The Nation

Good Muslim Immigrants

Here's an interesting -- and not always in a good way -- article from Der Spiegel on American Muslims. Its thesis is that American Muslims have responded in a positive and potentially empowering way to the challenges of post-9/11 America because the United States has a better immigration policy than European nations.

The article does an excellent job of highlighting the ways in which the American Muslim community has met post-9/11 racism with greater political participation, civic activism, and engagement -- rather than retreating into anger and alienation. The US press hasn't paid enough attention to this angle.

But a some of the language is problematic and just plain odd. Like the bit where the writer claims that "America's new Muslim immigrants now find themselves being associated with [black] people who were traditionally viewed as America's losers" because they now vote almost entirely for Democrats. Huh? There's an odd whiff (or should that be stink) of elitism that runs through the article, as in: Wealthy, educated immigrants are good; working class, uneducated immigrants, bad.

Equally perplexing is the way the writer simply sweeps away the entirely different reason for Muslim immigration to Europe. Yes, immigrant Muslims in America tend to be better educated, perhaps, but they are also significantly smaller in number. The Muslim "ghettoes" that the author criticizes were created when countries like Germany and France "imported" large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers from countries like Turkey to solve their labor shortage problem in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

And as Der Spiegel itself documents in this 2004 article, these immigrants were then treated like guest workers with no rights, and not integrated into the society or given a path to citizenship. So it should hardly be a surprise that they're more alienated and at odds with mainstream Germany.

So, fine, it is indeed a "better" immigration policy to embrace the people you invite into your country to do your dirty work. Maybe American Muslims can teach Republicans to apply that lesson to certain other immigrants in this country.

Scholarships Happen

He's back.

Having apparently spent sufficient time with his family since being sacked, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is battling to rebuild his disgraced image. In Phase One, he sought to set the terrain with a folksy article in GQ about life on his ranch outside of Taos.

Phase Two was a verbal salvo during an interview on Fox News at MoveOn.org for its "General Betray Us" ad. Donald criticized moveon.org for criticizing General Petraeus, because he's afraid that this uncivil war of words discourages public service.

During this same interview, Donald laid out Phase Three: the creation of the Rumsfeld Foundation. The left flank of this good-deeds offensive will provide micro-loans to the Central Asian nations of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan. Apparently, he feels he's already done enough for Afghanistan and Iraq.

The right flank will provide research fellowships to graduate students for the purpose of encouraging public service. Never mind how much better the world would have been if Rumsfeld's public service had been discouraged, just think of these two words on your resume: Rumsfeld Fellow. It would be like the D.C. equivalent of a Razzie Award.

As for whether Rumsfeld's media surge strategy will win the battle and restore his reputation that is a known unknowable. But as you know, you go to a P.R. war with the credibility you have. And Rumsfeld lacks a sufficient number of troops.

Skepticism Required in Review of AG Choice

President Bush's nominee to succeed the most lamentable Attorney General of the United States since Warren Harding's scandal-plagued accomplice, Harry M. Daugherty, is undoubtedly capable of doing a better job than Alberto Gonzales.

But, with all due respect to the president's pick, retired Federal Judge Michael Mukasey, a randomly-selected recent law school graduate -- provided that the degree is not from an institution affiliated with Pat Robertson's legally-embarrassed "Preeminent Christian University" -- would make a better Attorney General than Gonzales. Similarly, a randomly-selected second-year law student would have been a better choice than Bush's preferred replacement for Gonzales, former Solicitor General Ted Olson, whose role in the Bush-v-Gore manipulation of the Florida presidential election recount of 2000 marks him as an even more dangerous partisan than the exiting AG.

There is real danger in settling for a nominee who looks good by comparison with Gonzales or Olson. While pressure from Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee forced Bush to select a more mainstream nominee than he would have liked, Mukasey's record calls for intense scrutiny by the committee and the full Senate.

On the plus side, the former federal prosecutor and jurist is a more independent player than Gonzales, who was saw himself not as the nation's chief law-enforcement officer but as Bush's personal lawyer. And, though Mukasey is a conservative, his reasonably measured decisions suggest that he is not inclined toward the radical judicial activism favored by Federalist Society firebrand Olson.

