This is a diary on oversight, subpoenas, and so on.  My thoughts may be a little disjointed, but the main thrust I'm trying to get across is that all progressives (and whatever other flavor of Democrat or American is reading this) have to be the four things I listed in the title.  You can use other words, but you get the principles.  

A lot of post-ers, here and elsewhere, have taken up the topic of Bushie's tossing down the gauntlet today, to prevent Rover and Miers from having to testify before Congress and the Senate.  I won't let this chance pass by.

This is the defining moment for the future.  The way this dispute plays itself out will ring down in our future's history, one way or another.

That's a pretty strong statement, I know, but it's also true.

On Thursday, by a vote of 50 to 48, the U.S. Senate "rejected a Democratic resolution to withdraw most American combat troops from Iraq in 2008." Two Senators were not present to vote on this important bill. One was Tim Johnson (D-SD), who continues to recuperate from "a severe brain hemorrhage in December." The other was John McCain (R-AZ), who "was campaigning in Iowa at the time of the vote." Though the next Republican nominee for President won't be officially decided until September of 2008, seventeen-and-a-half months from now, McCain opted to put his future political ambitions ahead of his current political responsibilities. Why would the self-styled "maverick" Senator do that?

Perhaps because he is not just running for President but running out of time. Though next year's Republican National Convention is scheduled for September 1-4, the Iowa caucus will occur on January 14. Soon thereafter--indeed, in a matter of weeks--the nominations for both major parties could be all but sewn up, as reported here by the McClatchy Newspapers:

I'm expanding on a comment I posted last night which, in the rush of March Madness and intra-Democrat catfighting, seems to have gone over the "next 15" boundary.  Anyway.

The point I think we need to make, and to make clear, is that impeachment of incompetent, dishonest, untruthful, or malefactory Administration officials should not be treated as the precious object displayed under glass, never to be taken out.  In such cases, impeachment, trial and removal (with subsequent debarment from future government work) should be readily available and, more importantly, used.

That sime has come again. We ran a new comment claim operation to allow users of the old site to have their older comments properly associated with their new site account. This evening 2868 of the previously unclaimed comments were claimed by 87 site visitors listed inside. At this point 59% of the old MT comments have been claimed by site users.

Well, they did it. They've proved right all of their most vocal critics. They've finally come clean and admitted up front and publicly that they have no respect for the lives of Iraqis or for the lives of the US troops they send off to die for nothing more than the price of oil. They've shown clearly that all of their rhetoric about diplomatically engaging Iran was nothing more than hot smoke blown up the asses of the American people and the world.

A million dead Iraqis were not enough for them. Tens of thousands of dead, crippled, blinded, and maimed American soldiers were not enough for them. In a futile attempt to save their political asses they have ensured that the killing and dying will continue. Not only in Iraq, but very likely in an expansion of the Mid East Debacle into an attack on Iran. Possibly one using nuclear weapons. One that could drastically increase the death count in the Mid East to millions.

Cheney and Bush and the rethuglicans were bad enough. The most deceitful bloodthirsty psychopathic killers and parasites ever to hold power in America. But after yesterday that distinction falls to Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party leadership.

Why does Hillary cling to the transparent excuse that she would have voted differently had she known then what she knows now? And, why, as kos noted, is Hillary using a pig-headed strategy so reminiscent of Bush's? Maybe because the information known prior to voting "yes" provided the same reasons to say "no" as the information known now. Maybe because Hillary revealed in a candid interview that her "yes" vote reflected a state of mind shared by many Americans, but not conducive to one seeking to be commander-in-chief.

While many Americans are angry that Bush duped them into supporting this war, lawmakers have an oversight duty to question and challenge the Executive Branch on such grave issues as war. And that duty is triggered when the MSM publish credible data that contradict or undermine Bush's prewar claims.

Hillary needs to admit that her vote to authorize force in 2002 was not just a mistake but wrong because she should have voted "no" based on what she knew then.

[Originally posted at ProgressiveHistorians; thanks to Jeralyn and Armando for inviting me to post here.]

Admit it.  When you think of the perfect President, Abraham Lincoln is the guy you dream about.  The craggy, homespun looks, the humble origins, the brilliant wordsmithing, the roving intelligence, the heroic devotion to equality, the steadfast strength in war, the humble forgiveness in peace -- you can't IMAGINE a Presidential pitch more perfect.  When you look at the 2008 Presidential contenders, you unconsciously compare each and every one of them with Lincoln, trying desperately and unsuccessfully to find one that matches up.  You note with approval Barack Obama's decision to announce in Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln's birthplace, in order to tie himself to the great man.

