DOJ Attorney Blisters Bush Administration in Today's Denver Post

Probably putting his career on the line.

This guy's been on the job for 25+ years and says he has never seen anything close to this outrageous in all his years.  He didn't hold anything back.

This is the kind of thing that may ultimately be needed to crack the shell that this administration has put around itself.  We've seen a bit of it from NOAA and NASA employees, and some from the Department of the Interior, and now from DOJ.  Good, honest, hard working public servants getting so fed up that they are willing to speak out under their own names.  Maybe all those quotes in the NY Times and the Washington Post from "unnamed high-ranking Administration officials" might start to have names attributed to them, thanks to the courage of men and women like Mr. John S. Koppel.  

Bush Justice is a National Disgrace

A few choice quotes:

As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.

The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.

In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics.

As usual, the administration has attempted to minimize the significance of its malfeasance and misfeasance, reciting its now-customary "mistakes were made" mantra, accepting purely abstract responsibility without consequences for its actions, and making hollow vows to do better. However, the DOJ Inspector General's Patriot Act report (which would not even have existed if the administration had not been forced to grudgingly accept a very modest legislative reporting requirement, instead of being allowed to operate in its preferred secrecy), the White House-DOJ e-mails, and now the Libby commutation merely highlight yet again the lawlessness, incompetence and dishonesty of the present executive branch leadership.

I realize that this constitutionally protected statement subjects me to a substantial risk of unlawful reprisal from extremely ruthless people who have repeatedly taken such action in the past. But I am confident that I am speaking on behalf of countless thousands of honorable public servants, at Justice and elsewhere, who take their responsibilities seriously and share these views. And some things must be said, whatever the risk.

Powerful stuff.  

•  Kudos for a courageous statement.

  Putting his career on the line indeed.

  Maybe mass resignations would wake people up to the seriousness of this situation.

  by Captain Nimrod on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 03:14:25 PM PDT

  •  why can't Democrats do the right thing

    before a bunch of the good assistant U.S. attorneys resign?

    What are the Democrats waiting for to do the right thing?

    by Carl Nyberg on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 03:17:40 PM PDT

    •  Good question

      Is it incompetence?  Cowardice?  Complicity?

      A combination of the three?  Something else?

      I would really like to know.

      by James Earl on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 03:55:55 PM PDT

      •  Easy

        It's a deep, burning desire on the part of Democrats to keep their powder dry, from now until eternity.

        by SVDem on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 04:57:06 PM PDT

        •  Bullshit.

          I'm glad you live in such a simple, black and white world. Unfortunately it's far more complex. Show a little respect for the writer--he put his career on the line to expose how evil and far-reaching the Bushies have been.

          I hope our Dem. Leadership will take more action now. But I also believe they are up against an unbelievable challenge.

          Bottom line--if you think they are doing such a rotten job, run for office.

          "...from now until eternity" my ass.

          by homogenius on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:27:54 PM PDT

          •  True

            they are doing a lot (especially Waxman, Leahy, Conyers) and are up against UNBELIEVABLE odds but we should still keep the pressure on.

            by lawstudent922 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:54:48 PM PDT

            •  I agree.

              We should continue to express our concern and the compelling need for action.  But I also hold some respect for our leadership. I truly believe they are concerned about what the Bushies will do when their backs are finally against the wall. Fascists never give up power willingly.

              by homogenius on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:00:14 PM PDT

              •  I am glad you respect our leadership

                What have they done to earn it?  Pass strong bills that have been enacted into law?  Enforced their right to obtain information? Been strong about bringing our troops home from Iraq?  I must have been asleep when all that was going on.

                by klw1963 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:58:25 PM PDT

                •  The house has passed a lot of bills

                  the senate however, has a problem in numbers.  In WaPo there was a story about the huge numbers of cloture votes that Reid has called for.  But there is the repub stonewalling.  They don't want to pass bills.  They want the meme of the dems not able to govern.  They like to hide behind secret holds and talking bills to death and adding poison pill amendments.  The repubs operated in secrecy for 6 long years and now they don't like sunshine at all.

                  by glitterscale on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:25:47 AM PDT

                •  Leadership can't do some of those

                  things. The house passed the bills they said they would in those first days...but the Democrats are pretty limited in the Senate.

