Bush's Offer is not in Good Faith

Last night, I watched the O'Reilley Factor. It's not something I do often, because it is really "info-tainment" and you rarely see a valid presentation of anything close to a fact.

But, I wanted to preview what the right wing's defense of George Bush's bull-headed collision course with Congress would be. Predictably, they continue to use Clinton as justification of their declaration of executive privilege. They forget that they cried foul anytime that Clinton wanted to prevent his staff from appearing before the witch hunt that was run by Sen. Al D'Amato back in the mid-90's.

O'Reilley had former Judge Andrew Napolitano on as his guest last night. Surprisingly, he made it clear to O'Reilley that the courts have spoken clearly over the years on the issue of executive privilege. The established precedent is that this privilege only applies to issues of national security. It would be a major change in judicial philosophy to expand that definition of executive privilege.

Accordingly, Bush's threat to go to court over this issue is in bad faith. They must know they will lose a court battle. So, their strategy must be to delay this issue long enough for the media attention, and subsequently public scrutiny, to wain enough for Congress to back off.

Another interesting point made by Napolitano, which we may hear the conservatives try to use is that the penalty for lying to Congress is the same whether you are under oath or not.

Okay, so that sort of makes sense. But only for a moment. Bush's offer to Congress is that Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, et. al have a 'discussion' with the Ethics Committees that is in private, without the press, not under oath, and without a transcript. This begs the question that if there is no transcript, then who do you prosecute any of these witnesses for perjury? Accordingly, how does Congress ensure that the testimony they are receiving is accurate.

It's all a load of crap. If this Administration has nothing to hide, they will immediately adhere to the subpoenas issued today by the United States Congress. Anything short of that is unacceptable and a gross breach of public trust.

Stonewall Bush Dares Democrats to a Confrontation. They should accept.

George Bush has just finished talking to the American people for the second time in two days. At least he's taking questions today, but it's still as ridiculous as his comments yesterday.

He is clearly challenging the Congress to a confrontation over his staff and former staff testifying under oath about the growing scandal over the firing of nine United States Attorneys (nearly ten percent of all US Attorneys!). He is using the classic argument that says that if White House staffers have to testify under oath to Congress, they will lose any ability to offer confidential advice to the President. That is nothing more than a red herring.

They are free to offer confidential advice to the President until they are blue in the face. Until they start acting unethically. Then, Congressional oversight is warranted.

I still remember the Whitewater Hearings when one after another of the Clinton Administration was dragged before Al D'Amato's Government Affairs Committee to testify there about any number of issues. In these cases, the staff themselves were not suspected of unethical behavior, they were merely a means of seeking damaging information on President Clinton.

There are indeed valid reasons for White House staff to be prevented from testifying to Congress. This, however is NOT one of those times.

The President's position is nothing more than stonewalling. They have made a conscious decision to prevent the truth coming directly from the mouths of his closest and most trusted staffers.
Bush said, "If they are truly interested in information, they need to read all of the emails we have released. They would rather be involved in partisanship. They are just interested in scoring political points."

While he is on message, he couldn't be farther away from the right thing to do. His "fair offer" to have Rove and Miers testify off-camera and off-the-record is wholly unacceptable.

Chairmen John Conyers and Pat Leahy should pick up the gauntlet thrown down by the President. The ONLY reason for Rove and Miers to not testify under oath and on the record is so they A) don't disclose information damaging to the White House, and B) so they don't find themselves facing perjury charges for lying about what they said and did.

This is unacceptable. Democrats need to STAND UP and DEMAND that Congress get to the bottom of this. Otherwise, a dangerous precedent will be created. At risk is the integrity of the Federal legal system.

My Friend, Mona Sahlin....

Many of you know that I was in Sweden for my friend's 50th Birthday party. Since I planned my trip, she was nominated to be the first woman to lead the Social Democratic Party of Sweden in it's long and storied history.

So, the trip had an unexpected element of excitement, as she was officially elected Leader of the Social Democrats on Saturday. As I do not yet speak or read Swedish, I'm limited in the news coverage that I can read about it.

