for why we can’t see them (or the documents themselves).
Diaz-Boehlert is complaining that Democrats are using parliamentary tactics. Whaaa!
Artur Davis: Why did Mukasey say this was torture but you say it’s not?
Davis: McCain was subject to torture in Vietnam. In response to that torture, he signed a confession to a war crime. That was unaccurate–it was a response to the extreme distress he was undergoing, was it not? That’s the concern a number of us have. I strongly disagree with his point that we’re trying to pass laws that favor terrorists. You are absolutely correct that when people experiencing waterboarding are distressed which may lead them to lie. You state the enhanced interrogation has been used with about 1/3 of the detainees. How many is that, 30?
Bradbury: I’m not authorized.
Davis: Have any of those individuals lied in response to interrogation techniques? Is it conceivable that some of them may have lied?
Bradbury: I don’t know.
Davis: How many prosecutions have been brought based on what those individuals have said.
Bradbury: None.
Davis: That sounds like a completion rate that could be pretty low.
Bradbury: Purpose of program is not to obtain intelligence to be used in criminal prosecutions.
Davis: I assume you don’t mean to fashion a program or condone or sanction a program that doesn’t yield results. You cannot tell me whether all of these individuals have lied. I add that up and come to one simple conclusion. We can’t tell whether this program is working, you won’t tell us, we take that position not in the name of protecting terrorists. We take that position in order to get the real terrorists.
Bradbury: I can only rely on what Hayden has said. He has said it has produced thousands of reports that have been useful.
Davis: That’s an inherently subjective conclusion. Will he share that information with this committee? If Hayden has quantifiable information about the efficacy of this program, I ask that this be shared with us.
Chris Cannon and James Sensenbrenner are both opposed to contempt because what happens if it doesn’t work!?!?!?!?!
Cannon: We have no evidence that Miers and Bolten were involved, do we?
Conyers: We aren’t accusing them of anything, sir.
Cannon: We have no evidence.
John Yarmouth (D-KY) saying that the 2006 election was about giving Democrats control of Congress:
This is what I heard: "We want to return the government to the tenants of the Constitution. We want to return to the ideas that the founding fathers. We want to return to the premise that no one is above the rule of law."
This is about restoring the checks and balances.
If we don’t challenge the President on this issue, we will have
Ellison (torture hearing): If an OLC opinion, once written will prevent an investigation of an executive branch felony, the President can violate the law or his oath, and just point to OLC, and if victims try to suit, they will use State Secrets. Isn’t that a recipe for unchecked executive power.
Bradbury: No, I don’t believe it is. The opinions are reasonable and were appropriately relied upon.
Ellison: How do you know that they were relied upon as you set forth.
Bradbury: That’s my understanding.
Ellison: How do you know? Were you present for an instance of waterboarding? You indicated earlier that the waterboarding is nothing like what happened to American soldiers at the hand of the Japanese. Can you describe how this was applied? Have you seen videotapes? How do you know that the advice you’ve been giving have been relied upon properly.
Bradbury: I have reasons to believe.
Ellison: Are you basing this on statements? How do you know that the advice you’ve been giving haven’t been exceeded?
Bradbury: I believe that is the case.
Ellison: NO. I’m going to ask you to answer my questions that’s the way this hearing goes. [Now addressing the notion that torture used in training is torture or not.]
Bradbury: If something is torture in one circumstance, it is torture in another.
Ellison: So if a police officer sells drugs as part of a sting operation.
Bradbury: There are lines that address that.
Ellison: I’m sure you’ll provide the citations to the cases.
Bradbury: I’d be happy to.
Ellison: Go ahead. If I just said, Judge there’s a case, I’d expect you to cite the case.
Scott: Is there any precedent outside of this Administration that says waterboarding isn’t torture?
Bradbury: I’m not aware of any, that’s why this job is so hard.
Scott: Penalty for perjury a whole lot less than murder. Is the penalty for destroying the torture tapes a whole lot less than if the contents had been seen? Was your office involved in discussion of whether torture tapes should have been destroyed.
