protesting prop 8 in washington, dc

We hope you were able to attend one of the more than 300 protests around the country today in opposition to California's Proposition 8 which reversed marriage equality.

We were able to attend the march on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and were happy to join with thousands of others in support of equal rights for all families. There was very little resistance and lots of those on the roads were honking and waving in support, including a Metro bus driver. The march began at the Reflecting Pool in front of the U.S. Capitol and ended at the White House, where a helicopter could be seen landing toward the end of the march. Wonder if President Bush witnessed our demonstration?


Throughout the march, protesters chanted: "What do we want? EQUAL RIGHTS. When do we want it? NOW!" It was an invigorating experience for those involved as they marched on Washington, many for the first time. Signs read, "Hate is not a family value," "Let's vote on your marriage," among hundreds of other creative slogans against hate.

People were fired up for marriage equality. Even pouring rain didn't end our march for rights!


If you have pictures and stories from protests in North Texas, send us a note at northtexasliberal@gmail.com. We'd love to hear from you about your experience.

We've already heard that over 2,000 people attended the rally in Austin. We're proud of our fellow Texans for standing up for equality!

UPDATE: Pictures from the Houston rally can be found here and pictures from Austin here. Thanks for the tips!

colin powell: "i'll be voting for sen. barack obama"

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired general who famously advised President Bush against the Iraq war, endorsed Barack Obama for president today on Meet the Press.

90 percent (not george bush?)

The Obama campaign has released a brand new ad featuring John McCain's "I am not George Bush" remark from Wednesday night's presidential debate. While the ad concedes that McCain isn't technically George Bush himself, the Republican senator did vote with the president 90% of the time.

oliver stone's "w.": will you see it?

Oliver Stone's W. will be released October 17, so what do you think? Does it look biased or factual? Will you take the time and money to see it?

For those that haven't heard of it, it's a controversial new film depicting the life of George W. Bush.

The trailer is below:

recount

This Sunday, May 25, HBO will present an original film based on true events -- Recount: The Story of the 2000 Presidential Election.

Recount stars Kevin Spacey, Bob Balaban, Ed Begley, Jr., Laura Dern, John Hurt, Denis Leary, and Tom Wilkinson as the various people that were involved in the controversial decision-making that led to the election of George W. Bush during November 2000.

View the trailer below, and then watch the movie on Sunday at 8 p.m. CST. The movie will replay on Monday, May 26, at the same time.

true blue

Can you imagine waking up this November to a map of Texas that looked like this?

Well, neither can we, but we're certainly making progress in that direction.

With Sen. John Cornyn polling under 50% now, polling site Rasmussen Reports has added our junior senator to their "potentially vulnerable" category.

Any incumbent who polls below 50% is considered potentially vulnerable. That is especially true when a little known challenger is so competitive in an early general election match-up. The race for President in Texas is also fairly competitive early in Election 2008.

Noreiga leads among voters earning less than $40,000 a year. Cornyn leads among those with higher incomes. Cornyn leads among Evangelical Christian voters and other Protestants. Noreiga leads among those with a different faith background. Both candidates do well within their own party and are fairly evenly matched among unaffiliated voters.

According to Rasmussen, President Bush is polling with mere 45% approval ratings in Texas. And as reported earlier, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both very competitive in general election polls against Sen. John McCain.

Some have predicted that Texas was cycling blue... but could 2008 be our year?

guess who's coming to town?

Well, it's official. Laura announced today that they're definitely coming back to Dallas after George finishes his second term.

"I guess I can announce this in front of the press,” Mrs. Bush said at a National Parks Foundation event at Williams Preparatory school in Dallas.

“President Bush and I will be moving back to Dallas, which is where we lived," she said. "After 14 years away, we’re excited about having the chance to live here.”

I guess we'll be seeing them around soon enough. Any thoughts as to what they'll do with their days?

