Trump's Veto Stands-- He Is Free To Attack Iran At Will

Blood On Their Hands by Nancy Ohanian

On Thursday, the Senate attempted to override Trump's veto of the joint resolution that directed him to remove American armed forced from hostilities against Iran that hadn't been authorized by Congress. There was never any chance an override was in the cards-- not with 44 Republicans firmly committed to backing anything and everything Trump does. Every Senate Democrat voted to override but only 6 Republicans had the guts (or sense) to join them:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Rand Paul (R-KY)

After the vote, Al Gross, the independent running on the Democratic line in Alaska, noted that "Yet again, party-line Dan Sullivan put National Republicans first, and left Alaska behind. Alaskans don’t believe in party run politics especially when it means putting our military members at risk without oversight and careful consideration. Considering our needs or interests has never been something Dan Sullivan takes to heart so it’s not surprising he voted this way. Dan’s like lap dog for the national Republicans, and Alaskans deserve a real, independent leader to put Alaskans first, whether the president likes it or not."

Had Gross been in the Senate, both Alaska senators would have voted to override. Something tells me Murkowski is hoping that's the outcome in November anyway.

There was no vote in the House, but it's worth remembering that when it passed the House on March 11, there were just 6 no good, dirty, fake Democrats who sided with Trump and the GOP:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)

The only one of these war-monger fake Dems with a primary os Kendra Horn, where she is being challenged by progressive Democrat Tom Guild. Yesterday, he told OK-05 voters that "Under no circumstances should America become engaged in military action in Iran without prior congressional approval. I am deeply disappointed that my June 30 primary opponent Rep. Horn gave the current president or any president carte blanche to start another costly war in the Middle East. During this widespread and destructive pandemic and unprecedented meltdown in the American economy, we should be rebuilding and investing in America, not engaging in more unauthorized international military actions. The American people are tired to the point of exhaustion with America’s endless wars."

Blue America's most recently endorsed candidate, West Virginia progressive Cathy Kunkel, noted that the Republican in the seat she's running for, Alex Mooney, "the hypocritical Republican Congressman from WV-02, was the only Republican to cosponsor legislation (HR 1274) repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force, yet to vote against this resolution. When push came to shove, support for Trump in an election year was more important than his previous belief in restoring Congressional authority to make war. H.R. 1274 cosponsor list show that Thomas Massie (KY) and Justin Amash (MI) were the only other Republican co-sponsors, and both were consistent in supporting the resolution to remove U.S. troops from hostilities with Iran)."

Please consider contributing to Tom's and Cathy's campaigns by clicking on the Blue America 2020 congressional primary thermometer above and giving what you can.

Why Congress Might "Fix" the 9/11 Justice Bill It Just Passed

The Daily Show's nuanced take on the 9/11 Justice bill that Obama vetoed and Congress passed anyway, overriding his veto. Why might Congress reverse that veto-override? Give it a listen.

by Gaius Publius

"Why would [28 senators] vote to override the thing and then go back against it? Because it's not about what they feel. It's about what they want people to think they feel."

We wrote here about the 9//11 Justice Bill (officially, JASTA, or the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act) and Obama's veto of it, which Congress overrode. We also offered some reasons Obama and some Democrats may have been against it, among them the army of well-funded, Saudi-paid lobbyists operating in the U.S. to "discourage" its support. (Obama himself is a man with legacy needs, and down the road, his kind of legacy will also need financing.)

But a second reason for Obama's opposition is this — in essence, one person's "drone strike on an Afghan 'rebel' village" is another person's "state-sponsored terrorism." Put more simply, it's the tit-for-tat problem: "If you can sue me for terrorism, then I can sue you."

Or, put even more simply, revenge. And as Trevor Noah indicated in the video above, the U.S. has much to regret, or at least to protect against, when it comes to stimulating revenge.

Lawmakers' Regrets

So lawmakers are starting to walk back their two votes — one to pass the bill, one to override the veto — and starting to say words like "national security" and "protect the troops" ("troops" being code for anyone in any position who orders or helps implement what foreign victims may see as our own "state-sponsored terrorism"). 

