YearlyKos: The O'Reilly-Free Zone

Here in the Windy City, we're half-way through the first day of the 2007 YearlyKos Convention. So far Bill O'Reilly hasn't made an appearance. However, 1500 progressive bloggers, activists, and staffers have come together to spend four days working to move America along the pathway to a better future.

O'Reilly tried his darndest to scare our sponsors, intimidate our Presidential candidates, and obstruct our work. He failed miserably.

Panel discussions, Round Tables, workshops, and hallway conversations are happening non-stop. Republicans and Fox Newsies continue to fear what might happen when 1500 dedicated, intelligent progressives set their sights on reclaiming a nation hijacked by right-wing ideologues and an Administration without regard to the truth or the rule of law.

As August sets in, let's take a moment to reflect on seven months of Democratic majorities in the Congress. On the House side, Democrats passed every piece of legislation that was promised as a part of their "First 100 Hours Agenda". The U.S. Senate has passed, well......not many. It is not for a lack of trying to pass meaningful legislation. After all, Harry Reid and party leaders were able to pass a supplemental appropriations bill that included a time table for withdrawing the American troops from Iraq. That was killed with one stroke of W's veto pen.

It is clear that America is being hindered by the obstructionism of Republicans. Recovering from a stinging defeat in the 2006 election, they have dug their heels in and dedicated themselves to stifling progress in America.

Where Bill O'Reilly failed in preventing a successful opening of YearlyKos, Republicans are succeeding at in the Congress. Obstructionism is alive and well in Washington.

Over the next month, while W is on the ranch in Crawford and members of Congress return home, we should all keep in mind what is keeping America from moving forward. Republicans. If your Republican Senator is holding a Town Hall over August, hold them accountable by asking why they won't allow up or down votes on nearly every major bill in the U.S. Senate.

Today at 1pm here in Chicago, The Campaign for America's Future will hold a press conference highlighting the immoral action of Republicans to obstruct progress in passing meaningful legislation and end the war in Iraq.

Speaking at the press conference will be Congressman George Miller (D-California), Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois), Robert Boorosage (Co-Director, Campaign for America's Future), and Brad Woodhouse (President, Americans United for Change).

Also, today will see the release of a special effort highlighting the obstructionism of Washington Republicans. News for the Left will be one of the first places to see this creative work. Don't miss out on this. It's going to be the talk of YearlyKos and will soon be the talk of America.

Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly

Dear Bill:

On yesterday's program, you had this to say:

I mean, they lie all the time. They -- I don't know whether you know this or not, but they contacted the Secret Service saying that there was somebody on BillOReilly.com threatening Senator Clinton. I mean, this is how insane these people are.

Hmmmm. So, you have the nerve to call me insane. And by 'me' you mean the mysterious 'them.' You also say I lie all the time. And by that you mean 'THEY' lie all the time.

Come on Bill, get real. The insanity in this discussion is how hypocritical you are. You have called open forum discussions 'bull' on more than one occasion, stating that "these things can be moderated." This was the basis for your attacks on Daily Kos, a widely respected blog, and a sponsor of YearlyKos Convention, which is associated with the former by name only. I wonder if you or your producer decided to shortchange the facts on that.

But, thanks to the handiwork of John Aravosis at AmericaBlog, we know that your own blog contains many of the same hateful, vile comments that you have criticized liberal blogs for. You may not understand the nature of the blogosphere, so let me tell you a little bit about it. Millions of people engage in the reading of and commenting on their content. Of course you're going to get some foul language and hateful remarks when you've got that many people. It's the nature of free speech.

The difference, however, is that none of the liberal blogs and websites are being investigated by the Secret Service. Yours is. Will you cooperate and identify the member of BillOReilly.com that posted the threatening comment?

In your asinine comments on your show yesterday, you didn't even bother to say that the comment that I referred to the Secret Service actually existed. Further, you didn't take responsibility for the threatening comment on your website, furthering your hypocrisy.

But, then again, I haven't come to respect much from you or your show. You're nothing more than the classic shock jock with a video camera. In the future, please stop referring to your program as a news show. It's an opinion show. And, in my opinion, yours is wrong.

