Keystone XL Pipeline Defeated By One Vote-- For Now

Chris Mooney has been doing some terrific reporting for the Washington Post, primarily on Science. Last week's look at the correlateions between a primitive or fundamental interpretation of Bronze Age religious traditions and a fear or misunderstanding of science is enlightening. He wanted to examine whether religious belief rather than political ideology, better explains why some people resist the science on issues like climate change, evolution, and stem cell research. The results varied but he concludes that "when people deny science, they do it because they think it conflicts with their personal identity. But many elements go into each of our identities, with both politics and religion constituting vital components for many people."

Predictably, Mooney wrote about the Keystone Pipeline fight just as the Senate began their debate yesterday. A party of ideological science deniers, House Republicans (with 31 Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party) passed the bill November 14. In an ill-conceived fool's errand to try to save Mary Landrieu's doomed political career (or ease her way into a cush job on K Street), Harry Reid allowed a vote in the Senate yesterday. Although there was a last minute rumor that Dick Durbin would be the 60th vote, McConnell and Landrieu only managed to come up with 59-- one short. The bill is dead... until the Republicans take over in January. Then it will pass an the Republicans and their Big Oil allies won't have the votes to overturn a presidential veto. 14 conservative Democrats crossed the aisle to help the Republicans destroy the planet. No profiles in courage in this lot:

• Michael Bennet (D-CO)

• Tom Carper (D-DE)
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
• Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
• Joe Manchin (D-WV)
• Mark Warner (D-VA)
• John Walsh (D-MT)
• Jon Tester (D-MT)
• Bob Casey (D-PA)
• Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
• Kay Hagan (D-NC)
• Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
• Mark Pryor (D-AR)
• Mark Begich (D-AK)

Filled with misinformation from from corporate media and the lack of any effective pushback from the Democrats, most Americans (65%)-- including even most Democrats-- support the Keystone XL Pipeline. Incongruously, the same survey finds that "when it comes to another issue making headlines-- a proposal to tighten greenhouse gas emissions from power plants-- the public favors stricter limits, by exactly the same margin as the Keystone pipeline (65% to 30%).

The bill, Mooney explains, "goes around a process typically handled by the executive branch. Indeed, the bill passed by the House does not merely take the process of deciding on the pipeline's approval out of the hands of the State Department. It also states that the State Department’s final supplemental environmental impact statement on Keystone “shall be considered to fully satisfy” the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and “any other provision of law that requires Federal agency consultation or review.”

"What this bill will do, if it ends up being enacted," says Zoldan, "is take the fact-finding process…away from an executive agency, and say that it’s automatically deemed to be in compliance with the law." This may be one reason why a spokesman for Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware recently said the senator would opposes the bill because "it’s not Congress’s job to issue construction permits."

Zoldan thinks that if the bill were indeed to become law (somehow surviving President Obama's presumed veto), environmentalists might have a good case for a lawsuit over it. More generally, he explains, Congress ought to pass laws that have a general nature, and then let the executive and the judiciary apply those laws to specific situations, individuals, or companies.

Another way of putting it? Congress really ought to have more respect for the categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Or, when making laws, make sure they apply to everyone-- or every company.

Vermont's two senators, Patrick Leahy (D) and Bernie Sanders, opposed the bill for more fundamental reasons. Leahy:

This pipeline is one of the most striking examples of how our unquenchable thirst for oil is destroying our environment. This destruction will continue until we move forward with the implementation of a comprehensive, national energy plan. The debate over the Keystone pipeline will not move us toward a sustainable energy future. Instead this pipeline ties us to an energy policy of the past, while simultaneously accelerating our impact on the climate. These tar sands require an energy-intensive process, rife with pollutions and harmful emissions, to get them out of the ground, extract them, and refine them.

We should not rubberstamp a project like this that poses such serious risks to the Nation’s and the world’s environment, and to our communities’ safety. I am astounded by the fact that in its first year of operation, the existing Keystone Pipeline-- which was billed as the safest pipeline in history when it was built in 2010-- has spilled 12 times in its first year of operation. That is more than any other pipeline in U.S. history.

These spills are even more worrisome because the tar sands oil is so hard to clean up after a spill. Just ask the communities along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, where it has cost more than $1 billion-- so far-- to clean up a tar sands spill in 2010. Now, more than four years later, it is still a mess, and landowners continue to wait for help to restore property damaged by the spill and to rebuild the ravaged pipeline.

We do not need more empty assurances from the oil industry. Before the Valdez spill in Alaska, Exxon executives told us their oil tankers were safe.  We heard similar promises from BP, which insisted that it could handle an oil spill in a deep-water drilling operation. The images from both of those spills are still fresh in our memories.

Proponents argue that this pipeline will help our energy security here in the United States. But this tar sands oil is not headed to Americans’ gas stations to help lower the price of gas here at home. No, TransCanada is bypassing the refineries in the Midwest and heading straight for the coast so this oil can be used in export markets, pumped on ships headed for China. That may be good news for the Chinese, but it is the American people who are stuck with the safety risks, health challenges, future environmental disasters and the rapid acceleration of our contribution to climate change.

These facts are clear: The Keystone pipeline significantly worsens the problem of carbon pollution, and it is not in our national interest.