A Question of Priorities

Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4, 1967

Reading over Bush's latest budget proposal, I was reminded of the historic speech the Reverend gave at Riverside Church on the Vietnam war. King understood only too well that a nation that squandered its treasure on pursuit of empire could never afford to live up to its ideals of equal opportunity. And so he fought a battle on three fronts: one for civil rights, one for economic justice and another for peace.

Bush's latest budget differs little from his previous ones. The shell game over funding for this administration's overall defense programs continues, so a true accounting is probably not possible, but defense spending is up.

The Bush budget to be submitted Monday would cut the budget for the Health and Human Services Department by $2 billion, or 3 percent. By contrast, the Pentagon would get a $35 billion increase to $515 billion for core programs, with war costs additional [emphasis added.]

When conservatives say "starve the beast," they are talking about "entitlements" like healthcare for children, not toys for the military.

In terms of fiscal priorities, this administration has been very consistent, so it shouldn't come as any surprise that Bush is proposing cuts for programs that help keep the poor and nearly poor afloat just at a time when a looming recession predicts those programs would be most needed.

Democrats can take no solace in the fact that this version of the budget won't see the light of day, because regardless of how strenuously they fight to restore targeted cuts for domestic programs, their options are limited. Seven years of uncontrolled spending on a needless war coupled with tax cuts for the wealthy have left our country facing bankruptcy.

Dr. King's haunting and prophetic words ring as true about our current military endeavors as they did about Vietnam. It's time to choose: Do we continue on the road to endless war and occupation or do we begin to rebuild our own country? Here's a primer on the crisis we face, what it will mean to future generations and what we need to do to fix it.

Another Presidential Signing Statement

When scholars discuss the steps that will be necessary to "unwind" a Bush presidency, one issue that is raised repeatedly is reassessing the use of the signing statement. John Dean describes this administration's use of the signing statement as an abuse of power comparable to Nixon's - or worse.

Gary Hart has an editorial in the Huffington Post expounding on the President's latest signing statement, issued upon passage of the Defense Authorization Bill.

Yesterday, President Bush signed the Defense Authorization Bill, including Section 1222 prohibiting permanent military bases in Iraq, with the now customary "signing statement" declaring that he has no intention of enforcing the law of the land, including this provision, though bound by oath and Constitution to do so.

Anyone paying attention has known for years that our plans for Iraq included permanent bases to facilitate a longterm occupation. We posted this in May of 2006.

We're not planning to stay in Iraq past the completion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We'll stand down as Iraqis stand up. There are no plans for permanent bases in Iraq. Yes, framing is really nothing more than the marketing of political ideas. In truth, we are mired in a military operation without clear objectives and no definable endpoint. Yes, we're going to hear a lot of noise about "troop drawdowns" this year, but they are merely window dressing designed to get the GOP through the 2006 elections without having to actually address the issue of withdrawal. By President Bush's own admission, finishing this business will fall to his predecessor.

Fast forward not quite two years later, and the only thing that has changed is the date. Clearly, the boy prez plans on riding the "surge" all the way to his last day in office.

To protect our access to Iraq's oil, Bush will do everything in his power to ensure that we not only complete those permanent bases, but that we are bound by our own treaty to occupy them. As Hart states:

To seal the deal, with the expectation of binding future presidential successors, Mr. Bush and Iraq president Nouri al-Maliki are in the process of negotiating a "status of forces agreement" that would commit the U.S. military to combat any internal or external factions the Iraqi government deemed a threat. This represents a one-directional security treaty cloaked in the form of an agreement not subject to Senate ratification. And it guarantees U.S. involvement in age-old Iraqi sectarian conflict for decades to come.

