Steny Hoyer

Friday's House Judiciary Hearing on Impeachment: A Victory and a Challenge

dlindorff — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:34:40 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The dramatic hearing on presidential crimes and abuses of power
held on Friday by the House Judiciary Committee was both a staged
farce, and at the same time, a powerful demonstration of the power of a
grassroots movement in defense of the Constitution. It was at once both
testimony to the cowardice and self-inflicted impotence of Congress and
of the Democratic Party that technically controls that body, and to the
enormity of the damage that has been wrought to the nation’s democracy
by two aspiring tyrants in the White House.

As Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the committee, made clear
more than once during the six-hour session, this was “not an
impeachment hearing, however much many in the audience might wish it to
be” He might well have added that he himself was not the fierce
defender of the Constitution and of the authority of Congress that he
once was before gaining control of the Judiciary Committee, however
much his constituents, his wife, and Americans across the country might
wish him to be.

At the same time, while the hearing was strictly limited to the
most superficial airing of Bush administration crimes and misdemeanors,
the fact that the session—technically an argument in defense of 36
articles of impeachment filed in the House over the past several months
by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)--was nonetheless a major victory for the
impeachment movement. It happened because earlier in the month, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has sworn since taking control of the
House in November 2006, that impeachment would be “off the table”
during the 110th Congress, called a hasty meeting with Majority Leader
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Rep. Conyers, and Rep. Kucinich, and called
for such a limited hearing.

It was no coincidence that shortly before Pelosi’s backdown, peace
activist and Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan announced that her campaign
had collected well over the 10,000 signatures necessary to qualify for
listing on the ballot as an independent candidate for Congress against
Pelosi in the Speaker’s home district in San Francisco. Sheehan has
been an outspoken advocate of impeaching both Bush and Cheney. “Pelosi
is trying to throw a bone to her constituents by allowing a hearing on
impeachment,” said Sheehan, who came to Washington, DC to attend. “It’s
just like her finally stating publicly that Bush’s presidency is a
failure—something it has taken her two years to come to, but which
we’ve been saying for years.”

So determined were Pelosi and Conyers to limit the scope and
intensity of the hearing that they acceded to a call for Republicans on
the Judiciary Committee to adhere to Thomas Jefferson’s Rules of the
House, which prohibit any derogatory comments about the President,
which was interpreted by Chairman Conyers as meaning no one, including
witnesses or members of the committee, could suggest that Bush had lied
or deceived anyone. Since a number of Rep. Kucinich’s proposed articles
of impeachment specifically charge the president with lying to Congress
and the American People, this made for some comic moments, with witness
Bruce Fein, a former assistant attorney general under former President
Ronald Reagan, to say he would reference his listing of crimes to the
“resident” of the White House.

In the end, the rule imposing a gag on calling the president a
criminal fell by the wayside, with witness Vincent Bugliosi. A former
Los Angeles deputy district attorney, accusing Bush of being guilty of
the murder of over 4000 American soldiers and of hundreds of thousands
of innocent Iraqi civilians because he had “lied” the country into an
illegal and unnecessary war, and with committee member Shiela Jackson
Lee (D-TX) suggesting that the president may have committed treason in
invading Iraq, and that he appeared to be preparing to do it again with
an unprovoked invasion of Iran.

Conyers also acquiesced in a Republican effort to minimize public
monitoring and involvement in the hearing, allowing the minority party
to fill most of the available seats in the hearing room with office
staffers who showed little interest in the proceedings. Only a few
dozen of the hundreds of pro-impeachment activists who had come to the
Rayburn Office Building at 7 am in order to get seats in the Judiciary
Committee hearing room were allowed in, with the rest having to remain
in the hall or go to two remote “overflow” rooms to watch the
proceedings on a TV hookup. Conyers also went along with a call by
Republican members of the committee to have some of those who did make
it into the hearing ejected simply for wearing buttons on their shirts
calling for impeachment (the Republican members referred to these as
“signs”), though such small personal tokens are routinely allowed in
congressional hearing rooms.

It was clear that this was to be a tightly controlled and strictly limited hearing.

It was also clear that it was intended to go nowhere.

At one point, after hearing witnesses like Fein, Bugliosi, former
representative and Nixon impeachment committee member Elizabeth
Holtzman, former Salt Lake City mayor and impeachment activist Rocky
Anderson, former House Clinton impeachment manager Bob Barr, former
Watergate Committee counsel and current senior counsel of the Brennan
Center for Justice Frederick A.O. Schwartz, and Elliott Adams,
president of the board of Veterans for Peace, lay out the
administration’s crimes and abuses of power—which included charges of
usurping the legislative powers of Congress, violating international
treaties, war crimes, lying to Congress, an illegal war, felony
violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth
Amendment, defying Congressional subpoenas, obstruction of justice and
more, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chair of the Constitution
subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, appeared convinced that the
abuses were real and serious.

But Nadler, who for two years has been a major obstacle on the
Judiciary Committee to any efforts to move impeachment to a formal
hearing, said, “No president has been removed from office through
impeachment.” He asked the witnesses, “How would you approach
impeachment today so it would be a viable option?”

Former Rep. Holtzman responded, “The real remedy to a president who
believes he is above the law is impeachment. There is no running away
from that.” She said, “An impeachment inquiry, handled fairly, could
work. Maybe I’m a cockeyed optimist, but I believe it could work.”