Bradbury: Our office wasn’t.
Scott: If we’re trying to find out who was involved in destruction of CIA torture tapes, who should we look to? Who would be involved in that discussion in your opinion.
Bradbury: I’d refer you to acting DAG’s office.
Scott: There has been no determination that waterboarding would be lawful under current law. Has there been a determination that it would be unlawful under current law?
Bradbury: No, bc there has been no time to do so under current law.
Scott: And we don’t have the tapes so we’d know what we’d be talking about. [Lists the prohibitions against torture.] Did the part of the EO forbidding violations of Convention against Torture, etc, did that change anything?
Bradbury [attempts to filibuster]: No, those statutes under their own terms do apply. One thing the EO does do … the program does have to comply with the law.
Scott: Should we be concerned by the term "grave"?
Bradbury: That’s used in the war crimes act [I may have the laws in question wrong].
Scott: So breaches of Convention that are not grave are not violations of the war crimes act?
Watt: You say that fewer than 100 have been detained. Those are the people at Gitmo.
Bradbury: The 14, maybe 15 detainees who were transferred there are among those. But the CIA has held others. That’s not the sum total of those who have been detained under this program. When the 14 were moved that emptied the overseas facilities.
[Is he implying we’re back to holding people overseas again?]
Watt: If I were trying to determine the disposition of one or more of those 350 who have been held. What is the maximum duration they have been held?
Bradbury: January February 2002.
Watt: Have they been formally charged.
Bradbury: Some of them. All of them have had Combatant Status Review.
Watt: If you said waterboarding was illegal, could the President ignore that under Article II. I’d like to know whether in your legal opinion whether the President has the authority to disregard your opinion.
Bradbury: I don’t think he’d do it.
Watt: I didn’t ask you that, would he have the authority under Article II.
Bradbury: Can I get to that in a second?
Watt: How about answering it now?
[Bradbury is filibustering]
Bradbury: In all cases the President will look to OLC opinions. In theory, the President stands at the top of the executive branch, so every is under the authority of the President, including the AG. It is unsustainable to disregard an opinion of the AG.
Watt: Does the President have the authority to disregard the opinion under Article II.
Nadler: I believe your answer is yes.
Bradbury: You’re putting words in my mouth.
Nadler: Yes I am.
Watt: I would have loved to have gotten to my next question if you hadn’t rope-a-doped my next question.
Bradbury: General Hayden has said he will not allow his people to do anything that has not been approved by AG.
Watt: So if President has issued order, Hayden will listen to the AG?
Nadler: Will you commit to respond within 30 days.
Bradbury: I will do it as soon as possible and will try to do it within 30 days.
[HJC hearing over]
Shorter Trent Franks: Torture is fine as long as we do it for a good reason.
Longer Shorter Trent Franks: Torture is fine as long as we can say we’re doing it for a good reason.
Bradbury: the way we do it, waterboarding isn’t really like the waterboarding of the Spanish Inquisition or the way the Japanese did it, complete with illustrations.
Is there a way to take Bradbury’s law license?
Question withdrawn.
Bradbury has been in the crosscurrents, as well, in the Miers contempt matter since at least July 2007. At least one justice on the supreme court has announced a desire to legalize maltreatment of prisoners.
“Bradbury: I think it was reasonable to say that it didn’t violate the Federal torture statute. Your description of the procedure is not accurate description of procedure used by CIA.”
That wording stands out to me…”used by CIA.”
Okay then, if it is not an accurate description of the procedure used by the CIA then it must be the accurate description of the procedure used by contractors of the CIA…
“Bradbury: Not my place to make that decision.”
More accurate Bradbury…Not my place to make THAT decision in terms of serving this administration (as opposed to THE LAW).
Wow. He makes it look so effing easy, to LIE on camera to our faces.
Bush appearing right now demanding PAA to be passed. He’s threatening not to leave to travel to Africa (where he will be begging to allow U.S. military to build a facility) if it will help pass PAA.
