The Next Hurrah

Is War With Iran Imminent?

By Mimikatz

Being more or less an optimist by nature, I am generally skeptical of the stories that periodically surface claiming that we are months, weeks or even days away from war with Iran, given how insane it would be on so many levels.  But the new spate of stories has me worried.

Evidently they began with a directive sent by Vice President Cheney to various neocon think tanks to begin drumming up support for the war.  Via George Packer,

They [the source’s institution] have “instructions” (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained.

Evidently 35-40% support is deemed to be enough--that would be the 25% of the population who are Bushbots (including the neocons) and  5-10% who either profit from war or who just think things going boom is cool.

Spencer Ackerman finds a connection between our embrace of new BFFs the Sunni tribal leaders and former insurgents and the talk of war with Iran.  These same Sunnis warned the US in 2005 that elections would deliver the country to Iran.  Is the increased support for the Sunnis and the undermining of Prime Minister Maliki a harbinger of a switch in who we are really backing?  Was that part of the subtext of Bush's surprise visit to Anbar?  After all, in the view of Reuel Marc Gerecht, it is the Shi'a militias, particularly the Mahdi Army, and their Iranian suppliers, who are now responsible for most American deaths.  Best we teach those pesky Iranians a lesson now.

Ackerman sees the Cheney-led campaign as directed as much at the Pentagon as the American public.

Cheney's likely motivation for issuing such instructions to his think-tank allies would be to win an inter-administration battle over the future of Iran policy. Cheney, an advocate of confronting the Iranians militarily, faces opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where the primary concern is preventing an open-ended Iraq commitment from decimating military preparedness for additional crises. A new war is the last thing the chiefs want, and on this, they're backed by Defense Secretary Bob Gates.

This theory makes war with Iran much less likely, except for one thing--The Decider.  Of all the people who seem to really get off on war, Bush has to be the head cheerleader.  And he does have a record of not listening to his generals, like Eric Shinseki.  And we know he really likes kicking (Muslim) ass.  In fact, showing them just how tough we really are is, to me, the most plausible reason for the misbegotten and mismanaged war we are still mired in.

The shakiness of the financial markets had seemed to me to argue against war with Iran, since the economic implications of war (increase in oil prices, possible damage to oil fields leading to even higher prices, China gets involved on some economic front,  stock market goes down, debt goes up, etc)  would seem to exacerbate most if not all of the problems we have now.  But The Cunning Realist thinks that events in the global finacial markets related to the packaging and selling of subprime mortgages make war with Iran more, not less, likely.  I'd like to see this theory elaborated.

In any event, if it comes to that we know that Bush doesn't think he has to ask permission to start a war.  He's the Commander-in-Chief!  And there's always the Authorization for Unlimited Military Force (that was the name, wasn't it?)  passed after 9/11 that gives him Congress' blessing.  Declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be terrorists and blaming all the weapons in Iraq (that aren't ones we gave the Iraqi Army) on them provides the provocation.  If more is needed, it can be manufactured.

So now I'm worried again.  What do you folks think?

Getting it Wrong on the Central Issue of our Times

By Mimikatz

Fifty years ago I was about to turn 15, it was 1957, and the central issue of our times was clearly seen to be the Cold War, the struggle with the Communist Soviet Union and its allies such as China.  In retrospect, at least from the US perspective, that was probably accurate, although expanding civil rights and economic opportunity to those other than (straight) white men probably runs a close second.  Fifty years from now, in 2057, when today's 15-year-olds are my age, when people look back at the beginning of the 21st Century, what do you think they are going to see as the central issue of our times?  And how are they going to think we did?

I am willing to bet that it will not be the struggle with Islamic extremists, or even with terrorists generally, as the Bush/Cheney regime and its sycophants believe.  Rather, it is much more likely to be the intertwined problems of the end of fossil fuels and global climate collapse.  And depending on what we do in the next 5-10 years, they may be wondering why we didn't feel more of a sense of urgency, why we didn't do something while there was still time, why we threw so much money and effort at a crazy, endless war in the Middle East while the temperatures and sea levels rose around us. 