The basic point, made by Holtzman, by Fein and by many others,
including this writer, is that worrying about the political opposition
to impeachment, both in the House, and in the Senate, not to mention
among the broader public, is completely wrongheaded. Even when
impeachment articles were first filed against Nixon, the public and the
bulk of the Congress were against the idea. It was during the hearings
that the tide turned, as evidence of malfeasance, criminality and abuse
of power became evident through hearing testimony. The same would
happen in the case of President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney. Most
Americans don’t even know that the president made up evidence to
justify the war against Iraq out of whole cloth. They don’t know what
the Geneva Conventions are with regard to torture. They don’t know why
Congress passed the FISA act, which Bush has been feloniously violating
to spy on them (it was passed because Nixon was using the National
Security Agency to spy on Americans without judicial warrants!). They
don’t know the Bush has been refusing to enact laws passed by the
Congress. Public hearings by an impeachment panel would make all these
high crimes and misdemeanors clear on national TV to all sentient
Americans. Moreover, as Holtzman pointed out, the president would not
be able to use the claim of “executive privilege” to withhold testimony
from aides in an impeachment inquiry, the way he has done when they
have been subpoenaed by other House and Senate committees. Impeachment
would be about violations of the very executive actions he would be
claiming privilege on. As well, an impeachment committee, unlike any
other committee of the Congress, is specifically sanctioned and
empowered in the Constitution, meaning that even strict
“constructionist” Federalists on the bench would have a hard time
backing presidential obstruction.

As Holtzman noted, “There is no executive privilege in impeachment,
because refusing to testify is itself an impeachable offense.”

Committee Republicans, aided by two law professors they had brought
in to testify, Stephen Presser of Northwestern University School of Law
and Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason University School of Law, tried to
argue that impeachment was only meant for crimes in which the official,
or the president, was seeking personal gain. This nonsense was knocked
down by most of the speakers, who quoted numerous founders who made it
clear that what high crimes referred to were actions—even taken with
the noblest of intentions—that undermined the Constitution or abused
the powers of the office. As Rep. Nadler said, “Impeachment has nothing
to do with intentions or with good faith. Impeachment has to do with
abuse of power which weakens the balance of power.”

In the end, the hearing petered out, taking no action of any
kind—exactly the result that Pelosi, Hoyer and Conyers cynically
intended.

Now it is up to the public and the impeachment movement to call
their bluff and take impeachment to the next level. Noting that even
Rep. Conyers ended the hearing by saying, “We are not done yet, and we
do not intend to go away until we achieve the accountability that
Congress is entitled to and that the American people deserve,” Rep.
Kucinich and five other co-sponsors of his articles of impeachment
(Robert Wexler, Tammy Baldwin, Keith Ellison, Maurice Hinchey, Sheila
Jackson-Lee, and Hank Johnson) are calling on all Americans to contact
their representatives (202-224-3121) and urge them to join in
co-sponsoring those articles and in calling for a formal impeachment
hearing.

They are also calling on everyone to contact their local and
national media, nearly all of whom have blacked out news of
impeachment. Incredibly, the New York Times, for example, has not even
reported on Friday’s hearing, even as a news “brief.” Those news
organizations, like the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer,
that did report on the hearings did so only in short, inside articles.
Though the hearing was aired in full on C-Span (and is still available for download), many Americans don’t even know it happened.

Time is short, but even at this late date, it would be a simple
matter to impeach the president on some issues. As several of Friday’s
witnesses pointed out, President Bush has essentially dared Congress to
act, admitting that he openly violated the FISA law—a felony, and
openly admitting that he has refused to enact laws passed by the
Congress, claiming a power—unitary executive authority—not even
mentioned in the Constitution. He has openly admitted to having known
about, and approved, “enhanced interrogation techniques” devised by his
subordinates—techniques like waterboarding which clearly violate the
Geneva Conventions and US law. No hearings would be required to
establish these high crimes and misdemeanors. They could simply be
voted on by an Impeachment Committee and sent to the full House for a
vote.

Even if there were no time for a Senate trial, the simple act of
impeaching the president for one or more abuses of power would serve
notice on future presidents that future such abuses would not be
tolerated. Failure to do so, and allowing this administration to leave
office unimpeached, would send the opposite message: that Congress is
no longer a co-equal branch of government, but is merely a consultative
body, at best, and that a president is in effect a dictator.

That Pelosi buckled and permitted a hearing on impeachable crimes
by the Bush/Cheney administration is a major victory for the
impeachment movement, but it must not be the end of the line.
Impeachment activists need to now redouble their efforts to make
Congress do its Constitutional duty, and initiate a formal impeachment
proceeding.

As former Republican representative Bob Barr, now the Libertarian
candidate for president, told Friday’s hearing, “We had a nuclear clock
during the Cold War. In the ‘90s we had a debt clock. Now we have a
Constitution Clock.”

That clock is getting close to midnight, and it is ticking.
_____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and
columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s
Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is
available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Victory on Wiretapping!

Bob Fertik — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:15:46 -0400

Thanks to your emails (over 58,000!) and calls, House Democrats once again stood up to Bush!

House Democrats stood up to endless televised rants by Bush, lying TV ads against key freshmen, and bullshit news articles and editorials throughout the Corporate Media.

Instead, Democrats carefully wrote a bill that will let telecom giants try to defend themselves against lawsuits by giving judges the power to review White House secrets.