Best-

Lane Hudson


P.S.- I just saw the clip from your show tonight where you accused Jane Hall of lying. You're the liar. You had the hateful comments on your website that she said you did. They were not immediately removed. You should be ashamed and you're a coward for cutting off her microphone. Of course, that's typical when you're trying to cover your a**.

Bill O'Reily.com being investigated by Secret Service

After seeing this post by John Aravosis on AmericaBlog, I was incensed and concerned at the same time. Here is the comment on O'Reilly's blog that crossed the line:

If Hillary wins, I will be respectful of our leader. If you could read my thoughts, I would be on the SS [Secret Service] watch list.

So, I did what a responsible person should do when they see something like this on a blog. I called the Secret Service to report it. This comment isn't about politics or defaming Senator Clinton. It outright states a threat to her life. It is unacceptable.

The Secret Service, who does an amazing job protecting their subjects, were very professional. The first person I spoke to transferred me to another person. Initially, she dismissed my comments. But, when I read her the comment and suggested that the person could be easily identified, she took me much more seriously. She called back minutes later, asking me to talk to someone else. That agent took the information and said that he would refer it to their Internet team.

It is a completely different discussion to have when debating the appropriateness of offensive comments. This, however is not a part of that discussion. When the life of anyone is threatened in any part of our corner of the internet, we should take appropriate action.

Message to Dem Leadership: America is giving you a time table

Today's "deal" between the Democratic Leadership in the Congress can be framed in more than one way. At the end of the day, nothing has really changed the course of the war in Iraq. It's that simple.

The Democratic Leadership needs to understand something. In November, the American people elected you to control the United States Congress.That's a big deal. The number one thing they want you to do is change the course of the war in Iraq.

Thus far, you're failing. Now, you've got your own time table. If you aren't able to pass meaningful legislation in September that will begin the process of bringing our troops home, then you will lose credibility with us, the American People.

Bush ignores Constitutional responsibility in appointing 'War Czar'

By now, we know that the George Bush Administration doesn't have a great understanding of, nor respect for the Constitution of the United States. However, given his penchant for war, the last part of the Constitution I would expect him to ignore was his role as Commander in Chief. Yet, that's what he's done.

If you've followed the story, then you know that Bush reached out to no less than FIVE four-star Generals to fill this newly created role. All promptly turned him down. So, he's finally found a three-star General by the name of Douglas Lute to take on the moniker of "War Czar" and move into the West Wing. His job? To handle the day to day details of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Is it me or don't we already have a Commander in Chief, Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Council, National Security Adviser, and a cadre of military commanders that should have been doing this for the past four years? There are many problems with this.

The President of the United States is our Commander in Chief. It is his duty to oversee the day to day operations of the Military. Especially when he has made his so-called "Global War on Terror" the center-piece of his Presidency. I've said it before: Bush can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Here is Tony Snow's response to a question about this during today's Press Briefing at the White House:

Q Back on Lute. Why did it take so long, now into the fifth year of the war, to come up with somebody of his seniority and stature?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I think what happened is, again, as you're taking a review, it became clear to us that this -- as you develop -- as you move into a new phase of the war -- keep in mind, we are still in the process of deploying people in this new way forward, as the President called it, and therefore, it seems proper at a time like this also to task somebody with the job of keeping an eye on all the different players who are involved in it.

What we do have is a different set of policies governing what's going on in Iraq. It is something that is government-wide in its scope, and therefore, it is appropriate to have somebody coming in, in a new position, in support of a new philosophy and a new way forward in Iraq, not only to monitor progress, but to do everything possible to assist those on the ground to help them succeed.

Q So you think this is a new need and you did not need someone to do this for the previous four years?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I'm not going to try -- I don't know. I don't have an answer for you. I'm telling you that's what he's here to do now.

This is further evidence that the President and his advisers inadequately planned for this war. They were negligent and it has cost us nearly 3500 American lives and over 20,000 injured soldiers.