Joseph K. Grieboski, writing in The Hill, discusses this. The headline:

9/11 bill is a global blunder that will weaken US efforts abroad

Before I continue with the article, notice the phrasing above, then ask yourself: "US efforts" to do what? More drone strikes perhaps? A bombing or two? Needless to say, you should be immediately alert that this piece is sympathetic to Obama's position.

The writer continues:

On Thursday [September 29], the U.S. Congress went over the head of President Obama for the first time, passing the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, a piece of legislation effectively removing the principle of sovereign immunity to allow the families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to directly and privately sue the Saudi government for complicity with terrorists.

While most of the hijackers were Saudi nationals, it is critically important that the across-the-aisle 9/11 commission found no evidence that the Saudi government or senior officials funded the attacks, or had any prior knowledge of it. Instead, the commission report lays much of the blame on a failure of U.S. intelligence and border security, citing the fact that al Qaeda gave plenty of notice of their intent to slaughter American civilians, but domestic defense forces devoted little attention or resources toward addressing the threat.

With the passage of the bill, the United States has provided the opportunity for grieving citizens to launch a legal battle against a false enemy, justifiably angering a nation that is not only a huge supplier of oil for the U.S, but has also served as a key ally in the war on terror.

That middle paragraph is pure pro-Saudi argumentum. I left it in specifically you let you see it for what it is. If this bill gets "fixed" — i.e., neutered — that reasoning ("We can't sue the Saudis anyway; there's no proof") will be a constant part of the justification.

Now the next justification for walking back the bill, and the one I mentioned above (revenge):

Following the 15th anniversary of the attacks, JASTA was clearly directed at [sic] families of 9/11 victims. However, this bill has far-reaching consequences, opening the United States up to retaliatory legislation by foreign nations.

The principle of sovereign immunity, protecting a government from civil or criminal suit, has been maintained for so long by a notion of reciprocity — the United States protects itself from suit by in turn protecting other nations. The bill has taken a significant step towards erosion of this global status quo. If the U.S. will not protect the immunity of other nations, especially an ally such as Saudi Arabia, than there is no mechanism in place to prevent retaliatory measures.

"Directed at" 9/11 families exposes the posturing nature of support (as in, they're striking a pose) for this bill by legislators. The writer could have used the phrase "written to support" the 9/11 families, but I appreciate the his honesty in this case. Notice also that this "principle of sovereign immunity" isn't international law, but a kind of gentlemen's agreement, a "notion of reciprocity." There's nothing holding this international principle in place, nothing upgirding it, but fear of consequences. Good to know.

About those objections more specifically. First, the writer notes Obama, speaking in a town hall shortly after the veto override, saying this: "Obama cited a number of concerns with the overriding of his veto. His primary fear seems to be an infringement on the ability of the United States to continue to carry out global disaster relief. ... The president fears that, should other nations pass similar legislation, the U.S. could be forced to curb its humanitarian aid work out of legal necessity."

Of course we'll be sued for disaster relief. That's what everyone does to governments that help them pick themselves from the rubble of earthquake. Yes, that's sarcasm, and yes, that reasoning is the most phony of phony logic. Likely, though, you'll hear it much repeated when this bill is reconsidered.

Paul Ryan, whose Republican House overwhelmingly supported the bill (only 18 Republicans voted No), is having second thoughts as well:

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the House would take up a bill to fix problems with JASTA after it comes back from its election recess, admitting Obama's concerns that the bill could subject U.S. service members to lawsuits in foreign courts was legitimate.

There's the "support the troops" argument. Another you'll hear much repeated.

And as Trevor Noah noted in the video above, Mitch McConnell is also have voter's remorse.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took to blaming Obama for Senate Republicans' misunderstanding or misreading of the law. "Nobody really had focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships. And I think it was just a ball dropped," he stated.

When it comes to protecting the national security state, it seems almost no one wants to get in the way. That includes our major media.

Big Media Wants the Bill "Fixed" (Neutered) as Well

Major press outlets are also overwhelmingly for a "fix." From an overview of press coverage by Fair.org:

...Notice that the possibility of other countries suing the US for war crimes its government commits is automatically assumed to be undesirable. The Washington Post puts “terrorism” in irony quotes because, of course, the US could never actually commit terrorism; claims to this effect could only be invoked “when convenient” by greedy non-Americans.

