Fire Rumsfeld, Jail Cheney, Impeach Bush!

Nay, do it not ye Dems of the new majorities.

However little doubt you may have that those criminal miscreants deserve such fates, the agenda of the 110th Congress must not and will not be consumed with recriminations, but rather with doing the necessary business of this nation which has been so woefully neglected over the last six years.

At this time, expedience must trump justice. The not-so-perilous Nancy Pelosi realizes it well, and in spite of the hue and cry from the right over her misperceived extremism, all indications are she gets it, and will successfully negotiate the balance between overplaying the Democrats' hand and governing too timidly.

Investigations will occur, and rightly so! But the emphasis will be (or should be) on uncovering corruption that has remained hidden, not on targeted witch hunts of particular individuals.

Front and center instead will be popular measures like raising the minimum wage, retracting the ban on negotiating prices with big pharmaceuticals, breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation, and finally enacting all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. "Drain the GOP swamp", Ms Pelosi, America won't find it so controversial.

As for the title actions of this post? Well this observer suspects Rumsfeld may see the writing on the wall and take care of the first himself by resigning without giving Bush a choice in the matter. Calls for his resignation or dismissal are already much broader than ever, coming from scarcely ideologically driven sources. Bringing our Vice President to justice for his lies and reckless policies may never happen. He will be shamed by history, however, when all is said and done, as will his boss who delegated his responsibilities in foreign policy to a naive band of fools whose hubris led to a destabilization of the Middle East which we will have to live with for years to come. I'm afraid the Dems don't have the magic glue for fixing that pot, much less the authority to do much if they did.

Still I will savor this moment, knowing that the repudiation of the power corrupt Republican leadership was shared by liberals, moderates, and conservatives alike. This is still, on balance, a conservative nation, but we learned last night that shutting out voices of reason from the other side can only last so long. I don't think Democrats will make the same mistake, at least not now. And perhaps conservatives will learn in the next two years that the principled cravings of progressive Democrats are not as out of touch with mainstream American values as they have been led to believe.

Keeping Bitterness at Bay

If we choose hope we are making a commitment to stave off bitterness. We cannot always succeed, and even when we do, we should be careful not to condemn the bitterness of others in the same way that we must speak out against violence, greed, and injustice. Good people who give up are not the enemy. Indeed bitterness and cynicism are often the byproducts of a former idealism which collided headlong with terrible realities.

Here I choose to celebrate the possibility of a better world, the fulfillment to be had in the effort to bring it about, and the connections and friendships made along the journey. Recently I've been most inclined to shake my head in dismay at the news which is most reported on, and the apparent absence of a coordinated and hopeful uprising against the tide of corruption and greed which seems to be strangling our government and the corporate media from which most of us receive the news of the day. This dismay has unfortunately played a part in the absence of posts here, and for that I apologize - especially to those of you whose kind words have kept me from abandoning the project altogether.

It turns out that one doesn't have to hunt too hard, especially in this information age, to find seeds of hope in the fields of despair, and so I will endeavor to take up the task again, if not daily at least on a weekly basis. Now some on the left have taken pleasure from the continuing deterioration of Bush's popularity, and while I confess that the dismal poll numbers give me hope that a larger share of us are no longer fooled by the spin, mere dissatisfaction does not a movement make. We need positive messages for positive change.

When the immigration reform protests and marches took place, my initial reaction was why does this issue mobilize so many while similar efforts on behalf of peace or fairness to workers or poverty relief or saving our environment can't seem to get traction, when those causes have been so utterly betrayed by our government and our media. As much sympathy as I felt toward the very real human beings threatened with felony status for their honest efforts to improve their lives, and the likely trickle down ethnic discrimination against legal residents whose heritage groups them in the minds of the prejudiced with those who "steal our jobs", the complexity of immigration issues cuts both ways, and I longed for such activism on other fronts.

Paul Loeb writes compellingly on this issue and delivers a hopeful epilog to his analysis:

Immigration politics are complicated-- flooding this or any country with cheap labor can and will drive down wages, especially when unions are being busted and undocumented workers live in fear of deportation. If we don't create enough global justice so desperate people don't continue leaving their homes in search of a glimmer of hope, then all but the wealthiest will succumb to the worldwide race to the bottom. But as the signs at the march reminded us, we're all children of immigrants, except for the Native Americans. And those marching and chanting reminded those of us who are legal because our ancestors immigrated earlier on that even in the land of Microsoft, we are tied with the people who pick our crops, build our houses, clean our office buildings, tied in what King called "an inescapable network of mutuality...a single garment of destiny."
...
Why can't we have these kinds of marches to challenge the war or global warming, or all of Bush's arrogant reign? Anti-war marches were huge before Bush went into Iraq, since then far more disappointing, even as the polls steadily shift. Maybe it's because those more comfortable sit behind our computers too much and believe we can do all politics with the click of a mouse.. Maybe the issues feel abstract or intransigent. Unless you have a son or daughter over serving it doesn't hit home nearly as much as the raw callousness of Congressman Sensenbrenner's plan to make 12 million people instant felons, as well as anyone who gives them water or food, education or medical care. ...

