Snowballs in hell

In a Ha'aretz analysis that by turns examines and displays the cynicism and delusions of all parties to the slaughter in Gaza, this passage actually made me laugh out loud, but not in a good way:

In just 11 days, president-elect Barack Obama will take office. On Tuesday he was asked about the war between Hamas and Israel. He said he was concerned about the civilian casualties on both sides. That concern could turn into anger at Israel in the course of the inauguration ceremony. Washington expects - though it is not saying so out loud - that Israel will end the war before Obama is sworn in as president. [my emphasis]

Anger at Israel in the course of the inauguration ceremony is about as likely as 80-degree temperatures on Inaugural Day. No, there's nothing for the Israelis to fear from the new administration, or from Congress. If the Israeli government ends its assault before Obama is sworn in, it will be for their own internal political reasons.

It certainly won't be because they've run out of bullets, bombs, and shells with which to bury Gazans in the rubble of their houses. Those have our names on them. Anyone who wants to pretend that the current Israeli onslaught wasn't green-lighted by the U.S. government needs to explain the unusually large, irregular, commercial shipments of weapons and ammunition from Sunny Point, NC to Ashdod, an Israeli port 20 miles from Gaza -- 3000 tons in December, another 1000 tons planned for this month.

But the ice is cracking. The discussion of the occupation can no longer be shut down or controlled here as it used to. The spectacle of active political support for Israel's latest atrocities is increasing the disconnect between the American people and our elected "representatives" and media elite.

As with so many things, the change seems to be coming too late to do much good, but you never know where it will end up. The important thing is to push it along when you can.

Launching Qassam rockets over the Gaza border is a war crime. Over a period of years, the rockets have killed dozens of Israeli civilians and a few Palestinians, injured others, caused damage, and fostered a climate of fear and uncertainty.

Years of U.S.-Israeli blockade and economic strangulation, "targeted assassinations", an attempted coup against the elected government, with periodic and ever-more-savage aerial bombing, missile and tank assaults on densely populated areas: these constitute a far greater war crime, one in which we are directly complicit. More than a third of the 800+ killed since December 27 are women and children; well more than half are civilians and noncombatants. It is simply wrong to characterize the Israeli actions as self-defense.

Tell your Senators and your House member how you view their active cheerleading for Israel's assault on Gaza. If you're represented by one of the 27 House representatives who voted 'no' or 'present', please thank and encourage them.

Update: 2:10 pm, 12 January - Rep. Dennis Kucinich speaking [4 min video] in opposition to the House resolution on Jan. 9. David Luban post on the legalities and illegalities of Israel's current assault on Gaza. Pat Lang's comments on IDF ground forces.
.

The beginning...

...finally, of the Al Franken Decade. Or the Al Franken six years, at least. Close enough.

Bleak, even horrific news abounds. With the new year only five days old, I'm trying to avoid being overwhelmed by taking satisfaction from the bright spots that present themselves.

Update: 5:50 pm, 30 June - Okaaaaay, that was a long pause. Now the Al Franken Decade gets underway!

Deal: raw

Blech. I'm not loving it. But along with the pols, I failed to do enough to take on the premises of the bailout. Even within the limits of what can be done around the edges, though, the deal appears to be disappointing.

I'm seriously unhappy that Henry Paulson, who's already handed over billions of our money in broad daylight to help his old firm, appears still to be the decision-maker in this giveaway. [Update: 5:45 pm, 28 Sept - Yep; it's actually worse than I thought: "So it's all up to the Secretary to establish the rules. Same with [equity] Warrants - it's up to the Secretary to negotiate." The form and amount of disclosure of purchases is also up to Paulson. End update.] $350 billion is way too much to commit before any Congressional brakes can be put on. There's almost no punitive aspect, and no re-regulation. There's nothing of the needed bankruptcy changes Dick Durbin tried to insert.