The New York Times uses its trademark euphemisms to describe how the US is “engaged in the world” with “drone operations.” A nice way of saying the US uses drones to bomb people in a half-dozen countries with—so far—legal impunity. Changing this state of affairs is simply glossed over as a nonstarter.

USA Today frames any attempt at legal recourse over American terrorism overseas as “retaliation”—presumably for some righteous kill executed by the United States in the service of freedom.

The New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today are saying that exposing American military and intelligence personnel to foreign liability is per se bad—a nativism so casual and matter-of-fact one might hardly notice it until circumstances force them to explicitly state it. No account is taken of the 7 billion non-Americans or their rights. No explanation is given as to why victims of US terror–of which there are many–shouldn’t register in our moral calculus. They just don’t.

The many euphemisms used by the press simply say what I wrote more plainly above — "drone operations," for example, from the Times, means "drone strikes" and "drone kills," but without the hint of blood and death.

Yet Obama and Congress Would Let Foreign Companies Sue the U.S. Under NAFTA and TPP

Adam Johnson, the author of the Fair.org piece, notes the irony of U.S. political elites eagerness to (a) protect our government's right to kill with no exposure to lawsuit, while (b), via instruments like NAFTA and TPP, give foreign companies the right to sue the U.S. over any number of "lost profit" claims. He writes:

The irony is that none of these publications were overly concerned with exposing the US to foreign lawsuits when they offered support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a corporate trade deal that includes a provision for  Investor-State Dispute Settlement—meaning it permits corporations to sue governments, including the US, in the event that a regulation undermines corporate profits. So increased exposure to liability to the US government when it gives more power to corporations is permissible, even desirable, but when it might provide recourse for victims of US war crimes? Not so much.

Let's put that even more succinctly. According to U.S. rulers and their agents: Prevent foreign victims from suing the U.S. for lost life, but allow foreign companies to sue the U.S. for lost money. Shows where their hearts are at, I think. It's clearly with the money, which keeps their system running, and not the victims of it.

Bottom line: After the election, most likely in the lame duck session, the 9/11 families will be sold out by Congress men and women who won't have to face another election for at least two years. Unless those families continue the fight, which I expect. It will be a long slog though. The nearness of this election, I suspect, was part of why the bill got to the floor this time.

Some battles, especially against holder of great wealthy and their enablers, seem never to end. I think, no matter who wins the presidency, that war will further ignite, but that's a thought for another day.

Aruba... Jamaica...

Let's end on a cheerier note. Did I hear Roy Wood Jr. mention "Aruba... Jamaica..." in the clip above? Here you go:

The Beach Boys, set to shots of Barbara Eden in Eden

No victim lawsuits in those smiles.

GP
 

Congress Overrides Obama Veto; 9/11 Families Can Sue Saudi Officials — and Associated U.S. Companies?

President Barack Obama and Saudi Arabia's King Salman walk together to a meeting at Erga Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, April 20, 2016. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster (source)

by Gaius Publius

This story is straight-forward but has two interesting wrinkles. The House and Senate recently (and unanimously) passed a bill that drills a loophole into the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and allows victims of terrorism to sue foreign sponsors of attacks on U.S. soil.

The families of 9/11 victims had pushed hard for it. Most congressional Democrats and Republicans were united in supporting it. Only the executive branch, meaning President Obama, was opposed (more on that in a moment). So the bill passed ... and Obama vetoed it.

The Senate has now overridden his veto, 97–1 (only Harry Reid opposed; two not voting), quickly followed by the House override (348–77).

Here's the write-up via The Hill:

Senate overrides Obama 9/11 veto in overwhelming vote

The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to override President Obama’s veto of a bill that would allow the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.

The 97-1 vote marks the first time the Senate has mustered enough support to overrule Obama’s veto pen.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was the sole vote to sustain Obama’s veto. Not a single Democrat came to the Senate floor before the vote to argue in favor of Obama’s position. ...

The White House lashed out at the Senate vote, calling it "embarrassing."

“I would venture to say that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done, possibly, since 1983,” Obama spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One.

 Here's what the legislation (acronym: JASTA) would do:

The legislation ... was crafted primarily at the urging of the families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks who want to sue Saudi Arabian officials if they are found to have links to the hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Which means the Saudis, naturally, were opposed:

The Saudi Embassy and a high-priced team of lobbyists it hired waged an intense campaign to persuade lawmakers to sustain the override, but it came too late.