While both major parties saw the struggle against communism as the central issue in the 1950's, it has been devastating to the cause of mitigating climate change that the GOP and its patrons have not only denied the urgency, but fought the effort tooth and nail for the first six years of the Bush presidency.  But that began to change, as so much did, with Katrina, then with last summer's fires and heat waves, and now this summer's extreme weather events, all of which have cost many lives on all our coasts and the interior.

While Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" was seen as a political event, last night's Tom Brokaw special on the Discovery Channel was global warming 101 for the mainstream.  A poll taken a year ago reported 70% of the public convinced that global warming is happening, an equal amount having become more convinced over the previous two years, with severe weather being a major factor in that change.  This summer's severe rains and floods probably increased the number.

With a sufficient segment of the public now convinced theere is a problem, we sorely need real leadership on the issue.  Based on the 1970's gasoline shortages and our experience here in Califonria with periodic shortages of water and electricity, I firmly believe that the public will respond favorably to clear direction and mandates for change.  In parts of the country without such leadership many people do not do more because they believe that if the problem were real, the government would be doing something.  Thus, we need first and foremost a clear statement that the problem is real, serious and must be addressed. 

Second, people need to understand that while climate change cannot be arrested at this point, it can be mitigated, and that a little effort actually can go a long way.  One of the most informative graphics in the Discovery Channel show depicted the carbon dioxide output of various activities and machines of a typical family as blocks of soot above the house.  An amazing amount can be saved through conservation and efficiency around the home with negligible change in lifestyle.  The California Flex Your Power website claims that if every household replaced one incandescent bulb with an energy-saving CFL bulb it would be the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road.   (Flex Your Power is a model partnership of utilities, residents, businesses, institutions, government agencies and nonprofit organizations working to save energy formed during the 2001 energy crisis here.  Its website has a wealth of ideas for saving energy.)   In fact, addressing energy use in buildings and construction is at least as important as addressing conservation through better means of transportation, a point also made by the Discovery Channel special.  Municipal, residential and business lighting is another area ripe for conservation.  A fascinating article in theAugust 20, 2007 New Yorker discussed how improved outdoor lighting not only saves energy and allows more enjoyment of the night sky, but is actually safer as well.  Tucson has long set an example in this area.   

Finally, it is obvious that even as we conserve, we need to develop new technologies for building, transportation and power generation.  Rather than costing jobs, this could become the next entrepreneurial frontier, if there were more incentives (such as fuel efficiency mandates, seed money and regulatory changes that mroe fairly internalized, rather than externalized, the costs of existing fuel sources). 

Concern for the environment is one major area where young voters are disenchanted with the GOP.  Along with the traqgic blunder that is Iraq, I believe that GOP denial of global warming and refusal to confront it as a major problem may prove the undoing of conservatism as an appealing ideology even to an extent in the ultra- conservative parts of the country.  Certainly that would be the case if the Democratic Party leadership and candidates made addressing global warming and coping with declining supplies of fossil fuels through conservation and innovation a major part of their platform.   Not to do so is to be wrong, colossally wrong, about the central issue of our time.

Time For Serious Talk On Iraq

By Mimikatz

In another couple of weeks, Congress comes back from recess.  On or about September 11 the White House will give its "polished" version of the Petraeus Report.  We already have the bleak political outloook in the NIE, and Kevin Drum shows with statistics that as compared to June-July 2006, Bush's escalation is a failure by any significant measure.  So why do we keep hearing that the Democrats are getting squishy?  Can they really be getting ready to coalesce around a strategy of removing Prime Minister Maliki in favor of General Nguyen Cao Ky--I mean Iyad Allawi--and asking the increasingly restive public for another 6-12 months before anything changes in Iraq?  How can this be?