The key to the Democrats winning the oval office this fall is forcing the Republicans to have the debate, not about some nebulous "victory" which the administration has purposefully never defined, but about the costs of empire.

ntl on the california wildfires

A guide to the situation from Wikipedia:

The October 2007 California wildfires are a series of wildfires that began burning across Southern California on October 20. At least 1,500 homes were destroyed and over 475,000 acres of land have burned from Santa Barbara County to the U.S.–Mexico border. As of October 24, 18 active fires were burning in the region. Fourteen people have died, and at least 70 others have been injured.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency in seven California counties where fires were burning. President George W. Bush has declared that an emergency exists in the State of California and has ordered federal aid to supplement state and local response efforts. Over 6,000 firemen are working to fight the blazes; they are aided by units of the United States Armed Forces and United States National Guard.

Our best wishes go out to those affected by these terrible fires. If you are still in a dangerous area, do what you can to stay safe. If you've returned to areas of San Diego or Los Angeles, our hearts go out to you while you pick up the pieces.

For those of us not in Southern California that would like to help, here is a list of recommended charities provided by the Los Angeles Times:

American Red Cross: Cash donations can be made through www.redcross.org or through a local Red Cross chapter. Volunteers also are needed. Information on shelter locations can be found on Red Cross websites for Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange and San Diego counties and the Inland Empire. Donations of clothing can be made at Goodwill locations. Information: (800) REDCROSS or (800) 257-7575 for Spanish speakers.

Salvation Army: Cash contributions can be made through its website www.salvationarmy-socal.org or by calling (800) SALARMY.

Governor's Office of Emergency Services: Businesses wishing to donate large quantities of goods for distribution to fire victims can call (800) 750-2858 between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Pacific time. Individuals wanting to donate items or volunteer to help with local disaster response efforts should contact the Red Cross or go to the governor's CaliforniaVolunteers website at www.californiavolunteers.org.

United Health Group: Southern Californians coping with the emotional consequences of the fires can call a counseling hotline at (866) 342-6892. The free service provided by the insurance company will be available around the clock for as long as needed.

The Los Angeles Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Cash donations are needed to support efforts to provide emergency shelter for animals displaced by the fires. Contributions can be made through www.spcala.com or by calling (888) SPCALA1. Food supplies also are needed.

New Leash on Life: The animal rescue group needs help caring for evacuated pets at its Newhall facility. The group can be contacted at (661) 255-0097.

Please do what you can. Also, if you are interested in helping the hard-working firefighters in California, please visit the California State Firefighters' Association website.

For those in the area, in case you haven't seen it, Google Maps has introduced a new feature providing updates on the fires in San Diego and Los Angeles.

could congress override bush's veto?

Is it possible for Congress to override President Bush's SCHIP veto?

Some Democrats seem to think so.

The Committee for a Democratic Majority is sponsoring a petition to President Bush and members of Congress. The "tens of thousands" of people that signed support an override of the SCHIP veto. Who else is behind the petition? Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

In an email for the committee, Sen. Kennedy said "If we can afford the war in Iraq, we can afford health insurance for our children. It's that simple."

The Democrat sounded positive when he said asked supporters to help override the veto in under two weeks.

A vote in the House of Representatives is scheduled for October 18.

Others are fighting to override, as well, including a newly-formed coalition that is running an ad campaign blasting Bush for his veto.

The coalition, which includes the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org, rolled out a nearly $1 million television ad campaign and is targeting about 20 Republicans to vote to override the president's veto of the bill.

The national ad, sponsored by Americans United for Change, an umbrella group of liberal organizations, is running on cable networks.

It includes images of a baby and other children with an announcer saying "George Bush just vetoed Abby." The coalition also promises to rally activists in districts of another 20 House Republicans over the next two weeks.

According to the CNN article, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is cautiously optimistic about overriding the veto. "We take it one day at a time," she said.

An override is entirely plausible at this point, as more and more Republicans are distancing themselves from the president by deserting him on domestic issues.

Texas Blog Roundup: SCHIP Edition

President Bush today vetoed an important and widely supported bi-partisan expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) (H.R. 976).