Here the stakes were clear, immediate, and people turned out despite the risk of being deported, because if Sensenbrenner's bill had gone through, as might well have happened without these marches and outcries, then life would have gotten instantly far harsher and crueler. So for those of us who didn't march but claim to act for justice, we need to heed the lives of those these voices represent, and do what we can to ensure they are heard. We also need to link this issue of fundamental human dignity to all the threats that make it difficult for people to simply live and flourish on this earth. Maybe by finding their voice and courage, those who marched in America these past weeks can teach the rest of us how to come out of our own shadows and fears and join across our own divides.

I've come close to chiming in on other issues. When Rumsfeld came under increasing heat (Isn't it simply obvious that the whole lot of them should have long since resigned in shame?), when Bush changes his mouthpiece by replacing McClelland (Who really believes that a different spin has any positive effect on a failed policy), when mainstream news reports, most recently 60 Minutes, yet another voice corroborating the obviously established fact that the Administration chose intelligence to fit its policy to attack Iraq rather than the other way around (How is this an iota different than reporting that was readily available on-line before the last election?).

But discontent with the Bush administration is nothing new, and it was getting plenty of attention, even in the mainstream media. Piling on just adds to cynicism, and shouldn't this site be about providing a positive alternative?

And so it was that I was much heartened by David Brancaccio's interview last week with singer/activist Peter Gabriel. In spite of being involved with a project highlighting many of the worst cases of human abuse, mistreatment, and genocide, Gabriel remains committed to a brighter future which seeks to curb such atrocities. Brancaccio contrasted Gabriel's hope, with the bitterness which Kurt Vonnegut exhibited on a previous interview on NOW. I recalled my disappointment with that episode which I had been looking forward to at the time. Vonnegut, like Twain, who became very bitter in his later days, can be forgiven his bleak outlook given his years of keen observation, but his bleak vision for our future has its only utility in the possibility of waking up some to alarming trends. Twain and Vonnegut may be proved right in the long run - certainly it is easy to imagine a falling apart as has happened all too often in many human societies - but it is a practical matter that I continue to put my ideals first and believe in the possibilities while keeping that bitterness at bay.

We need each other's help in this effort. Again thank you to those whose kind words have helped me recently.

Just a Silly Daydream

Family obligations kept me from listening to the State of the Union address last week. So I've made up my own.

Bush supporters complain of Bush detractors that there is nothing he could say that would make them happy. And you know what, they're close to right. The actions of this administration have been so consistent in many ways, that mere words alone could hardly assuage the anguish we feel at this administration's constant assault on so many of the values we hold dear.

I began contemplating what sort of speech Bush could have given that would have earned him my respect. If he made an utter about-face and gave a speech that one might expect from Ted Kennedy, proclaiming a new liberal day in America, I just wouldn't believe him. No, he would have to show me something different, but somehow square it with his abysmal record. Here, perhaps, is the speech which would have finally earned him my respect:

My fellow Americans,

The state of our Union remains strong on many fronts, with high employment, manageable inflation, the strongest defense in the world, and most importantly a diverse citizenry, comprised of millions of exceptional individuals whose abilities, inventiveness, compassion, and industriousness embody the hope for generations to come for American prosperity and idealism. Beneath these strengths, however, I must report that there lie some mighty troubles, which must be faced squarely and addressed aggressively before they eat away at the fabric of all that is great in our republic. I come to you tonight humbly acknowledging that I must share in the blame for these underlying afflictions which threaten the future that we all want for our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

When I came before you as a candidate for this office six years ago, declaring myself as a compassionate conservative who sought to be a uniter, not a divider, I meant it. I have personally known liberals, conservatives, and moderates, all of whom share the desire to do what is best for themselves, for their loved ones, and for their fellow citizens. Working together I believed we could find a way to move this country forward.