Who in the press pool is saying that Congress is playing chicken?? this kind of on-the-lawn presser doesn’t allow us to see who’s in the gaggle…
“Now’s the time to get the job done.” Oooh, he’s actually sounding whiny, petulant, and as if he is begging at the same time.
And NOW some fool in the presser is asking another softball question, what will happen to our intelligence if the bill doesn’t pass…This sure sounds like a set-up, like a FEMA-type presser.
OMG. He just responded using the excuse that companies who cooperate with the government should be protected from lawsuits, that they could be sued for BILLIONS.
He didn’t say sued, he didn’t say sued for millions. He said sued for BILLIONS.
They are so close to admitting they’ve hoovered up ALL of our communications.
At the same time there’s a presser from CDC about the toxic formaldehyde in Katrina trailers; they cut away after the second question with Pissy-pants to CDC.
How does the text of the PAA read?? does it ONLY cover telecommunications companies’ civil liability exposures when aiding the government, or does it include any company like a trailer manufacturer that produced toxic trailers at FEMA’s request?
Just wondering. The timing is incredible.
All Africa celebrates at the prospect.
In the meantime, the House GOPpers are playing ‘let’s be fuckwits’, with another adjournment motion.
Bradbury’s just like Alvin, isn’t he? Another squeaky bastard.
I like the way Nadler answered Bradbury – by reminding him his answer to the question, whether the President had the Article II authority to disregard and OLC opinion, was indeed “yes”.
Nadler’s very good. If he were in charge of an impeachment proceeding, rather than the whole HJC, I’d have a lot more confidence that it would work. The Dems pretty much kicked Bradbury’s ass, revealing him to be the shill he is.
Wow, when Bush closed the presser, it was right after a heated tirade at the press. He closed with “Listen,”, a common lead-in for him when he gets frustrated, then abruptly walked away deep in a mental dialogue (the head was bobbing and weaving around). Gotta love seeing him get flustered.
My question for Bradbury/Mukasy: If an opinion by the OLC stated the the President had droit de seigneur, would the DOJ be empowered to prosecute the President for rape?
Rape, torture, either way it is all tyranny.
WOW, the House Repugs just staged a walkout.
No kidding…? I missed it!
Weenies ;-)))))))))))))))))
Thank you, Dems, for that Valentine.
WOW, the House Repugs just staged a walkout.
The House is pretty entertaining today. What a bunch of babies the GOP are.
I also hold, if TSP and other foreign intelligence snooping is an Article II power, then it doesn’t need any legislation to authorize it. Therefore, if President Bush stops using an power that he himself says is an Article II power, then he’s derelict all on his own.
What a bunch of babies the GOP are.
I’m in your ‘Amen Chorus’ on that point.
Wonderful to see these bullies finally being exposed as unreasonable, petulant thugs.
Is the fainting couch getting crowded here…?
Agreed totally; you would think that a child could see through their circuitous dishonest bleating. Just so nobody misunderestimates what is said in that regard, however, I should like to make clear that I absolutely do not believe that Article II gives such power to the President, whether alone, or in conjunction with the AUMF.
I absolutely do not believe that Article II gives such power to the President, whether alone, or in conjunction with the AUMF.
The AUMF argument is utter BS.
The ultimate question is “what constitutes foreign intelligence surveillance.” In general, it’s surveillance, the fruit of which is NOT used in court proceedings, but rather is used to guide diplomatic, covert espionage, and war-making decisions.
E.g., listening to foreigners entirely overseas.
Yeah, after seeing your comment @49, I realized I should have distinguished pure foreign. This is a consistent problem I have, because until all the disingenuous dissembling started on FISA/PAA nobody had ever (that I am particularly aware of) even suggested that there is a problem with spooking in pure foreign situations.
… after seeing your comment @49, I realized I should have distinguished pure foreign.
Truong (and his buddy, Humphrey in the same case) were situated in the US, and were snooped w/o a warrant. The snoop was well justified on the basis of the subject matter involved – military and defense capabilities.
The R’s are walking out of the House! Quitters!
Yes. I love it…
Finally calling their fucking bluff…
Go Louise Slaughter! She’s responding to Boehner’s odious crap with his own words from the Clinton era.