WhosPlayin takes a look at what the blogs of the Texas Progressive Alliance are saying about this terrible move:

Adam at Three Wise Men writes: Bush uses veto pen to strike health care for kids.

Blue 19th takes Randy Neugebauer to task for being willing to send billions to Iraq, but not to help children at home.

Blue 19th has uncovered a transcript of a secret press conference featuring the President, the Governor, and Rep. Randy Neugebauer. Put your sensibilities on hold and enjoy.

In examining President Bush's veto of the SCHIP reauthorization and expansion, Vince at Capitol Annex notes that this is one of the President's worst actions in office and also points us to statements on the veto from a pair of Texas Legislators: Mike Villarreal (D-San Antonio) and Ellen Cohen (D-Houston).


Muse interrupts her outrage at Bush’s SCHIP veto to send him a Bible verse, remind him that his approval numbers are half of the percentage of Americans who approve of the legislation and wonder if next up is clubbing baby seals and drowning kittens.

Eye On Williamson calls Bush and Rep. John Carter on their votes against children, for private insurance corporations and urges the people to get involved, Bush Vetoes Childrens Health Care & John Carter Is Right By His Side.

Matt Glazer of Burnt Orange Report notes that the non-partisan Center for Public Policy Priorities urges Texans to encourage Senator Cornyn and the 18 Texas Congressmen who voted against it to change their votes to override the veto. Matt also suggests that Bush, Perry, Cornyn, and McCaul hate children and encourages us to show our outrage at a rally for kids health.

Charles Kuffner of Off the Kuff notes that Bush is acting ashamed of this veto and explores the numbers needed for an override.

The True Definition of Victory in Iraq

George Lakoff has posted a must-read article on the implications of Alan Greenspan's admission that the war in Iraq wasn't started because of any imminent threat from Saddam Hussein. Greenspan's quote has gotten some press, but not as much as it deserves.

The former head of the Federal Reserve writes in his memoir, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Greenspan even advised Bush that "taking Saddam Hussein out was essential" to protect oil supplies.

Okay, we knew that, but having it spelled out in black and white is still rather chilling. One reason why Greenspan's comments haven't been a bigger story is because the press is also downplaying a story that would tie it all together: The Iraq Oil Law.

The contracts the Bush administration has been pushing the Iraqi government to accept are not just about the distribution of oil among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. The contracts call for 30-year exclusive rights for British and American oil companies, rights that cannot be revoked by future Iraqi governments. They are called "production sharing agreements" (or "PSA's") - a legalistic code word. The Iraqi government would technically own the oil, but could not control it; only the companies could do that. Exxon Mobil and others would invest in developing the infrastructure for the oil (drilling, oil rigs, refining) and would get 75 percent of the "cost oil" profits, until they got their investment back. After that, they would own the infrastructure (paid for by oil profits), and then get 20 percent of oil profits after that (twice the usual rate). The profits are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And the Iraqi people would have no democratic control over their own major resource. No other Middle East country has such an arrangement.

Yes, this is ultimate goal in Iraq - not the defeat of terrorism, not the spread of democracy, not the neutralization of weapons of mass destruction. Those were just the shifting sands of rationale to cover our real purpose for the invasion - the control of Iraq's oil reserves.

You won't read much about the oil law in U.S. press. The above quote was from a Pakistani newspaper. The MSM here is too busy chasing it's tail over the surge/son of surge/drawdown of surge and the 24-hour hype over the MoveOn ad to actually fuss with something as arcane as a piece of Iraqi legislation. But read the law, read an analysis by someone other than an oil industry representative, and tell me that it doesn't tie everything up neat as a Christmas package. As Lakoff notes:

What is most frightening is they may mean what they say, that they may have a concept of "victory" that makes sense to them but not to the rest of the country. If the goal of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been to guarantee access to Iraqi oil for the next 30 years, then any result guaranteeing oil profits for American oil companies would count as "victory." Suppose the present killing and chaos were to continue, forcing us to keep our troops there indefinitely, but allowing the oil companies to prosper under our protection. That would be a "victory." Or, if the Iraqi army and police force were to develop in a few years and keep order there protecting American investments and workers, that too would be "victory." If the country broke up into three distinct states or autonomous governments, that too would be "victory" as long as oil profits were guaranteed and Americans in the oil industry protected. And it doesn't matter if a Republican president keeps the troops there or a Democratic president does. It is still an oil company "victory" - and a victory for Bush.

