Archive for the 'Congress' Category

Bowers has come to the grim conclusion that the only way out of the Iraq War is to wait two years for a potential Democratic president. Of course, there are many other ways for a Democratically controlled Congress to bring an end to our involvement in Iraq.

What's more, arguing on March 1, 2007 that a Democratic party that doesn't take serious steps to end our involvement in this war will retain the public's trust and will be competitive in 2008 might be asking for more than the Democratic base and swing voters can give. Are they going to vote Republican? Probably not. Is a sizeable segment going to stay home? Very possibly.

What should the Democratically controlled Congress do? What can they do? For starters, they can declare two things:

1. We will do everything possible to have our troops out of Iraq by X date.

2. We will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.

With a strong majority of the American people wanting the war to end, how could this be either bad policy or bad politics?

Just so you know:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war today and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

Many of you likely know this already from having watched the Sunday shows. And many of you knew it even without hearing it again today.

Of course, Democrats pushed back to some extent, too:

But Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers would step up efforts to force Bush to change course. "The president needs a check and a balance," said Levin, D-Mich.

I agree. He needs a check and balance. And while I applaud Levin's efforts, I do so only because I know they kick the can further down the road we all know we're bound to travel here. Senator Levin says the president needs a check and balance, but I don't think he's hearing Secretary Rice. The president will defy your legislation.

The president will defy your legislation.

Now, that doesn't mean this isn't something Levin and his colleagues aren't going to want to see for themselves. But time's a-wastin'. Let's get this show on the road, already. We know what's going to happen, and we know what your choices are going to be at the end of the road: roll over, or impeach.

How do we know? Well, Rice says so. On what basis? Well, to the extent that she needs a basis for a statement like that, she's probably pointing to the fact that this "administration" believes Congress is literally powerless to stop the war.

Levin and his colleagues propose to repeal the 2002 AUMF, replacing it with a resolution that would restrict the use of American forces in Iraq and eventually force a withdrawal. On what grounds does the president plan to defy this? Well, he's got a multilayered strategy available to him. For one thing, he could opt to fall back on the 2001 AUMF -- the one originally passed to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan -- by claiming (as he's already done on numerous occasions) that Iraq is part of the greater war on terror, and that since al Qaeda is (now) operating in Iraq, the 2001 AUMF authorizes our continued presence there.

But couldn't we then amend the 2001 AUMF? Sure, assuming you could get the votes for it. But dig this: Bush doesn't think he needs the 2001 AUMF either. John Yoo tells us why:

In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution [the AUMF], Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents.

Recognized. Not granted.

Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.

If this strikes you as familiar, it may be because I've shown it to you before.

And the same conclusion holds now as held then:

Yoo's theories having reduced Congress to a cipher, from the White House point of view, it hardly makes a difference how they opt to wait out the last two years of Bush's term.

If they'd like to spend it methodically demonstrating Yoo's point for the American public, that option is open to them, and the path runs through Congressional "oversight," subpoenas, repeal of the AUMF and all the other goodies that have been dangled before us as "alternatives" to impeachment.

Again, I applaud the effort to the extent that it hastens the inevitable, but I told you a month ago (and, for the record, several times before that) what Bush's response to this -- and everything else in the Democratic arsenal -- was going to be, and it'll be another month before Levin even puts himself in a position to get that answer.

Yes, I know impeachment is "off the table." But we'll cross paths with it soon enough, since Bush keeps pulling our chairs out from under us.

(From the diaries -- an excellent companion piece to Mcjoan's post below on the forthcoming Murtha legislation -- kos)

A bit of fortuitous surfing just led me to this September 28, 1995 U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee memo [PDF]. The memo pertains to the Clinton Administration plan to deploy troops to Bosnia.

It states that:

Regarding Bosnia, during consideration of that same bill, the Senate passed a sense of Congress amendment that no funds should be made available to deploy U.S. armed forces to participate in the implementation of a peace settlement in Bosnia unless previously authorized by Congress. Another provision on the same bill opposed U.S. participation in any peacekeeping or peace-enforcing operations unless "the President initiates consultations with the bipartisan leadership of Congress" [Senator Robert Dole, Congressional Record, 9/26/95, p. S14271].

and

The decision to send U.S. troops to any region warrants Congressional scrutiny.

The GOP demands hearings on the matter - "EXTENSIVE" hearings.

(continued...)

Pelosi began a blog, The Gavel, which features a great deal of YouTube clips of chamber proceedings.

Crazy Republicans, hating the fact that more people can use these clips to get a look at what's happening in Congress, are crying foul. This press release was blasted to the media a short while ago:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   CONTACT: Brad Dayspring (202) 225-3484

February 15, 2007                                                                                        

Speaker Pelosi's New Blog Violates C-SPAN Copyright/Trademark of House Proceedings
Will the Speaker bring the gavel down on "the Gavel Blog?"

As you may have heard, Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a new blog entitled "The Gavel."  Though we applaud the Speaker's effort to adapt to new technology, the blog violated copyright and trademark law on the very first day.

Not once, not twice, but 16 times?