But Mukasey is something less than a rule-of-law man when it comes to Constitutional matters. As a contributor to the right-wing editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, the retired judge has written several articles that suggest he would have trouble balancing civil liberties and national security concerns.

For instance, in a May 10, 2004, op-ed, which was published as the debate about fixing fundamental flaws in the Patriot Act was heating up, Mukasey defended of some of the act's most extreme excesses and dismissively told critics to avoid what he termed "reflexive" or "recreational" criticisms of it.

In an op-ed published just last month, as something of set-up piece for his nomination by Bush, Mukasey argued against transparency and the application of basic criminal-law standards in terrorism prosecutions like that of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen designated by the Bush administration as an illegal enemy combatant. As the judge who issued the first ruling in Padilla's challenge to his detention, Mukasey ruled that the government has a right to imprison the suspect without charging him with a crime. To his credit, however, Mukasey also granted defense motions to allow Padilla to meet with his attorneys and to speed up appeals regarding the legitimacy of the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" designation.

By any reasonable measure, Mukasey's is a complex record that demands intensive scrutiny and – considering the Bush administration's sorry history of disregarding the Constitution – aggressively skeptical questioning by committee members of both parties.

As U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution notes, "The next Attorney General will take over a Justice Department plagued by scandal and low morale. As Attorney General and White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales disregarded statutes, treaties and the Constitution to help this administration consolidate more and more power in the executive branch, and he misled Congress and the American people repeatedly. As a result, Congress and the public now lack confidence in the administration's commitment to impartial justice. The new Attorney General must make it a top priority to repair the damage done by Alberto Gonzales."

"To that end," argues Feingold, "Judge Mukasey must demonstrate that his first loyalty will be to the rule of law, not to the President. In particular I will be interested in his views on executive power and the need to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans while fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates aggressively. I will also expect Judge Mukasey to commit to reversing the course set by Alberto Gonzales by fully cooperating with ongoing congressional oversight of this administration's misconduct, and by always telling Congress and the public the truth, starting with his confirmation hearings. Congress, the Department's many committed employees, and the American people deserve nothing less from their Attorney General."


John Nichols' latest book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure forRoyalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use ofthe 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democraticleaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by thefounders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

The Puppet Talks Back

The news that the Iraqi government has banned Blackwater USA, the notorious mercenary firm, from operating in the country reveals another of the great fictions promoted by the Bush crowd in the course of this catastrophic war. The notion that Iraq is a sovereign nation in control of its own destiny.

The Bush Administration announced this myth several years ago after Iraqis adopted a Constitution and started electing a government. It was shrewd political propaganda--a reassuring sign of progress--but the claim was not true then or now. Major media and American political leaders, nevertheless, embraced the happy talk and pretended it was real.

(The Nation's own Jeremy Scahill has done pathbreaking reporting on Blackwater: See Bush's Shadow Army and Mercenary Jackpot, among others. Scahill also testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense in May about the impact of private military contractors on the conduct of the war.)

The banning of Blackwater makes it impossible to ignore the fact that Iraq is not in charge of Iraq. We are. Iraq's Interior Ministry announced that authorities have cancelled Blackwater's licence to operate in the country and intend to prosecute the company for a shooting that killed eight Iraqis.

The New York Times account added this disclaimer in the second paragraph:

"But under the rules that govern private security contractors here, the Iraqis do not have the legal authority to do so."

Who says? The occupying Americans. The Coalition Provisional Authority issued a "law" when they supposedly handed over sovereignty to Iraq--Order No. 17--that gave Blackwater and other US contractors immunity from Iraqi law. How clever of the American pro-consul.

The basic reality in wars of occupation--see the history of colonialism--is that a country can never regain true sovereignty so long as the occupying army remains on the scene, able to impose its will by force of arms. That of course is Iraq's situation, no matter what the White House says or Americans wish to believe. Iraq will not become a sovereign nation until the US troops depart. Maybe this why polls show 76 percent of Iraqis want the US out.

The end game for colonialist regimes nearly always started with the imperial power allowing the people to "elect" their own government. But these were typically puppet governments, composed of carefully screened and supposedly safe political figures. More to the point, they remained under the control of the occupying army. People in the Middle East or Africa or Asia understand this distinction because liberation is still fresh in their national history.