Bingo.

The first company to bear the fruits of this sweet victory is actually based here in Dallas: Hunt Oil. In a press release earlier this month, the company announced what has proven to be a very controversial agreement with Kurdistan to develop fields in Northern Iraq.

As Paul Krugman observed in The New York Times on September 14, "the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body." Hunt Oil seems to have had the first taste of "victory."

Apparently, we're fighting them over there so we can import their oil over here.

Digby Channels Thomas Paine

But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.

Source: Common Sense, by Thomas Paine, printed by W. and T. Bradford, Philadelphia, 1791.

Digby at Hullabaloo has a post up on the implications of the imperial presidency for the next election, and ends it with a clarion call to the citizens of this country to repudiate the scoundrels who have enabled it.

....The founders never counted on politicians "doing the right thing." Profiles in courage are always in short supply and no government can depend upon good intentions. But they did assume that they would, at least, want to preserve their own careers and constitutional prerogatives. The modern Republicans are so committed to their party that they will follow their 28% president over the cliff, and that is a mindset we haven't seen since the civil war.

GOP power politics have exposed some weaknesses in our constitutional framework: as long as there are 34 Senators willing to back the president no matter what, short of a coup, he can pretty much do anything he wants until the next election. That's always been true, but nobody ever wanted to push it before. Cooler heads have generally known that balance of powers issues should be left somewhat vague and subject to political compromise so you don't get a permanent imbalance you later regret. (The independent counsel law was arguably one of those unanticipated consequences.)

.....People wonder why they would give so much power to the president since a Democrat could hold the office someday. I think they know the Democratic party is just not as temperamentally amenable to authoritarianism. They know that Democrats will, in the end, act out of their own self interest rather than out of partisanship since they don't have the kind of discipline or homogeneous constituency the Republicans have. (Bill Clinton was saved by the people, not the Democratic congress who were prepared to jump ship at the first sign of a decay in public support. Luckily for him, the more the Republicans pushed the more the public stood behind him.) These Republicans are completely unresponsive to anything but party loyalty and their hardcore base.

Finally, ongoing GOP influence in the media and the elite establishment means they can manipulate the narratives, which after this reign of terror, if the Dems win, will undoubtedly be a passionate reverence for absolute government transparency and accountability, federalism, strict division of power and the letter of the constitution. And they count on the public forgetting all about their crimes by the time they run on the "honor and integrity" ticket a couple of years from now.

.....My point is that in a democracy these issues are ultimately and always questions for the people. If we don't want an imperial president, we are going to have to make sure that when they do this stuff they lose their power, not at the hands of politicians of the opposing party but at our hands, the citizens of this country.

In his essay last year, Lewis Lapham of Harper's Weekly noted that in a parliamentary political system, Bush would have been booted long ago by a vote of no confidence and asked if Republicans would do the right thing.

But in the news media [the American electorate] find no strong voice of dissent, in the Democratic Party no concerted effort to form a coherent opposition. Which places the work of protecting the country's freedoms where it should be placed -- with the Congress, more specifically with the Republican members of Congress. What else is it that voters expect the Congress to do if not to look out for their rights as citizens of the United States? So the choice presented to the Republican members on the Judiciary Committee investigating the President's use of electronic surveillance comes down to a matter of deciding whether they will serve their country or their party.