Lute will assume the official titles of Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser. However, his military rank is still that of a Lt. General while he is in a position to be directing four-star Generals, Cabinet Secretaries, and senior White House staff. Given that extensive and complicated protocols are well established that govern the uber craziness of the flow-chart that is the Military bureacracy, this appointment may only complicate things. From the same Washington Post article linked above:

Bush hopes an empowered aide working in the White House and answering directly to him will be able to cut through bureaucracy that has hindered efforts in Iraq.

I can't believe this is coming out of the White House and that anyone would take it seriously. How many times have we heard Bush assert his authority? Now, he justifies giving away Constitutional authority as a means to cut through bureaucracy. If the President of the United States can't cut through his own bureaucracy, we can't expect a three-star General to do it.

This action and all of these reasons are further evidence that we need a change in course immediately. It is time for the Senate to adopt the legislation recently passed by the House of Representatives. It is also time for Republicans to get on board with holding this Administration accountable for its failure in Iraq. Failure to do so will only result in more deaths of our soldiers. Get with it!

Inside View of how Bush's Thugs Roll

Yesterday, former Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the video below, he testifies about some amazingly unethical and illegal behavior conducted by former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card and Former White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales. Yes, the embattled current Attorney General.

This testimony is absolutely amazing. It shows the depths to which this Administration will go in order to continue abusing the rights of Americans and dancing all over the Constitution. The video is twenty minutes long, but every moment of it is riveting. You'll see thoughtful questioning from New York Senator Chuck Schumer and the testimony of SOMEONE in this Administration that refused to bow to extreme pressure and forced the Bush Administration to back off. I'm not ready to give him a gold medal, but he's earned some respect.

Fallwell Dies, forgive me if I don't cry

Jerry Falwell hasn't been dead for more than a few hours. Yet, I've been inundated by emails and text messages touting the news. I've got mixed feelings on how to perceive the death of someone who would probably have celebrated my own death. So, I've decided to call a spade a spade, even in death. He was a hateful person who did not serve to inspire the better nature of America. Instead, he used religion to propagate hate and discrimination for as long we anyone can remember. Forgive me if I don't cry.

The Carpetbagger Report has a compilation of Jerry Falwell's most famous digressions from morality, ethics, and the law. Here is a classic from 2001:

Falwell blames Americans for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

I remember, in the wake of great tragedy, Falwell making this statement. I'm happy to call attention to it today so people who give commentary on his life see that it was filled with hate. Forgive me if I don't cry.

Howie Klein, at Down With Tyranny goes a little farther than I would, but shows he is well versed in literature. Howie's post actually reminds me of the book "The Dante Club" by Matthew Pearl. You can read about it here. If you're already familiar with the book, then you'll know that a "man of God" who does not follow the spirit of the Word is reserved a particularly painful punishment in Dante's Inferno. Forgive me if I don't cry.

American for Separation of Church and State show how Falwell illegally transferred money from tax exempt institutions to pay for partisan political activities. This was $6.7 million dollars that regular people gave to him for his Ministry. Instead, he transferred it to political committees. He showed no regard for the law or the spirit in which that money was given. Forgive me if I don't cry.

So, he hated women, blacks, gays, jews, liberals, progressives, atheists, agnostics, foreigners, and anybody else who disagreed with him. He broke the law. He established a university that institutionalized everything he was about. I hope it all goes with him. The brand of conservative hate he represented has no place in what this country should stand for. Forgive me if I don't cry.

New Scandal Brewing at DOJ?

Today, there is a hearing in Denver, CO. On Monday, there is a hearing in Chicago, IL. Depending on the Judge, the Justice Department could find itself in major legal trouble. While I can't discuss everything about the case, I'll give you the basic story.

Here's the background. The Justice Department has been investigating someone for corporate reimbursement. This is one of around a hundred cases being pursued by the Justice Department, citing a Federal law that allows them to criminally prosecute campaign finance violations.

That's where the scandal starts. The law that DOJ has been citing is outdated. A newer law requires a referral from the Federal Election Commission in order for the DOJ to pursue it criminally. The reason for this is that over 99% of campaign finance violations are settled by the FEC by fines. Only the most egregious ever are prosecuted criminally. Think about it. When is the last time you heard of criminal charges for campaign finance reasons?