There were two insightful posts this week that may hold a clue.  One is the piece by Jay Ackroyd at TPM Cafe laying out the DC Consensus (short version:  Iraq is going to be more awful if we leave than we can tell you, so we won't be candid about the fact that we really aren't going to be able to leave for years) and the ensuing comment thread.  The other is an op-ed by of all people Jim Hoagland at the WaPo.  He points out that George Bush most especially, but also the Pentagon and politicians of both parties, are so invested in the Iraq mess that they cannot admit their failure.  Rather than seriously trying to find a way out, they are now simply trying to protect their reputations and hang onto power.

Some military commanders, CIA agents in Iraq, Republican members of Congress, State Department diplomats and others now make their highest priority the protection of their own reputations, careers and institutions -- the three blend seamlessly into a single overriding ambition in Washington -- for the post-Bush era, which thus draws closer, in the manner of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The need to protect the White House, the Pentagon and both major political parties from greater Iraq fallout explains much of the blame being dumped on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at this late date -- even though his deficiencies and close links to Iran and Syria were clearly visible when the administration helped install him in the job in 2006. As he has been throughout the Iraq experience, Bush is condemned to play the cards he dealt himself. (snip)

The U.S. military is helping Sunni tribes organize into armed militias that will owe their loyalty beyond the tribe to American commanders rather than to Maliki's government. Similarly, the CIA has molded an Iraq intelligence service that draws no public funds from the Iraqi government and presumably is paid for by Langley. The agency's reluctance to act against Kurdish rebels operating against Iran and Turkey may also be part of a separate vision of the agency's future role in Iraq.

And what would be motivating the Democrats, who seem by and large to be congenitally unable to think their way to and articulate with confidence a clear view of what we must do?  Fear of being blamed, I think, as much as fear of being thought weak.  As the GOP sharpens its stab-in-the-back rhetoric, the Dems become more reluctant to speak honestly to the country, even as their popularity plummets?

If they could be honest, what should they say?  That there is no military solution in Iraq, as the NIE says.  That it is not "supporting the troops" to ask them to do a job that cannot be done.  That nearly half the troops will have to come home next year, as former General Peter Pace now says, because the military cannot sustain Bush's escalation.  That we have so wrecked Iraqi society by our ill-considered and misguided invasion and even more misguided and ideologically driven occupation that no political reconciliation seems on the horizon, especially not if we are there literally as well as figuratively calling the shots.  Yes, there may be more violence if we leave, at least for a time. But why do we think that a smaller "residual" force in Iraq will be able to pacify the country when 160,000 troops have not succeeded, except in limited areas outside Baghdad, and for limited periods?  If some force is needed to deter others from invading Iraq (and repeating our mistakes), why should that force be pinned down in Iraq, rather than positioned more safely nearby? 

Above all, they should say that Iraq is not the only, or even the most serious, threat we face.  America's existence as a nation is not threatened by the insurgents in Iraq, who overwhelmingly are fighting over who will control Iraq, not the US.  Nor is our existence as a democratic nation threatened by Islamic extremism, even if we may suffer an attack or two in the next several years.  Rather, our existence as a democratic nation is threatened by the drift toward centralization, secrecy and fascism by the Bush/Cheney regime.  By the hollowing out of our industrial capacity and the decaying of our infrastruecture.  By the decline in our schools and our public health system, indeed our whole health care system, that leaves us vulnerable to epidemics and natural disasters.  By climate change, which is already bringing more severe storms and extremes of temperature, and changes in ecosystems. 

And most of all it is threatened by politicans who treat the public like children, who won't speak to us honestly, who tell us to shut up and shop, and not raise our voices and act like citizens.