Most Americans Agree-- Time To End The Cuban Trade Embargo

Over the weekend, Charlie Crist told Bill Maher's HBO audience that he favors ending the Cuban trade embargo, a complete reversal from his position as the state’s former Republican governor and as an independent Senate candidate in 2010. "The embargo," he said, "has done nothing in more than fifty years to change the regime in Cuba."

Crist couldn't have been surprised by the predictable screaming fit from the far right in his own state. Right on cue, anti-Castro relics Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, had public meltdowns. Marco Rubio, currently taking heat from the GOP's far right for a series of flip flops-- mostly flops-- on immigration, dismissed Crist's statement as "just the latest in a series of slip flops." And, of course, Gov. Rick Scott, who Crist is besting in the polls, has done the most to rile up elderly Cuban-Americans by lambasting Crist. His latest appointed Lt. Governor, Carlos Lopez-Cantera played the role of the hit man for Scott: “Charlie Crist’s comments just show his ignorance on the issue of what is going on in Cuba. As a Cuban-American I was insulted by it. He should get a little smarter on what’s actually happening." Actually a new poll from the Atlantic Council on U.S.-Cuba relations, suggests its the right-wing Republicans who need to "get a little smarter." The NY Times reported today that "a majority of Americans-- and an even greater majority of Floridians, home to this country’s largest Cuban-American population-- now favor normalizing relations or engaging more directly with the Cuban government."

“This survey shows that the majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle are ready for a policy shift,” Peter Schechter and Jason Marczak, the top two executives at the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center of the Atlantic Council, wrote in an introduction to the survey. “Most surprisingly, Floridians are even more supportive than an already supportive nation to incrementally or fully change course.”

While the survey showed that Americans have concerns about the Cuban government’s political repression, Mr. Schechter and Mr. Marczak said, they “recognize the need for alternatives in light of the failure of the current policy to achieve its objective.”

The survey found that 56 percent of respondents nationwide favor changing Cuba policy, a majority that jumps to 63 percent among Florida adults and 62 percent among Latinos nationwide. While support is strongest among Democrats and independents, the survey showed 52 percent of Republicans also favor normalization.

Narrower surveys have also shown that increasing numbers of Floridians want normalized relations with Cuba, but Mr. Schechter and Mr. Marczak said they believed their survey was the first to show that Florida leads the nation in that regard.

The survey found that the economic cost to the United States of maintaining the trade embargo with Cuba, a nation of 11 million, was a major reason a majority want to normalize ties. More than six in 10 respondents nationwide want the policy changed to enable American companies to do business in Cuba and permit Americans unfettered freedom to travel and spend money there.

Fifty-two percent also said Cuba should be deleted from the United States government’s list of countries that are considered state sponsors of terrorism, the others being Iran, Syria and Sudan. The designation automatically restricts the type of trade and other interactions Americans can have with Cuba. Although the Obama administration has loosened some of the restraints on travel and the ability of Cuban-Americans to send money to Cuba, most types of trade and investment are forbidden.

And this morning, two senators, Democrat Patrick Leahy (VT) and Republican Jeff Flake (AZ) called on President Obama to lift the trade embargo in an OpEd for the Miami Herald. "Challenging conventional wisdom that Floridians-- and especially the state’s large Cuban-American population-- are in lockstep with the embargo," they wrote, "the poll finds stronger support for normalization in Florida (63 percent) than in the country overall (56 percent). A full 67 percent of Floridians support removing all restrictions for Americans to travel to Cuba, and 82 percent favor meetings with the Cuban government on issues of mutual concern. Simply put: The state that reportedly once had the greatest reluctance to re-engage has reversed its position."

Trade with Latin America is the fastest growing part of our international commerce. In 2014, economic growth in Latin America is expected to continue to outpace U.S. growth. Rather than isolate Cuba with outdated policies, we have isolated ourselves.

For example, the presidents of our Latin American partners, including close allies such as Colombia and Mexico, recently traveled to Cuba alongside the U.N. secretary general. In January, Brazil joined Cuba in inaugurating a huge new shipping terminal on the island. And our European and Canadian friends engage with Cuba. Meanwhile, U.S. companies are prohibited from any economic activity on the island.

Just about the only beneficiary of our embargo has been Cuba’s current regime. The embargo actually has helped the Castros maintain their grip on power by providing a reliable and convenient scapegoat for Cuba’s failing economy. Change will come to Cuba. These counterproductive U.S. policies have delayed it.

President Obama has already relaxed some facets of our Cuba policy, lifting restrictions on Cuban-American travel and remittances, which have had positive effects. Anecdotally, U.S. remittances have been crucial in allowing Cuban entrepreneurs to take full advantage of economic openings that the Castro regime has been forced to allow.

This not only improves Cubans’ lives but will make future economic contractions by the Cuban government difficult for the regime to attempt. Current policy boxes U.S. entrepreneurs and companies out of taking part in any of this burgeoning Cuban private sector.

Further, there is simply no legitimate justification for restricting any American travel to Cuba. The travel ban, like the rest of the embargo, only bolsters the Cuban government’s control over information and civil society. Instead of willingly restricting the liberty of our own citizens, we should be taking every opportunity to flood Cubans with American interaction, with our ideas, with our young people.

Americans want a change in our Cuba policy. The president should heed the majority of those across the country who recognize that we have much to gain by jettisoning this Cold War relic.