Of course the battle isn't over. The House bill goes back to the Senate, where Jello Jay Rockefeller will once again try to gut the bill, and then to a conference committee full of BushDemocrats. But if House Democrats remain resolute and united - and we in the Netroots keep up the pressure - we can win this battle.

The key to victory in the House was genuine teamwork by Democrats!

The bill was co-sponsored by House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers and House Intelligence chair Sylvester Reyes, who presented a united front - unlike the Senate, where Intelligence chair Jay Rockefeller sabotaged Judiciary chair Pat Leahy. And the complex legislative process was carefully managed by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Also, as mcjoan writes,

Particularly deserving of thanks, though, are those Freshman Dems who would not be intimidated by everything being thrown at them by the Republicans--the robocalls to their constituents saying they were with the terrorists, the deceitful and inflammatory Defense of Democracy's crazy television ads. Particularly of note are Mike Arcuri who managed the Rule on this vote, and Nancy Boyda, Carol Shea-Porter and others who stood on the floor during these debates and strongly stood up for our civil liberties. You can show your support for them here.

21 BushDemocrats tried to sabotage the effort, but Jane and Christy at FireDogLake launched a counterattack by raising money for ads against them. In the end, all but 6 BushDemocrats (Dan Boren-OK, Chris Carney-PA, Jim Cooper-TN, Tim Holden-PA, Nick Lampson-TX, and Heath Shuler-NC) tucked their tails between their legs and voted with the real Democrats. A key vote was Leonard Boswell (IA), whose deathbed conversion was motivated by primary challenger Ed Fallon.

Glenn Greenwald is right on target as always:

"It's hard not to believe that there's not at least some significant sea change reflected by this. They have seen that they can defy the President even on matters of Terrorism, and the sky doesn't fall in on them. Quite the opposite: an outspoken opponent of telecom amnesty, warrantless eavesdropping and the Iraq War was just elected to the House from Denny Hastert's bright red district, and before that, Donna Edwards ousted long-time incumbent Al Wynn by accusing him of being excessively complicit with the Bush agenda.

Dumbest Democrat: Hoyer or Pelosi?

lynmarenjensen — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:12:40 -0400

I don't think Steny Hoyer is the dumbest Democrat in history. I think Nancy Pelosi is. As proof, I submit her, "If anyone can prove why Bush should be impeached" BS. If she doesn't know, then she has got to be the dumbest person in Washington DC at least.

Is Steny Hoyer the Stupidest Democrat in HISTORY?

Bob Fertik — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:26:48 -0400

Paul Kiel found this astonishing AP story:

A top Democratic leader opened the door Tuesday to granting U.S. telecommunications companies retroactive legal immunity for helping the government conduct electronic surveillance without court orders, but said the Bush administration must first detail what those companies did.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said providing the immunity will likely be the price of getting President Bush to sign into law new legislation extending the government's surveillance authority. About 40 pending lawsuits name telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping laws. Democrats introduced a draft version of the new law Tuesday _ without the immunity language.

"We have not received documentation as to what in fact was done, for which we've been asked to give immunity," Hoyer said.

If this report is accurate, Steny Hoyer has just proved that he is the stupidest person in the Democratic Party alive today - and perhaps for all time.

As we all know, George Bush and his subordinates have broken the law repeatedly - perhaps thousands of times, perhaps millions, perhaps even billions - by illegally capturing the phone calls and emails of American citizens without a warrant. Under FISA, the penalty for each violation is a fine up to $10,000, up to five years in jail, or both.

George Bush personally authorized these massive illegal wiretaps through executive orders at least 30 times.

If George Bush were prosecuted, he'd spend the rest of his life in jail. If Democrats wanted to impeach Bush, they'd have a slam-dunk case.

(Of course Democrats don't have the smoking-gun evidence of Bush's crimes in hand. Why not? Because Bush refuses to give it to them, even though they started asking for it two years ago (under then-Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter) when the NY Times first exposed the scandal. But all they need to do to get the evidence is enforce their subpoenas through Inherent Contempt (locking up stonewalling officials in a DC jail like they do to anti-Bush protesters) or starting impeachment hearings, which would make enforcement of the subpoenas by Federal courts easier.)

In other words, Democrats have Bush over a barrel - or as they say in Texas, they have him by the balls.

So what does Steny Hoyer want to do with this unbelievable leverage?

He could use it for many things. For example, he could tell Bush to bring our troops safely home from Iraq now or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA.

He could tell Bush to appoint a Special Prosecutor to prosecute the hundreds of billions in corrupt contracts to his cronies from Iraq to the Gulf Coast or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA.

He could tell Bush to de-Bushify the executive branch by firing every Michael Brown and Monica Goodling or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA.

He could tell Bush to provide universal health care, stop global warming, and fix all our crumbling schools, roads, bridges, and levees or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA.

He could tell Bush to cut taxes on working families by raising taxes on the rich or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA.

Get the picture?

Now there's one crucial assumption in this argument - that Bush actually cares about being impeached or going to prison. Because if he doesn't care, then he'll cheerfully accept impeachment and prison rather than meet Democratic demands.

And that's where Hoyer's insane idea of granting immunity to telephone companies comes into play.

If Bush doesn't care about impeachment or prison, the executives of the telephone companies sure as hell do care about their civil and criminal liability for violating FISA, because each of them could be fined and imprisoned for each violation their companies committed.