Hilarious!
Bradbury: I must stall, I will stall, I can stall, I want you all to go get lost down a million rabbit holes, I must stall, I will not show you laws, I must stall…
Do I have this correct:
– witnesses don’t have to show up when Congress calls them
– witnesses don’t even have to notify Congress that they won’t show up
– if witnesses finally do show up, they’re there to mostly stall and point Congress toward rabbit warrens
—— [INFINITE RECURSION, AG] — if the AG does testify, he can’t tell Congress very much, because he can’t show them the laws they’re supposed to be asking him about… so mostly, they spend their time asking him to please, please, please show them the DoJ revisions to the laws so they can ask some better questions in a few months…
—— [INFINITE RECURSION, BRADBURY] — if Bradbury does testify, he can’t tell Congress anything about the laws he and others in OLC revised; and he’s ‘not authorized’ to show them the revisions, which means that Congress doesn’t really know about the laws they’re charged with ‘overseeing’… but when will he please, please, please allow them a peek at the revised laws…
Can someone remind me again what the f*ck our political geniuses Rahm Emmanual and Chuck Schumer think is actually at risk by bringing criminal charges against people who make Congress look like weenies, tools, and brain-dead morons…?
Jeezus, Mary, Joesph, and ALL the saints and angels… If this were a movie, no one would believe it.
The Dems are standing up for the Constitution, finally…
Invigorating, huh?
Go Hoyer Go!
Applause!!!
The House trumps the Senate…
We are all going to die if they don’t pass the bill?
FISA remains in effect…
Thank you, thank you…
Steny showing some stones! What a day.
C’mon CSPAN, give us a view of the floor! I wanna see who’s left.
Send Bushie to Africa and don’t let him back in!
Yeah…make him apply for a visa the way “his” Homeland Security is going to require other citizens to apply for when they reenter the US…and then put him on the no-fly list. Heh!
The Repugs didn’t get their way and they leave…
Precious…
Maybe the Dems have finally realized that the greatest threat to the United States is its own Administration.
I talked to a staffer in my congressman’s office (Capuano) about FISA in the house. (Capuano is one of the liberal Dems who crossed the leadership last night to kill the 21-day PAA extension.) She said the weird two-third rule waiver discussed in the previous thread was actually not that unusual; it was to allow the bill to be introduced and voted on on the same day (otherwise that would be prohibited.) She said she didn’t know of any plans to actually introduce any bill to vote on, but that the leadership might decide to do it without informing them. She said everyone on the Hill is basically expecting the PAA to expire today without a vote, and then go on recess.
She said everyone on the Hill is basically expecting the PAA to expire today without a vote, and then go on recess.
I’ll be surprised if that happens.
I’m curious about the contention that waiving the 2/3rd aspect of same day consideration is common. Might be, but not on contentious stuff. Maybe for post office naming and stuff like that.
They can’t vote no, because they will be betraying their oath, and they can’t vote yes, because they’d be opposing Bush.
Hoyer – “There is no urgency… and the reason that there is no urgency… we will not be presented with a bill on Tuesday night and expected to pass it (on Wednesday)…”
Damn!
(((((((Hoyer!!))))))
I may need smelling salts.
I’m f-a-i-n-t-i-n-g with shock….
Bush must be going bonkers…
He tried to bully and got fucked!
Steny stood up to Bush’s temper tantrum??? Move over on the fainting coach, I need to lie down myself ; )
Steny stood up to Bush’s temper tantrum?
Action isn’t over yet.
wonder if Bush will do something extra-consitutional …
IIRC, all along he’s held that the president has inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution, to undertake surveillance for foreign intelligence gathering purposes. That happens to be an accurate statement of law. So, Congress CAN’T prevent him from doing what he says he has the authority to do. If he ceases to do what he thinks he has the power to do, then the consequences are HIS.
The country ran without FISA from the time the telephone was invented until 1978.
My heavens, there may be a pile-up of us all fainting from complete shock.
EW, you are one hell of a tutor/guide.