Update 2: 3:00 am, 29 Sept - Reports from the conference call Treasury held Sunday night with the industry (no media, no public; would have gone unreported except for industry-observing bloggers) confirm my worst suspicions. This is not good enough to vote for; it's the original Paulson naked class war with Democratic fig leaves. In particular, the whole $700b can be committed before the clique of looters leaves office. Which was the point. I'm just numb with despair. End update 2.

Bernie Sanders' proposal needs to be a bill come February 2009. As does Durbin's bankruptcy re-reform and Sen. Clinton's recreation of the depression-era Home Owner Loan Corporation. A serious tax is the first priority; the only way to fund health care is to claw back some of the outrageous share of national income from them what took it:

... the total share of national income going to the super-rich has more than doubled [since 1979]. The merely well off have also gotten a slightly bigger piece of the pie, while everyone else has funded this free-for-all. "Everyone else," in this case, means 90% of the country. Our share of national income has gone down in order to make sure that virtually all the fruits of economic growth over the past four decades could go to the well-off, the rich, and the super-duper-rich.

Image: Afferent Input

Letter to the editor - bailout

Sent to the Roanoke Times, just at their word limit of 200; I hope it's one of many.

Six years ago Bush and Cheney used scare stories to stampede Congress into authorizing a ruinous war. Now they're using the same tactics to make a huge grab for the bank on the way out the door.

After two years of saying things were under control, while ignoring the pain of homeowners struggling with unaffordable mortgages, suddenly they’re painting the picture of a financial "mushroom cloud" unless we fork over $700 billion right now, to be handed out to their Wall Street friends with no questions asked.

For Congress to agree would be an unconstitutional abdication of its power of the purse -- even if this administration had proved trustworthy in dispensing vast sums of money. Given the actual Bush-Cheney record of corruption, incompetence, and cover-ups, it would be insanely irresponsible.

The timing also guarantees conflict of interest. In January Secretary Paulson is likely to be looking for work among the very businesses to whom he's proposing to hand out billions.

Congress should pass no proposal that doesn't

restructure mortgages to keep people in their homes,

protect taxpayers' interests with oversight and accountability, and

lay the groundwork for re-regulation to solve the problem.

Now reworking for Rep. Goodlatte and Sens. Warner and Webb.
.

Groundhog day

Through their tears, they see opportunity.

In this case, the opportunity is a $700-billion grab, with unfettered authority, from the taxpayers to the administration's best friends on Wall Street.

Six years ago to the day, the regime was demanding unfettered authority for another such project from Congress. Common sense warned that the tidy, antiseptic slogan of "regime change" was a facade for vast devastation and killing, and a long, open-ended commitment of resources for unstated goals. But complicit, ambitious, and fearful Democrats were only willing to tinker with the language, not confront the basic policy, and agreed to a vote before the election. So here we are, a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives later.

The clique of lawless plunderers in the executive (and fourth) branches has used the technique again and again, and it always works: They back Congress up against a deadline and "brief" them with visions of the catastrophic consequences of not granting yet more unchecked power and retroactive absolution for crimes already committed.

The Military Commissions Act was introduced at this time two years ago as an electoral club: fearful of "soft on terrorism" smears, the Democrats acceded to authorizing show trials, legalizing torture, and actively cooperated in stripping habeas protections from prisoners. The Protect America Act, to authorize previously illegal massive domestic spying, was pushed through with tales of terrorist threats against Congress itself and with an August recess looming.

In this latest crisis, the Democrats are as complicit as they are fearful; Wall Street runs both parties. I look for nothing but the tiniest concessions, nibbling around the edges rather than addressing the causes, much less sticking the people who caused the problem with the tab or holding them accountable in any way.

And the timing, when so many activists are in full-out election mode, means that it's unlikely that a cohesive alternative can be put together in time to provide even a missed opportunity for the craven congressional Dems. Still, I'll keep alert to signs of organized resistance.

Update: 2:30 pm, Sept 21 - This, purportedly from a member of Congress (vouched for and via Matt Stoller) is a spirits-lifter, but I'd be more encouraged if s/he'd go on the record:

Nancy [Pelosi] said she wanted to include the second "stimulus" package that the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans have blocked. I don't want to trade a $700 billion dollar giveaway to the most unsympathetic human beings on the planet for a few fucking bridges. I want reforms of the industry, and I want it to be as punitive as possible.
...
I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me.