So it may surprise you to know that, when it came to observing habeas corpus rights during wartime, even Honest Abe was too weak to avoid abusing his unfettered Presidential power.

Why is it that it seems South Carolina has such a vested, bred-in-the-bone interest in perpetrating torture and pain, perpetuating it, and sending sh**heads to the Senate to make it happen?

Dear Congresscritters:

It's high time to use your "power of the purse" and your power to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts.  And, in doing so, you can cut the nads right off the whole "Pardon Libby" cottage industry the Mighty Wurlitzer of Rethug Spin has been pumping out.

I'll avoid legalese;  you'll get the point and you, Congresscritters, have the staff to draft the legalese.  

On February 28, 2007 Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), one of the 73 members of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus, and member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, introduced HR 1234:a bill to immediately end the United States occupation of Iraq:

"This is the plan that will get our troops home the fastest. It is workable and achieves the goals of ending the war and enabling our troops to come home," Kucinich said.

HR 1234 is a plan for the United States to use existing money to bring the troops and necessary equipment home and transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

The tide is turning. With each passing week, more and more members of the scientific community and the public at large accept the reality that human activity is causing global climate change and that it is a moral imperative to take action to counter such. Yet despite the growing consensus and concern, despite the mounting scientific evidence, there are still those who prefer to selectively bury their heads in the sand, who see only the evil that they wish to see and remain blinded or indifferent to other ills. Writing in the New York Times, Laurie Goodstein highlights the burgeoning schism between Christian evangelicals who now count global warming as a real concern and those who discount it:

Evangelical's Focus on Climate Draws Fire of Christian Right

Leaders of several conservative Christian groups have sent a letter urging the National Association of Evangelicals to force its policy director in Washington to stop speaking out on global warming.

The conservative leaders say they are not convinced that global warming is human-induced or that human intervention can prevent it. And they accuse the director, the Rev. Richard Cizik, the association's vice president for government affairs, of diverting the evangelical movement from what they deem more important issues, like abortion and homosexuality.

The letter underlines a struggle between established conservative Christian leaders, whose priority has long been sexual morality, and challengers who are pushing to expand the evangelical movement's agenda to include issues like climate change and human rights.

"We have observed," the letter says, "that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time."

Those issues, the signers say, are a need to campaign against abortion and same-sex marriage and to promote "the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children." [full text]

While one might wish to dismiss these oppositional fellows as misguided zealots on the fringe, the unfortunate reality is that, despite their extreme views and minority status, they have undue influence on those who possess political power in America. Indeed, it is safe to say--though unsafe to ignore--that President Bush and many members of his administration (and many members of Congress) are closely allied with these evangelicals. As a result, public policy is failing miserably to keep up with the science on global climate change. Consider this news report by Andrew C. Revkin of the New York Times:

Today, an appellate court made clear it was a big day for press freedom and protection of confidential-sourced material.  Sadly, this did not take place in the US.

Rather, the German Federal Constitutional court today declared contrary to the German Constitution a police search and seizure of information from a political magazine, "Cicero".  They had published an article about the "radical Islamist" Zarkawi which, the police and justice ministry decided, had quoted or cited to internal documents from the Federal police force.  So, to find out more, they tossed the magazine's offices.  The magazine sued.

Today, the magazine won.  One could almost hear the joy in the voices of the news-reader on German radio, as they reported on the story.  There had been a considerable amount of trepidation in their press, between this case and another scandal which hasn't shown too much of itself lately.  In that latter scandal, their federal intelligence service has been surveilling reporters, apparently hoping to find out their sources.  

(As always, I translate and link to the original, German language article.  If you don't like my translation, you can do it yourself.  Please also note that I do my best, but if you think legalese in American English is hard, have a little sympathy when I try translating the quoted portions of the Court's judgment, i.e., German legalese.  I try, but I'm not admitted in Germany and you shouldn't rely upon my translation for your legal purposes.  I'm not going to translate the photo captions;  the one of the folks in red robes is a photo of the judges at work.  Note the windows.  Lots of light and sunshine.)