And the millions of shareholders of the telephone companies sure as hell do care because their companies could be bankrupted by FISA civil suits.

And between the executives and shareholders of the telephone companies, they could damn well persuade Bush to accept whatever terms the Democrats demand.

So with all of this incredible leverage in the palm of his hands, what is Hoyer proposing to do with it?

He wants to use it to get Bush to sign a bill that no one in America wants Democrats to pass or Bush to sign!!!

The American people are perfectly happy with FISA as it existed until Democrats gutted it in August by passing the Protect Wiretappers Act under the false threat of a terrorist attack - which itself was a criminal act by the Bush Administration.

But while the August law was loathsome, its only saving grace was a 6 month expiration date, at which point the strict terms of FISA would again become the law. So Americans would be much better off if Congress did nothing now and simply let the Protect Wiretappers Act expire.

But instead of doing nothing, Hoyer wants to get on his knees to beg Bush to sign a bill that nobody wants, and use his ace-in-the-hole to make him sign it!

Steny Hoyer practiced law for 15 years. If he doesn't understand the leverage he has in his hands, he should not only be thrown out of Congress - he should be tarred and feathered by every freedom-loving voter in America.

And if Congressional Democrats support Hoyer's insanity, they should meet the very same fate.

Steny Hoyer Attacks His Democratic Base

Bob Fertik — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:10:26 -0400

Nancy Pelosi is the "Speaker of the House," and is therefore supposed to speak for all House members, Democrats and Republicans. By her very title, she's not supposed to be excessively partisan - although former House Speaker Newt Gingrich certainly never behaved that way.

But one step down the Democratic hierarchy from Pelosi is a fellow named Steny Hoyer. And what is his title? Majority leader. By his very title, he's supposed to be the ultimate partisan in the House, just like his predecessor Tom DeLay.

Well apparently Hoyer despises the voters who put Democrats in the majority and gave him his title - namely the Democratic base.

"I know the base is mad at us – and I’m mad at the base." When he tossed that off, I inquired "Because.....?" He basically said the base has unrealistic expectations in terms of ending the war, and the Dems can’t de-fund it because doing so would anger the moderates they need to win more seats in ’08. (I must be delusional in thinking that the 70% of the public opposed to the war includes some independents – that’s obviously not the thinking in Hoyer-land).

According to our latest poll, 73% of Americans want Democrats to use their spending power to bring all troops home within a year. That includes 86.5% of Democrats, but that's apparently not enough for the "Majority Leader."

It also includes 78% of Independents, and 52% of Republicans. Is that enough for you, Mr. "Majority Leader"?

If not, exactly what percent of voters have to demand an end to the war before you will provide the "Leadership" to represent our will?

Hoyer Surrenders to Bush and Lies About It

Bob Fertik — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:04:22 -0400

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was one of only 59 Democrats who voted on May 10 to keep U.S. troops in Iraq forever. Today, after months of one-sided negotiations with the White House, Hoyer completely surrendered:

Hoyer confirmed Tuesday a final Iraq spending bill will not include a deadline for troop withdrawals, but promised that Democrats would try to end the war using next year's spending bills.

Hey Steny - we've heard the exact same promises since November - why on earth would we believe you now?

"We can't pass something without the president's signature and the president can't pass something without our agreement," Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters. "So we can be at a standoff and go back and forth at each other, or we can come to an agreement."

Well how about insisting on an agreement that represents the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans (and Iraqis), rather than the two war criminals in the White House?

Democratic leaders first will have to sway a large number of Democrats who want to end the war immediately — or pick up enough Republican votes to make up for the losses. Earlier this month, 171 House members voted to order the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq within nine months.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., co-founder of the liberal Out of Iraq Caucus, said she will vote against the new measure and predicted that many of colleagues will join her.

"Every time we negotiate, it (the bill) becomes weaker," said Woolsey, D-Calif. "This is a Republican bill, so it better be Republican votes that pass it."

Why on earth is Steny Hoyer promoting a Republican bill? Is that why we emptied our pockets to elect a Democratic majority in 2006? Why don't Democrats apply the same rule as the Republicans did - that no bill went to the floor with the support of a majority of the majority?

Hoyer's betrayal is so profound that he has to lie to our faces.

Hoyer said the new bill, despite its lack of a timetable on troop withdrawals, is still a victory for Democrats.

"There's not a rubber stamp or blank check here. . . . And we believe the net result here will be a significant change in direction," said Hoyer.

Change in direction??? The only change is going in the opposite direction - a secret second surge, according to today's expose by Hearst Newspapers:

The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.

The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq, is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty for troops already there.

The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades.

Separately, when additional support troops are included in this second troop increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- a record-high number -- by the end of the year.

Back to Hoyer:

"The fact of the matter is, I think we have moved this debate very substantially forward in terms of accountability and demanding a new direction in Iraq," Hoyer said.

The Maryland Democrat said the next step for his party will be to insist on tougher language in the 2008 military spending bill to be debated this summer.

Personally, I think the next step for the Democratic Party is to find an "aggressive progressive" to run a primary against Steny Hoyer - and against the rest of the 59 Bush Democrats who want to stay in Iraq forever.

What say ye?