David Obey? Barney Frank?

Update 2: 4:00 pm, Sept. 21 - By far the best summary of how Congress should respond to this outrageous ploy by the regime is a guest post by Rebecca Gordon at Happening Here? Her most important point, one which the Democrats fail to grasp again and again, is that there is no reason to grant the regime's terms of debate, that unlimited authority must be ceded right this minute or the sky will fall.

Prepare to dare or prepare to despair

Email conversation with Thomas Nephew about the Million Doors for Peace effort got me to pull together some thoughts I've only let myself reflect on briefly over the last few months.

There's been a divide among antiwar activists -- between those who are serious about ending the occupation of Iraq and those who’d like to do that but only if it doesn’t cost Democrats politically. Depending on the size of the Democratic majorities in Congress, and assuming an Obama administration, that divide might be less important in 2009 than it's been for the last two years.

Given that Voters for Peace (the coalition organizing Million Doors) includes both tendencies, it's an encouraging sign that their petition calls for a faster and firmer wrapup in Iraq than even the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, not to mention the probably-never "conditional engagement" plan of Colin Kahl and company, who have Obama's ear. If the Responsible Plan were the strongest demand on the Obama administration, then we'd end up with something closer to permanent bases and endless occupation. With Voters for Peace mobilizing a million petition signers this winter for something stronger, the Responsible Plan backers in Congress should be able to position their policy (accurately) as the centrist choice.

There’s a whole constellation of issues just ahead of us in which this dynamic plays out, where an insufficiently vigorous presence on the "radical" end of the spectrum could result in blown opportunities that haunt us for the next decade or more.

Health care: Health Care for America Now has more than a little in common with Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (see 'divide' above). I accept that there's an imperative for Dems to pass something that concretely provides access to affordable health insurance for everyone. I also accept the political impossibility of legislating the private insurers out of the medical market in the next Congress. So I grasp the incrementalist strategy, whose goal is to get a public insurance pool into whatever's passed as the thin end of the wedge that could lead eventually to an all-public plan.

What I don’t buy is that single-payer advocates should just fold into the HCAN campaign rather than mobilizing to create the serious threat of a stronger plan from which the HCAN public-pool proposal can be urged as the compromise retreat. If HCAN’s is the starting position, then we’ll end up with less than that. In this case, anything less would mean foreclosing the chance for public health care for another generation.

Impeachment right away: Only a small minority of the American public -- even of informed, activist liberals -- understands that the Constitution provides for impeachment of officials after they've left office, not just for sitting presidents. Yet post-power impeachment hearings are the single best way to uncover just what lawbreaking was done. Not only do impeachment investigations have much stronger testimony-extracting powers than regular Congressional hearings, but post-term impeachment is much less easily characterized as a "partisan witch hunt" because it's removed from an electoral landscape.

Other excuses will be will be thrown up by compromised, fearful, lazy, and/or power-loving Democrats. The two most common are "we don't want to be seen as vindictive" and "impeachment would be a distraction from the vital work we have to get done".

The best answer to ‘vindictive’ is that this is about restoring the Constitution, pruning back these dangerously expanded executive powers that no one -- including "our" people -- should have. That’s the opposite of vindictive.

We’re going to get the ‘distraction’ line not only from politicians but from our allies, every organized progressive constituency desperate to get issues addressed by Congress after eight (or 28) years in the desert. Yet if the impeachment investigations are put off for even a year, we’ll run right up against the midterms, and by 2011 the presidential campaign will have begun. So if hearings don't begin in 2009, it’s hard to see how they could get going before 2013 -– by which time the "ancient history" charge will have more effect. So it could be 2009 or never.