Update:

This just in:  Think Progress reports that the success in Anbar province and other Sunni areas is due to Sunni anticipation of an inevitable US withdrawal.  In other words, realizing that we are probably going to begin leaving soon, the Sunnis are positioning themselves for the post-US period by cooperating against al Qaeda in Iraq and others to reduce their influence.  This supports the idea that if we left, or were seen to be leaving soon, the Iraqis would have more incentive to resolve their differences or work out whatever modus vivendi they could.

We Can't Wait for Bipartisan Solutions

by DHinMI

"We need a consensus."

This is what Joe Biden said a little while ago, when asked by Keith Olberman if he would appoint a Republican to head up the Pentagon or the Department of Homeland Security.  I don’t have the exact language, but he seemed to imply that nothing would work unless it had significant support from Republicans.

I was floored.

If there is anything that has been apparent since the Democratic takeover of Congress, it’s that many and probably most of the current Republican members of Congress will NEVER work with Democrats for the good of the country.  Since the rise of Newt Gingrich, the majority of Republicans in Congress have demonstrated that they don’t care about the good of the country.  Grover Norquist is inadvertently one of the most honest of conservatives, and when he referred to bipartisanship as date rape, he wasn’t revealing just his own personal view, he was describing the mindset of much of the Republican Congressional caucus and it’s allies in think tanks, among campaign hacks and activists, and in a sizeable chunk of its electoral base. 

It’s a realization many of us had come to long ago.  It’s one of the reasons many of us ended up on progressive blogs, the knowledge that George W Bush, his allies in Congress and the people who push them in to power will use unscrupulous means to attain, maintain and exercise power. They know they have to conceal their unscrupulousness from the public. While the Republican party has veered farther and farther to the right, the American people haven’t really budged.  In fact, on individual issues, the American public is more liberal today than it was 10 or 20 years ago, and far more liberal than it was when Lyndon Johnson crushed Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, which provided the mandate to enact our major civil rights legislation and the most major extension of the social welfare state since the New Deal and World War II.  Republicans involved in organizing and running elections and selling their policy positions to the press and the talking heads know that the American public is far to their left.  But they conceal their radicalism through clever marketing scams like Frank Luntz’ Contract on America and the pabulum of "compassionate conservatism." 

Getting the Bum's Rush on FISA

By Mimikatz

This is Emptywheel's bailiwick, but she's travelling, so I'll try to fill a little of the void to give folks a place to discuss the issues.  TPM Muckraker has a good rundown on the issues involved in the Bush/Cheney regime's demand for a quick fix of FISA.  In brief, the FISA court has evidently restricted the ability of the National Security Agency to collect information on multiple surveillance targets under a single warrant and won't allow the NSA to collect intelligence on persons where it is not known whether they are inside or outside the U.S.  Bush/Cheney wants the Attorney General to replace the FISA court in making the necessary determination.  No chance of that, says Leahy.  The Dem proposal is here.  Other key issues are:

Carve-Outs vs. Safeguards. What the Bush administration wants -- and probably has done over the past six years -- is to remove FISA protections from a broad swath of people in the U.S. in order to look for terrorism connections. That has had, and will have, broad implications for what the U.S. intelligence community can collect in terms of domestic communications.

The Dems' idea is to keep the FISA court.  Rockefeller wants a 6 month fix--Feingold wants 90 days--after which Bush/Cheney would have to come back to Congress.  But under Rockefeller's proposal, per TPMM,

after 60 days of surveillance, the administration would have to inform Congress and the FISA Court exactly who has had their communications intercepted. And if the administration believes there's a "significant" pattern of communication between someone in the U.S. and a foreign-based surveillance target, it has to acquire a specific warrant from the FISA Court or end the surveillance.

Other issues:

The Definition of "Significant." So far, the bill allows the Justice Department to issue guidelines defining what qualifies as a "significant" amount of communication between someone in the U.S. and a foreign surveillance target. After six months pass, according to Rockefeller's proposal, the administration -- presumably through the Justice Department, but it's not clear -- would submit a detailed report on how the authorization has worked, including on the definition of "significant," for congressional review, in time for the "sunset" provision ending the temporary fix.