The Republican Party Attack Machine In Full Throttle

President Obama hadn't even made his official announcement before Michael Steele accidentally released the right-wing talking points to the media. The right-wing talking points are that she's too dumb, too lazy, too radical, etc. Fortunately, someone told them that the Bronx is part of America so they had to pull back on the point that Obama nominated a god damn foreigner. Instead they're calling her an "identity politics" nominee. A third-rate neo-fascist at Cato, Ilya Shapiro: "In picking Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has confirmed that identity politics matter to him more than merit. Judge Sotomayor is not one of the leading lights of the federal judiciary and would not even have been on the shortlist if she were not Hispanic. She has a mixed reputation, with a questionable temperament and no particularly important opinions in over 10 years on the Second Circuit."

Of course if Shapiro is third-rate, who knows what to make of Glenn Beck! He's tweeting:


At least some of the Republicans are being honest about what this battle is all about. Lunatic fringe conservative, Richard Viguerie: “It’s an immense opportunity to build the conservative movement and identify the troops out there. It’s a massive teaching moment for America. We’ve got the packages written. We’re waiting right now to put a name in.”

The anti-choice fanatics are also attacking:

"For all the President's talk of finding 'common ground,' this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise. Judge Sonia Sotomayor's judicial philosophy undermines common ground. She is a radical pick that divides America. She believes the role of the Court is to set policy, which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the 'National Abortion Control Board,' denying the American people the right to be heard on this critical issue. This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench, at a time when the Courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations-- supported by the vast majority of Americans-- like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance."

Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is in Iraq right now but he had a very different outlook, of course. Unlike the Republicans who have run to media to say that the sky is falling, Leahy pointed out that "Judge Sotomayor has a long and distinguished career on the federal bench," has an exemplary record and "has been nominated by both Democratic and Republican presidents, and she was twice confirmed by the Senate with strong, bipartisan support.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in the federal judiciary, with a fundamental role in our system of government and a fundamental impact on Americans’ everyday lives.  One need look no further than the Lilly Ledbetter and Diana Levine cases to understand how just one vote can determine the Court’s decision and impact the lives and freedoms of countless Americans.  I believe that Judge Sotomayor will be in the mold of Justice Souter, who understands the real-world impact of the Court’s decisions, rather than the mold of the conservative activists who second-guess Congress, and who through judicial extremism undercut laws meant to protect Americans from discrimination in their jobs, their access to health care and education, and their privacy from an overreaching government.   I believe Judge Sotomayor understands that the courthouse doors must be as open to ordinary Americans as they are to government and big corporations.

As he promised, President Obama has handled this selection process with the care that the American people expect and deserve.  The Senate in good faith should match the President’s confidence-building steps in the way we now proceed with this nomination.  Some groups in the Republican base have said they are ‘spoiling for a fight,’ no matter who was nominated.  Republican Senators up to now have generally shown more responsibility than that, and the American people will want the Senate to carry out its constitutional duty with conscientiousness and civility.

Among the most serious constitutional duties entrusted to Congress is the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices.  President Obama has announced his choice, and the Senate will now prepare for fair and thorough confirmation proceedings.  There are more than 300 million Americans; only 100 Senators will vote on this nomination.  We have a solemn duty to the Constitution and to the American people.  This will not be decided by the interest groups on the left or the right.  I trust that no Senator will seek to apply a different standard to this nominee than was applied just four years ago when the Senate considered President Bush’s nominations to the Supreme Court.

I will work closely with Senator Sessions as the Judiciary Committee prepares for confirmation hearings.  We are committed to ensuring that the next Justice is seated before the Court’s term begins in October.  I hope all Senators will treat this nominee fairly and will respect the Committee’s confirmation process. 

Now more than ever, while the country is in the throes of an economic recession, and fighting to strengthen our economic and national security, the American people deserve leadership and civility from those they send to Washington.  This is an opportunity for this Senate to further the spirit of bipartisanship that Americans want by guiding the nation in installing impartial, fair-minded Justices to the Supreme Court who will apply our laws and not their ideology.  The interests of all Americans are at stake.

Democrats, like most Americans, are proud of this nomination. Let's hope that even conservative and corporatist Democrats like Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh decide they will be well-served going back to their constituents and proudly campaigning for re-election by pointing out their vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor. Although he's no Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, one of the Senate's least intellectually gifted Democrats, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, played into self-serving GOP talking points with his tepid statement of quasi-support. "Judge Sotomayor has impeccable credentials and an extraordinary American story. It is also critically important that she possess the proper judicial temperament and the ability to be fair and impartial. I believe this criterion is essential; activist judges have no place on the highest court of the land." In the past he voted for two of the most radical activist judges in contemporary history, Sam Alito and John Roberts. I guess he only gets excited about far right activists. Better than Tom Coburn who has, this morning, already stated that he won't vote for her. And the former ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, currently a "Democrat," sounded open to the nomination, not unlike he probably would have if he was still a Republican: "Her confirmation would add needed diversity in two ways: the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court. While her record suggests excellent educational and professional qualifications, now it is up to the Senate to discharge its constitutional duty for a full and fair confirmation process."

As usual the out-of-step Republicans find themselves in a touchy dilemma of their own making. As Sam Youngman at The Hill put it today, "If they are tough in opposing President Obama’s first pick for the court, Federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, they risk alienating the growing Hispanic constituency that is already trending Democratic. But if they go too easy on her, the conservative base will rebel. Either way, the decision on a successor to retiring Justice David Souter has far-reaching political ramifications for a reeling GOP."