Update 1: Russ Feingold blogs at Kos:

This situation is a collapse for Democrats. We had a strong start, pushed back against the President’s failed policy and held our ground that the supplemental should include binding language to end the war. But now, as Congress gets ready to send the President a bill that does nothing to get our troops out of Iraq, we are just folding our cards. As one person commented under Greg Sargent’s great post at TPM cafe, "Send the Congressional Dems over to my place for some poker - I could use a windfall right now."

This is no time to back down. This fight to end the war isn’t something that we can just put off or kick down the road. As mcjoan pointed out, it doesn’t make any sense to wait until this "mythical September" when Republicans will suddenly decide that we need to get out of Iraq. Why should this wait until September? First Americans had to put up with a Republican Congress that did nothing, and now we are faced with a Democratic Congress that is giving the President exactly what he wants – continuing his failed policy and leaving our troops stuck in the middle of a civil war. Some strategy. We can’t back down when the stakes are so high. I know you’ll keep ratcheting up the pressure, and that’s exactly what we need right now. Now is the time to be pulling out all the stops to end the war.

We're pulling!

110th Congress Buys the War

CactusPat — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:51:34 -0400

Certificate of Ownership: 110th Congress Buys the War by stacybannerman Saturday 24 March 2007
Busy week here on the Hill, and I’m sure you know that the 110th Congress just bought the war in Iraq. On Monday, the 19th, the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Military Families Speak Out held a press conference on the steps of the Cannon House building. We unveiled the Certificate of Ownership, complete with warranty – the brainchild of MFSO member Tammara Rosenleaf, who stayed with me and is planning to return in April. (You can download the certificate at www.mfso.org)... (more)

Iraq War veterans also spoke, taking a break from Operation First Casualty, which had them in uniform “patrolling and occupying” the streets of D.C. and Capitol Hill (Photos are available here).

After the press conference, the veterans went deep into enemy territory i.e. the White House, and several dozen military family members and supporters went to Congresswoman Pelosi’s office to pepper the staff with questions, and make another seemingly futile request for a meeting with the Speaker. Military family members spent several hours canvassing Congressional offices with the Certificates, appealing to Representatives to stop the supplemental and end the war.

I was back on the Hill on Thursday for a Senate Armed Services committee meeting, followed by stops at several Senatorial offices. First was Sen. Akaka (D-Hawaii), to ask about my request for the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee to hold a human cost hearing. Bad timing, no one was around to help me, will call next week, and go back. Next stop: the Senate VA committee office in the Russell building. I cc’d them on the hearing request, and asked if there’d been any movement.

The snarky staffer kept saying that they’d never gotten my e-mail, knew nothing about my request, but I refused to leave and, after some pressing, they whipped out the hard copy of my letter. Then the man with the bad attitude metaphorically patted me on the head, saying, “We have hearings all the time, and get expert testimony.”

I reply, “You mean like the expert testimony General Pace provided at an Armed Services hearing in early February when he assured the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee that he was fully confident in the readiness and capabilities of the National Guard, particularly in the border states? And then, two weeks later, Lt. Gen. Blum of the National Guard reported that only 12 percent of Guard units were at readiness?” That kind of expert testimony?”

The man sneers, but remains silent.

“The only people who are experts at the realities and challenges and failure to care for veterans are the veterans themselves and the military families who love them. We need an open hearing.”

I repeated that to Jeff Bjornstad, chief of staff of Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), who is a member of the Veterans Affairs committee. Jeff and I talked about a number of things, and I hope to have some progress to report in the next week or so.

Back to the vote. Our people spent much of the day Thursday making phone calls and in meetings with members of Congress, their staffers or aides. It wasn’t looking good, but we knew it was over when the Out of Iraq - whoops, scratch that - the Stay in Iraq Caucus released it’s members to vote ‘yes’ on continuing the funding for the war.
Friday morning some military families and veterans sat in the gallery during testimony and the vote; others stood at the crosswalk that members of congress use to get to the Capitol. I spoke with some of the Representatives on their way to the vote, including Jim McDermott (D-WA), who has been against this war from the start. During my conversation with the Seattle liberal, I caught something in his eyes – remorse? - and I knew he would join the ranks of the dozens of others who were choosing to break their promises to us, the American people, and most disappointingly, the troops.

Some examples: Rep. Wynn (D-Maryland) has made a public commitment to defunding the war. Last month, Congressman Wynn signed onto the Declaration of Peace and publicly committed to defund the war, withdraw US troops, and support a sustained peace process and the reconstruction of Iraq. As part of this, he signed on to Jim McGovern's bill, HR 4232, End the War in Iraq Act, to use the Congressional power of the purse to get our troops out of Iraq starting now. Just a few weeks ago, Rep. Wynn was the only member of the Maryland delegation who said he would not vote for continued funding of this war. Yesterday, he voted for the war.

Even more unbelievable is Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA), who introduced HR 4232, and has spent years publicly proclaiming his opposition to the war. Yesterday, he voted for the war.

The bill does have a timeline, one that brings troops home at the end of 2008, unless they are engaged in training Iraq forces or killing or capturing terrorists. Which means this goes on for another year and a half, and there’s no real timeline at all. Another year and a half where we will see an average of three soldiers dying every day. The bill does place restrictions on the president, and includes a loop hole that lets the president send the troops to Iraq, ill-equipped, ill-trained, and without proper rest, as long as he tells Congress in writing why it's in the interest of national security to do so.