So now the US puppet government in Iraq is talking back to its mentor--claiming to have powers the US has not given it. The Americans may not tolerate such uppity behavior. Prosecute Americans for crimes against Iraqi citizens? How dare you. Blackwater could become an interesting problem for the American overseers to resolve. Maybe Washington will decide that Bagdad is not yet ready for sovereignty, after all.

A Pro-Democracy Movement

With the nation's first billion dollar presidential campaign, pay-to-play scandals occurring at breakneck speed (think Jack Abramoff and Norman Hsu), results in elections that are flawed by suppressed votesand machine error(and a War that Stays the Course despite the millions who went to the polls in November 2006 with a demand to end it), the public has had it with politicians who don't listen to them, care about them, or respond to their concerns. This climate of discontent has led to a rethinking among champions of public financing and clean elections about how to channel their efforts into a larger, more holistic pro-democracy movement. The key question for these reformers is this: how do we fashion a movement that taps into voters' frustrations and captures the imagination for a cleaner, more democratic way?

Certainly there is good momentum in this direction. In Congress – where, for example, the entire Alaskan delegation is either under indictment or soon will be and the pressure for constant fundraising is unsustainable – there is a convergence of democratic values and ideals and more pragmatic considerations wrought by fundraising fatigue. ("The result of this nonsense is that almost one-third of a senator's time is spent fundraising," former Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings wrote in a Washington Post op-ed lat year.) There are two excellent bills with impressive co-sponsorship, the Durbin-Specter Fair Elections Now Act (S 1285) and in the House, the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act of 2007 (HR 1614). Both bills would allow candidates who show a qualifying level of support and opt-out of further private contributions to receive public funding. According to Senator Durbin, "Support is increasing for the idea of public financing in fair elections: seventy-four percent of all voters support public financing… 80 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of Republicans, and 78 percent of Independents."

There are also important state battles being waged and won in this arena. The Congressional legislation was modeled on successful public financing systems in Maine, Arizona and North Carolina. Connecticut has a new Clean Elections program and this week a Republican became the first candidate in the state to qualify for public financing in an upcoming special election. Maryland recently passed a public funding bill through its House of Delegates and fell just one vote short in the Senate. In all, seven states and two municipalities currently have publicly financed elections in which large private contributions are replaced by public grants and small donations.

"The environment for public financing is strong," says Nick Nyhart, President and CEO of Public Campaign, "due to both the continuing political scandals and the steady, inexorable rise in the cost of campaigns. There are new state victories ahead and the federal work is moving forward, though we are really only at the beginning of the Congressional fight…. It really seems to me that the key thinking needs to move from policy to strategy and organizing."

Which is why Nyhart and many of his colleagues are working to knit these democracy issues into a larger whole. Nyhart says that focus groups reveal that Americans of diverse economic, racial, and geographic backgrounds share a common, core complaint about politics today: that their representatives don't listen to them and aren't accountable to them. Pro-democracy proponents are finding new ways to frame issues – ranging from the racket of protecting incumbents through gerrymandered redistricting, to unreliable and easily hacked voting machines, to getting people to the polls with Election Day registration rather than suppressing votes through bogus allegations of voter fraud – in a manner that makes those standing in the way of reform pay a political price.

Nyhart likes to draw an analogy with the environmental movement. "In 1964, saying ‘I'm an environmentalist' had no meaning," he says. "Ten years later saying that made a candidate more electable. Right now, saying ‘I'm a pro-democracy' candidate' doesn't mean much. There is no set of issues for the public to relate that statement to. And you can't establish it with a single issue. So organizations are working to find a politically salient group of issues to achieve that kind of impact."

Returning to the example of the environmental movement, one modest proposal is to take a page from the League of Environmental Voters' invention of the "Dirty Dozen." This was an extremely powerful and effective way to identify politicians who stood in the way of bipartisan environmental progress. Many of them were defeated in their re-election bids in the 70's. So how about an Anti-Democracy Eight? Or a Democracy Day á la Earth Day devoted to maximizing voter turnout, making campaigns affordable for ordinary citizens, and producing reliable election results?