It's an outrage that torture enabler John Yoo isn't in prison. And he's still an integral part of the GOP attack machine. Today he was spouting Republican Party talking points-- most of the senators are too scared to repeat them in public so they have their sad array of surrogates like Yoo mouthing them to see if anything sticks-- about how despite her "sterling credentials," she doesn't make the cut and that Obama just picked her because of empathy. These guys are just a really bad joke-- though few of them are as deranged as the Powerline headline claiming that Judge Sotomayor is just Che Guevera in robes. Limbaugh says he hopes she fails and reasserts that he hopes Obama fails as well. But Limbaugh isn't the only voice of the GOP going publicly insane this morning. Take right-wing crackpot Glenn Beck, who certainly sounds like he's fallen off the wagon again:



UPDATE: And Two Of Congress' Most Vicious Bigots Play The Race Card

Predictable? Of course. But this fast!!! There are no members of the Senate as clueless and racist as Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and few members in the House that fit that description better than Lamar Smith, the lunatic fringe maniac from the suburbs and pastureland northwest of San Antonio. They both attacked Judge Sotomayor for her race and gender today. And, no, there aren't very many Hispanics in Smith's carefully gerrymandered district.

Smith (R-TX) said today that he is concerned Sotomayor has shown “personal bias based on ethnicity and gender.” Similarly, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said in a statement today that Sotomayor may be subject to the “undue influence” of her race and gender.

I wonder if anyone ever thought to wonder if John Roberts, Sam Alito or Antonin Scalia might be subject to undue influence because of their race and gender. In 2008 the voters of Oklahoma, who supported Obama less than any other state (and still do) re-elected Inhofe with 57%. And why not? He's exactly what they are. And in Texas' very backward 21st district no one bothered to run against Smith.

Of course, as always, Tom Tancredo is in a class all of his own when it comes to racism, bigotry and sheer stupidity. What a disgrace to the United States of America!

Of course Jay "The Torture Guy" Bybee needs to be removed from the bench, but he probably won't be, because Americans LIKE torture

Judge Jay "The Torture Guy" didn't get where he is today by being either decent or honorable, any more than Sunshine Desserts baron C.J. (the ineffable John Barron) did. Here Reggie Perrin (the great Leonard Rossiter), well on his way to a nervous breakdown, sets out to demand a holiday from his boss. Instead, C.J. offers an afternoon off, from which he assures Reggie he'll "return a different man." "That's what Mrs. C.J. and I do," he says, "and we return different men."

by Ken

I may have been unfair to Pat Leahy. I noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman on Tuesday said to reporters, about Judge Jay "The Torture Guy" Bybee (as Ryan Grim reported on Huffpost):

The decent and honorable thing for him to do would be to resign. And if he is a decent and honorable person, he will resign.

As much as I admire Senator Pat, so often he talks the talk, the good talk, the exactly right talk, but then somehow vaporizes when it comes to fighting the fight. And so my first thought was: Oh Pat, you dreamer! In this lost world of decency and honor with which you're apparently in telepathic contact, of course Judge Jay would resign. However, we live in the real world, where the Jayman knows that he didn't get on the bench by doing anything that could be called by the most charitable stretch either decent or honorable, and so why on earth would he be tempted to commit a decent or honorable act that would get him off the bench?

And all I could think of was C.J., Reggie's old boss at Sunshine Desserts in the immortal Britcom The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin. Why, if anyone had had the temerity to mention decency or honor in C.J.'s hearing, you just know he would have responded, "I didn't get where I am today by being decent or honorable."

In fairness to Senator Leahy, though, it turns out that he wasn't being quite so spontaneously dreamy in making his appeal to Judge Jay's decency and honor. He was in fact responding to Sen. Orrin Hatch's Monday rejection of the idea of impeachment, declaring that Jay the Torture Guy is "one of the most honorable people you'll ever meet."

Say what? One of the most honorable people I'll ever meet???

Um, no, Senator Hatch. It may well be that "Honk If You Love Torture" Jay is one of the most honorable people you've ever met. I've watched your all-too-public career for a long time now, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the sleazily opportunistic Torture Guy is a class act by the standard of the peeps you hang with. But that's not much of a standard.

What we are learning about Judge Jay's record heading the Justice Dept.'s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) -- and by this I mean his willingness, or rather eagerness, to give the war criminals and Constitution-shredders of the Bush regime whatever legal cover they craved on torture or anything else -- is about as far from "honorable" as you can get. The word that pops to mind is nauseating.

IRONIC SIDEBAR: SPEAKING OF THE OLC

Along with defenses of the absolutely indefensible Jay the Torture Guy, what we're hearing from the Loony Right now is continued character assassination of President Obama's nominee to head the incredibly important OLC, whose charter is to provide the administration with the most accurate and authoritative legal opinions obtainable by the best legal minds, in other words the exact opposite of what the Bush regime sought, and got, from the fraudulent, craven, ideological-hack, butt-licking-careerist shysters it stocked the OLC with.