We cannot wait. If there’s no serious domestic move toward accountability for torture, for which impeachment hearings are among the most practical and plausibly effective forum, then within a year there will be international legal interventions. The politics and optics of that are terrible, for anyone who cares about achieving a systemic rooting-out and reversal of this country's policy of torture. Legal threats from outside the country risk creating an effect of rallying around the old regime (however incredible such a thing seems now), and not only among Republicans. The most secure footing for international law will be created by Americans ourselves restoring the rule of law in the United States.

Likewise, only actual exposure of what went on with domestic spying under Bush-Cheney can light a big enough fire under Congress to get them to roll back the legislation that enables it, and only impeachment hearings seem to me to have the testimony-inducing force to get that exposure.

Impeachment is the key to reversing the damage of the last eight years, not simply papering it over. The time to organize for demanding it is not after the election, but now.

(The mechanics to accomplish this are for another post. Please don't wait for that; share thoughts and suggestions in comments.)
.

Your FISA summariza

(Title a shameless ripoff of inspired by The Editors' Your FISA Advisa)

The vote has been postponed until Wednesday to make it easier for Senators to attend Jesse Helms' funeral. So keep the calls and letters coming. Thomas Nephew has a splendid roundup of resources, and more how-to.

I talked to a legislative assistant today to get a reading on Webb's vote, and found that they haven't discussed it yet. He protested that none of the amendments is in final form. Although true, typical, and unsettling, that's not an excuse to duck taking a position; the amendments' basic outlines are known. This is especially so for the Dodd amendment, S.Amdt.5064, that will simply strike the telecom immunity provisions from the bill. So we'll talk again tomorrow.

The Webb aide did say that Judge Walker's recent ruling in the Al Haramain case is "changing the game a little" for members of the Judiciary Committee. I expressed the hope that the change was in the direction of eroding support for the bill, since the main effect of that ruling was to expose as a sham the Democratic leadership's claim that exclusivity was a big part of what was "won" to make this bill an acceptable "compromise". This might, though, mean that Specter's amendment is shape-shifting -- something to keep an eye on.
.
Update: July 8, 10:30 am - As so often, Glenn Greenwald drives home the fundamental issues at stake here. Worth reading especially to see the full-page ad in the Washington Post placed by the liberty-and-law-defending rabble, and news of a fundraising push for Accountability Now (the rabble's PAC) set to "explode" on August 8, the anniversary of Nixon's resignation. I was among the crowd celebrating outside the White House that evening. Ah, 1974-75: our own little Prague Spring.

Update: July 14, 5:00 pm - Just for the record: Roll call votes on the Dodd amendment (full text: "Strike Title II" [immunity]), the Specter amendment, the Bingaman amendment, and the bill itself. All went wrong by bigger margins than I'd expected. Webb voted only for Bingaman and the bill; I never reached his aide again before the vote.
.

Go down fighting.

The compromise capitulation FISA bill is horrible, but at least the provisions of Part I relating to the executive branch can, in theory, be reversed in the next Congress.

Retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telecoms is forever. The precedent it would set is also permanent. That makes it worth fighting hard to strip immunity from the Senate version of the bill.

An amendment to do that will probably [see Update] be offered, even if only to give Sen. Obama and others a chance to register opposition to immunity before voting for the bill as a whole. But calls and faxed letters to Senators are needed now to make sure that an amendment to remove telecom immunity materializes.

There is currently no sign of any filibuster planned, by Sen. Dodd or anyone else. Nor will there be. [see Update] Majority Leader Reid filed and 17 Democrats signed a cloture petition today. Together with 49 Republican votes, that's well more than the 60 needed to limit debate. So it's on.

Update: 6:15 pm, 24 June - Sens. Dodd and Feingold issued a statement today [emphasis added]:

This is a deeply flawed bill, which does nothing more than offer retroactive immunity by another name. We strongly urge our colleagues to reject this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation and oppose any efforts to consider this bill in its current form. We will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

If the Senate does proceed to this legislation, our immediate response will be to offer an amendment that strips the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. We hope our colleagues will join us in supporting Americans’ civil liberties by opposing retroactive immunity and rejecting this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation.