I don't envy them the decision; the rewards offered by the party (patronage, campaign contributions, a fat retirement on the payroll of a K Street lobbying firm) clearly outweigh those available from the country-- congratulatory editorials in obscure newspapers, malicious gossip circulated by Focus on the Family and Fox News, an outpouring of letters and emails from grateful citizens not in positions to do anybody any favors.

Republicans didn't do their duty when they held the reins of Congress, and now they are blocking the ability of Democrats to hold anyone accountable. The members of Congress who continue to obstruct the will of the people - by refusing to discuss an end to the war in Iraq; by continuing to allow Gonzales to maintain his post at the Justice Department; by defending a government that flouts the law of the land when wiretapping its own citizens without a warrant; by refusing to take whatever steps are necessary to repudiate a presidency whose monarchical power grab has plunged us into a constitutional crisis - these supporters of the imperial presidency are the Tories of our time. Mistaking loyalty for patriotism, they fiercely defend the Bush regime at all costs. They will continue to do so until the tables are turned and Democrats are in the White House, at which time they will wrap themselves in the flag and decry the flagrant abuses of its current occupants.

Digby is right. The election in 2008 will be a watershed for our country. Either we exercise our power and vote out the legislators who have enabled the imperial presidency, or we live forever with the consequences.

keith olbermann on scapegoats

Who doesn't love Keith Olbermann? He tells it like it is without fear of consequences. In this "Special Comment," he sticks it to President Bush for trying to use Hillary Clinton as a scapegoat. He decries the war and even goes as far as calling for the president's impeachment.

cheney in charge

Tomorrow, President Bush is set to undergo a colonoscopy, during which Vice President Dick Cheney will assume the position of acting president.

The medical procedure, according to CNN, will take place at Camp David and is expected to last for 2 1/2 hours, during which time the United States will send another surge to Iraq while declaring war on North Korea and Iran.

So that's an overstatement, but seriously... think about it. President Dick Cheney. It's a scary, scary thought, isn't it?

No wonder Nancy Pelosi says impeachment is off the table.

Cornyn Sees Progress in Iraq

As the President prepares to veto the House bill requiring redeployment of troops from Iraq by April of next year, Senator Cornyn and the Republican rubberstamps in the Senate continue to successfully filibuster meaningful legislation on the war in Iraq.

Earlier this week, Cornyn failed to support our troops by voting against the Webb amendment, which would have provided more rest between deployments for our over-extended military.

Disregarding the latest glum report citing the failure of the Iraqi government to achieve benchmarks established by the administration at the outset of the surge, Bush and Cornyn both agree on one thing - we may not be winning yet, but we're making progress.

"It boils down to how do we win and what constitutes a win," Mr. Cornyn said. "What we hope for and what's important to our national security is that we can stabilize it. ... We don't want to leave any safe havens for groups like al-Qaeda. That ought to be our goal, and I think we're making some progress."

Yeah, it's deja vu all over again. In February of 2006, the Senate armed Services Committee held hearings on the progress in Iraq. From a previous post, here is the exchange between Senator Kennedy and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

Kennedy: [Quoting the President] I'm confident of our plan for victory...and we are winning. Those are the words of the President.....Did you tell the President we were winning [the war in Iraq]?....

Negroponte: I personally? Recalling conversations I've had with the President and other members of the administration, my view has always been that we are moving in the right direction, that we're making progress.

I analyze it usually in terms of the political process there, the progress towards achieving their political timetable on the one hand and progress towards developing their army and their police forces, effective military and police forces. And I believe that progress has been made in both those areas. And I believe that yes, things are moving in a positive direction in Iraq - overall.

The year 2007 rang in with the loss of our 3000th solider. Seven months into the surge, that toll stands at over 3600. The April-June period was the deadliest three months for U.S. troops since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Since Negroponte spoke those words a year and a half ago, the toll of Texans on that hallowed list has gone from just over 200 to over 300.