Did we finally hit some rapids, after being stuck in a whirlpool of madness for the past seven years…?
(I’m gonna be workin’ late tonight.. But this is TOTALLY worth it ;-)))
The perfect storm
They should vote on FISA now.
They honored Lantos…
Good point.
Buck Bush
I wonder if Bush will do something extra-consitutional, and then
we can really impeach him…
Is this the Consitutional Crisis that we predicted months ago?
Pelosi, “The President knows full well he has all the authority he needs… we understand the value of collecting intelligence… we know the Pres has the authority he needs to protect the American people… we have two concerns, one is retractive community… the other is exclusivity…”We have nothing to fear, but fear itself but the Pres has nothing to offer [the American people] BUT fear.”
O.M.G.
I need smelling salts…!
Those of you watching this are trying to pull a fast one on the rest of us aren’t you? Pelosi didn’t really say that.
“I did not want to bring this to the floor”, Nancy Pelosi, regarding contempt citations.
Boy ain’t that the truth. But honest to God Nancy if you are finally ready to fight the good fight, I’ll be right by your side, and I’ll say nice things about you for a change ; )
Will somebody, anybody, please just say that all that has to be done is to get a warrant if an American is involved, after the fact?
If they have a valid reason, why is this problem?
Who was the mastermind of this coup?
Oh. My. God. Nancy just said they take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and the separation of powers. That’s it. I’m gonna topple over dead.
This started my topple. What finished it? Nancy saying that if Bush says he’s gonna veto FISA then that’s proof that he knows he doesn’t need it.
I think Bush (Cheney) will defy Congress
They already do, but for the first time Congress is starting to call them on it.
cboldt, you are quite right, the action isn’t over yet, and we all know how often Congress has capitulated, but this is the most spine I’ve seen since the Dems took control. I’m willing to be supportive for that alone. Of course, you know I’m not shy about sharing my opinions when I feel Congress has betrayed us, so let all just hope they don’t go there ; )
Good point.
I’m hoping Hardball and KO open with this story…
Instead of spending bull shit time on the primaries (I’ve got
primary disgust)
agree we should support any sign of spine in support of good things…. but just a warning – i think i’ve been seeing recently a lot more effort on the part of the dems in congress to feed us good kabuki. so, i want good results and not just the appearance of good intentions before i’m willing to get too excited.
Selise, if the Dems fail to deliver, they’re screwed forever. Too many of us want to believe there is justice in this world — and it’s not just us ‘lefties’. Go look at jim Wallis’s Beliefnet.com; it looks like they’re as fed up with nasty thuggery as the rest of us.
Shorter Boehner: “Wah-wah-wah!! I’m gonna stomp my feet and c-c-cryyyyy! The Dems are meanies!! They’re meanies! Wahhh! And I have be up here wankering because Hastert couldn’t remain out in broad daylight, Cunningham’s in jail, Ney’s in jail, and Foley’s probably off eyeing some 16 year old boy… so now here I stand exposed, because the rest of the gang is either in jail, or on their way to jail… wah! wah! wah!!”
If the Dems don’t nail the hides of these thugs after all the sh*t they’ve pulled, watch the huge voter turnouts get ugly. So far, they’ve been great b/c people HOPE the Dems will do something. The time for inaction is gone.
Amen to that.
By the way, you have real promise as Boehner’s speech writer, keep up the good work ; )
and it’s not just us ‘lefties’.
That’s a fact. Speaking for myself, a rather long-term “hard rightie” who tends to disagree vigorously with the Democratic party platform. The GOP is a deep disappointment on many levels – and I’ve written that party off as useless.
may you have success in reclaiming your party from the crazies.
For all of our sakes cboldt, I look forward to the day when a sane Republican Party reemerges from the ashes of what the neocons have wrought. Single party rule in the long run is dangerous, no matter which party holds power. In the near term however, I think single party (Dem) rule will be essential to clean up the mess Bush has created. I just hope they do so. My biggest worry is they will pull up short, which will simply set up the next crisis further down the road.
just as i hope cboldt and other sane righties can take back their party…. i hope we are able to do something good with ours. imo both parties are pretty fucked up, but the one thing the dems have going for them is a few (way too few) leaders like feingold.