                  It makes me angry...not so much about now, I get it. We can't force republicans. But our minority the last years didn't show near the power the republicans do now. We had enough Dems not to let a lot of things get to a vote like republicans do now, but we let a lot of very bad bills (or nominees) come to a vote and get through. We had the power, just not the will.
                  So strong bills don't get enacted because republican senators don't let them.
                  Not sure how we can enforce our right to information but we should do more to get it enforced and be speaking out more about it.
                  Our voices don't seem to be heard.

                  But both leaders disappoint me...in what they don't do or say and in what they do. Pelosi's labor deal was troubling.
                  Harry looked good a few years ago when he closed the Senate demanding the last part of looking at pre-war intelligence and saying he'd close it until we got it. Finally agreed we'd get in in a month. We did not and we didn't hear another word about it.

                  We seem to still have that keeping our powder dry bug even now that we do have the majority.

                  by joynow on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 06:27:59 AM PDT

                  •  Reid needs to get tougher.

                    Have the Senate operate in all-day, all-night sessions until the GOP scumsuckers collapse or become the laughing stock of America.  In time, they will have two choices; let the bills pass or risk losing at least 15 seats in next year's Senate elections.

                    I believe the Senate held round-the-clock sessions in the 1960s to overcome a filibuster against civil rights legislation.  If it has to be done again, so be it!

                    by Randall Sherman on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 07:05:04 AM PDT

                    •  Agreed

                      Time for the Republicans to bring out the phone books and start reading if they really mean it.  See if any of them has the stamina of Strom.

                      by Phoenix Rising on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 08:38:39 AM PDT

                      •  my letter to John Koppel

                        Letting the man know that we have his back

                        Dear Mr. Koppel,

                        Thank you for your courage, your integrity, and your honesty.  I don’t know how many millions of dollars now plump the bloated legal defense fund for Scooter Libby, but I assure you that if your fight goes to court, many like me and the good people who read and post at dailykos.com will arm you with all the legal firepower that money can buy.

                        Yours most respectfully,

                        Frank Miles

                        Mr Koppel can be reached and supported at [e-mail]

                        by thalio on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 12:13:35 PM PDT

              •  'concerned about what the Bushies will do

                when their backs are finally against the wall. Fascists never give up power willingly.'

                If they are not going to give up power under any circumstance, then what is the option?  Do the Democratic leaders wait until ... when?  

                Perhaps putting 'their backs against the wall' and, in effect, putting all the cards on the table, is the only thing that will ultimately stop the constant and unrelenting degradation of the Constitution and this country's future.

                The fact that this Administration is 'given' 18 more months of destruction time out of fear (concern) of confrontation by the Democratic leadership is troubling to me.

                I don't know what will happen with confrontation, but I DO know what is happening now in the Bush/Cheney White House...they are my fear.

                by trinityfly on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 09:18:19 AM PDT

            •  A revolution must come

              Our government is in the hands of a corporatist mob, with their own private army and the world's most powerful arsenal.
              I pray that it will be "singing" or "velvet" - but a revolution must come.

              by Tigana on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:57:05 PM PDT

          •  no need to be vulgar

            SVDem, like many other citizens, seems to be frustrated by an evident lack of "elected democrat" backbone in dealing with the most blatant corruption our nation has ever seen...we, the people, have every right to demand more agressive action, more bright lights shone into dark corners...
            there is no doubt that mainstream dem politicians are playing it safe, "keeping their powder dry", still trembling in fear after their sojourn in the post 2000 wilderness...the people (well, most people) are ahead of the democratic establishment on a lot of issues

            you should probably retract your intemperate remark

            by memofromturner on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:55:14 PM PDT

            •  No.

              And I don't consider it intemperate. It is exactly as strong as I intended.

              by homogenius on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:56:39 PM PDT

          •  I respect the writer

            precisely because he did not keep his powder dry.

            He saw filth and injustice and crime and he spoke truth to power.

            He fired off a powerful missive and used the powder. Good for him.

            If our Congresscritters were worthy of the offices they hold, the oaths they took, and the trust of the people they represent, they will stop keeping the powder dry and fucking use it.

            If not now, when? If not for Bush and Cheney, then for whom? If not for Iraq, USAttyGate, Libby, Plame, Katrina, the Great Writ, the Constitution, for what?