Cornyn has been wrong on the war for five years now. Maybe it's time for Senator Box Turtle to come out of his shell and face facts - Iraq is embroiled in a civil war and the horrifying levels of sectarian violence, the escalating military casualties, the lack of a unity government, our deteriorating military readiness, the daily attacks on the once impenetrable green zone, the lack of essential services, the porous borders, etc., do not constitute progress.

See previous post All's Well That Ends.

another bill for bush to veto

Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced in an email to supporters that the House of Representatives, under her direction, passed a bill that

requires redeployment of U.S. troops beginning within 120 days of enactment and ending by April 1, 2008. It also requires the President to publicly justify the post-redeployment missions for the U.S. military in Iraq and the number of troops necessary to carry out those missions.

As she notes, this is a responsible way to end the war. Pulling out immediately could prove disastrous, and would be unfair to the Iraqi people. Even though they may prefer an immediate troop withdrawal, it would be extremely irresponsible to begin a full-fledged conflict on their soil and then leave them to pick up the pieces by themselves.

However, the Iraqis are not going to meet any of the set benchmarks. And we can't commit to staying over there forever. So this new resolution gives the best solution: have the troops out by this time next year. Bush has nearly a year to redeploy the troops. But will he do it? Or will he pick up his newly-found veto stamp and reject this responsible legislation should it come to his desk?

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, Republicans are beginning to challenge Bush's Iraq policy.

Two prominent Senate Republicans have drafted legislation that would require President Bush to come up with a plan by mid-October to dramatically narrow the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The legislation, which represents a sharp challenge to Bush, was put forward Friday by Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar, and it came as the Pentagon acknowledged that a decreasing number of Iraqi army battalions are able to operate independently of U.S. troops.

So with House Democrats ready to end the war as soon as possible, and Senate Republicans beginning to stray from the party line, could we have a responsible end to the war in the near future? Or will Bush obstinately veto, veto, veto, leaving a Democrat to clean up his mess in 2009? Only time will tell.

Cornyn Wants Courts to Decide on Subpoenas

First it was Cheney, and now President Bush, who declares himself emperor of the universe. Using the "because I said so" defense, the President has decided not to honor requests by the congressional oversight committee for documents related to the firing of nine federal prosecutors.

In a letter sent last Friday to Leahy and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), White House counsel Fred F. Fielding said that the privacy of the documents must be respected to ensure that presidential advisers feel free to provide "candid and unfettered advice."

In other words, what good are political blackmail and dirty tricks if everybody knows about them?

Earlier this year, when sponsoring the Open Government Act of 2007, our learned and erudite constitutional scholar and Senate Judiciary Committee member Senator John Cornyn posted this on his website regarding the need for open government.

Open government is one of the most basic requirements of any healthy democracy. It allows for taxpayers to see where their money is going; it permits the honest exchange of information that ensures government accountability; and it upholds the ideal that government never rules without the consent of the people......

Our government is based not on the need to know, but upon the fundamental right to know.

But now that his pals in the White House are directly defying a subpoena issued by his own committee, the junior senator seems a little more sanguine about the whole thing.

"Let's go ahead and have the courts decide it, and we'll honor whatever they decide," said Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) Thursday afternoon on CNN's Situation Room program.

Oh, yeah, because they've never been wrong.

NASA Chief Not Sure Current Climate 'Optimal'

While the Decider-in-Chief is once again using his clout to attempt to water down a report from the upcoming G8 summit urging immediate action to confront the consequences of global warming, his appointee in charge of NASA, Michael Griffin, implies that anyone voicing concerns about climate change is suffering from a God complex.

If you can read this with a straight face, stop reading blogs and get to the nearest casino for a round of Texas Hold 'Em.

Q: Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

Griffin: I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown.

And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

NASA's James Hansen, one of the top scientists on global climate change, called his boss' position "arrogant and ignorant."

It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change," Hansen told ABC News.

And if you seriously want to know how climate change might impact us here in Texas, here's a preview and it ain't pretty.