I am in the same boat! The two parties server to check each other, but what these idiots have done is to make a mockery of everything the Constitution stands for…
I pray that Madame Speaker will continue to shove her words down their respective throats. We might begin to see some Congress-critters change their tunes and get away from their lemming-like behavior.
These people don’t make a home of ashes. They’ll become Democrats (again) and rename themselves Wilsonians or Truman-Democrats or Scoop Jackson Democrats or Moynihan Democrats…
I think the best option for the country is for the House to not pass FISA today. Tension between the three branches is healthy.
I could not agree with you more. So they let it expire and poof, all the panic around this arbitrary deadline vanishes. They still get their one year grace period, we still have FISA for anything new, and hopefully rational consideration of the pending legislation will commence. I’m a dreamer, I know ; )
No matter their actions today, the proof of the leadership’s sincerity will be in the final bill. I’ll reserve judgment until then. But for now, I remain cautiously optimistic and deeply appreciative that Nancy is finally saying the right things, at least in her press conference.
I called my Repug Congresscritter’s office and just raised hell with them over the walkout. I compared it to a toddler throwing a tantrum. His defense was that it was important that they move on to FISA, my response was that they weren’t getting any closer to it by avoiding the current business. Do it, and move on.
Looks like the R’s are just “not voting” en masse?
The motion passes!
Contempt just passed 228 or so and only 30 against, with no Republicans.
I didn’t hear an H.Res.983 in that list. That’s the rule for consideration of FISA.
This is reminiscent of the Soviets marching their delegation out of the UN General Assembly right before the critical votes leading to the Korean War.
They are going to regret this tantrum…
More hissy kabuki from the Capital steps.
On CSPAN 1 now: Replay of repug news conf after they walked out
Remember Boehner, you are the MINORITY leader.
Boner: A political stunt to bring up contempt. Our number one responsibility is to protect America.
Have a test, see if we get bombed during the interim, fucking
jerks
Even if we do get bombed in the interim, it will still be entirely Bush’s fault as he loses nothing when PAA expires.
bushco has again and again used their incompetence as a justification for more power and more secrecy.
bushco has again and again used their incompetence as a justification for more power and more secrecy.
He’s playing the “fear” and “you guys are in control of the law” cards. IOW, he’s appealing to their egos as “elites” among the people, their willingness to make promises that are stupid (we’ll protect you, if you give us more power), on top of the general fear of random or targeted violence.
good point.
Fear strikes out?
Now if the rest of us can use their incompetence to get them removed from office. SIgh : ) I tell you, Congress does one nice thing (well, ok, two) and my imagination positively runs wild ; )
Jeebus Charlie Brown, slow down there before Lucy makes you throw your hip out again…..
Every example in the GOP presser describes an Article II power — no need for legislation.
Bush stars in “Out of Africa”?
Boner you are not the majority leader, get it? You lost in 2006
With all the discombobulated preening and posturing, coupled with the insanity, bizarre antics and crying, really, doesn’t the GOP remind you of Britney Spears?
Well, hell, maybe the American public will pay closer attention if it reminds them of Britney.
Gosh, that is quite an insult to Britney… At least she is starting to recognize how dysfunctional she is and getting help
Heh, well, my apologies to Ms. Spears. I have given some thought to your question last night. It is all lousy and sleazy etc., but unless it specifically violates either the church or SMU charter, or some binding agreement, which is hard to see how it would (other than in gross generalities that are unenforceable), I don’t see much avenue for relief. Hate to say that because I sympathize with not wanting the My Pet Goat collection at an otherwise fine university.
Thanks for taking the time to look at it…It is sad that they just don’t seem to think anything is sacred, or that anything could apply to them As for Ms Spears, she has a better chance of making something of herself than many of these Repuglicans…
This is one of the happiest days of 2008, I hope it lasts…
Senate caves, the house cashes in
I read the story about Bush saying he’d delay his trip to Africa because of the FISA/PAA bill (please let the door hit you, George) and wrote a long letter to the LA Times laying out the lies (and the truths, thanks to EW and others).