            Yes, the challenge is unbelievable. So are the stakes. Because if we let this criminal junta go on much longer, we'll nuke Iran and the rest of the Constitution will go bye-bye and you and I can have this conversation about keeping powder dry in a goddamned camp behind barbed wire.

            by blue vertigo on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:08:57 PM PDT

            •  I agree, but I think there is another side.

              I truly wish I could hear the conversations taking place among Dems in Congress. I believe they are likely very scared. The Bushies are truly evil. They are dangerous. They are without remorse.

              I say keep the pressure on. Tell them we want to save our country. Impress upon them that the time is now. Make it absolutely clear that we believe our liberty hangs in the balance and that we are watching and we vote.

              But I could do without the armchair quarterbacking. For me, anyone who claims they know absolutely how and when they should attack is full of it. I just don't think it's only about 'keeping the powder dry'.

              by homogenius on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:30:11 PM PDT

              •  I believe that Democrats are doing it in the

                correct way.  Yes, I wish I could wake up tomorrow and all the criminals would already be impeached but things have to be done legally.  It is appropriate for investigations to take place before elected officials begin to talk impeachment.  it is like discussing whether a suspect should get the death penalty before he has been arrested.  The investigation comes first then the impeachment.  

                by macmcd on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:16:24 PM PDT

                •  Bingo.

                  Unfortunately, we may run out of time to impeach. But the goal is to save the country. And it's a great country. I hate these bastards. I want them to roast in the hottest part of hell. But my country is more important than revenge. Although the classic adage holds--living well (or freedom, in this case) is the best revenge.

                  This is some serious shit. And it calls for serious people. By biggest fear is the booby traps they have undoubtedly laid for us, probably within the legal system. They've been stacking the deck for six years.

                  by homogenius on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:28:09 PM PDT

                  •  I totally agree with you about the running out of

                    time part.  A part of me wants them publicly humiliated  to get even for all they have done.  But the truth is that it is far more important for our country, our Constitution, and our citizens to be saved from these bastards than it is to provide me with satisfaction that they have been appropriately punished.  I frequently day dream of a big trial in the World Court with Bush having been found guilty walking to the gallows saying, "Please don't kill me" in the voice he so mockingly used to describe Karla Faye Tucker.  

                    by macmcd on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:40:02 PM PDT

                    •  macmcd, Bush could not imitate Tucker

                      because to do so he would have to admit past sin and repent.

                      And he can not do so. As far as he is concered he has done no wrong.
                      sam

                      by samddobermann on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 12:11:12 PM PDT

                  •  Are you convinced GWB will leave office on 1/09?

                    Beacuse I'm not.

                    by bee tzu on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:22:40 PM PDT

                    •  I think he will.

                      But I'm more concerned about them rigging the system to install another puppet more than they did the last two times around. They've been craftier than they were with Watergate, Iran-Contra, Willie Horton and anything else you can name.

                      by homogenius on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:09:36 PM PDT

                      •  Evolution in action.

                        If you don't get rid of all the bacteria in an infection they come back stronger, and resistant to your antibiotic.

                        by Canadian Reader on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:41:47 AM PDT

                    •  I think he wishs

                      He was gone already. But he can't resign, since that would mean admitting a mistake, and we all know how he feels about that.

                      by Goldfish on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:35:45 PM PDT

                    •  man

                      that's just boogeyman talk.  Has there been any sober-minded examination of groundwork they have laid to support that?  There's a Republican primary underway for christ's sake.  Campaign operatives have left the bush clan to go work with some of these other teams.  

                      And just look at some of the choices they're making.  They know damn well that they're not going to be in office in 2009.  If they thought they'd still be in office, they'd be making different foreign policy choices.  All they're doing now is desperately trying to run out the clock, holding on to their past bad choices in the name of Republican philosphy face-changing, and hoping the world doesn't blow up in the meantime.  And let's face it, the world probably won't blow up before then.  In the Republican mindset, a new Republican president showing up to play daddy and fix the problems of a past Republican president "who made mistakes but was steadfast and had his heart in the right place" is vastly preferable to Bush blinking and admitting his own mistakes.