So there's money involved, and given the wealth of the Saudis, a lot of it. Still, not enough to "persuade" either house of Congress to support the president's veto.

The Saudi government's opposition is easy to understand — they don't want to be sued for ginning up anti-U.S. terrorism while selling us oil. But what about Obama's opposition?

Obama's Opposition

I'll give you two data points, in the form of administration quotes, that offer an explanation for Obama's veto. First, Obama says he doesn't want to put what's been characterized as "U.S. military, intelligence and foreign service personnel [and] U.S. government assets" at risk. The Hill again:

Obama warned in a veto message to the Senate last week that the bill would improperly give legal plaintiffs and the courts authority over complex and sensitive questions of state-sponsored terrorism.

He also cautioned that it would undermine protections for U.S. military, intelligence and foreign service personnel serving overseas, as well as possibly subject U.S. government assets to seizure. ...

“The consequences of JASTA [the bill] could be devastating to the Department of Defense and its service members — and there is no doubt that the consequences could be equally significant for our foreign affairs and intelligence communities,” [Obama] wrote in the letter, which was later circulated by a public affairs company working for the embassy of Saudi Arabia.

From the last sentence, you can see that the Saudis and Obama are working together on this. No surprise. A little more on what Obama says he fears, via USA Today:

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, would provide an exception to the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," which holds that one country can't be sued in another country's courts. ...

The White House has argued that the bill would prompt other nations to retaliate, stripping the immunity the United States enjoys in other parts of the world. "And no country has more to lose, in the context of those exceptions, than the United States of America..." Earnest said.

Stripping the U.S. of immunity may not be bad. After all, fear of punishment has deterred many destructive deeds, and internationally, we're no angels. But John Cornyn, a sponsor of the bill, argues that this mischaracterizes it, saying the bill "only targets foreign governments who sponsor terrorist attacks on American soil, plain and simple."

If so, is President Obama protecting the U.S., or protecting the Saudis? And if just the latter, why? (I can think of several reasons — for example, America's determined dependence on oil, which ties us to that murderous regime; also, a certain future library and foundation that need funding, plus a regime that likes to contribute to foundations. Among others.)

Second, there's this intriguing bit from an earlier, pre-veto write-up by Reuters:

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters the president will veto Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act within the constitutionally mandated 10-day window, which ends Friday evening.

The Obama administration opposed the bill on grounds that other countries could use the law as an excuse to sue U.S. diplomats, service members or companies.

Notice that Josh Earnest was implicitly quoted in the second paragraph above. "Or companies"? Presumably U.S. companies, based on the construction of the sentence. So how could U.S. companies be sued if the "9/11 families" sued the Saudi government? And which ones?

Did U.S. Companies Help the 9/11 Hijackers?

In the hunt for that information, I found this, from Zero Hedge (emphasis in original):

Unleash the revisionist history. Congress released on Friday a long-classified report exploring the alleged ties of the Saudi Arabian government to the 9/11 hijackers.

The missing 28 pages from the 9/11 report begins as follows:

"While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government..."

The "28 pages," the secret document was part of a 2002 congressional investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks and has been classified since the report's completion. As CNN reports, former Sen. Bob Graham, who chaired the committee that carried out the investigation and has been pushing the White House to release the pages, said Thursday he was "very pleased" that the documents would be released.

The pages, sent to Congress by the Obama administration, have been the subject of much speculation over what they might reveal about the Saudi government's involvement in the attacks masterminded by terrorist Osama bin Laden when he led al-Qaeda.The pages were used by the 9/11 Commission as part of its investigation into the intelligence failures leading up to the attacks.

A telephone number found in the phone book of al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaida, who was captured in Pakistan in March 2002, was for an Aspen, Colo., corporation that managed the "affairs of the Colorado residence of the Saudi Ambassador Bandar," the documents show.

Fascinating. Almost ascends to the level of John LeCarré, but with even larger implications. This much very high level protection of the Saudi government and its ruling family (after all, it's Obama doing the protecting) must mean there's something big, something very high level, to protect.