By all accounts (from non-insane people, that is), Obama designee Dawn Johnsen really is one of the most honorable people you'll ever meet, and she possesses one of the finest legal minds. (And by this I don't mean the kind of "fine legal mind" we've always been told Supreme Court Justice Nino Scalia possesses, which -- as anybody who reads his whacked-out opinions knows -- is in fact a cesspool of ultra-right-wing bigotry and prejudices underlying a borderline, if not across-the-border, sociopathic contempt for anyone who isn't rich and powerful.) And yet the Right, as currently personified by one of the truly nuttiest and vilest hacks to befoul the Senate, the loathsome James Inhofe, and scum-sucking Iowa Rep. Steve King, without acknowledging the role played by the Bush regimista OLC in laying waste to the Constitution and overturning our system of laws, continues to vilify Johnsen.

But I digress. Should Judge Jay be gotten the hell off the bench? Of course! And as more behind-the-scenes muck from the slime-filled Bush DoJ oozes out, there's certainly a chance that the scumbag will reach his humiliation threshold and slither off behind whatever rock he originally emerged from.

My only reservation about the impeachment process as applied to Judge Jay is that we're talking now about something the judge did before he was put on the bench. That's all supposed to be handled in his confirmation hearings. Can it qualify now as "an impeachable offense"?

Senator Leahy may have answered this question, even though he wasn't addressing it directly, when he said in the same chinwag with reporters Tuesday:

The fact is, the Bush administration and Mr. Bybee did not tell the truth. If the Bush administration and Mr. Bybee had told the truth, he never would have been confirmed.

The guy can hardly earn a free pass for having concealed this crucial information. Former Nazi concentration-camp guards who failed to disclose this activity when they applied for entry to the U.S. were nevertheless subject to deportation.

The case against Judge Jay is already pretty damning, and I suspect it's only going to get worse. Nevertheless, I think there's a good chance he's going to beat the rap. Why? Because, as a wise listserv colleague reminded us the other day, the American public by and large isn't at all offended by the idea of torture, and in fact to a large degree thinks it's a fine idea for when we need life-saving information immediately from bad guys. They don't know how heavily the odds are stacked against torture yielding any information of value.

We are talking, yes, about the 24 model, the 24 mentality, and the 24 audience. Don't get me started on that! But when people of the supposed intelligence of "Holy Joe" Lieberman subscribe to this wacko crock (and you owe it to yourself to read David Neiwert's Tuesday Crooks and Liars post "Holy Joe still loves him some torture"), is it surprising that people who watch that unmitigated pile of crap -- the dumbest scripts in TV history backed up by the worst acting and direction (Reginald Perrin is not only way funnier but way more realistic, a veritable slice of life by comparison) -- have not the slightest sympathy when we lefties froth about torture?

#

Bush Torture Regime Revisited

I suspect most of the political Establishment will agree that Patrick Leahy's idea for convening a Truth Commission to look into the rampant criminality of the Bush Regime, is unrealistic, vindictive, overly partisan and... well, not really in the best interests of the political Establishment. Leahy, who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, "called for the commission as way to heal what he called sharp political divides and to prevent future abuses [and] compared it to other truth commissions, such as one in South Africa that investigated the apartheid era.

Issues to investigate would include the Justice Department's firings of several U.S. attorneys, which Leahy said may have been motivated by a White House aim to influence elections, policies on the treatment of terrorism suspects and other areas "where (congressional) committees were lied to."

This included the war in Iraq, he said. "There were lies told to the American people all the way through."

..."Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened," he said. "And we do that to make sure it never happens again," Leahy said.

Some Republicans and intelligence officials have resisted any suggestion of broad inquiries into accusations against the Bush administration, saying it would be a distraction or weaken morale in the fight against terrorism.

Progressives and human rights groups are applauding Leahy's proposal even though it seems to shy away from any kind of accountability for criminals (although Senator Leahy was talking just a few days ago about prison for the people who knowingly allowed salmonella to get into the food system.)

But what about the torture that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the entire Republican Establishment and their in house media shills told us wasn't happening? They poo-poo-ed waterboarding and compared it to a fraternity initiation. Is that how Limbaugh and Cheney would describe slicing a prisoner's genitals with a scalpel? Not torture? Is that substantively different from what people like Dr. Menegle were up to in Nazi Germany? The damage Bush and his regime have done to this country is incalculable. No punishment would ever be enough for any of them. Yes, we found the terrorists, alright; now will they be made to pay for their crimes?


UPDATE: RUSS FEINGOLD BACKS LEAHY TRUTH COMMISSION PROPOSAL

Russ: “I applaud Senator Leahy’s leadership in proposing the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission. Getting all the facts out about what happened over the last eight years is a crucial part of restoring the rule of law. As President Obama and Attorney General Holder have said, nobody is above the law. There needs to be accountability for wrongdoing by the Bush Administration, including the illegal warrantless wiretapping and interrogation programs. We cannot simply sweep these assaults on the rule of law under the rug.”

Pat Leahy sends a powerful message to Senate GOP thugs: "You own us!"

So Eric Holder was President-elect Obama's first AG nominee.
Anyone heard any scuttlebutt who the next will be?

by Ken

What was I just saying about that gasbag Arlen Specter? He talks big sometimes, but when it comes to backing up the talk, he can be counted on to disappear. And then I go thinking different about Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy.