                      This GWB not leaving office on 1/09 is only a couple of links away from the 9/11 conspiracy theories as far as I'm concerned.  They're leaving.  They're tying the hands of who comes next, but they're leaving.

                      by tunesmith on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:18:07 AM PDT

                      •  You still haven't learned

                        that these criminals are capable of anything. How do you know what they may or may not do? Isn't it better to be prepared for the worst event, than to be blind-sided again by these criminals? At least honestly and openly discuss under what circumstances it may happen, instead of discounting an event that neither you nor anybody else can know the probability of. People like these guys, don't give a shit whether people they know are working on existing campaigns or not. I mean come on, they knowingly lied to get us into a war that they knew was going to kill many thousands of innocent people and they didn't care. It doesn't get any worse than that. And yes, I believe there is some probability that 9/11 could have been, at least partially staged or allowed to happen. I've seen to much to ever discount what deranged people will do.

                        by rsie on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:29:31 PM PDT

                •  but when they stonewall the investigations...

                  and there are seemingly no consequences, what then?

                  by methodishca on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:53:13 PM PDT

                •  not so

                  an impeachment proceeding IS the investigation...you don't need investigations before investigations....they should impeach now...there are grounds already established and the process usually only takes 3-4 months.

                  by valadon on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:40:29 PM PDT

            •  Alright then

              what do you suggest they do with all that powder? Don't even bother with mentioning impeachment, I only want to hear suggestions that will do a damn thing.

              What's your bright idea? You must have one since you're so sure the entire Congress is unfit for office. If you were the Speaker, what would you do? Again, don't mention impeachment, because I'm only interested in ideas that will be effective.

              by Goldfish on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:34:11 PM PDT

              •  Cute question.

                Answer it yourself, which is what you intended to do all along.

                by blue vertigo on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:28:39 AM PDT

                •  haha!

                  did you get that? Impeachment is "not effective"! Anything that weakens Bush is "effective." In the meantime, a madman guts the Constitution, remains unaccountable, breaks the law with impunity, and keeps our troops in Iraq where they can get killed for a neocon nightmare.

                  by Terminus on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 05:28:17 AM PDT

                  •  But.......

                    In the meantime, a madman guts the Constitution, remains unaccountable, breaks the law with impunity, and keeps our troops in Iraq where they can get killed for a neocon nightmare.

                    But, Goldfish says we can't 'succeed' and shouldn't even try.

                    Since we shouldn't even try, should we even care?

                    Seriously. Think I'll go have a swim and forget the nation.

                    by blue vertigo on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 08:06:44 AM PDT

                    •  You must be addicted to losing

                      that's the only conclusion I can draw from this exchange.

                      by Goldfish on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:07:45 PM PDT

                      •  Did you have a swim?

                        Use your sunblock?

                        Stay hydrated too.

                        Take care.

                        by blue vertigo on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 07:00:16 PM PDT

                  •  Impeachment won't weaken Bush

                    so you're point is no point at all.

                    by Goldfish on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:07:15 PM PDT

                •  No, it's not

                  I have my own answer, but I wanted to hear yours. You clearly think you have some great ideas, but I want to hear what, besides impeachment, you have to offer. If impeachment is all you got, I'll stick with Pelosi thankyouverymuch.

                  by Goldfish on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:06:35 PM PDT

                  •  You can stick with Pelosi.

                    I'll stick with the Constitution.

                    It was written so that criminals could be removed from office, you know.

                    All it takes is the will to do it. You don't have that. You've made that clear.

                    :::shrug:::: Not much more to say.

                    by blue vertigo on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 07:02:19 PM PDT

                    •  the two are not mutually exclusive

                      As I have said repeatedly, impeachment is not currently an effective vehicale for defending the Constitution.

                      In the long run, it may damage efforts at combating the Busite forces who you can be sure aran't going to disappear once Bush leaves office, impeachment or no impeachment.

                      My interest is how best we can fight those forces that seek to fundamentally alter and pervert the nature of American democracy. Currently, I see impeachment as more of a hinderence than a help to that goal. Pelsoi would seem to agree, given that she acknowledges how bad Bush's misdeeds have been and hasn't pressed impeachment.

                      So I'll stick with Pelosi and the Constitution thank you very much.

                      by Goldfish on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 07:56:58 PM PDT

                      •  I wish I could laugh.

                        As I have said repeatedly, impeachment is not currently an effective vehicale for defending the Constitution.

                        Yes, you've said that.

                        Does that make it truth, or just your opinion?

                        Pelsoi would seem to agree, given that she acknowledges how bad Bush's misdeeds have been and hasn't pressed impeachment.

                        Do you think this in any way helps your argument?

                        So I'll stick with Pelosi and the Constitution thank you very much.