The 9/11 story is certainly not dead. Thanks to the 9/11 families, we're getting a little bit closer to knowing what actually happened.

GP
 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Unanimously Passes Iran "Nuclear Deal"

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran ...

by Gaius Publius

... and the kicker: "Obama Indicates He'll Sign It."

There's much to notice here, and some about which to wait and see. First the news, via the New York Times (my emphasis):

Senate Panel Passes Bill on Iran Nuclear Deal; Obama Indicates He’ll Sign It

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved legislation granting Congress a voice in negotiations on the Iran nuclear accord, sending the once-controversial legislation to the full Senate after President Obama withdrew his opposition rather than face a bipartisan rebuke.

Republican opponents of the nuclear agreement on the committee sided with Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters in demanding a congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. The bill would mandate that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress as soon as it is completed. It also halts any lifting of sanctions during a congressional review and culminates in a possible vote to allow or forbid the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It passed 19 to 0.

The perp, or at least the "lead perp" — the lead Democrat taking blame so the rest don't have to — is Ben Cardin of Maryland:

”We’re involved here. We have to be involved here. Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who served as a bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated changes in the days before Tuesday’s vote. 

Did Obama cave, or was he facing a potential veto-proof majority?

With passage certain, White House officials insisted the president only changed his position because of substantial changes to the bill itself. Mr. Corker called that spin, saying the president switched sides in the face of a steamroller.

Because the White House is not negotiating a treaty, the Senate bill must go to the House, where Nancy Pelosi may or may not be able to put together enough Democratic support to prevent a veto override there:

Nancy Pelosi May Save The Iran Negotiations For Obama

The United States Senate has spent the better part of the past two years working to inject itself into nuclear negotiations between Iran and a coalition of countries that includes the U.S. But as the talks work toward a conclusion this summer, the upper chamber may be in for a rude surprise.

The Senate, thanks to its constitutional duty to ratify treaties, has long considered foreign affairs its domain. But the White House is not negotiating a treaty, which means that the Senate must enact legislation in order to exercise control over the pending Iran deal. And the Senate can't make law without the House of Representatives.

Senate Republicans on Tuesday reached a deal with the White House to require an Iran agreement to go through Congress for final approval. But even if they [the Senate] can come up with the two-thirds vote they would need to make a potential rejection of that agreement veto-proof, opponents would still need the same fraction in the House. Finding 292 votes there will be difficult, given the ability of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to hold her caucus together. Naysayers there would need 292 House votes to override a possible veto by President Barack Obama, meaning that Pelosi would need to hold only 145 of her 188 Democrats to stop an override.

But even that's iffy, especially since, as noted above, Obama has signaled he'd sign the legislation. So where does that leave Pelosi?

When asked if she would push House Democrats to get behind the bill if it reaches the House floor, Pelosi wouldn't say.

"I'm listening to the caucus to see what they want to do. All they want to do is be sure that we have an agreement at the end and give the president the strongest possible hand to negotiate that," she said.

But later on Tuesday evening, Pelosi emailed her members to note that the White House had said the president would sign the revised bill. "While the original Corker legislation was harmful to the negotiations, the Cardin compromise of Corker can be supported," she wrote.

That last line — "'the Cardin compromise of Corker can be supported,' she wrote" — can either be a true statement or the sound of a face being saved in the face of a White House cave. Which came first, the White House agreement to sign the bill or the loss, if any, of support in the House? We don't know. We don't even know if House Democrats will mount an opposition.

What's the Bottom Line?

If Obama has collapsed his resistance, the Corker bill is a done deal. If he's still going to hold the fort in the House, we'll have to wait and see if this is over or not. These stories read like a White House collapse to me, but the news is pretty fresh, so we should be open to revised interpretation.

Regardless of the political analysis, however, the bill itself, if Obama signs it, could be make-or-break for his Iranian negotiations. Hanging in the balance, ultimately, is Netanyahu's fondest dream — war.

Netanyahu told cabinet: Our biggest fear is that Iran will honor nuclear deal

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at a recent meeting of the security cabinet that if a comprehensive nuclear agreement between Iran and the six world powers is indeed signed by the June 30 deadline, the greatest concern is that Tehran will fully implement it without violations, two senior Israeli officials said.