So it's still on. The filibuster will almost certainly fail; every effort has to be made to get the votes to kill immunity. End update.

As to timing, commenter cboldt at Firedoglake watched today's Senate proceedings on C-SPAN2 so you didn't have to and reports [my emphasis]:

I was looking for (and saw) a procedural move that sets some parameters for handling of FISA. A cloture vote will happen Wednesday (unless the objectors agree to compress the time provided for in the rules), and then, if the objectors stick to the time frame provided in the rules, the FISA bill won’t be made formally pending until an additional 30 hours have elapsed.

Make the most of the time between now and Wednesday at 10:00 am, by getting your Senators on the record on their position on a no-immunity amendment. Sen. Specter (R-PA) spoke out against immunity today, for what it's worth, but also announced his intention to vote for the overall bill whatever happens. (This recapitulates his performance on the Military Commissions Act two years ago, when he introduced and voted for the amendment to restore habeas corpus protections, and then, when the amendment failed narrowly, voted for the bill anyway.)

Toll-free phone numbers for Congress and other useful links are at the end of this post by Christy Hardin Smith. She offers another helpful tip in comments:

it’s a good idea to contact these folks at local offices — which don’t often get calls and FAXes, so when they do get several on a single issue, they get a bit more notice. And sometimes you get a much more receptive ear from the staffer on the issue as well.

It can be especially useful to talk with the local office because, occasionally, you’ll get a heads up on a potential local appearance and information on how to get a sit-down or at least an opportunity to talk with your Senator in person when they are in the area. THAT can be very, very useful.

Senators' web site URLs are all in the form of [lastname].senate.gov; find their listing of offices and start now to build a relationship with the staffers nearest you.

There is no grassroots constituency for immunity to lawbreaking telecoms; it's only money talking. That, and the desire of everyone who was complicit in warrantless spying on American citizens to shut down any chance that we'll discover what was done to us.

Update 2: 28 June, 9:10 am - Via Emptywheel, the vote will come on July 8th, and three amendments will be offered:

Dodd-Feingold-Leahy to strip the immunity provisions. Needs 51 votes to pass; we got 32 in February (I'm glaring at you, Jim Webb).

Specter to do I'm not sure what "allow the court [what court?] to deny telcoms immunity if it found that the government's surveillance activities were unconstitutional" (EFF, see below); 60 votes needed.

Bingaman to stay the court cases until I'm not sure when the report of an investigation into the program by the Dept. of Justice Inspector General is released; the investigation is mandated by the FISA bill. 60 votes needed.

Update 3: 6:45 pm, July 1 - Electronic Frontier Foundation explains the amendments here. EFF urges all Senators to support the Bingaman amendment if the Dodd-Feingold-Leahy amendment to strike the immunity provision fails, so that Congress can know what it's immunizing before doing so. The hope is that Congress might revisit and reverse the immunity decision then; the idea is to keep the cases against the telcoms alive to allow for that possibility.

Image by Mike Harding used by permission.

Gutless pukes

The House and Senate Democratic leadership are quietly colluding with Rep. Steny Hoyer and Sen. Jay Rockefeller to legalize Bush's warrantless spying on Americans, and to give retroactive immunity to the telcom corporations who broke the law by cooperating with it. A vote on this cave-in may come as early as tonight tomorrow.

Update: 11:05 am, 20 June - Or, as I put it in a comment section yesterday: We're going back to Nixonland, where the law is what the president says it is, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are taking us there on an express train. Today. End update.

Immunity will end the court proceedings against the telcoms, which at this point appear to be the only route through which the public has any hope of discovering the extent and nature of the criminal invasion of privacy conducted by the ruling regime. Last-ditch, bipartisan efforts to stop this are underway, but the complicity of Pelosi, Emanuel, Reid, and Durbin in rushing the calendar means they come too late for anything but retribution.

George W. Bush has clearly violated the law and contravened the Fourth Amendment in spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant. But impeachment is "off the table."