Can the Government "Sit" on a Wire? "Sitting on a wire" is a shorthand way of referring to the NSA demanding, under FISA authority, all the available communications data from a telecom company relative to a given surveillance target, and then unilaterally determining what it needs. . . . It's not clear yet whether, in whatever bill emerges, the NSA or the telecommunications companies will have the responsibility for sorting through the material relevant to the warrant.

Will Telecom Companies Have Immunity from Prosecution? According to the Wall Street Journal, the compromise under negotiation ducks the question. If so, it means that, at least so far, the telecoms don't have any legal immunity for improperly turning over more information about subscribers to the government than the government is entitled to.

Nor should they--keep this one out of the bill.  And finally, the big one:

Disclosing Past Abuses. This has been a sticking point between Democrats and the administration since Alberto Gonzales proposed amending FISA in the spring. The proposal under consideration doesn't include notification of the extent of the surveillance that has occurred since "Program X" began in October 2001.

I'm no expert, or even a lawyer any more, but this seems like a no-brainer.  How can Congress correct abuses of it doesn't even know what happened in the past?  At an absolute minimum, the entirety of the program that existed PRIOR to the hospital visit of Card, Ginzales, Comey et al needs to be disclosed fully to Congress and, since it allegedly is no longer in operation, to the American people, before Bush/Cheney get their fix.  Of course the Dems are afraid that if a terror attack comes before they authorize what Bush/Cheney wants, they will be blamed.  But they will be blamed anyway; that is SOP for the Rovians. 

Via TPMM again, Marc Rothenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center notes that

"We've never wrestled with the question of constructing privacy safeguards for U.S. citizens that are subject to massive surveillance by a U.S. surveillance agency.  Sen. Frank Church's nightmare was that U.S. intelligence capabilities for surveillance would be turned on the American people. The thin black line on that issue turns out to be the FISA court -- the only form of intervention between power of the intelligence community and American citizens."

Let's strengthen, not obliterate, that line.  Spencer Ackerman has more on "Program X" here.

Post-Filibuster Post-Mortem

By Mimikatz

So the Republican filibuster of the Levin-Reed Amendment continues.  Yes, traditional media, it is a Republican filibuster.  The Republicans prevented the Levin-Reed withdrawal amendment from coming to a vote by insisting that it pass by a supermajority of 60 votes.  No majority rule democracy for you, America!  The new rule is that nothing important or controversial shall pass without the Democrats mustering 60 votes for it.

At the close of the cloture vote, in which all Dems (but the still-recovering Tim Johnson) and Bernie Sanders, plus GOPers Collins, Hagel, Snowe and Smith voted to end debate and all other GOPers plus Lieberman-for-Lieberman voted No (and Harry Reid voted Yes, but changed his vote to be able to ask for reconsideration), Reid asked for unanimous consent to consider 5 measures with bipartisan support, including not only Levin-Reed but the toothless Salazar and Warner measures, and minority leader ""Ditch Mitch" McConnell of Kentucky, doing his David Spade impression, said "No." 

At that point Harry Reid pulled the Defense Authorization Bill and went on to the Homeland Security Bill.  Reid asked that the Chair (Levin) and ranking member (McCain) of the Armed Services Committee cut the bs and reach agreement on amendments and procedure for bringing the bill to a vote, including up-or-down votes on Levin-Reed and the other Iraq amendments.  If Reid follows through, no up-or-down vote, no bill.  No bill, no money.

This is a good strategy, even though the lazy and spineless press cannot bring themselves to accurately report that it is the Republicans who are stalling by insisting on a 60-vote margin to even bring the bill up.  There is really no need to rush the Defense Bill.  It won't take effect until October 1, and they already cut a deal in May to fund the war through then at least.  They can wait for the Senators to go home and talk to the home folks and wait for General Petraeus to tell us how things are in Glockamora--excuse me, Iraq--and whether the surge is working or we need to continue the surge by extending the already-extended-to-15 months tours of duty to 30 months so Bush can leave office without facing the consequences of leaving Iraq.