However, I seriously misjudged the extent to which my particular tactics for stimulating the economy would draw the ire of those who, also earnestly, believe those tactics to be severely misguided and injurious to less advantaged Americans. When my dear friends, who are the captains of industry, explain to me how cutting taxes, especially on inherited wealth and investment, is key to rejuvenating the economy, I believed them and I still do. But when billionairres such as Bill Gates, Sr join the chorus of liberal and Democratic voices who point out that such tax cuts have the immediate result of increasing the gap between the wealthiest Americans and those of less means, I can understand the angry resentment which has divided rather than united America.

These same captains of industry, fine people who love their children and relish clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, assured me that their industries could do a much smarter job of regulating themselves. They explained how so many of the environmental laws were burdensome, damaged the economy, and put us at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. Of course, I believed them, and I still do. Industry is smarter about regulating itself than a bureaucratically laden government ever can be. But I misjudged the grave distrust that many Americans have for allowing industry to police themselves. Very reasonable clear-headed thinkers really believe there is a danger that the lure of profits might coerce industry-appointed regulators to endanger our environment. I had intended to unite us, but instead I have divided America.

When terrorists struck their fateful blow on September 11 of 2001, we were united in our grief for those who were lost or whose lives were awfully changed forever. We were united in horror that anyone could so delight in such wanton destruction. However, I seriously underestimated the passion with which a large minority of Americans revere certain freedoms and their privacy. Our secret wiretapping program, for instance, was a common sense precaution against the terrorists gaining the upper hand. But after it was revealed, we discovered that it, as with other elements of the PATRIOT Act, was seen as a terrible invasion upon the liberties of ordinary Americans who had no connection with terrorists. My administration lost the trust of millions of Americans doing what we thought was necessary in our defense, and some really reasonable people are telling me that those measures are illegal. I had intended to unite us, but instead I have divided America.

When a brutal dictator in an oil-rich nation in the Middle East is believed to be accruing weapons of mass destruction, and my good friends who conceived of the Project for the New American Century assured me that his overthrow can only be accomplished by American initiative and is critical to our planet's future, I believed them. I anticipated that the American people would be united in their resolve to crush his dictatorship and attempt to bring Democracy to this fragile but important corner of our planet. After it was discovered that the weapons did not exist, and that the cost of the war in lives of our own men and women, in the lives of innocent civilians in the area, in the trust of the global community, and in dollars were all exponentially larger than we anticipated, the anger which would be felt toward our government for making that decision was beyond what any of us thought possible. Cindy Sheehan personified for many the heartfelt revulsion that many Americans had toward the deployment of our troops for what we believed to be a noble cause, but what for many was a foolish boondoggle. I had intended to unite us, but instead I have divided America.

When nature ripped savagely into the heart of our Gulf coast, Americans responded heroically to assist their neighbors rendered homeless. I responded with great faith in my good friends who I trusted to get the job done. I discovered that competence must trump loyalty though, when lives are at stake, and our government lost the trust of more of our citizens, as our treasury took another hit at a time when it could ill afford that.

When the combined effects of all these policies, nobly undertaken: Cutting taxes; Funding a protracted war; Passing health care reform; responding to disaster, but too late and without proper planning, combined to convert a huge surplus into a huge deficit, I find that even conservatives who have long supported my policies are questioning the wisdom of pushing forward without directly confronting this deficit. Their solutions of ending programs dear to liberals is in direct conflict with liberal solutions of ending the tax cuts for the wealthy and reducing non-essential military expenditures. I had intended to unite us, but instead I have divided America.

My good friend, and partner in this enterprise, Dick Cheney, has failed to agree with me that a dramatic change in leadership is required at this time, and so effective immediately, sadly, I am dismissing him from his post as Vice-President. Told of my plans, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld has already tendered his resignation. And effective tomorrow, because my desire to unite rather than divide America is truly sincere, I will resign my office of President of the United States, and as provided by the Constitution, Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, will take the oath of office. Please give to him your support and prayers as we all work together to preserve the dream that is America.

God bless America!

All right, all right, it doesn't really square with Bush's past - his refusal to admit error, what we know that he really DID have to know about, and gosh in places he sure sounds a lot more like Walker Willingham than George Bush - but hey, it's just a silly daydream.

Alit... Shhhhhh!: War, Torture, Corruption, Deceit

The Democrats got an early Christmas gift from Republican Senator Arlen Specter, who correctly postponed hearings on the Samuel Alito SCOTUS nomination until January, rebuffing the anxious White House, saying "We have to do it right. We can't do it fast."