No sooner do sooner do I credit Senator Leahy with "getting it" ("If the Rs are gonna act like lying scumbag ignoramuses, then treat them like lying scumbag ignoramuses"), refusing to back down on his plan to open hearings on Att'y Gen-designate Eric Holder's nomination on January 9. That would have given the committee Republicans more time than they've ever had to prepare, assuming what they wanted to do was gather enough information to be prepared for the hearings, rather than to derail the nomination and to inflict maximum humiliation on both the nominee and the president-elect. And then he backs down.

Oh, all he's done is push the hearings back to Jan. 15. But that's all he had to do. The message to the the slash-and-burn faction of the Republican Party is clear: Punch us hard, and we'll fold.

Has anyone heard any leaks from the Transition Team as to who the president-elect's second choice for AG will be?

Here's Sam Stein's report on HuffPost. And take particular note of the link to Sam's report yesterday that "Republican opposition towards the nomination of Eric Holder as Attorney General is being driven, it seems, by Karl Rove himself."

Leahy Buckles, Will Push Back Holder Hearings

The Senate Judiciary Committee will delay confirmation hearings for Attorney General nominee Eric Holder after all -- accommodating Republican concerns that the appointment was being rushed and more vetting of Holder's resume was needed.

In an announcement from his Senate office on Monday afternoon, committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said the hearings would be moved back from January 9 to January 15, giving Republicans more than "30 days from today" to consider Holder's qualifications.

"...[T]o accommodate the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, at their request we are delaying the hearing, again, until January 15," read Leahy's statement. "The Assistant Republican Leader said last year that 'attorney general nominees have been confirmed, on average, in approximately three weeks.' Nonetheless, in order to accommodate the Republicans members, I am rescheduling the hearing on Mr. Holder for twice that long, until more than six weeks after his official designation. It is disappointing to me that they are insisting that we delay at a time when the nation needs its top law enforcement officer and national security team in place and working."

Leahy's move is, at the very least, a small tactical victory for Republicans in the Senate. GOP members of the Judiciary Committee protested on the floor that Holder's work in the Clinton White House -- specifically his role in the pardoning of fugitive financier Marc Rich -- required more examination. Their objections were believed to be directed by Karl Rove, who was reportedly organizing the Republican caucus on the issue.

Leahy initially was dismissive of these concerns and seemed committed to confirming Holder on the 9th. That date, he noted, would have given committee members more time to consider the nomination than was granted for past Attorney Generals, including Alberto Gonzales and Janet Reno.

By moving the hearings back to the 15th, Leahy is taking one Republican argument off the table -- the idea that this nomination was somehow being considered in haste. Moreover, if all goes to plan, Holder will be confirmed by the time Obama takes office. But the Vermont Democrat is also signaling that GOP protests, even those driven by the most hyper of partisans (see: Rove), will be considered. He is also offering Republican critics of Holder more time to build their case against the nominee.

Oh, Pat, Pat, Pat. (Man, would I love to be wrong this time.)

#

Pat Leahy gets it: If the Rs are gonna act like lying scumbag ignoramuses, then treat them like lying scumbag ignoramuses

"The need for new leadership at the Department of Justice is as critical today as it has ever been. The Judiciary Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, spent a good deal of time and effort during this Congress uncovering scandals at the Department. Former Attorney General Gonzales, Karl Rove, Mr. Rove’s White House deputies, and virtually the entire leadership at the Department resigned in the wake of congressional investigation. Since then, the Inspector General at the Department has confirmed many of our findings and fears, and there are still more reports to come. An ongoing criminal investigation is being conducted by a specially appointed prosecutor. The crisis at the Department of Justice is not resolved, but ongoing.

"I want to continue the work we began last year when I scheduled prompt hearings and the Senate proceeded to confirm Michael Mukasey, Mark Filip and Kevin O’Connor to serve as Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General after the Rove-Gonzales resignations, even though we were on the eve of the election of a new President. We cannot now delay restoring the Justice Department and the confidence the American people have in our justice system. We must promptly consider and confirm Eric H. Holder Jr., and other nominees of the new President."

-- from a statement issued yesterday by Patrick Leahy
(D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee

by Ken

I screamed foul when that useless gasbag Arlen Specter decided to make political hay of Attorney General-designate Eric Holder's nomination, and screamed some more when a procession of braying GOP jackasses indicated that they planned to go to war over Holder.

President-elect Obama apparently wants us to make nice to all these doodyheads who have more or less officially announced that they plan to do their best to make his every moment in office a living hell. It's a relief to hear that there's still somebody on Capitol Hill who hasn't lost either his mind or his nerve.

Here's Sam Stein reporting yesterday on HuffPost:

Leahy Won't Give In To GOP On Holder, Blames Rove

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee signaled on Friday that he will not acquiesce to GOP complaints and would stick to his original timeline for considering the nomination of Eric Holder as Attorney General.

In a lengthy statement from his office, Sen. Patrick Leahy offered no indication that he would move hearings on the Holder appointment from their scheduled date of January 8th. Moreover, he called GOP complaints that the nomination was being too quickly considered a fabricated and hypocritical critique driven by former Bush operative Karl Rove.

"In my statement to the Senate on November 20, I commended Senators Hatch, Sessions, Coburn, and Grassley for their nonpartisanship when they praised his selection. Senator Hatch spoke of his support for Mr. Holder, his experience and reputation. Senator Sessions, a former prosecutor, U.S. Attorney, and State Attorney General who is well aware of the problems at the Justice Department, said he was disposed to support him. Senator Coburn called it 'a good choice.' In addition, Senator Grassley has acknowledged Mr. Holder's impeccable credentials while reserving judgment. But of course since then, Karl Rove has appeared on the Today Show and signaled that Republicans ought to go after Mr. Holder. Right-wing talk radio took up the drum beat."