Bush has also clearly violated the law in authorizing the torture of detainees. He's admitted to doing so. This is not only an eminently impeachable offense, but a war crime. Still, impeachment is "off the table."

So is democracy.

Democratic strategists (so-called) are apparently willing to risk the certain demobilizing and demoralizing effect of this sellout on the party's activist liberal base and on potential supporters among libertarian-minded independents and Ron Paul Republicans. They claim to believe that caving will take the spying issue "off the table" and prevent Republican Congressional candidates from running ads charging Democrats with tying our hands against terrorists. They're idiots if they really believe that. And they're cowardly and idiotic not to see that this line of attack isn't even working the way it used to.

The party's presumptive presidential nominee is blessing this telcom-written sellout with his silence and his active support of a Bush-voting Blue Dog Democrat against a progressive African-American primary challenger. Brave Sir Lancelot, Knight of Change You Can Believe In.

I give up. I'm not giving a dime, I'm not lifting a finger, I'm not making a phone call for Democrats. I'll vote to prevent the greater evil, but that's all.

Update: 22 June, 11:45 am - The leaders of the party appear determined to stifle any inclination I might have had to pull myself together and focus on other issues on which there is some daylight between the Ds and Rs by insulting the intelligence of friends of the constitution in their "explanations" of support for this cave-in. Obama's statement adopts Bush's must-give-up-liberty-to-stop-terror framework and flatly lies about the effects of the bill, as does Hoyer's, Rockefeller's, and Pelosi's. They're aiming at the rubes and plainly don't think they have to deal with us at all. Message received and understood.

A new low in cowardice

No matter which way the vote on the unnecessary but not-as-bad-as-it-could-be FISA "reform" goes in the House tonight, the House leadership has sunk to a new depth of craven, shameful complicity with the Republican regime.

They are going to hold the vote in a closed session. That means: no press, no media, no C-SPAN, and members and staff present are forbidden to report on the proceedings.

Land of the free.

Update: 8:25 pm, 13 March - They will probably hold the vote tomorrow in open session. The secret session is an opportunity for the Republicans to grandstand with more scare-tactics hooey that Bush and Cheney have fed them. Conyers and Holt are refreshingly skeptical; hope that the closed session emboldens other Dems to be equally frank in calling the Rs on their b.s.

Attack on Iran and Congressional war powers

Most reporting from the McClatchy news service (formerly Knight-Ridder) stands above the competition, but nobody's perfect. A recent story by Matt Stearns vastly overstates Congressional opposition to a U.S. military strike in Iran. This passage [via TPM] made my jaw drop:

It's been the consensus for months among the Democrats who hold the majority that Bush must get congressional authorization before any military strike [on Iran].

Orilly? Then why was a provision requiring such an authorization stripped from the Democratic leadership's version of the Pentagon supplemental spending bill in March before ever coming to a vote? Why did a similar standalone bill go down to defeat in May with 100 Democratic members voting against it? And why does Stearns not even mention either event?

He does report on Jim Webb's bill to forbid spending on any attack on Iran without explicit authorization from Congress. He notes Harry Reid's (verbal) support for it, but fails to ask why, if that's so, the bill hasn't even gotten committee consideration, much less a floor vote, as an amendment or on its own. Reid's chief of staff is quoted predicting that some Republicans will vote no on a resolution to authorize an attack on Iran, blandly assuming that Bush will ask for such an authorization. But it's clear from the sole Republican quoted that the only issue for them is whether there'll be a request for an authorizing resolution, not how they'd vote.

A military affairs aide to a Democratic senator (who would apparently only speak anonymously) predicts that an attack on Iran without Congressional authorization would create an "uproar over here. It would be a serious breach of (the limits on) executive power." Ooooh, an "uproar" in Congress; remind Dick Cheney to shake.

That part Stearns does get right:

Bush and Vice President Cheney take a broad view of executive power, and it's unclear what consequences Bush would face if he were to take action without authorization.

Many on Capitol Hill said the reaction would depend largely on the provocation used as a rationale for an attack.