Kagro has ably shown the limits of legislation to change war policy in the post below.  But every time there is a vote, those 22 GOP Senators have to make a decision whether to stand with their constituents or stand with their King and his Rasputin.  In between there will be time for visits, calls, demonstrations, contributions to their challengers, billboards, editorials and all the other activities you will find here.  Maybe come October, if Harry Reid does not capitulate and ask for a continuing resolution to extend funding,  Bush/Cheney will find that the Unitary Executive can't pass budget legislation.  We can test their ability to move funds around.  We can see what happens in Iraq, good or bad, in September, and after.

We can't know the outcome.  But there comes a time when the Democratic Congress simply has to  take a stand, do what's right, explain its position as best it can, let Bush/Cheney make their moves and just play the hand out.  Impeachment, as several of us have been saying, is the Founders' remedy for a runaway executive.  Sooner or later, it has to be invoked or Bush/Cheney will run this country over the cliff, whether by war with Iran, a move that spooks the financial markets, locking up critics of the war, martial law, whatever.  And if the Dems haven't taken and maintained a strong stand against this tyranny, history will not look any more kindly on them than on Bush/Cheney.  It's what in auto accidents is called the "last clear chance" rule.  If you could have done something to stop the accident and didn't, it was your fault as much as the bad driver's.   

So I apoligize to the Democratic party fundraiser who had the misfortune to call me just as I was starting this post and got an earful.  But as I told her, it's Time for Impeachment.  No more money to prolong the war.  None.  Thanks. Harry Reid.  Keep up the good work.

Filibuster Update: At Least It's A Start

By Mimikatz

Those who have followed the Filibuster Campaign will be pleased to know that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has taken a first step and announced that he will call for a cloture vote on Levin-Reed (begin withdrawals in 120 days, all troops out except for specified purposes, a big loophole, by April 2008) and if cloture passes, there will follow under the Senate rules 30 continuous hours of debate on the measure.  They will also debate the amendment in the interim.  So debate we will have, at least on this measure.  What happens then will be interesting.

What Reid proposes to do about the other amendments and hundreds of bills awaiting action will depend at least in part on what happens with this first step.  But this has got to be only the beginning.  It's time to call the GOP's bluff.  Encourage Reid to keep up the fight by sigining the petition at Campaign for America's Future.

Here's more from Open Left.

Update II--  It looks like I was right the first time.  Majority leader Reid is setting a cloture vote for tomorrow.  If the cloture motion passes and debate is shut off, there can be 30 hours of debate.  Here's how a Senate staffer explained to TPM Election Central what would happen when the cloture motion comes up for a vote tomorrow: 

Under Rule 22, whether or not the Senate stays in session all night tonight or Tuesday night, that vote [on the cloture motion] will happen one hour after the Senate convenes on Wednesday (unless the Senate agrees by unanimous consent to a different time for the vote). If the cloture motion fails, then debate on the amendment continues and the 30 hour time limit never starts. So what Reid is doing is simply using his power as majority leader to keep the Senate open while the cloture motion "ripens."

So it will be a real filibuster, apparently, in the sense that "debate on the amendment continues" --until it doesn't.  The "30 hours" only comes into play if the cloture motion passes.   So Reid will need to be pressured to keep debate on the (minimally acceptable) Levin-Reed amendment until there is an up-or-down vote on the amendment.  This, today, is just theatrics.

Bill Moyers' Journal: Time for Impeachment

By Mimikatz

If you haven't seen Bill Moyers' Journal on impeachment, watch it now.  At least watch this clip at Talking Points Memo.

The two participants with Moyers were John Nichols of "The Nation" magazine and author of "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism and Why It Must Be Applied To George W. Bush", and constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who was in Ronald Reagan's Justice Department and drafted one of the articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton.  Moyers largely acted as devil's advocate, constantly raising the spectre of 9/11 as a justification for the usurpation of powers by Bush/Cheney.