Earlier this year, Congressman Markey (D-MA) signed a pledge to vote against the $100 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq coming before Congress. Representative Markey has stated he would vote against all supplemental funding. Yesterday, he voted for the war.

Who else failed miserably in the integrity department and bought the war yesterday, after getting elected largely because of their opposition to funding it?

Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), whose campaign website states:

"The United States must physically leave, abandon our "lone wolf" approach, and work with other nations to stabilize Iraq. Americans have spent billions on this unnecessary war only to see tragedy, fraud, and waste."

I guess Carol thought we should spend another 100 billion more, so that America could add to the tragedy, fraud, and waste while Keith Ellison (D-MN) who ran on an anti-war ticket, and posted this on his website:

"I am calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I opposed the war before it began; I was against this war once it started and I am the only candidate calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops."

Now that Keith’s not a candidate, his true colors come out, and he’s decided that rather than supporting the troops, he supports some sort of withdrawal at some point in the distant future – or not.

Campaign’s over, folks, back to business as usual.

Other disappointments include: Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), another outspoken war critic,
Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), et. al.

Of the 14 Dem’s who did NOT vote to fund the war, New York Congressman McNulty’s website statement is particularly noteworthy:

"In the spring of 1970, during my first term as Town Supervisor of Green Island, I testified against the War in Vietnam at a Congressional Field Hearing in Schenectady, New York. Several months after that testimony, my brother, HM3 William F. McNulty, a Navy Medic, was killed in Quang Nam Province.

I have thought -- many times since then -- that if President Nixon had listened to the voices of reason back then, my brother Bill might still be alive.

As a Member of Congress today, I believe that the Iraq War will eventually be recorded as one of the biggest blunders in the history of warfare.

In October of 2002, I made a huge mistake in voting to give this President the authority to take military action in Iraq. I will not compound that error by voting to authorize this war's continuation.

On the contrary, I will do all that is within my power to end this war, to bring our troops home, and to spare other families the pain that the McNulty family has endured every day since August 9th, 1970."

Yesterday, every member of Congress that voted to fund the war bought – at minimum – another year and a half of pain, sacrifice, and suffering, which will be paid for by thousands of American troops and military families, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

note: CP here, I took the liberty of converting the original pdf files of the Certificate of Ownership to jpg form. The certificate is embedded above and below is the reverse, warranty. You can d-load the original pdf's for printing at mfso.org or directly here and here...

Tell Congress To Put Ending The War BACK On The Table

thepen — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 05:01:02 -0400

Call your members of Congress now toll free at 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.peaceteam.net/funded_withdrawal.php

Usually when we contact our members of Congress our great challenge is to get policy hostile Republicans to understand that even in THEIR districts we have enough people opposing them to threaten their reelection. But we certainly expect our OWN representatives to listen to us. So why is it that STILL some of our most progressive House members are not fully behind Barbara Lee's amendment for a fully funded withdrawal of our troops from the hopeless sandpit in Iraq. You would be astounded by the names of some of your own representatives who have not yet committed to taking a real stand to end this war.

Is it any wonder that the popularity of Congress has dropped almost 10 points in the last month, back down to 28%. The American people elected a Democratic majority in both houses to take ACTION, not to just wring their hands and pass the buck of responsibility. The essence of exercising power is to take responsibility. When pushed, Bush will say, "So, I'm responsible, whatcha gonna do?" Yet, on the most drop dead critical issue of our time, the Democratic so-called leadership seems to be resigned to casting token votes of limp protest, quiet whimpers of timid discomfort, with no actual force of law.

Oh sure, it's all very well to take pot shots at lying attorney generals and call for resignations. It's perfectly fine to issue subpoenas and demand testimony under oath from self-evident liars, to root out corruption and everything else, and even to grandstand while doing so, assuming they manage to stick to their guns in doing that. All those things must be done too. But NONE of those things require any actual bravery, just a majority in Congress.

Are our Democratic bigwigs only capable of setting up some kind of "We told you so" for 2008, without actually risking responsibility for real policy change? Are they triangulating their bets just in case the situation in Iraq happens to take a miraculous turn for the better, in defiance of all evidence on the ground and past experience of the same failing, rehashed strategy. Are they so petrified of being blamed for losing a war, which was ALREADY a strategic debacle the moment Bush decided to invade Iraq, that they will do nothing of substance about it. And are they so frightened of taking charge that they will meekly submit even to a gross and insane expansion into Iran, just to avoid being seen as insufficiently blood thirsty.

The difference between the supplemental war appropriation and some other bill to stop the war is that this is a measure that the president NEEDS from Congress. This is not a bill he can veto and count on having enough remaining rubber-stampers to scuttle an override. This may in fact be the ONLY meaningful chance we will have in the next two years to keep from inheriting the military policy disaster in Iraq, to embrace for our very own shame. The American people will not forgive the Democrats for caving in again, when they gave us enough power to stop the war for the very PURPOSE of exercising that power. Text of the Lee Amendment.

The last poll we've seen shows that MORE than 90% of Democrats (and even a quarter of self-identified Republicans) OPPOSE dragging on a continuation of the Iraq war. Where are the 90% of Democratic House members who will represent their constituencies. Where are they? Where are 90% of Democratic members of Congress who will take a stand right NOW to STOP this immoral horror. And where are the 90% of Democratic presidential candidates who will do more than say their patience is wearing "thin," about four years too late.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.peaceteam.net/funded_withdrawal.php

What kind of backroom conspiracy is in place to allow votes on non binding resolutions, but NOT on amendments which would actually DO something. Why has Nancy Pelosi taken all options of any actual consequence off the table? Of course the president will veto anything that even suggests a check or a balance. What kind of phony activism is it to avoid a confrontation, where one is absolutely unavoidable and inevitable, and without which the outrages will just continue to grow more outrageous? That is all the more reason why we must put forth the strongest position possible.