As of noon today, the Speaker had posted at least 16 videos that are copyrighted
C-SPAN material from the House floor. The RSC spoke with C-SPAN today, who confirmed that these videos violate C-SPAN copyright/trademark of the House proceedings.  

Using C-Span for partisan purposes?

In addition to using pirated material, Speaker Pelosi also has used the pirated C-SPAN footage for partisan purposes. The collection of C-SPAN footage used in her "first official blog" is an example and the other pirated C-SPAN trademarked material shows Democrat after Democrat offering their views of the non-binding Democrat resolution on the reinforcement and realignment of American troops in Iraq.  

So, what does Speaker Pelosi believe the role of C-SPAN is?

"One of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first decisions was to deny a request by C-SPAN to be permitted to cover the House floor proceedings with its own cameras. Last month, Pelosi sent a letter to C-SPAN Chairman and CEO Brian Lamb saying she believed "the dignity and decorum" of the House "are best preserved by maintaining the current system of televised proceedings."

(CQ Weekly, January 15, 2007, Page 169)

Is the dignity and decorum of the House preserved by pirating copyrighted C-SPAN material for political purposes?

If not, will the Speaker bring the gavel down on "the Gavel Blog?"

###

Brad Dayspring
Communications Director
Republican Study Committee
(202) 225-3484
AIM: BDDACE2
www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc

This is idiotic on so many levels, though we shouldn't expect anything less from the morons at the Republican Study Committee (the far right wing of the party). First of all, the clips are clearly Fair Use. Second of all, why is the RSC so afraid of further dissemination of chamber proceedings? They shouldn't just be applauding Pelosi's use of new technologies like YouTube to deliver governmental proceedings to more people, but they should be adopting the tactics themselves (Fox News can't cover all their crazy rants). Third of all, if opposing the surge in Iraq is "partisan", it looks like 60 percent or so of the country is now Democratic. They may want to rethink that framing.

But aside from the wingnut idiocy, it does highlight something that Pelosi can fix -- the ridiculous notion that our government's proceedings can't be spread far and wide without running afoul of copyright laws.

That's got to end, and she can do so.

Either force chamber proceedings taped by C-SPAN to be public domain, or kick them out of the chamber and install government-owned cameras to cover the proceedings. By being public domain, C-SPAN could still air them on their channels without holding an undemocratic stranglehold on the information.

Update: The morons at the RSC have retracted their press release. It was too frackin stupid even for them.

Also, Stoller has more. Turns out that floor proceedings are public domain, but committee hearings are not. Thus, C-SPAN claims ownership of the Alito hearings for the next 100 years. That's unconscionable and must end.

A breakthrough in Iran-U.S. relations – a proposal from Iran in 2003 in which "an end to Iran's support for anti-Israel militants and acceptance of Israel's right to exist" was offered – was shunted aside by then-National Security advisor Rice, according to a former member of the NSC.

And as Secretary of State, she lied last week – or rather "misled" – Congress about it, the ex-aide said today. Reuters has the he said/she said details.

Today, he said:

Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, said a proposal vetted by Tehran's most senior leaders was sent to the United States in May 2003 and was akin to the 1972 U.S. opening to China.

Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but "the administration rejected the overture."

"The Bush administration up to and including Secretary Rice is misleading Congress and the American public about the Iran proposal."

She said:

Rice's spokesman denied she misled Congress and reiterated that she did not see the proposal.

... Testifying before a U.S. Congress committee last week, Rice, said about Leverett's previous public comments on the Iranian proposal: "I don't know what Flynt Leverett's talking about."

She faulted him for not telling her, "We have a proposal from Iran and we really ought to take it."

Ha ha ha. It’s his fault, you see! This whole Iran crisis could have been solved years ago if she’d only known! But of course! Yet ... he said:

... Powell, in a conversation about the Iranian proposal, told him [Leverett] he "couldn't sell it at the White House." This was evidence it had been discussed there, he said.

She said:

On Wednesday, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said: "What she said is she has no recollection of having seen it. She has said that repeatedly."

Ah, yes. The apparently highly infectious Amnesiac Defense Disease, running like the 1918 influenza through the White House. Who can be expected remember such a small thing as a proposal from Iran to concede Israel’s right to exist and stop arming anti-Israeli extremists? Why, the same people who forget whether they outed CIA agents, of course!

The proposal from Iran, which was relayed through the Swiss ambassador, can be viewed as a PDF file on the Washington Post website.

The Employee Free Choice Act was introduced in the House last night, with 230 co-sponsors.  The EFCA, remember, is a crucial piece of workers-rights legislation.

The EFCA has three main parts.  First, it requires certification of a union once a majority of employees in a workplace have signed up for the union.  Currently, after a majority of employees have requested a union, employers can force an election.  This may sound democratic enough, but in fact it allows employers to use their power over workers to campaign against the union, often harassing and firing union supporters in the process.

Second, the EFCA prevents employers from dragging out negotiations on a first union contract by creating provisions for mediation and arbitration.  Third, it strengthens penalties on employers who fire union supporters during union drives - such firings are illegal, but the current penalties are too small to serve as effective deterrents.

The AFL-CIO blog has more, and PaulVA has a diary with contact information for House Democrats who have not signed on as co-sponsors.