This is a dream that, to all appearances, Senate Democrats share. I'm going to be very interested in the roll call of the floor vote. Ultimately, this could be the fault of the newly crowned future minority leader, Iran hawk Chuck Schumer, who supported the Corker bill.

So what to think? The bill is softer — see this excellent analysis from the Huffington Post for the bullet points — but is it soft enough not to sink the deal? Bottom line — No. One. Knows.

If Chuck Schumer, and Senate and AIPAC hawks, wanted a game-altering monkey wrench, they got it.

GP

From 1980, one of the last concerts with the original group

Gigantic Overrides Of Bush's Medicare Veto In The House And Senate-- Republicans Flee Bush Agenda In Droves

Even Republicans aren't buying this crap anymore

Republicans hate government programs that help working people; that way they can use all our tax money to bail out millionaire campaign contributors who run big corporations into the ground. So they cut and slash and do whatever they can to destroy programs that make difference in people's lives. McCain has made it perfectly clear, for example, that if he gets into the White House he will do what he can to finish off Social Security, a decades' long dream for the old guard greed and selfishness wing of the Republican Party. He will also continue Bush's work eviscerating the regulatory agencies, something which has worked out so poorly put that few Americans understand is an actual Republican goal.

A couple weeks ago they ran into a little big bump in the road to further crippling working people financially: in their last ditch effort to accelerate the weakening of Medicare before Bush leaves office, they wound up giving a core Republican constituency-- doctors-- a huge pay cut. Doctors have a powerful "union" and they don't whine; they took action-- spending a "whatever it takes" on radio ads in Republican districts. The Texas Medical Association actually unendorsed Senator John Cornyn, a huge move. And the result was preordained. Enough cowardly Republicans abandoned their "principles," their instincts, and their leaders, crossed the aisle and voted with the Democrats in both houses of Congress to present Bush with veto-proof majorities.

Needless to say, that didn't stop Bush from vetoing the bill. This afternoon both the Senate and the House overrode Bush's veto. Harry Reid: "Congress today did its part to make sure the President’s stubborn opposition to the millions of American seniors and veterans who rely on Medicare does not stand.  Refusing to respect the will of the American people or its elected representatives, the President vetoed a bipartisan bill passed overwhelmingly by both houses.  We wasted no time in reversing the President’s carelessness and protecting our nation’s doctors and the patients they treat-- and this responsible and overdue Medicare fix is now law."

In the House the override was a reflection of the contempt that even Republicans feel for the lamest lame duck in anyone's memory-- 383 against Bush and only 41 to sustain his veto. That 41 is especially interesting because it includes 22 frightened little Republicans who changed their vote since voting with Bush just a few days ago. Most of the flip-floppers are Republicans with big fat targets on their backs, representatives whose constituents have begun to wise up to their shenanigans. Examples of Republicans who had voted against Medicare last week and then voted against Bush this week are some of the most out of touch extremists in Congress, but each one facing a daunting challenge in November:

Scott Garrett (R-NJ)
Patrick McHenry (R-NC), who used to brag he would never compromise his right-wing "principles"
Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
John Shadegg (R-AZ)
John Culberson (R-TX)
Dan Lungren (D-CA)

So who stuck with Bush? 41 pathetic dead-enders: a handful of crazy extremists with believe they are immune to November accountability [Westmoreland (R-GA), Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Neugebauer (R-TX), Pence (R-IN), Barton (R-TX), Cantor (R-VA), Campbell (R-CA), King (R-IA)]; plus most of the party's ineffectual leadership [Blunt, Cole and Boehner; even Howdy Doody abandoned them]; and many of the ones who are retiring or on their way to prison or a presidential pardon [Renzi (R-AZ), Doolittle (R-CA), Weldon (R-FL), Tancredo (R-CO), Cannon (R-UT), McCrery (R-LA)]. That's what's left of Tom DeLay's once mighty Republican coalition that could respond to Democrats' demands that taxpayers get a break for buying fuel efficient vehicles by passing a law that gave tax breaks of over $20,000 to Americans who bought Hummers and other giant gas-guzzling SUVs.