I agree with others who believe the GOP is in no position right now to be using the "nuclear option", so politically the Dems are in a great position to filibuster. But the process is important, and it seems to be clear that Alito is a thoughtful and decent man, as well as an intelligent constitutional scholar. The extent to which he would move the judicial philosophy of the court to the right, however, is a genuine concern to liberals and some moderates, and Senator Leahy, the ranking democrat on the Judiciary Committee will not rule out rejecting Alito on ideological grounds.

Two paragraphs, after saying "Shhhhhh!", I'm still writing about Alito. But the break until January gives Democrats more time to focus the nation on the Iraq war, use of torture, corruption, cronyism, and deceit, and that's what they should do in lieu of making more public comments about the Supreme Court nominee. Cheney's support is down to 19% in the latest poll, so I expect Bush's support to fall further. As much as I prefer the higher road, where people of disparate philosophies work together to hammer out sensible policies, the demonstrated unwillingness of the Bush White House or Republican Congressional leadership to engage with their adversaries, combined with their increasingly apparent criminality makes it clear to me that the best course is to pile on and do everything possible to discredit them and render them ineffective.

So I say it's time to be quiet about Alito, and make as much noise as possible about the outrages perpetrated on Americans and the world by Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, DeLay, Scanlon, Abramoff, etc. Reasonable Republicans like Specter can help us against the religious extremists, McCain against the torture promoters, Grassley against the too cozy relationship between Corporate heads and government regulators. Fully discrediting the current leadership will give an opportunity for reasonable voices to rise within the Republican party. We'll need those voices to be there if and when the Democrats take the reins of control back. For now, I will openly long for that day, and add my voice to the rising crescendo of dissent.

Libby Replaced by Two Who Are Unfit

While most of the press dutifully follows the important Supreme Court nomination, someone is paying attention to our administration's willful disregard for common sense and decency, by replacing indicted insider Libby with two other insiders linked to spreading misinformation and authoring pro-torture policies. It's a pretty sure bet that if the truth were all exposed, it would be a lot more than just Scooter Libby confined to a prison cell. I'm all for due process, but there are some who have been executed for less egregious offenses than Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld, to name a few are probably guilty of. Those who have inside knowledge of any crimes have a patriotic duty to expose them to the American public. There seem to be a whole lot of people who have gotten it backwards, and are endangering our national security in the name of protecting it.

Thanks to Basie! for keeping his eye on the ball.

Cindy's Own Words

There is a lot of misapprehension out there on both the left and the right about what Cindy Sheehan is all about. Like Rosa Parks, Cindy did not just happen into this role on the national stage, but entered it quite willingly and intentionally. The awful circumstance of the death of her son gave her access to prominence in the same way that the awful circumstance of government sanctioned racial humiliation gave Parks access to prominence. But these activists both took bold and courageous action to leverage their access to awaken the nation's conscience. People in America are celebrated for making the best of a bad situation in turning a negative circumstance into a great personal success story. How much more noble it is to turn one's own tragedy into a wake up call to the nation to avert further tragedy!

Previous words of Cindy Sheehan's have been taken out of context to suggest that she was grateful to the President for having met with her some weeks after her son's death, and that her current activism represents some 180 degree shift from her previous stance. She was respectfully acknowledging that Bush at least did meet with her and her family, while not making an immediate stink about his aloof and disrespectful attitude during that meeting. But she was always against this war, and her son's insistence on going, when she tried to dissuade him, she attributes to his desire to stick by his buddies, not a belief that the war was a just cause. As Cindy recently wrote:

The VERY LAST THING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS IS: Why do the right wing media so assiduously scrutinize the words of a grief filled mother and ignore the words of a lying president?

Here are links to more of Cindy's own words:

Letter to Rumsfeld, Jan 2005 & speech to Riverside Church
Letter to Bush, Nov 2004 (scroll down)
On Being Public
Preparing to Go
Speech to Veterans for Peace in Dallas
Day 1 Diary
Day 3 Diary
Day 4 Diary

Even more links and info

I may not agree with everything that Cindy writes, but hers is a personal tragedy which she by force of will is transforming into a national news story, and I absolutely salute her for her courage.

UPDATE: Thanks to Bohemian Mama for reminding me to include the following links:
To help Cindy, go here.

To support all the Gold Star Families for Peace, go here.

Blessed are the Alternative Newsmakers

Suddenly unafraid of more frequent press conferences, Bush is providing much more fodder for his critics. As reported at CNN, the irony of the juxtaposition of Bush's defense of prisoner treatment at Guantanamo (prisoners often held years without charges) against his concern about due process in Russia for a multi-millionaire convicted of fraud and tax evasion is mind boggling. Whether or not Mikhail Khodorkovsky received a fair trial, the very fact that Bush would call out this wealthy individual's case while defending policies which deny due process to hundreds of detainees speaks volumes about where his sympathies lie.