                        No, you've made your choice. It's not the Constitution.

                        by blue vertigo on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 08:06:42 PM PDT

                        •  Once again

                          You are clinging to a phony and fallacious argument. It is a false choice, and if you have any interest in honest debate, you'll stop pushing it.

                          As for the effectiveness of imepachment, explain to me how something with no chance of success is at all effective? If you can do that, you will have proven my assertion wrong, but if you can't I'll stand by it.

                          by Goldfish on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 08:23:04 PM PDT

                          •  There are two courses of action here.

                            One is to do nothing.

                            The other is to defend the Constitution. To at least TRY to defend it.

                            You choose nothing.

                            That's not my choice. I couldn't live with myself.

                            You can.

                            There's nothing complicated about this. Nor phony. Nor dishonest. Nor fallacious.

                            I just called it as it is. You're so proud of your choices, then don't run away when they're called what they are.

                            by blue vertigo on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 03:20:59 PM PDT

            •  fine

              but... some people also call for mass resignations.  Which... makes the DOJ weaker, and after appointments are completed to replace the openings, will result in an even more politicized DOJ.  Martyrdom is not always the way to go.

              by tunesmith on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:09:21 AM PDT

            •  i just finished "assault on reason"

              and have come to many of the same conclusions that gore pointed out. the main one being that america is so dumbed down by the msm and their complicity in Bu$hcos crimes, if for no other reason than NOT telling the news, the REAL news. to all of the impeachment naysayers here, how different are you from the msm? you are portraying a vary restrained very quiet fight for truth and justice simply by not raising your voices and not being heard as a conseqence, those being heard are portraying the exact meme for which the rethuglickin party desires- no true resistance. do you honestlt believe that as low as king george/prince of darkness cheneys numbers are at the present moment, that OTHER people wouldn't join the outcry, the fray, the demand for impeachment if they only started hearing about it every damn day on the news? the msm cannot ignore any given situation indefinately and this issue is no different, they jump on all of the wrong stories all of the time, sure, dead and missing white girls seem to be their mainstay but what about dead and missing justice for gross abuses of our constitution? they will rise up whenever we collectively do so ourselves, they will have no choice.
               to ignore what is going on or to delay anything any futher does what exactly? it gets more of the same. but the problem i see is to what degree of attrociousness do you want it to end at? sure they don't have long left in office, but that it sures hell PLENTY of time to do damage we have yet to imagine even possible. barely 6 months have gone by since impeachment was "taken off of the table", take a look at what sort of shit they have done since. they took it as a free ride to do whatever the hell they want to and did just that, whatever the hell they wanted. we can wait until hell freezes over if you prefer, but what good can be said about delayed justice when it is the constitution that is being shredded, your "unalienable" rights as a citizen of this "democracy"?
               my constitution demands impeachment, what does yours say?

              by playtonjr on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:33:25 AM PDT

          •  hg, what's your problem?

            Yes, our Dems do have a near-unbreakable jones to keep their powder bone f*cking dry.  To wit:

            Alito confirmed,
            Roberts confirmed,
            John Bolton nomination not shot down in flames,
            Warrantless wiretaps of US citizens,
            Bankruptcy bill passed 74-25 (ooh, a slim majority of courageous Dems voted No),
            Patriot Act passed 99-to-f*cking-1,
            Habeas dumped and
            We Now Torture!  
            USA USA!!

            Since Dems came into power:
            Gonzales, Sampson and Schlozman can't recall shit - No Consequences,
            Condi is "not inclined" to attend hearings, No Consequences,
            We've received how many Rove emails???  No Consequences,
            The plan to withdraw from Iraq is...where?  More dead.
            Iraq Supplemental Surrender Bill, (aka Operation Blank Check),
            Scooter is now free, and...drumroll please...
            Impeachment. Is. Still. Off. The. F*cking. Table!!
            That's some mighty dry powder, no?

            All of these are FACTS about our brave Dems.
            These sad facts in no way disrespect USA Koppel's courage to speak out, nor reflect on jcatcher's diary!

            So, what's your problem?
            I call Bullshit on your Bullshit call.

            by JVolvo on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:25:28 PM PDT

            •  You forgot NCLB

              Democrats Miller and Kennedy respectively have not only allowed it to happen, but they are now actively pushing for renewal.