Below, I'm putting two links. The first is a blog post by a good friend that I made while visiting Stockholm. He is the Editor in Chief of the Party newspaper. The second is from a website that reports Sweden's news in English. If you are interested in reading about my friend's exciting new position, please check them out. If she can bring her party back in the next election, she will be the first female Prime Minister of Sweden!

http://ericsundstrom.blogspot.com/search/label/Mona%20Sahlin

http://www.thelocal.se/6724/20070318/

What is Kay Bailey Hutchison Smoking?

Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison just said "We are fighting for freedom for our children more than any war we have ever been in."

I'm so flabbergasted at this that I'm almost speechless. ALMOST.

She is pathetic and should take a history lesson. I've tried to call her office to see if they wanted to clarify this egregious act of stupidity, but their line is busy. Perhaps I'm not the only one to notice this. I'll update if I get through.

Bush's Stupid, Pointless Speech and Spineless Senators

I swear, George Bush is a total idiot. I am watching his remarks on the 4th anniversary of this disastrous war. He couldn't even walk through the door with grace.

Then, he started out by saying that we embarked four years ago to remove Saddam Hussein from office and to remove the threat he posed to the region.

What a crock! This is yet ANOTHER angle that the George "Idiot" Bush is using. First, it was to prevent the production of WMD's. Then it was about freedom. Now it is about us deciding who is fit to lead another nation. Hell, we suck at picking people to lead our own nation! We're the last country in the world to figure that one out. Unfortunately, it's more than six years too late.

Now, Bush is telling us how great things are in Iraq and that he has JUST gotten an update from the Iraqi Prime Minister. Breaking news.....wait for it: We should know that the "new strategy" is at the beginning stages.

Enough of Bush's remarks. It's nothing we haven't heard before. He should stop banging his head against the wall. The American people have given up on him and this war. Talk about being politically tone deaf! He must really feel like an idiot to have declared "Mission Accomplished" so long ago. But he still has the nerve to come to us asking for our patience.

Here's the reality of what we've done. We have staged a failure of a military action in Iraq. We have ultimately destabilized the region because, while stumbling through this war, we have failed to engage anywhere else in the region in a meaningful way.

We have ignored Iran and that has caused their President to engage in reckless activity to gain any attention or respect. There has been no meaningful engagement in the Palestinian/Israeli peace issue. Syria is cozying up with Iran in defying the United Nations and the United States. Kuwait and Egypt must be wondering when Bush/Cheney/Rice will get their heads out of their asses and make some progress diplomatically in the region.

The new Democratic Congress has a responsibility to express the will of the American people. Speaker Pelosi has provided meaningful leadership in the House of Representatives. Majority Leader Harry Reid can't get anything passed in the Senate. He can't even get a majority of the vote to favor ending this war.

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas joined with shameful non-Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman in opposing a Resolution calling for a timely withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This is an issue that is fundamental to America's place in the world. They don't have the courage it takes to serve honorably in the U.S. Senate and should not be treated as such by the Democratic Party.

While I'm talking about spineless Senators, I should also mention the Republicans who have publicly opposed Bush's policy on Iraq. They include Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John Warner of Virginia and Gordon Smith of Oregon. Only Senator Smith of Oregon voted appropriately.

The rest of them are an embarrassment. Their public statements on Iraq are not reflected in their votes on the issue. They are liars and cowards. I hope that the voters of their States will hold them accountable.

Cross Posted at Huffington Post

Our News Sucks

I was thrilled to hear about the Nevada Democratic Party pulling out of the Democratic Presidential Caucus Debate being sponsored by Fox News. It is a fantastic example of how the progressive netroots community can come together to affect change. Special recognition goes to Matt Stoller, Robert Greenwald, and the savvy folks at MoveOn for their hard work. Thanks for not letting Fox News use our Party to legitimize themselves as a credible news source, while being a conservative propoganda machine the other 364 days each year.

That brings me to a conversation I had the other night, when I realized why our news sucks. It is all about money. Well, money and something else that I will address in a moment. The reason the news networks gave about a billion hours of coverage to Anna Nicole Smith's death and subsequent shenanigans is because America would watch it. That gives then more viewers, which translates into higher advertising revenue. News organizations are, indeed, businesses and they will act as such.

So, my initial thought was to advocate a state owned television station so that we could have a news organization free from the constraints of operating under the pressure of generating advertising revenue. Then I remembered that we already have one, or something like it.