Wasn't this demonstrated yet again today with the president adamantly refusing to let any aide be questioned under oath and on the record about their stacking of the deck in the justice department? Hear the words of old Nixon hand, and new Bush stonewall master, Fred Fielding telling Congress to run along and play like nice little children, refusing to negociate about anything more than informal and constrictive bull sessions.

"Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas . . . We trust and believe that the accommodations we offer here, in addition to what the Justice Department has provided, should satisfy the committee's interests."

Who do they think they are talking down to? Many of our senators and representatives are themselves experienced and seasoned prosecuting attorney generals from their own states. What disrepect for the prerogative of Congress! Isn't it perfectly obvious that they are counting on having enough crony judges in place to abort any credible investigation, in the case of a subpoena showdown? Are we the only ones who are reminded of IDENTICAL conditions imposed on the 9/11 commission about the testimony of Bush and Cheney, and what chumps the commissioners were at that time to submit to such a charade of an investigation?

Let us also remember that Alberto Gonzales is the same attorney general who, when the scandal of the NSA wiretapping first broke, stated that the White House was willing to listen to the "suggestions" of Congress. Suggestions?!?! Hello . . . Congress passes LAWS, the laws of the land. What we have here is a contempt for Congress, and their Constitution role, so endemic that nothing can possibly heal the body politic but a stone cold confrontation.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.peaceteam.net/funded_withdrawal.php

And the best and most important place to start is by demanding that any new Iraq appropriation be DEDICATED for the mission of getting our armed forces out of the Iraq civil war, where they are the primary obstacle to achieving the political settlement, which is the only possible solution. Please call your members of Congress and tell them this is the moment. This is the time. Do it now.

DLC’s Revisionist History on Iraq Knows No Bounds

CactusPat — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:10:25 -0500

Sirota nailed it on Hoyer and the DLC...

DLC’s Revisionist History on Iraq Knows No Bounds
Writing on the Murtha-Hoyer battle, the DLC’s Ed Kilgore says, “It’s not as though Steny has done anything to undermine House Democrats in their criticism of Bush Iraq policies.” Really? Wow. I guess it was the other Steny Hoyer who last year attacked Murtha’s Iraq announcement in the Washington Post as an idea that “could lead to disaster.” I guess it was the other Steny Hoyer who days after that attack, “told colleagues that Pelosi’s recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal [from Iraq] combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party.”

Revisionist history knows no bounds in Washington, D.C. And the chief historical revisionists are those desperate souls at corporate front groups like the DLC that are grasping for something - anything - to justify their existence after this year’s election.

I know, I know. It’s really tough right now for people like Ed Kilgore, Al From, Marshall Wittman, Will Marshall and Bruce Reed. It’s depressing for people like them to have to look at the election of anti-Iraq-War economic populists all over the country and figure out ways to claim that the election was a mandate for their tired brand of corporatism. But depression is no excuse for dishonesty - especially when it comes to a race for the second most powerful position in the U.S. House. Steny Hoyer and his K Street Project may be the apple of the DLC’s eye, but Democrats deserve to have this leadership election happen in a way that takes into account the real record - not historical revisionism.

The Friday Political Grab Bag

Bob Geiger — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:07:15 -0500

If it's Friday, it's time to take a look at what's been floating around the political world this week and that I haven't commented on, might have slipped under your radar or has just flat-out been too silly for you to notice…

Nancy's Got Guts - House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi’s choice of John Murtha to be the new House Majority Leader, her steadfast support of his candidacy and Murtha's loss to Steny Hoyer, hardly spell an initial political defeat for the most powerful person in the new House of Representatives. If anything, it bodes well for the kind of true leadership we can expect from Pelosi, who had to know Hoyer would win and, accepting the political consequences, stuck by Murtha right up until the vote yesterday.

We may not always like everything Pelosi does over the next two years, but I'd bet anything she sticks to her guns in the face of even tougher stuff from the other side of the aisle.

* * * * *In addition to being a great guy and one of our favorite editorial cartoonists, the Houston Chronicle's Nick Anderson is also getting into doing animated political cartoons. His latest is a snarky take on how the GOP politicized the entire immigration issue leading up to the midterm elections.

Please go to Nick's site to check it out.

* * * * *
Following Bush's Bad Act - Which Republican will be the standard bearer -- lack-of-standard bearer? -- for the GOP in the 2008 presidential race? We're pretty damn sure that two former governors are running: Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and George Pataki of New York.

If one of them makes it all the way to the nomination and begins trying to act like a moderate, let's not forget the e-mails they sent out in the final week of the midterm-election campaign this year.

Here's Romney:

"My administration said 'no' to the Democrats' favorite revenue-raising tool: higher taxes.

"President Bush faced similar opposition from the Democrats when he cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 for all taxpayers. In fact , more than 90% of congressional Democrats voted against cutting federal income tax rates. Now some Democrats are calling for the tax cuts to be rolled back if they win control of Congress in November.