              NCLB, one of the most egregious corporate lap dances ever indulged in on a bi-partisan basis.  Even the Repubs are running from it, meaning that, in '08 Democrats be left defending what is essentially Bush's losing education policy.

              Do they even think about these things?

              by Mi Corazon on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:34:59 PM PDT

              •  wah?

                I'm not an expert on NCLB, but if you believe the Dem primary talk from 2004, wasn't the problem with it that it was an unfunded mandate?  I remember that being more the problem than the content of the bill.  If they're seeking to renew it, but with funding this time, I don't think that's painting with the same brush as the original passage.

                by tunesmith on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:20:15 AM PDT

                •  The problem is, they don't see the problem.

                  I guess you don't have a kid in school and haven't talked to a teacher lately. The real problem with NCLB isn't that it's unfunded. It's, precisely, the content of the bill, which is blatantly designed to gut your public school system.

                  I can't figure out why Kennedy signed on. Did he just want his name attached to some bill, any old bill, that was about education? Maybe. In that case, he was suckered and the voters of Massachusetts should start wondering about the onset of senility; he used to be smarter than that.

                  by Canadian Reader on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:55:50 AM PDT

                  •  hm

                    well, you're absolutely right - like I said, I'm not very up on the bill.  I wonder why the heck the emphasis on the bill (especially from Dean) was that it was an unfunded mandate.  

                    by tunesmith on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 10:58:45 AM PDT

          •  That's why they get paid the big bucks.

            I hope our Dem. Leadership will take more action now. But I also believe they are up against an unbelievable challenge.

            Challenge? Compared to what, spending year after year in Anbar Province? The only thing that congressional democrats have to lose is their money and power. The soldiers whom they have stranded in Iraq have much more to lose.

            If congressional democrats are not up to the task, let them leave office and make room for someone else who is up to the task. BTW, I am running for office.

            by gravitylove on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:28:04 PM PDT

          •  the high wall

            So the qualification test for criticism of public officials is your personal willingness to run for their office?  
            Et tu bullshit.

            by coneyretard on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:59:42 PM PDT

            •  nope

              it's about acknowledging that the elected public officials might have perspective that we don't.  And for those that refuse to accept or believe that, their only medicine might be to run for office themselves and learn it the hard way.  

              by tunesmith on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:21:14 AM PDT

              •  sophistry

                If they have perspective that we don't, which is obvious to anyone, it is their job to educate and inform their constituents and the public on their record.  Not believing or accepting the position of a politician is a reason to vote for someone else.  The idea that you have to run for office to understand how politics works is elitist crap.  We understand.  And we think it sucks.

                You want to give medicine to the people.  The disease is in the leadership of the nation.  It's the democratic leaders DUTY to spend every ounce of energy they have to fix this and fight the rot.  Telling us that they know what's best for us in patronizing tones is crap.  

                by coneyretard on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 06:56:34 AM PDT

                •  buzz

                  "elitist" is a buzzword.  Break it down.

                  1. It's possible, even likely, that an elected public official might have more political experience than a citizen that isn't a public official.

                  2. It's possible, even likely, that the official might have more political perspective than the citizen.

                  3. It's also possible that the official might have very good reason not to be 100% transparent to the citizen.

                  Those conditions exist.  That's just reality.  There are two choices there - let the office-holder do their job, or rail against them.  But too often, the above three are used as sufficient reason to call them elitist and patronizing.

                  I'm not saying the choice is always automatically to let them do their job, but I also don't think the choice should be to automatically rail against them because they are being "elitist".

                  by tunesmith on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 10:57:22 AM PDT

                  •  Automatic for the People

                    1.  Possible and again obvious, but why on earth would that excuse them from their responsibilities to their constituency?

                    2.  Possible again but I reject likely.  Perpective is exactly what politicians often lack.  And a political perspective that overrides a moral responsibility is a weakness of leadership.  You simply don't agree that we have arrived at the level of moral and ethical obligation.  Additionally, you are the one claiming a specialists exception in terms of language.  It is elitist to claim that their political perspective makes them inherently more qualified to judge right and wrong and further exempts them from the rabble "railing" at your door.

                    3. Of course again and even more obvious given the nature of politics and security, but you don't know that because you think citizens are too stupid to realize what goes on behind closed doors.  No one is arguing for complete transparency.  People on the street want results.  Playing the political game well is not what I voted for.  Politics is indeed the problem of those who asked to be given the privilege of serving.  I voted for an end to the war and until you deliver that, I'll raise my fucking voice as much as I please and no I won't say thank you.  Politics is hard?  Try burying your son or daughter who died for a fucking lie.