In America, we have the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports stations and programming around the country. They also provide support to NPR, which is a very respected source of news.

For some reason, an overwhelming majority of Americans choose one of the major news networks to get their news. Then we end up getting lots of crap to sift through before we can figure out what the heck is going on in our country and in the world that matters to us. It is bad enough that we have editors and producers deciding for us what we should know. It gets worse when you end up with organizations like Fox News who choose their content with political motives as well.

Contrary to what I initially thought, we don't need a new state owned national television station. We need an American public that is more engaged in the goings on of our nation and the world and seek information in credible places. That, however, is a tall order and unfortunately, not one we can expect without changing many things about how our society operates. Until then, we will know all about Anna Nicole Smith's post-mortem controversies and not a heck of a lot about climate threat and other important issues.

Swedes Heart Americans

They just don't like Bush. Who can blame them?

First, please let me apologize. I intended to do at least one post daily while in Europe. However, I had no idea how busy I would be once I arrived in Stockholm. But, it's been a fantastic experience and I learned a great deal from the many interesting people that I have met over the past couple of days.

Back to my point. In America, we often think that Europeans now hate America. While I can't speak to that issue in other places, the people of Sweden do NOT hate America. Much like the progressives in America being able to be supportive of our troops in harm's way while opposing a pointless war, Swedes are able to distinguish their dislike of Bush from their admiration for the American people.

In fact, Americans are welcomed with open arms here. Sometimes, when you order a coffee in English, the barrister gives you a second look and gets a smirk while enthusiastically replying in English. American television shows, movies, and music are very much a part of the culture here and throughout Scandanvia. Even at the party I was at last night, perhaps a majority of the music played was English. It is amusing for me to watch the people here sing along to American music. They know the words better than I do!

In one brief discussion about New York City, one lady replied, "It's not Paris." That's about the only negative thing I heard.

However, when it came to Bush, Swedes and other Scandanavians were nearly unanimous in their dislike of him. It is interesting that I had very few policy-oriented discussions with anyone about Bush. The only exception was the war in Iraq. But it is no surprise that there is widespread anger here over the war.

At any rate, I'm very taken by this beautiful city and its charming, friendly people. The next time you meet a Swede, be sure to tell them you've heard great things about them!

The Climate THREAT

I just arrived in Stockholm today. It is a beautiful city. Tomorrow, I'll be visiting the Rikksdäg, which is their Parliament. Be sure to check back to see what I have to report from that.

One very interesting thing that I have heard today came from a European Union meeting that just ended today. The meeting was on the Global Climate Threat. It was of note to me because it is different language than we are using in the US. Global warming, and climate change just don't accurately reflect the situation. I think that Climate Threat is the language we need to be using to describe the challenge that is before us.

I also want to pass on some information that I got from a friend with regard to the US action on the Climate Threat. Basically, it sucks. We are not making any significant effort to curb our consumption of oil or our production of greenhouse gases. Did you know that in the United States, we average the consumption of 25 barrells of oil per person each year? That really doesn't mean much unless you have something to compare it to.

So, let's compare it to China. Don't forget that China is one of the reasons that we (and by that, I mean the idiot we have as President) pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty. There, they average consumption of 1/2 a barrell of oil each year per person. That is 1/50 the amount we consume in the US. Yeah, so.......why exactly are we using them as an excuse? If you figure that out, please let me know.

We should look to leaders in this area to find creative ways that we can cut consumption of oil and set up sustainable initiatives to reduce the production of greenhouse gases. It's been done here in Sweden and in many other places. It is time we stepped up to the plate.

Riots, Marijuana, Love and Hate

Many of you may have heard about the riots that happened last week in Copenhagen. Although I was to travel there soon, I paid little attention to them. However, when I arrived, I started asking questions about it.

The desk attendant at the hostel I was staying at suggested that I visit Christiania. Maybe you have heard of it, but I never had. As it turns out, Copenhagen has its own little Freetown. And it has a colorful history.

The 85 acres or so used to be a military installation. After it was closed down then fence that was erected was torn down many times over so the citizens could enjoy the open space that was there. Eventually, the people took over the area and created their own 'independent' space to live.