Today, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington just today announced that they are filing a complained against Senator Mel Martinez for violations in his 2004 campaign. He also serves as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. See their release here to see how far reaching his violations were. So far, there is no criminal prosecution of him. Hmmmm.....I wonder why.

I don't know how many of those hundred cases being pursued by DOJ are against Democrats. Nobody does because they won't tell us. There is probably a reason for that.

So, because they have been using an outdated law to investigate and prosecute, the Attorney General is being sued in Federal Court in several jurisdictions. The first hearings are the ones in Denver and Chicago. This could lead to the dismissal of all pending investigations.

However, it could be a watershed moment for another reason. Because of the recent oversight given to the Executive Branch, we now know that the Justice Department has circumvented the legal process and issued tens of thousands of "national security letters." These documents allow DOJ/FBI to forgo getting a Judge's approval for a subpoena. In other words, it allows bureaucrats to violate the Constitutional rights with no Judicial oversight. It is also done in secret.

But, there are indications that national security letters were issued in these campaign finance investigations. It is possible that this Justice Department abused the law to go on a crusade to investigate Democratic donors. So far, the Government has been unwilling to provide an answer to the question of whether or not this is true. If we're lucky, a Federal Judge in Denver or Chicago will seek the truth and uphold the spirit of the law and our Constitution.

New Iraq Spending Plan: Details and Opinion

Since Congressional Republicans continued to stick with "thirty-something W" and voted to uphold his veto of money for our troops and accountability for his handling of the Iraq war, we've waited with baited breath to see how Democrats would respond. Now we know.

Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey has drafted two separate emergency supplemental appropriations bills. The first deals with Military funding, Katrina recovery, Children's Health Insurance Program, Veterans Health care, and a few other things. The second bill deals with Agriculture assistance and Western States appropriations.

It would have been nice to send him a bill ONLY with military spending, so he can't find some ridiculous reason to veto it again. But, I'm going to concentrate just on the Military piece, since that's what this is really all about.

The total military spending contained in the new Iraq Accountability Act totals about $96 billion. Some of this is only available through September of this year, just under $56 billion to be exact. The rest is available to be spent through either September 2008 or 2009. Most of this funding is for things like procurement of armored vehicles and new airplanes or special programs like eradicating land mines. This adds up to almost $40 billion, which is NOT subject to any timetable.

To get some of this money, the President will have to prepare a report to Congress and have it approved. Here is the language detailing what Congress is expecting:

SEC. 1330. The President shall transmit to the Congress a report in classified and unclassified form, on or before July 13, 2007, detailing—

(1) the progress the Government of Iraq has made in—
(A) giving the United States Armed Forces and Iraqi Security Forces the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias;
(B) delivering necessary Iraqi Security Forces for Baghdad and protecting such Forces from political interference;
(C) intensifying efforts to build balanced security forces throughout Iraq that provide even-handed security for all Iraqis;
(D) ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces;
(E) eliminating militia control of local security;
(F) establishing a strong militia disarmament program;
(G) ensuring fair and just enforcement of laws;
(H) establishing political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan;
(I) eradicating safe havens;
(J) reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq; and
(K) ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi Parliament are protected; and
(2) whether the Government of Iraq has—
(A) enacted a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis;
(B) adopted legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections, taken steps to implement such legislation, and set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections;
(C) reformed current laws governing the de-Baathification process to allow for more equitable treatment of individuals affected by such laws;
(D) amended the Constitution of Iraq consistent with the principles contained in article 137 of such Constitution; and
(E) allocated and begun expenditure of $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

Should the President fail to conform with this requirement and his report be approved by a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress, then approximately $50 billion in spending will not be approved. Some of that $50 billion is meant to be spent by September of this year.

Aside from the money issues, there are provisions that require that all troops be deemed combat ready according to DOD regulations before being deployed. The bill also prevents the deployment of troops to be extended beyond one year. Further, it requires that troops be home for a minimum of 210 days before being deployed for an additional tour of duty.

Unfortunately, it allows the President to waive any of these provisions of the law with a notification to Congress that it is because of national security needs. This ability to waive that requirement takes a lot of the teeth out of what this could have been. It is, however, consistent with the first bill passed by the Congress.