One would have expected John Nichols, the author of two books about Dick Cheney, to suppport impeachment.  What was truly remarkable was true conservative Bruce Fein's passion in advocating for the absolute necessity of impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney forthwith, with no ifs, ands or buts, if we are to be true to the constitutional form of government bequeathed to us by our founders.  He was far more eloquent, and passionate, than any Democrat I have seen to date.   

Here are what I recall as their main points:

• "Everything is (not) politics."  Congress lacks not only backbone but intellectual depth.   Congresspeople apparently have no real understanding of and respect for the Constitution as a "fighting document".  They have no internal relationship to the structure of our government; they do not feel in their bones the kind of reverence for our form of government that would impel them to call a halt to Bush/Cheney's outrageous power grab.  No one, in short, will put country above party, as happened in Watergate.  Ironically, the Dems' view of everything as political is what leads them to fear to be seen as "too political" if they launch an impeachment inquiry. 
• "We are treated like children."  As a consequence of the "dumbing down" of politics and political reportage, we have been turned into subjects not citizens, and, are treated like children who cannot handle the "stress" of impeachment.  As a result we have opted for entertainment over citizenship.  We do not take an active interest in government because it has been so debased and the press is so bad at reporting the issues.  This is very dangerous for the country.
• "We are setting a terrible precedent."   Over and over Nichols and especially Fein, whose devotion to the rule of law was a sight to behold, stress that we must commence impeachment proceeedings against Bush and Cheney now because if the Congress does not say no to them, not only will they usurp further powers, but these powers will be put in the "toolbox" that is given to the next President.  Think for a moment about Rudy Giuliani having the powers amassed by Bush/Cheney.
• "Much worse than Nixon"  Both Nichols and Fein believe that Bush/Cheney's transgressions are much worse than Nixon's, because at least Nixon acknowledged some obligation to Congress.  Bush/Cheney clearly are not only usurping powers that belong to Congress and arrogating to themselves powers that were never meant to belong to any branch of government, they are using those powers to conceal their treachery from Congress, the Judicary and the American people.  Bush/Cheney's blowing off of the subpoena to Harriet Miers (the counterpart to John Dean) and the Libby pardon are the most salient examples, but there are many more.  Again, this creates a very dangerous precedent and the failure to say "no" only emboldens Bush further.
• "Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis; it is the cure for a constitutional crisis."  Both were very clear that Impeachment is Congress' duty under our system of government when things get to this point.  It is Congress' job, and they are falling down on the job.  They must initiate impeachment proceedings or we are in real danger of losing our form of government.  This is not hyperbole.  Towards the end of the program Fein notes that if just one Committee Chairman had spoken to Bush/Cheney in  a stern, adult voice and said "You cannot do that.  This is the United Stataes of America.  You are violating the law and violating the Constitution.  You were not elected King for four years; in our system no man is above the law" things might have been different.  Instead we get John Conyers' mumbling and Patrick Leahy's earnest dismay.  We get Nancy Pelosi's desire to end the war, but not to do what is needed to stop the Bsuh/Cheney juggernaut.
• The important thing is the beginning, not the end.  Finally, it is most important to commence impeachment proceedings right now, without worrying what the outcome will be.  We cannot foresee what will happen if impeachment is begun, but we can clearly see where the refusal to call Bush's bluff is leading us.  Once impeachment proceedings have begun, the case can be laid out, and people will become engaged.  Maybe Bush will become penitent, as Fein seemed to hope; more likely not.  But if we are going to have to pry Bush/Cheney's hands off the levers of power, better we find that out as a result of an impeachment proceeding and not when they declare martial law.
• 9/11 is no excuse for inaction.  Fein made the point that 9/11 was almost six years ago.  We now know far more than we knew in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.  We know that we face a serious enemy, but we can see its limitations.  This is not the nuclear-armed Soviet Union or the Third Reich.  This is a threat that requires vigilance, but is manageable.  Above all it does not require us to relinquish our liberties to a new monarch.