What a screwed-up little baby he is. (I liked this Sherffius cartoon from 11 Jan. Sums him up really nicely.)
Are Meyers and Bolton, now in contempt?
Right now on Cpan 3, Senate Intel Cmt.
wish my cable provider carried c-span3
bill moyers has a saying: an eagle needs both wings to fly.
wonder if the house is going to get to fisa today.
i’m sure they will if i get up off my ass and go run some errands.
c-span3: mike mcconnell on a fisa rant in his opening statement.
Jesus, what bullshit bills get considered. A bill commending Washington state for supporting veterans? Hell’s bells. It’s great and all but does that really deserve a friggin Congressional bill? How about ONLY legislating?
They should have passed FISA while the Rethugs were in the midst of their tantrum. They could have passed the House version for the conference with practically no “nay” votes.
They don’t think too quick, them democrats.
Teeny-tiny nit w/r/t:
The word Yarmouth probably meant to use is “tenets,” although there is great poetry in the idea that We the People are at all times the “tenants of the Constitution.” Returning the government to us is a snappy idea I’d back any old time.
wow.
i had to be gone, again, today. i just got back and am trying to catch up.
from what i’m getting here, i’m wondering if we can refer to this as the “2007 Valentine’s Day Massacre”. can we? huh? can we??????
oh.
and, IT’S ABOUT FRIGGGGGIN’ TIME!!!!!!
rethugs are whining SO BIG in BOTH chambers now.
LOL!
Ahh yes, Bradbury’s best judgement.
Didn’t we get a preview of that “best judgment” back in July of 06:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/…..ays-right/
Gee, I wish Nadler had popped that one out when he was talking to him and had asked him, ’so, if the President wanted to do Spanish Inquisition torture of an 11 yo, you’d write up a compliant opinion for that, too, bc the President is always right?’
Part of why Yarmuth head this so much (as a Kentuckian) is that he and Andrew Horne both fought for it. Yarmuth ended up winning the primary, and while Horne was “my guy” I was thrilled to have Yarmuth too. He’s great (and he was tough enough to do the unthinkable per Pelosi and Rahm – he actually went on the Colbert show AFTER the royal decree to stay off).
Until the end of last week/first of this week, it looked like we were going to have a shot at both Yarmuth in the House and HORNE in the Senate, as Horne was launching a Senate bid.
Then along came Chuck Schumer and his crew, telling Horne he would get no party support and practically rolling out the carpet to get Lunsford (Lieberman’s sleazier, more morally bereft, twin) to run. Horne then backed out of the race.
So now what we have is a McConnell wannabe running against McConnell. Horrible.
Lunsford jumped party lines (which he does from time to time) originally to support KY scandal ridden – staff pardoning – governor Ernie Fletcher against Ben Chandler in the Gov run. Lunsford, though, has lots of money. So he appeared in our gov primaries with Stumbo (the state ag who made the deal that let Fletcher waltz free) as his lt gov running mate – and the people of KY spoke loud and clear – NO LUNSFORD!
But now Schumer’s crew has shoved him down our throats again.
Thankfully, Yarmuth has $$ to help keep him safe.
ketchup time (we’ve been iced out here in West Ky)
cboldt@85
It’s pretty odd really. I kind of viewed myself as most Americans do – relatively moderate, although generally anti-wars of oppression from the Vietnam learning curve. I’ve been more socially liberal – voted Dem a lot, but also Repub a chunk. Many many many years back, I supported Lugar and even did some door knocks/door hangers for him (long long long time ago) I contributed to and voted for Warner (although also for Wilder).
Now, I look at the Republicans I used to be ok with and I’m just thoroughly sickened – and I look at Dems I looked to as “better” at first – and am ALSO thoroughly sickened.
The wonder is that Congress breaks into double digits on the approval front. Some of us who used to find things on both sides of the aisle to support can’t find anything on either side of the aisle these days.