Anyone under the illusion that Bush believes he needs authorization from Congress should read Webb's floor statement introducing his bill on March 5:

[T]he President's "signing statement" accompanying the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq indicates that this Administration believes it possesses the broadest imaginable authority to commence military action without the consent of the Congress.

In signing the 2002 Iraq resolution, the President denied that the Congress has the power to affect his decisions when it comes to the use of our military. He shrugged off this resolution, stating that on the question of the threat posed by Iraq, his views and those of the Congress merely happened to be the same. He characterized the resolution as simply a gesture of additional support, rather than as having any legitimate authority. He stated, "my signing this resolution does not constitute any change in ... the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests..."

The idea that in the unlikely event an authorization vote were to take place, enough Democrats or Republicans would oppose an attack on Iran to defeat it, is wishful thinking.

The only conceivable thing that could bring about such a result is large-scale, visible protest and political pressure. Right now the carrier group Enterprise is alone in the Gulf; it will be joined by the Truman in late October or November. All this summer our ruling regime has been pushing the latest of the shifting rationales, supposed Iranian support for attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, which the Senate last month voted 97-0 for the opportunity to consider seriously every 60 days from here on out (something else Stearns leaves out of his story). Will the regime "roll out the product" after Labor Day?

Update: 3:00 pm 15 August - More signs point to 'yes':

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

In addition to other consequences, this move would (in the regime's view) put Iran within the scope of the existing authorization for use of military force passed in September 2001. No other Congressional action needed.

So, even if one accepts Stearns' characterization that leading Democrats believe that existing law would require Bush to come to Congress for authorizaton before an attack on Iran, they have just been given the clearest possible signal that that's not going to happen. If members of Congress truly want to make sure the American people and the administration understand that such authorization is required, then they need to get the Webb bill and its House counterpart passed, and quickly.

Update 2: 12:30 pm 16 August - Congress has helped lay the political groundwork for an attack in an overwhelmingly bipartisan way so far, and the sleepwalking will continue. From the same Post story linked in the first update:

The administration's move comes amid growing support in Congress for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and in the House by Tom Lantos (D-Calif.). The bill already has the support of 323 House members.

A quick check of the bill in Thomas shows that the House will be making itself part of the drumbeat for war as soon as it comes back from recess:

H.R.1400
Title: To enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by imposing additional economic sanctions against Iran, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] (introduced 3/8/2007) Cosponsors (323)
Latest Major Action: 8/2/2007 House Committee on Judiciary granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Sept. 7, 2007.

Yes, that'll certainly "enhance diplomatic efforts."

Profiles in learned helplessness

The regime's Lucy-with-the-football trick appears to be working its mesmerizing spell on the Charlie Brown Democratic leadership once again.

Sure, the Cheney-led government's been flouting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants for more than five years -- openly and defiantly since the NY Times editors finally saw fit to print the story they'd been sitting on since before the 2004 elections. And sure, the regime's refusing to tell Congress what the surveillance actually involves, and lying and stonewalling about the even more illegal interception program that preceded the current lawlessness. The contempt with which the regime views Congress was made so vivid by Attorney General Gonzales' "I'm not even trying to pretend I'm testifying" performance last week that even Republicans wouldn't step up to defend him.

Normal people wouldn't see this as the ideal moment to push for further loosening of warrant restrictions on surveillance. But we're not ruled by normal people, we're ruled by a small imperial court, confident in their ability to cow the people, the supine media, and the increasingly symbolic Congress with the incantation of "heightened threat."

If Democratic leaders had learned anything from the way in which they were stampeded into approving in advance the ruinous Iraq war, or the disgraceful, cowed way in which they went along with "legalizing" torture and indefinite detention last summer and fall, they'd be telling the executive branch to back off and cool their jets. They'd point out that they'd made plenty of changes to FISA already to accommodate the regime's supposed needs, and that they wouldn't even consider further discussion until they were satisfied about what has already gone on.