Leahy's statement comes the day after the GOP Senators he mentioned above took to the Senate floor to raise concerns about the Holder nomination. Their complaints focused primarily on Holder's involvement in the pardon of Marc Rich and other controversial actions taken by the Clinton Justice Department. Several suggested that if they weren't granted more time to consider the appointment, they would do everything in their power to hold up the nomination.

Leahy, who will have the greatest say in how Holder's nomination progresses, scoffed at the GOP's newfound desire for judicial prudence and political patience. Noting that there has been, on average, 29 days between the "announcement of an Attorney General designation and the start of hearings, and 37 days on average from the announcement of the nominee to the Committee vote," the Vermont Democrat wondered why, with Holder, Senate Republicans felt 39 days to consider the nomination and 50 days before the Judiciary Committee votes was too little time.

"When President Bush nominated Michael Mukasey last year," he said, "Senator Kyl said: 'Since the Carter administration, Attorney General nominees have been confirmed, on average, in approximately three weeks, with some being confirmed even more quickly. The Senate should immediately move to consider Judge Mukasey's nomination and ensure he is confirmed before Congress recesses for Columbus Day.' I held that hearing within 30 days. We should not change the standards now that a Democrat is making the selection."

A LINK TO SENATOR LEAHY'S FULL STATEMENT

Here is a link to the press release from Senator Leahy's office about his statement, including the complete text of the statement.

#

Do The Democrats Even Deserve A Filibuster-Proof Majority?

I hope Jim Martin beats Saxby Chambliss. I hope he beats him by a lot. Chambliss is one of the worst members on the Senate, both in terms of his unbelievably extremist voting record and in terms of his utter disregard for even the vaguest sense of personal ethics. Lately he's taken to defending his putrid ad against Max Cleland, which even John McCain denounced as reprehensible and is now running a similar a similar smear tactic against Jim Martin. As much as his ad campaigns, Chambliss himself is reprehensible. And, like I said above, I hope Martin defeats him.

So why no fundraising campaign here? Jim Martin actually meets the criteria we use at Blue America. He's not just better than Chambliss-- after all, it would be hard for anyone not to be better than that venal slug-- Jim Martin's vision for America is pretty progressive and very much geared towards serving the needs of the working families ignored over the past 8 and 6 years, respectively by George Bush and Saxby Chambliss. But we're just going to let President-elect Obama and the Senate Democratic caucus win this one on their own. Let them put up the money and go for that 60-vote filibuster-proof majority if they really want it. (I have my doubts that they do, since it would leave them with no excuses if they fail to deliver on their campaign promises and on the expectations of the voters.)

And whether they really want it or not, do they even deserve it? The Senate Democratic caucus-- which includes reactionary scumbags like Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, and Ben Nelson-- is sickening, cowardly and next-to-worthless. Patrick Leahy is the ONLY member of the caucus with the balls to publicly state that the treacherous Joe Lieberman doesn't deserve to be given the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. "I’m one who does not feel someone should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after what he did." (Listen.) Alas, he's the only one so far. At least the vote won't be unanimous. Too bad the voters of Connecticut don't get a say. In a new poll that came out this morning, most Connecticut voters express so much dissatisfaction with Lieberman that it's next to impossible to see him ever winning an election there again. If the voters there could re-do the 2006 election today 59% would vote for Ned Lamont and only 34% would vote for Lieberman. And if loses his chairmanship and then jumps to the GOP only 31% of Connecticut voters say they would favor his re-election.

So what to do? Well, it's clear to me that the Democratic caucus should start acting with some degree of self-respect and, at the minimum, take away his chair. If they do, we'll do whatever we can to help get Jim Martin elected. Meanwhile, I want to suggest that the ones siding with the caucus' reactionaries watch Rachel Maddow's explanation and pay attention to her suggestions. She's got it right-- much more so than hack political reporter Ron Brownstein, who is urging the Democrats to step on the people who elected them and to instead govern like less extreme Republicans.



It looks like we were correct a few days ago when we predicted that a small handful of progressive Democrats would stand up against the inherent conservative inertia that makes the world's most exclusive club nearly worthless. Bernie Sanders just joined Patrick Leahy in opposing Lieberman's demand that he get the Homeland Security chair to prevent him from becoming (officially) a Republican. Most of the cowards, led by reactionary Evan Bayh, are wimpering that an "apology" is enough for them. Bernie:

"To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country.

"Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not 'change we can believe in.' I very much hope that Senator Lieberman stays in the Democratic caucus and is successful in regaining the confidence of those whom he has disappointed. This is not a time, however, in which he should be rewarded with a major committee chairmanship."

BUSH AND CHENEY DID NOT RESIGN

A one word description of the Bush Regime might be "lawless." It sort of sums the whole mess up nicely. I never thought Alberto Gonzales was one of the masterminds of evil, not the way Rove and Cheney, for example were. He was more the useful idiot, a low grade pal of the low grade presidunce who feels comfy around people who aren't terribly brilliant. It seemed unbelievable that Gonzales, caught in one lie after another, after another, after another hung in there so long. But he became a living mantra for "He serves at the pleasure of the president." And the presidunce insists he is the president and the decision maker and he takes himself very seriously.