"That's why it is absolutely critical we elect Republican majorities to the U.S. House and U.S. Senate so taxes aren't raised and our economic growth isn't stifled through overregulation.

"We are fortunate to have a President who has made clear that he will give terrorism no quarter. President Bush and the Republican Congress are unwavering in the War on Terror and defending our country from future attacks. Despite the successes we've had apprehending terrorist operatives and preventing another strike on our homeland, some Democrats are now calling for President Bush to be impeached for his efforts to protect America from further terrorist attacks."

And George Pataki:

"When RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman asked me to help make sure our Party's Get-Out-The-Vote programs are fully funded, I jumped at the chance.

"Maintaining control of the U.S. Congress is crucial to helping President Bush finish the job he started six years ago. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are poised to lead a Democrat House and Senate that will stop our agenda cold in its tracks.

"If we fail to win, liberal Democrats will take over every committee in Congress and undo everything President Bush and the GOP Congress have accomplished -- including rolling back the landmark tax cuts and reducing our commitment to winning the War against Terror."

It's pretty routine stuff: Democrats will raise your taxes -- despite the fact that no Democrat running for Congress in 2006 ever advocated across-the-board tax increases. So, in other words, Romney and Pataki lied by omission at the very least.

Oh, and they also go with the usual smears, implying that electing Democrats means we get overrun by terrorists.

File this stuff away for 2008.

* * * * *For sheer stupid fun, GSN, the Network for Games, gives us a Flash game called Foley's Follies, in which disgraced Republican Mark Foley chases young Congressional Pages around the corridors of power ala Pac-Man. Players guide the former Congressman through a maze while trying to chase down the Pages and, whenever the Foley head hits an IM bubble and he catches a Page, actual Foley quotes from the infamous IM transcripts appear at the bottom of the screen.

You can play here. Go on… You know you want to.

* * * * *Sometimes I Get More Than Hate Mail - Earlier this year, I did a dumb story about a live, two-headed snake that was discovered and made wise-guy comments about naming the two heads 'McClellan' and 'Mehlman.'

Almost a year later, Mr. Vishwanath Maddhukuri, from somewhere in India made me an offer I'm going to have to refuse:

Hi

My relatives have found Two headed snake in India. It is there in India, if you are interested to buy, let me know

Regards
Vishwa

Besides, Vishwa admitted that the two heads are already named Coulter and Malkin.

* * * * *As if Fox News didn’t do enough damage to itself this week, here they are reinforcing their ongoing, McCarthyite question -- "Are liberal blogs sending the same message as terrorists?"

Could be… I think even nutcase religious fanatics also think the people at Fox are idiots.

* * * * *Knucklehead Corporate Media Person of the Week - It's "Lester" who asked White House Spokesman Tony Snow the question that was obviously on everyone's mind Monday:

"In the primary election in Connecticut, the Democratic Party, as you know, repudiated Senator Lieberman who went on to be the winner as an independent. And the Democratic Party did not even have a nominee for the U.S. Senate in Vermont. Yet, they are claiming these two winners helped them constitute a majority in the Senate. And my question, doesn't the -- doesn't the President believe this Democrats-claim- everybody theory should and could be tested in court?"

But Snow set him straight: "Lester, as you know, when it comes to the organization of Congress, people get to decide with whom they will caucus. And the indications are that Bernard Sanders and Joe Lieberman would caucus with Democrats. This is not something subject to court order, it is their personal choice."

Note to Lester: Go to Amazon.com and pick up a copy of 'Congress for Dummies' before the next press briefing.

* * * * *Hypocrites r' Us: The Republican Superstore - Here's outgoing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on the Senate floor Monday talking about the need to heal wounds and work across the aisle:

"But as we move forward -- and that really does officially begin today -- we begin with finishing the business of the 109th Congress, and we must work together to overcome that partisanship we have seen in the past, that crippling partisanship that has plagued us in the recent past.

"America wants results and America wants solutions, and it is with that focus we enter the waning days of the 109th Congress. We must return to an era of working together in a civil, bipartisan fashion. It is my hope both parties, Republicans and Democrats, will work toward governing together to produce those solutions, to produce those tangible results for the American people. That begins here, and it begins now."

Excuse me… I'm a little misty-eyed.

OK. This would be fine and dandy if Frist didn’t say this after two years of making Harry Reid's life hell, threatening to kill the filibuster -- one of the few procedural tools available to the minority party -- and shutting down almost every Democratic initiative, regardless of merit, on purely political grounds.

Spare us the histrionics, Billy, and just clear out Harry Reid's new office.

* * * * *Wyden Hamstrings EPA on Unacceptable Benzene Levels - Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden has had enough of Bush administration environmental rules that actually hurt people and the earth -- go figure! Specifically, Wyden objects to a proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruling on the amount of the cancer-causing chemical benzene that can be in gasoline and he's willing to put a Senatorial hold on the confirmation of EPA General Counsel nominee Roger Martella unless the rule is changed to protect people in his state.

Any Senator can place a long-term hold on a nomination and, while it can be done in secret, Wyden always announces his holds publicly along with his reasons. You can read about it here.

Come January, Wyden will just be able to round up the Democratic caucus and vote Bush's nominees down if the EPA doesn’t want to do the right thing.

* * * * *Bush Eats The Young - Yes, I know this is just so wrong…

And yet it feels so right…

Eat well this weekend!

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.