When Bill Moyers addressed an audience in Seattle, he called the media on their unwillingness to report anything unless some newsmaker spoke about it. Whatever happened to investigative journalism? Well thank goodness groups such as Amnesty International still have status as newsmakers, else our leaders wouldn't get ANY of the tough questions that our democracy deserves that they have to answer. In the absence of an independent, inquisitive press, it is incumbent on the rest of us to become the newsmakers.

President Bush, why do you hate America?

[Update: OK, that last was a throwaway line inspired by the headline of the CNN article. Bush and Cheney are so quick to accuse those who make the charges of abuse as America haters when clearly they have no such information. The point is that it is at least as reasonable to accuse them of the same in the face of evidence that their policies trample on what are thought of by many of us as American values.

They would also like to leave the impression that Amnesty International is basking in 'trash America' talk, but a visit to their home page, shows that they readily move on to other international cases around the world, not at all tied to any ideological bias. If you hunt, however, the charges related to Guantanamo are hardly thrown out casually, as this comprehensive report proves.

No doubt what got Cheney riled was being one of the persons called out as deserving of investigation, and if warranted by such, arrest when traveling to another state.

05/26/05 "Cox News" - Bob Dart - WASHINGTON - Amnesty International USA urged foreign governments Wednesday to use international law to investigate Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other alleged American "architects of torture" at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and other prisons where detainees suspected of ties to terrorist groups have been interrogated.
"If those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them," said William Shulz, executive director of the U.S. branch of the international human rights agency.

But Bush would rather complain about possible lack of due process for a Russian multi-millionaire.]

Engage or Provoke?

People who mostly agree about what is wrong and what should be done to fix it, often disagree about the approach to use in effecting change. My personal preference for engagement over provocation doesn't mean I believe there's no time for provocation, or that those who prefer a provocative course cannot be quite effective. Indeed, often they are more effective, certainly in garnering more attention, but over the long haul BOTH approaches are essential when the forces of dominion have no scruples about how they enforce their will.

I have just added two links to my sidebar, one from each approach. The Conversation Cafe which is slowly spreading from my home state of Washington where it was started, is strictly about engagement, and carefully honors a diversity of opinion. In fact it is incorrect to categorize it as an agent of any particular change other than a return to civility.

The graphic on the front page of the Project for the Old American Century (at time of writing), in contrast is very provocative, and I'd probably not be comfortable wearing it on a t-shirt. Nonetheless, it makes a point, is an attention-getter, and comes far closer to the mark than most Americans want to believe. I tend to be cautious in what I'm willing to accuse our leaders of, when it is clear to me that even when exercising such caution it is painfully obvious they need to be ousted from power. We somehow missed our opportunity (or perhaps it was stolen

from us) last November, so with Bush as a lame duck there is a legitimate question as to whether simply replacing him next time around with a less offensive administration can heal the deep wounds which have been inflicted on us and the world. More on that later.

My preference for engagement comes in large measure because I am keenly aware that plenty of decent people, whether they voted for Bush or Kerry or someone else, are very worth reaching out to, and are alienated by such provocation. Do I believe that Bush and Cheney and Rove and Rumsfeld and DeLay and Frist are liars motivated variously by vanity, greed, power lust, convenience, and meanness? Well frankly, I do believe that. But I certainly don't believe it of all Republicans or all conservatives. And I stop short of calling the aforementioned politicians 'evil', because I agree with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties, either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil.

How can we expect those good-hearted individuals of a conservative bent not to dismiss all those who disagree as irrelevant and even mean if they are so dismissed by most of those of a liberal bent? Without bridges, no change will happen; for a small minority screaming foul against a monied powerful minority will be squashed, unless it makes important alliances.

But let's return to the conundrum of the majority of the American voters having (ostensibly) returned to power the very administration whose hubris and militarism has alienated much of the civilized world, with no apparent opportunity to finally vote them out. I'm serious when I state that I think we would be better off right now if Bush could and would run again in 2008. With the current makeup of Congress, impeachment seems far-fetched, but that's the tonic recommended by former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, in his recent article America's Reputation in Tatters, which begins:

George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America's reputation. It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America's reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the U.S. America can redeem itself only by holding Bush accountable.

He continues in scathing fashion, and I can only marvel at the irony that someone associated with the last Presidency which took me to the local federal building in protest against ill-conceived military intervention in Central America, is more provocative than I am in lambasting the current administration.