But no, once again they step eagerly in the trap, still apparently so afraid of being labeled "soft on terror" that they're prepared to give more unchecked power to an already out-of-control executive. This is a level of inability to break out of a losing pattern that, if it happened in a sporting event, would raise suspicions that the fix is in.

When I read this morning that the Congressional leaders actually want to pass FISA "reform" before the August recess, I just lost it. At this point, trying to lobby the leadership feels like a sucker's game. Which is too bad, because the ACLU's produced an excellent lobbying tool, Myths and Facts about FISA that counter every one of the regime's talking points.

Posts by Steve Benen, Jeralyn Merritt, and mcjoan have more detail.

Update: 5:50 pm 2 August - Insight into the weeds of FISA "reform" from TPM Muckraker. Meanwhile, the atmospherics surrounding the negotiations (Roll Call via Talking Points Memo):

Capitol Police officials have stepped up the department’s security presence on Capitol Hill in response to intelligence indicating the increased possibility of an al-Qaida terrorist attack on Congress sometime between now and Sept. 11.

The August-to-Sept. 11 time frame was confirmed by a Capitol Police source who said Congressional security officials were recently made aware of the potential threat by federal anti-terrorism authorities. The Capitol Police department has a liaison from the Homeland Security Department working in its Capitol Hill command center.

On Thursday afternoon, Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance Gainer, who currently serves as chairman of the Capitol Police Board, acknowledged the noticeable increase in Capitol Police presence on the Hill but declined to discuss any specific threat or dates.

Beautifully played, Mr. Cheney.

Update: 12:45 pm 4 Aug - The endgame: Wash Post front page: "Senate Votes To Expand Warrantless Surveillance - White House Applauds; Changes Are Temporary"

Analysis from Marty Lederman, the indispensible.

Webb voted with Bush. I'm leaving the party, and electoral work, for good. Also the country, if I can arrange it. The Military Commissions Act was passed the day before the Webb fundraiser for which I was a major organizer last year. The county chair had to talk me back from the edge that morning. I used up all my hopes and rationalizations then; the well is dry.

"Changes are temporary"? I'm not that much of a fool.

Congress gives away its war powers. Again.

Apparently 100 House Democrats believe that any president, even the one we have now, should have the ability to start a war at his/her whim. Last night the "first branch" passed up another chance to re-assert the constitutional powers that they've been gradually ceding to the executive over the last fifty years: Rep. DeFazio's amendment to the defense authorization bill that would have forbidden any attack on Iran without explicit authorization from Congress.

It wasn't even close. 136-288, with 100 Democrats voting against, including Van Hollen, Hoyer, Emanuel, netroots-beloved P. Murphy and Sestak, and {sigh} even Carol Shea-Porter. Speaker Pelosi was one of 12 not voting. Roll call here.

Congress has built up such a long record of declining to exercise its war powers that a Supreme Court justice -- even an "originalist" -- would be hard pressed to rule in Congress' favor if by some chance they objected to a military strike ordered by Bush. The only thing that can prevent more wars of aggression is political pressure, as Jonathan Schwarz concludes in a cogent review of the issue in Mother Jones.

Tiny violins

The Abramoff-DeLay lobbying scandal has put a detectable dent in business at D.C. restaurants, skyboxes, and other fringe benefits of working in and around Congress, according to the L.A. Times:

Jon Doggett, vice president of public policy for the National Corn Growers Assn., said he offered to take some Capitol Hill staff members to lunch last week, but was told they could not accept lunches from lobbyists anymore. ... [He] lamented lost opportunities to explain "a lot of stuff to a 25-year-old staffer with a political science degree whose [boss] is voting on issues that involve agriculture, and they've never been on a farm."

Dabbing away tears for Mr. Doggett and his lost opportunities, I offer a small suggestion: Make an appointment to explain that stuff at a table in the staffer's office rather than at La Colline. I know it can be done; why, I've done it myself. True, it's possible that the young staffer will fail to take any notes during your explanations. He or she may even yawn in your face, something far less likely to happen over a delicious lunch. But press on; those corn growers are counting on you.