So watch the show, and spread the word.  We are going to have to demand impeachment from the bottom up; there is no other way.  We need to find one strong voice in Congress who will show some real courage, will put country above party, above career, above self.  One candidate would help too.

As with global climate change, what is at stake here is no less than the kind of future we are leaving our children.  The generation that stood up to Nixon in Congress is gone, but the generation that stood up to him in the streets is not, and surely their children care enough about the future to act.  If we, here, now, do not act within the next few months, our democratic form of government and our very future is at risk and may be lost.

Bush the Uniter

Bush truly has united the American people--united them in opposition.

Check this link to a map (h/t to dreaminonempty at Open Left) that shows Bush's popularity state by state.  There is only one state where Bush enjoys an approval rating over 50%, and that is Utah, with two (Idaho and Wyoming) where it is 46-50%.  It is 35% or below in every populous state except Texas.  His popularity in New England is so low that these states are green not blue, from 14% in New Hampshire (bye bye, John Sununu) to 20% in Maine.  And some of these polls are months old, while Bush's popularity has tanked over the last 6 months. 

The post is long, and correlates Bush's popularity plus fundrasing differentials with electoral success in the 2006 midterms.  But it's worth reading.  The gist of it is unmistakeable.  If the Dems' lead in fundraising and infrastructure continues, it is hard to imagine any Demcratic Senate or House seat being vulnerable, and it is within the realm of possibility that the Dems could take up to 8, even 10 Senate seats (AK, CO, ME, MN, NC, NH, NM, OR, TX, VA , maybe even, with the right candidate, if there is one, KS, KY, or OK).  And another 20 plus House seats--from AZ, CA, FL, IL, NM, NY, OH, PA, and other states that are in the 35 and below zone, and even some from the blue areas of NC and VA.

And I'm pleased to see that it vindicates the idea of spreading money around, especially early money, to make many more seats competitive, instead of concentrating on a few "target" races that quickly become satruated, ignoring other seats until it is almost or is too late.  It appears to take half as much as the GOP and at least $500,000 to be within the victory margin, but lots of money did not guarantee success--just the opposite.  Several challengers who reached parity or outspent incumbents lost--in CT-04, NM-01 and PA-06, for example, and some with between one tenth and one half as much won. 

Past performance is no guarantee of future success, but there is much more in these figures to hearten Democrats than Republicans.  And it makes it all the more necessary for Dems in Congress to stand up to Bush and not cave in to some chimera of "bipartisanship" when a generational victory is with our grasp.

Something you should read.

by Kagro X

Here's something from Charles Pierce, whom Eric Alterman forces to do his work for him on Fridays:

[B]ack in 1988, when it became plain that absolutely nobody was going to pay a price -- criminal, civil, or in the case of the senior Bush, political -- for the staggering mess that was Iran-Contra, I was in the late, lamented Eliot Lounge in Boston, chewing it over with a friend who'd reported extensively on the scandal. I told him that the country was going to pay a fearsome price one day for having let these crimes go unpunished. That the whole business lodged something malignant deep in the government that needed to be roughly, and bloodily, excised. I believed an impeachment inquiry should have been opened on both the president and the vice-president. I believed that Beltway wise-man schemes like the Tower Commission and the Joint Congressional committee investigation would muddy the waters and likely would do more harm than good. (It was the committee that created the loophole through which ultimately squeezed, among other people, Oliver North.) I believed the whole thing should have been left in the hands of Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, since the DOJ until Edwin Meese had been hopelessly entangled in the original cover-up.

If you want to understand where I'm coming from on today's issues, and you want to understand where emptywheel is coming from on today's issues, you should let Charles Pierce explain it to you.