Meanwhile, over on the Senate side, the 26 most right wing extremists were the only ones who had the nerve to stand up to the doctors threats-- most of whom aren't up for re-election. Chastened-- or scared for his political life, Cornyn voted to override a veto he completely agrees with-- what a wimp! At least the even more crazy, more out of touch and more extremist Inhofe stuck with Bush, probably figuring that no one in Oklahoma was paying attention. Oklahoma State Senator Andrew Rice was paying attention-- very close attention. Not only is he running against Inhofe, he is also one of the Oklahoma legislature's most respected voices when it comes to affordable medical care for seniors and veterans.

"Even as more of his Republican colleagues came around to support restoration of Medicare and Tricare reimbursements to physicians, Jim Inhofe refused to budge," Rice said. "That leaves him with George W. Bush and insurance companies, not with seniors, military families and the physicians who treat them... "In this case, where three votes occurred over just two weeks, it is hard for Oklahomans not to notice where Jim Inhofe chooses to stand. If Inhofe and Bush had prevailed, seniors and military families would have lost access to health care."

Also sticking with Bush to the bitter end were McConnell (R-KY), Sununu (R-NH), Thune (R-SD), Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R-SC), Barrasso (R-WY). I had to laugh as Roger Wicker (R-MS), who voted against the doctors last week, tripped over his own flat feet as he scurried across the aisle to vote with the Democrats to override. He had been especially targeted by the American Medical Association and recent polling shows that it is unlikely that he will be re-elected. Needless to say, the double-talking McCain skipped the vote and refused to stake out a public position.

CONGRESS VOTES TO OVERRIDE BUSH'S VETO OF THE FARM BILL

Republicans are so eager to distance themselves from Bush that even some of the very worst rubber stamps of the past 7 years will do anything to create a faux record to show the voters how they "stood up and opposed Bush." Today, more House Republicans voted to override Bush's veto of the farm bill than voted to sustain their clueless leader. The overall vote to override passed 316-108 with 100 Republicans joined the Democrats to finally stand up to the despised lame duck. Of course a handful of the most craven and repulsive Blue Dogs stuck with Bush on this-- as with everything-- especially Melissa Bean (IL), Jim Matheson (UT), Jim Cooper (TN), and Jane Harman (CA). The House needs a two-thirds majority to override a veto. They got it-- and more.

Senator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who heads the Senate Agriculture Committee, explained the bill’s bipartisan popularity shortly after the Senate approved it last week: “This is really a farm bill for everyone.”

Indeed, one could argue that the term “farm bill” is a stretch. Although it contains billions of dollars in subsidies for farmers, the five-year package provides far more money for nutrition programs like food stamps, and for land conservation and alternative-fuel programs.

Before Wednesday, only one of Mr. Bush’s vetoes had been overridden. Last November, Congress approved a $23.2 billion water-projects measure over his objection. That bill addressed Everglades restoration, flood control in California, hurricane recovery efforts and so many popular projects for individual states that most lawmakers did not want to vote “no.”

Let's hope this is the start of a new trend-- since Bush plans on vetoing everything that comes out of Congress from now 'til the end of his term. Ironically, this isn't a black and white issue and Bush-- although a hypocrite when he denounced subsidizing wealthy farms, his regime's middle name-- is right about some of the reasons the pork-laden bill sucked. But it's a result of compromise that would take a real leader to overcome, something that there is a dearth of among our current governing class. Alan Grayson, the Blue America-endorsed progressive in Orlando may sense the same thing. When I asked him, just now, about rubber stamp incumbent Ric Keller's vote to sustain Bush's veto-- which is generally judged as bad for Florida farmers-- Alan went right to the question of Keller's leadership qualities: "Whenever there is a choice between doing what's right, and doing what President Bush wants, you can be sure what Ric Keller will do."

In case you're counting, here's how the bill breaks down:

$200 billion- Food stamps and other domestic nutrition programs (66%)
$43 billion- Subsidies for rice, cotton, corn, soybeans, wheat and other crops (14%)
$27 billion- Conservation programs to set aside or protect environmentally sensitive farmland (9%)
$23 billion- Crop insurance (8%)

Among the lunatic fringe Republicans who stuck with Bush-- aside from Ric Keller in Florida-- were members of the rubber stamp brigade like David Dreier (CA), Virginia Foxx (NC), Michelle Bachmann (MN), Scott Garrett (NJ), Frank Wolf (VA), Patrick McHenry (NC), Mean Jean Schmidt (OH), Ken Calvert (CA), Virgil Goode (VA), Charlie Dent (PA), John Shadegg (AZ), Jerry Lewis (CA), Darrell Issa (CA), Dave Reichert (WA), Daniel Lungren (CA), Heather Wilson (NM), Mike Pence (IN), and, as always, Dana Rohrabacher (CA).