Yesterday I did a little research into the U.S. backed (run) coup in Vietnam that ended in the brutal murder of the U.S. puppet president, Ngo Dinh Diem, and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu. Why the brother? Nhu didn't have an official role in the government but he carried out many of the functions of the Attorney General, at least in terms of being a regime strongman. He ran a private militia whose job was to buck up the authoritarian rule of his corrupt family. He was a big proponent of torture of "enemies of the regime." In the U.S., presidents have chosen someone they could trust to walk off a cliff for them and break any law for them. John Kennedy had his brother. Nixon's first Attorney General, John Mitchell, went to prison rather than spill the beans. Bush started with a political hack, religionist nutcase and far right extremist, defeated Missouri Senator John Ashcroft, but he wasn't enough of an insider and he was eventually replaced with cipher Alberto Gonzales, a man with no independent base outside of BushWorld and a man of no accomplishments whatsoever outside of his relationship with Bush.

So, as the foul, foul regime unwinds, who is enough of a tool to make Bush comfortable with. I imagine a prerequisite will be an agreement not to investigate-- and to prevent the investigation of-- lots and lots and lots of lawlessness... and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. So far this morning the name on everyone's lips is Chertoff, the man who is best known for avoiding any responsibility-- as head of the Department of Homeland Security-- for the catastrophe of New Orleans.

The Senate will have to confirm whichever partisan hack Bush decides on. They should take this responsibility seriously and not rubber stamp Bush's whim. What is called for now is not a Ngo Dinh Nhu, a John Mitchell, a Bobby Kennedy, an Ed Meese or an Alberto Gonzales, but someone who is truly independent who will serve the interests of the American people, not the defensive needs of a crumbling lawless regime. The Senate should refuse to even consider anyone with close ties to the Bush regime. It isn't what America needs now. Being an insider should be a disqualifier.

Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will get the first crack at whatever crook Bush tries to get into the job, issued a statement just now, a statement that gets to the heart of the problem: Bush. Leahy has it completely right; let's see if he's got what it takes to convince his Senate colleagues to follow through with his premises. How about Patrick Fitzgerald?

Under this Attorney General and this President, the Department of Justice suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence.  It is a shame, and it is the Justice Department, the American people and the dedicated professionals of our law enforcement community who have suffered most from it.  
 
The obligations of the Justice Department and its leaders are to the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people, not to the political considerations of this or any White House.  The Attorney General's resignation reinforces what Congress and the American people already know-- that no Justice Department should be allowed to become a political arm of the White House, whether occupied by a Republican or a Democrat. 
 
The troubling evidence revealed about this massive breach is a lesson to those in the future who hold these high offices, so that law enforcement is never subverted in this way again.  I hope the Attorney General's decision will be a step toward getting to the truth about the level of political influence this White House wields over the Department of Justice and toward reconstituting its leadership so that the American people can renew their faith in its role as our leading law enforcement agency.

CONYERS IS ON THE SAME PAGE AS LEAHY

John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has a similar perspective to the one expressed by Senator Leahy. "It is a sad day when the Attorney General of the United States resigns amid a cloud of suspicion that the system of justice has been manipulated for political purposes. More than accountability, we need answers. Unfortunately, the continued stonewalling of the White House in the U.S. Attorney scandal has deprived the American people of the truth. If the power of the prosecutor has been misused in the name of partisanship, we deserve a full airing of the facts. The responsibility to uncover these facts is still on the Congress, and the Judiciary Committee in particular."

Reid gets it too (but will he act on it?):"Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove. This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House."

And every line of Russ Feingold's short statement is exactly right, the last one, of course, being the most crucial-- and the one most likely to be compromised on by Russ' pathetic colleagues in the Senate. “Attorney General Gonzales’ tenure was marked by unprecedented politicization of the Department of Justice, deception of Congress and the American people, and disrespect for the rule of law.  He should never have been confirmed and should have resigned long ago.  The first loyalty of the next attorney general must be to the law, not the president.”

DEMOCRATIC SENATORS VOTING WITH RIGHT-WING REPUBLICANS TO BETRAY AMERICA. WHY SHOULD WE SUPPORT THEM? MAYBE NADER WAS RIGHT!

Today People For the American Way put out a press release, "LEAHY MAKES CASE AGAINST ROBERTS, THEN SUPPORTS HIM," bemoaning the tendency of Democratic legislators, even good ones like Leahy, to support what amounts to the ongoing fascist take-over of our country. Does Patrick Leahy still not understand what the Bush Regime is and the irreparable damage it is doing to our great country? Following the announcement by Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) that he will support Chief Justice nominee John Roberts, People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas had the following statement:
 
“Senator Leahy eloquently made all the arguments against the confirmation of Judge Roberts, and then made a decision that contradicted his own compelling reasoning.  His decision was inexplicable, and deeply disappointing.
 
“When John Roberts becomes Chief Justice and votes to erode or overturn longstanding Supreme Court precedents protecting fundamental civil rights, women’s rights, privacy, religious liberty, reproductive rights and environmental safeguards, Senator Leahy’s support for Roberts will make him complicit in those rulings, and in the retreat from our constitutional rights and liberties.”