                    And I'm not saying that we should automatically criticize our elected officials every single time after time after time that they don't succeed in delivering on their promises to end this war and restore my rights as an American citizen.  Suggesting that we owe our leaders the benefit of the doubt is exactly how the democratic party ended up voting for this liar's war in the first place.  No  thanks on the second helping of shit sandwich.

                    I also never wrote that any politicians were elitist or patronizing.  You need to read closer.  I said the idea that those who criticize elected officials should just "let them do their job" unless they intend to run for office is elitist and it is.  It posits two classes of citizens, those who have the code and those of us who don't.  Somehow you feel you've been elected to the former group and I am proud to be in the latter.

                    <<Insert Groucho Marx quote about not wanting to be in any club that would have me, HERE.>>

                    The point is not that we don't understand the nuance of their positions because whether you think me capable or not, I do understand the complexity of their work even when I am not privy to the details.  Guess what?  It doesn't change a damn thing about how I feel about our continued shared failure to effect meaningful change.  

                    Some things don't and won't ever change in the back rooms and coat rooms.  Some things deserve and are rightly talked about in the light of day.  Things like the rights of all people to not be tortured or held indefinitely by a government with no habeus corpus.  Things like the rights of the people to demand that those elected to uphold the laws do not break them.  These things aren't defeated in back rooms.  They are defeated by bringing them into the cold light of day.  

                    I could live with a leadership that stood up to proclaim the truth and retreated to the back room to strategize politics in private about how to change those things, but when your leaders can't find the moral courage to speak about the contravention of the rule of the law by the president of the United States through torure, cooked intelligence, datamining an entire citizenry and abandonment of the principles of the Constitution, then how am I to trust them to do the right thing just because they say "trust us"?

                    There is a difference between being a leader and a being an effective politician.  We need both.

                    by coneyretard on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 04:53:32 PM PDT

          •  Run for office?

            Give me a break.  The Democratic leadership in my State - - Sherrod Brown, for one - - actively opposes insurgent type or progressive candidates, in favor of county commissioner types who have "earned" their right to run for Congress.

            They have been keeping their bloody powder dry now for 6 years - - while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die in our name, and while thousands are tortured in our name, and while the President of the United States ignores laws.  

            I want an impeachment inquiry and I want it yesterday.  I want a limitation on funding the troops and I want it yesterday.  I want political courage and honesty . ..  I don't want political calculation and triangulation of issues. . . .

            When our Democratic leadership puts leadership on the table, I'll applaud.  But I have seen very few Congressional Democrats who have had the balls to take a strong stand, and, more to the point, to take real action to cause real change.  

            I think what we really need is about 10 million people on the Washington Mall, occupying Congress and forcing a new Constitutional Convention.  That may be America's only hope.

            by klw1963 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:05:31 PM PDT

          •  It may no longer be a matter of parties

            Have a look at this diary from tonight.

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            The establishment of corporate countries by global business interests makes the possibility of achieving justice, within our country or any other, a lot more formidable than one would ever want to consider.

            by Creosote on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:00:11 AM PDT

          •  Exec. Order 51

            Imagine a world in which Bush threatens Dems in Congress with enacting E.O. 51, by hook or by crook, if they put impeachment on the table. And, of course, with Bush as the Decider in such a circumstance, the '08 elections would have to be canceled.

            Imagine Dick Cheney in charge of the false flag operation that serves as a catalyst for the enactment of E.O. 51.

            Imagine that...

            by Eyeball Kid on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 12:48:56 PM PDT

      •  Name me one 'R' who will support impeachment

        Of Gonzales, Cheney, or Bush, and I'll gladly scream it from the hilltops.

        But until someone on the other side of the aisle speaks out about it--and says one of them "should be impeached"--it's an academic exercise.

        We don't have the votes to convict in the Senate. Until that changes, I'd rather have a budget than a failed impeachment that would be spun to death as a sign of Democratic "weakness."

        by lone1c on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:12:25 PM PDT

        •  You don't have the votes in the house

          Don't play games. Otherwise impeachment would be front and center. But , with the exception of a few, the House has been quietly silent. When you count the votes in the house, how many Democrats would make sure impeachment won't happen?