A CRACK IN BUSH'S DAMN

As I mentioned would happen, the House finally voted today to override one of Bush's venal, toxic vetoes. The vote was 361 to 54 on the $23 billion water projects legislation. Every Democrat voted to override Bush, as did 138 normally rubber stamp Republicans. The only Republicans to stick with Bush on this were hardcore right-wing fanatics, mostly from the former Confederacy. The Republicans sticking with Bush included many of the regular suspects-- the most extremist characters, from virulent war mongers like Patrick McHenry (NC), Eric Cantor (VA), Doug Lamborn (CO), Virginia Foxx (NC), Buck McKeon (CA), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Bill Young (FL), Mike Pence (IN), Howdy Doody (FL), Jack Kingston (GA), Scott Garrett (NJ), and James Walsh (NY) to the most corrupt and compromised elements who are counting on Bush pardons after they are found guilty are imprisoned, like Jerry Lewis (CA), Tom Feeney (FL), Roy Blunt (MO), and Virgil Goode (VA).


UPDATE: SENATE VOTES TO OVERRIDE TOO

The dam is cracked and Bush's first veto has been overridden.The Senate-- including an overwhelming majority of Republicans-- has voted to trash his moronic and short-sighted veto of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. So which hard core rubber stamps bounced along with Bush even on this? Well, aside from Miss McConnell (KY), of course, the other Republicans along on the suicide ride were John Sununu (NH), Michael Enzi (WY), Jeff Sessions (AL), Wayne Allard (CO), Sam Brownback (KS), Richard Burr (NC), Tom Coburn (OK), Jon Kyl (AZ), Judd Gregg (NH), Jim DeMint (SC) and John Ensign (NV). John Cornyn, who has to face Texas voters next year, was afraid to come out from under his desk and vote.

FINALLY A VOTE EVEN THE MOST PATHETIC RUBBER STAMP REPUBLICAN CAN BREAK WITH THE HATED BUSH ON

Bush's job approval (24%) is the lowest of any occupant of the White House ever. Republican congressmen-- even many who have rubber stamped every one of his heinous policies for the past seven years-- who have to face voters next year are eager to show how independent of Bush they are. What better way than to vote to override one of his vetoes? 45, 44 and 43 Republicans, at different times, broke with him on health care for children. The attempt to override that one fell short but Bush's newest veto-- today-- of the bipartisan Water Resources Bill looks like it will gather enough Republicans to start the process of letting Bush know he's a constitutional president, not a dictator or a divine right monarch.

According to this afternoon's Congressional Quarterly there are enough Republican votes to override, when the House takes it up on November 6. "The Water Resources Development Act is popular among lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. It would authorize funding for Army Corps of Engineers projects across the country.

Many Republicans who have backed up Bush and sustained the other four vetoes of his presidency are expected to split with him on this one.

Rep. John L. Mica of Florida, the top Republican on the House committee that drafted the measure, said, “While I have supported President Bush on many occasions, I must respectfully disagree with his veto of this important and long-overdue water resources development bill.”

Noting that Congress has not passed such legislation for seven years, Mica added, “These improvements are critical to the nation’s infrastructure and environment, and more delay will only ignore the problems and increase costs.”

If the House votes to override the veto, the Senate will vote next week as well, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. It, too, is expected to override the veto.

The Bill is so widely popular that even polar opposites, the most progressive (Barbara Boxer) and the most reactionary (James Inhofe) support the bill. Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee says he will lead the fight to override the veto. Even David Diapers Vitter (R-LA), a lockstep rubber stamp if there ever was one, is against Bush on this.

The water bill authorizes more than 900 projects and programs, such as building new locks on the Mississippi River, restoring the Florida Everglades, upgrading boat ramps in Idaho and restoring oyster habitat in Long Island Sound. The bill authorizes the projects, but the funding must be provided through the appropriations process.

..."When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.