Just call them Fido, because they rolled over again. Yes, friends… our Democratic controlled Congress handed Dubya Bush (mister 28% himself) a bill that in essence rewrites the foreign intelligence surveillance laws that have been in place since just after the Church committee back in the mid-1970s, enabling the Administration’s intelligence services to listen in on phone conversation, read e-mails, etc., without a warrant, subject only to the approval of two guys appointed by the president – the attorney general (!) and the Director of National Intelligence. It was triangulation, of course, in the House – conservative and “centrist” Dems voting with Republicans to gain a majority; similar story in the Senate. Liberals voted against it, but the leadership could have scuttled it… and didn’t. So there you go. As with the Iraq war supplementals, Congress has signed on to a very destructive and unpopular policy because they’re afraid of being terror-baited by a president whose power base has shrunken to historic lows. Useless.

I wish I could say that it’s no worse than that, but the fact is… it is worse than that. Just one example – the Democrats are pusillanimous enough to grant Bush another $8 million for “missile defense” in the defense authorization bill, claiming victory because it was less than he asked for. That was part of a $450 billion piece of legislation that is chock full of waste spending and bones thrown to various congressional districts, but I mean honestly – how can they justify spending another $8 billion on such a pointless program? This at a time when we’re telling people we can’t afford to provide them with health care or decent housing or a minimal college education. But it is a political truism for both parties that when it comes to military spending, they can always put their hands on the money. That’s because of the dynamics of the military industrial economy affect congressmembers’ from both parties in about the same way. Republican or Democrat, you want that D.O.D. money flowing to your district – that’s what brings in the votes.

So… where from here? Good question. Anyone who supposed the 2006 election was something akin to a revolution was kidding him/herself. Change comes from us, not from pre-packaged, poll-driven, lobbyist-funded politicians. We have to speak with a united voice, one that is loud enough to overwhelm the influence of corporate money. (In other words, pretty goddamned loud.) Until we can get that faculty together, it will be the same deal over and over again – Democrats promising the moon and stabbing us in the back the moment they’re elected. And scoundrels like Bush starting wars and spying on us because there is no one to stop them. Dag nab it, we’ve got to stand up fer ourselves! If’n we do, maybe that scrawny old Harry Reid will, too! (Great… now I’ve got frontier accent syndrome again. Bloody Democrats! See what your spinelessness has done to me!)

Anyway… Congress (Fido) a good dog. It comes to whoever calls it. We just have to get a little better at doing the calling.

luv u,

jp

Cindy Sheehan has returned, calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. Who the hell can blame her? If my son had died in their stupid, murderous war, I’d be clamoring for the same goddamned thing. As it is, I’m fine with impeaching the fuckers, not that it’s all that likely to get a lot of traction, what with spineless Democrats in charge of Congress, one eye focused (as always) on the next election. The Democratic leadership doesn’t like the sound of accountability for war crimes (so many having been complicit in those committed in Iraq and Afghanistan). Their solution is to elect one of their number president, so that they can take over the reins of the “unitary executive” Dubya has brought into being over the last seven years. The last thing they want to do is hobble the empire with accountability. So impeachment is “off the table,” as far as they’re concerned. Fine. As they say, impeachment is a political process, not a legal proceeding. If what we’re dealing with here is a duopoly with a strong commitment to maintaining imperial power, it would appear to be in the best interests of both parties to put a check on this growing public desire.

In light of this, perhaps Cindy Sheehan and the peace movement – such as it is – should focus it efforts on another remedy for the blatant illegality of this war: the international war crimes tribunal. Why not build a case against Dubya, the creepy veep, and other major players in the Iraq debacle in that venue? I should think waging an aggressive, unprovoked war resulting in massive loss of life (600,000 and counting) and the disintegration of an entire society would be sufficient grounds for prosecution. Hell – if they can put Milosevic on trial, they can certainly do the same for our little raft of tyrants. Seems to me the very principle behind having an international court of justice would require that the most powerful of nations cannot be considered immune. Wasn’t it Justice Jackson – an American jurist – who observed at Nuremberg that by passing judgment on convicted Nazis we were, in effect, placing the noose around our own necks as well? Not that I subscribe to the idea of executing war criminals, but isn’t it time, after 60 years, that we live up to this rudimentary moral principle?

This goes beyond any notion of justice. This is about deterrence. There is no way in hell we can rely upon the current American political culture to indict itself – it simply isn’t going to happen without massive pressure from below. By placing this case in the hands of a competent international body, there is a slim chance that some kind of prosecution might actually take place. Even if the effort ends up being merely symbolic, it would have the value of acknowledging the actions of our political leaders as crimes against humanity. If a guilty verdict were to be achieved, Bush and others would probably remain free, but I can’t think even so craven a leader as Dubya would relish the notion of being branded a war criminal before the entire world. Lord knows, in retirement he may end up with a kind of Pinochet/Kissinger problem – avoid certain foreign capitals for fear of being served (and I don’t mean by a dance troupe). That’s not a lot of satisfaction, but it might be the beginning of a means of discouraging presidents and congressional leaders from waltzing us off to war whenever the spirit moves them.

So, off to The Hague with the lot of them, that’s what I say. That way, perhaps Hillary or Fred Thompson or some other freak will think twice before blowing a big bloody hole in some country that can’t punch back.

luv u,

jp