          20 to 30 Blue Dogs? Regardless the silence is as  despicable as the mealy mouth excuses like: "I'd rather have a budget". The budget will be there because all members of both houses have vested interests in that budget passing. There are promises to keep and no energy to walk the miles to keep them. The budget is always the answer for in action and the excuse too. Pathetic

          That shit needs to stop.

          by Dburn on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:20:19 PM PDT

          •  Fuk the blue dawgs ! They should be forced to

            run as republicans or independents..We dont need more leeebermanns and blue dawgs continually biting at our asses..I repeat No blue dawgs

            by Johnny Rapture on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:46:08 PM PDT

            •  Well sure, if you want to cede control

              of the House and Senate. Rather than "Fuk the blue dawgs!" they need to be persuaded. They are no more a pain in our ass than, say, Hagel and Lugar are to the Republicans. And the comparison to LIEberman is not very apt. He's in a party class by himself.

              In a better world there would be more progressives in Congress, but until we reach that point, I prefer Democratic leadership, even if it's hobbled by guys whose politics is way to the right of mine.

              by RudiB on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:19:08 PM PDT

              •  You already ceded control

                The minute you put the budget excuse as a talking point out. As I recall , Clinton gave his apology speech to the nation in August of 1998 and there wasn't any budget problems that year beyond the normal fights.

                The Budget is Three Trillion dollars now. That is the ultimate leverage on the Blue dogs and the fact that the D's won't use it is a crime in and of itself.

                Votes are trades every day. You pat my back I'll pat yours. If there is a majority of the majority of the D's in the house who are wanting to stand tall for the constitution and the rule of law, they'll use that budget as a battering Ram to whip that vote.

                Just don't blame it on the Senate. Once Impeachment passes the house , I think the convictions for Gonzalez and Cheney are no problem. Bush may be a push but it's possible depending on what the investigations turn up as the Media zeros in.

                We need some heroes here. The only leadership I see is coming from R's desperate to hold onto power. If they end up leading Impeachment, the D's will be back in the minority. Did your strategists ever figure they might just flip on their fellow thieves like thieves normally do and end up making  you look like spineless creatures. It's all in the PR and they do that well.

                They took that chance in 98 and it paid off and it was over nothing. The D's won't do shit and the very country is at stake. They're thinking the country's attention span is limited and they'll forget about this or Iraq will be hung around Bush and the Rs.

                But you are forgetting, no one died during Clinton's Impeachment, and no one will forgive the D's for not doing their jobs as more and more Americans die and money is used that should be going else where.

                You were aware that the NIH's funding went down in 2003 for the first time in decades and they are the ones that come up with the drugs that cure shit. Lets not even think about Stem Cell Research. There is so much wrong with whoever is leading the D's.

                Wrong Moves ..all of them. You don't give your enemy a hand when he's wounded, not when they have no honor, you finish them off or they'll  be back. The Blue dogs are giving the R's their power back and you people can't seem to get your hands around that.

                by Dburn on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:53:09 PM PDT

            •  Stupidest comment every

              Who quickly we forget what life in the minority was like.

              by Goldfish on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:38:24 PM PDT

              •  for real

                how quickly we forget terry schiavo.

                If it were not for the democratic majority in both houses we'd be in Iran by now.

                by VelvetElvis on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 02:09:47 AM PDT

              •  That's just the point

                By not exercising the majority rights from the capitulation bill to inaction on this crime syndicate you have ceded majority rights that was given to you by the voters for the sole purpose of checking these people.

                What have you checked. What have you stopped? There have been minor victories that have been heralded on these pages as the second coming. But no bills have been jammed down Bush's throat so no substinative legislation has come. The  window that was open to pass any has slammed shut the moment you capitulated on Iraq.

                You will have nothing to show for these two years yet your strategists are depending on polls taken prior to capitualtion and seem to ignore that congress ratings are as low as the President as Pelosi's numbers have slipped in double digits.

                This man has 18 Months left in office and you haven't roadblocked anything. Who is to say we won't be at war with Iran and you should be grateful for Schiavo becuase that was one of the failings that the R's defeated themselves with in 2006. Yet you failed to capitalize on it.

                Keep in mind, we aren't talking process here or hearings or CPAN televised speeches of fury followed by no action that only political Junkies watch , we are talking about mi