It is very much a communal place. There are a few shops, more bars, a central meeting place, lots of dogs, and very colorful people. One person described it to me as a modern day hippy paradise. They might not be far off.

As I ventured into Christiana, I walked down a street that had been the site of some of the riots of the past week. As it turns out, there was a youth center that had been shut down by Copenhagen. The center was a place where young people hung out, partied, played music, and sometimes slept. The City had given the building to be used as such years ago. Then a couple of years ago, the City sold the building to a right wing group, which immediately began efforts to remove the youth from the building.

Of course they resisted. Things came to a head last week when they were forcibly removed and responded by throwing rocks at the police. The police responded with force and things elevated out of control. It is questionable if it was the young people at the Center that started the violence or some of their sympathizers.

I learned this after attempting to get many people in Christiania to talk to me. Apparently, they are always being asked questions. Finally, as I stopped into a small trailer to buy a guide, the two ladies there finally talked to me. And we had one heck of a conversation.

The people of Christiania have no trust for anyone, really. Their history is one of conflict with police and government. They have strong opinions about pretty much everything.

About four years ago, the government ended the sell of marijuana that provided much of the money to run the Freetown. Before that, Christiania was the biggest tourist attraction in Copenhagen. More people visited there than the Queen's Palace. Since then, the tourist trade has slowed significantly, likely causing financial hardship for them.

Although they live pretty much in seclusion, they are very aware of the outside world and have many opinions on such. I could never catalogue our entire conversation, but the most interesting part of the conversation was about US influence on Denmark.

They use the word 'hate' often. But, they don't mean it the way we do when we talk about politics and politicians. They mean it more like how we 'hate' to stub our big toe. It took me a few minutes to realize this. At first, I wondered what kind of snake pit I had walked into!

Needless to say, they are not big fans of George W. Bush. They accuse their conservative government of kissing Bush's ass far too often. They assert that is why they sent soldiers to Iraq.

Their biggest problem with Bush is that they believe his Administration interferes far too much in their politics. I am not entirely sure what they mean by that because I personally believe that his Administration has NO foreign policy besides war.

When I asked them about Bill Clinton, they said they 'hated him less.' All I could do is smile. They hated him less because he was a much more loving person and let the Danes be Danes.

Interesting, huh? I wish my words could capture the full experience. It was really neat. These people just wanted everyone to be happy and get along. While we talked, they smoke a big fat doobey. And they didn't skip a beat.

I would write more, but this is a long post already and I have to catch the train to Stockholm. I already missed the first one because I confused the departure time and the date. Oops.

It's the Religion, Stupid

Okay....although I was already exhausted and borderline delerious, a nap gave me the energy to go out and seek some Danish opinion about the US. What I found was a pub with only two people in it: a 28 year old bartender who didn't mind being called 30 and a 50 year old musician. I had to suffer through a couple shots of a liquor called Fish (thankfully, it tasted better than it sounded) but, they were willing to talk. Lots.

The most notable thing to report about the conversation was that religion was a HUGE factor in their opinions of other governments. It wasn't whether or not people were religious in their personal lives. It was about what they heard them talking about with relation to governing.

Although they both disagreed on a range of topics of US and Danish policy, they both fully agreed that Bush was full of crap because he talked about religion all the time in his public speeches. They actually equated it to Muslim extremists, in that they are indoctrinated into doing crazy things in the name of religion. But, if they were actually allowed to live their lives, and decide for themselves the people they would be, then they wouldn't do things like acting as suicide bombers.

I was glad to get that point out of them, because at first, I thought they were just anti-Islam. But, once they made their point, I think they have a good one.

They pointed out that religion has no role in Danish politics. They pointed out that this was a reason that all people feel like they have representation in the government. Well, that, and that they have their crazy righties and lefties too. But, they insist that injecting religion into government is a bad idea.

Isn't that interesting coming from two Danes of two generations, talking to a son of a country that was founded on separation of church and State?

Okay, I'm going to bed for real now. It has kind of been more than a day and a half since sleep, but I look forward to being adjusted to the time tomorrow and kissing jetlag goodbye!

Tomorrow, I plan to go to the Danish Parliament and see if I can talk to someone there. Check back to see if it works!