So, what should we make of all this? I'll have to say, at first glance, I was pretty mad that there was no timeline for withdrawal in this bill. But, after really taking a look at it and seeing how the funding mechanisms are built in, it looks like a decent compromise. Many Democrats and Republicans on the Hill, taking a cue from General Petreus, have established September as an informal deadline for knowing if any progress will be made under this new leadership and the President's so-called "new" strategy.

Our ultimate goal should be to end the war as soon as possible. While I have advocated not caving to the President on a single point, I think this is something we should support.

First, it requires the President to go on the record on many issues which are pertinent to the stewardship of the war in Iraq. It also requires DOD to provide the Congress with a complete report on Contractor activity in Iraq. This is something that has not been required previously. With this, we can learn how much money is going to the troops and how much is lining the pockets of Corporate America. Most importantly, it funds the war until September, at which time, we will likely have much more support for putting an end to this atrocity.

As impatient as I am, I can live with this. I can only hope that moderate Republicans come to their senses and get behind this. There is a better chance of this happening than the arrogance in the White House being won over by sound reason and compromise. I urge everyone to put pressure on these Republicans to team up with Democrats to make this legislation a reality.

*****UPDATE*****
Speaker Pelosi has talking points on the legislation on her website here. It includes something that I failed to see when I went over the legislation which strengthens my support for the bill. Here it is:

Those procedures would also guarantee a vote in the House on an amendment to provide that defense funding related to Iraq could only be used to plan and execute the redeployment of troops within 180 days of enactment. The only exceptions to this troop redeployment would be for troops protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. armed forces; serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach; or training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Democrats Poised to Abandon Troops AND American People?

Today's Washington Post contains the headline, "April Toll is Highest of '07 for U.S. Troops". More than 100 Americans have been killed in the past month. This brings the death toll, the ultimate cost for this "War of Failed Leadership" closer to the 3500 mark then ever before.

Meanwhile, the headline in the Washington Times today reads, "Democrats conceding on war bill". Here's an excerpt:

Democratic leaders in Congress are slowly backing down from a standoff with the White House over tying war funding to a troop-withdrawal timetable, saying they can use other bills to confront President Bush on Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is courting Republican support for compromise war-funding legislation to follow Mr. Bush's promised veto this week of a $124 billion bill that would start a pullout as soon as July.

Senior Democratic aides say that although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not similarly talking to Republicans about a post-veto agreement, she privately acknowledges that eventually the "money will get to the troops without timetables."

Here is a recent Washington Post article that tells us, according to a Post/ABC News poll, that Americans overwhelmingly trust Democrats in Congress to do the right thing on Iraq, edging out Bush by 25%. That's a HUGE margin. Democrats have the support of the American people on this issue.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD WE CEDE THIS ISSUE TO GEORGE BUSH. It would be an abidcation of the trust placed in the Democratic Congress by voters nationwide in November 2006. It would also be an abandonment of the responsibility we have to our troops.

Here is an excerpt of an email from a friend in South Carolina whose son is in Iraq. He is organizing a grassroots effort to show that the American people care about our troops since there apparently aren't enough people in Washington that are willing to use the power of Congress to show them that they care.

"I just received word from my son Joshua that his unit's tour of duty in Iraq is being extended to November--they were originally scheduled to come home in July. Needless to say, the soldiers are depressed and upset at this news. I am sincerely asking that everyone who can help do at least one shoebox, and get their family members and friends to do one also. In December we sent 45, lets break 100 this time. Besides getting the news of their extension, 4 men in his unit were killed in action the week before Easter. Let's send love and support from the lowcountry."

Democrats in Congress need to coalesce around a shared goal of truly changing course in Iraq. You have the support and confidence of the American people. George Bush does not. If you show solidarity on this issue, you will win in the court of public opinion.

Send him the SAME BILL again. Repeat over and over that you are funding the troops and bringing them home. That's the mandate you were given in November. It's what the People want. It's what the Troops want. Do not succumb to a President whose approval rating has been stuck in the low 30's for as long as we can remember.

STAND UP. DO NOT BACK DOWN. MAKE US PROUD.