Perhaps Democracy Enemy #1 would be Senator Mitch McConnell. (Please offer your nominees for the Anti-Democracy 8 below!) Recently, an ad by Public Campaign Action Fund highlighting Sen. McConnell's favors to political donors was pulled by Insight Communications, a cable system owner. NBC, CBS, ABC and two other cable systems ran the ad after thorough fact-checking. But Insight pulled it without explanation in the 11th hour. Turns out Insight Communications executives – including the corporation's CEO and chief lobbyist – are allies of McConnell. After receiving 6,000 petitions in one day questioning Insight's motivations and demanding the ad run, the company reversed its decision. In trying to squash free speech, Insight proved the very point the ad raised about the cozy relationship between McConnell and his donors. Adding to the irony is that the ad concerns an $8.3 million McConnell earmark to a firm with ties to the senator. The contract paid the firm to provide MP-3 players to tribesmen in Afghanistan that played – of all things – pre-recorded messages promoting democracy!

There are plenty of good activists and groups who have crafted a broad pro-democracy agenda in recent years. In March, the New Democracy Project, Demos, The Nation, and the Brennan Center for Justice released The Democracy Protection Act – 40 Ways Toward a More Perfect Union. The measures suggested in the report – building on the policies crafted by a score of good groups – challenged a system we described this way: "We have too much money and too few voters in our electoral process. Too much corruption. Too high barriers blocking access to civil justice. Too much contempt for the Rule of Law." We looked at things like national voting standards, paper trails, secure voting machines, Election Day registration, voter suppression and intimidation, lobbying laws, public campaign funding, and free air time for qualifying candidates.

But the challenge now – at this moment when democracy's image has been so tarnished by scandal, big bucks, and a shameful war falsely waged in its name – is to move beyond the policy suggestions to build something greater than the sum of its parts. Such a movement will go a long way toward retrieving democracy and restoring its promise.

The Lies of Alan Greenspan

Alan Greenspan has come back from the tomb of history to correct the record. He did not make any mistakes in his eighteen-year tenure as Federal Reserve chairman. He did not endorse the regressive Bush tax cuts of 2001 that pumped up the federal deficits and aggravated inequalities. He did not cause the housing bubble that is now in collapse. He did not ignore the stock market bubble that subsequently melted away and cost investors $6 trillion. He did not say the Iraq War is "largely about oil."

Check the record. These are all lies.

Greenspan's testimony endorsing the Bush tax cuts was extremely influential but now he wants to run away from it.  

In the instance of Iraq, Greenspan is actually correcting his own memoir, The Age of Turbulence, which just came out. This weekend, newspapers reported provocative snippets from the book, including this: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what every everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Wow, talk about your "inconvenient truth." Greenspan was blithely acknowledging what official Washington has always denied and the news media faithfully ignored. "Blood for oil." No, no, no, that's not what he meant, Greenspan corrected in a follow-up interview. [Bob Woodward in Monday's Washington Post] He was only saying that "taking out Saddam was essential" for "oil security" and the global economy.

Are you confused? Welcome to the world of slippery truth Greenspan has always lived in. He was the Maestro, as Bob Woodward's loving portrait dubbed him. Wall Street loved the Chairman best because the traders and bankers knew he was always on their side and would come to their rescue. The major news media treated him like an Old Testament prophet. Whatever the chairman said was carved on stone tablets, even when it didn't make any sense, as it often didn't.

Some of us who followed his tracks more closely, were not so kind. Harry Reid, now the Democratic Senate leader, said Greenspan was "one of the biggest political hacks in Washington." Amen. I called him "the one-eyed chairman" who could always spot reasons to stomp on the real economy of work and production, but was utterly blind to the destructive chaos in the financial system. No matter. The adoration of him was nearly universal.

Until now. The economic consequences of his rule are accumulating and even the dullest financial reporters are stumbling on crumbs of truth about Greenspan's legendary reign. It sowed profound and dangerous imbalances in the US economy. That's what happens when government power tips the balance in favor of capital over labor, favoring super-rich over middle class and poor, then holds it there for nearly a generation.

Things get out of whack and now the country is paying big time. A pity reporters and politicians didn't have the nerve to ask these questions when Greenspan was in power.

He retired only a year ago, but is already trying to revise the history. To explain away blunders that are now a financial crisis facing his successor. To rearrange the facts in exculpatory ways. To deny his right-wing ideological bias and his raw partisanship in behalf of the Bush Republicans.

The man is shrewd. He can see the conservative era he celebrated and helped to impose upon the American economy is in utter ruin. He is trying to get some distance from it before the blood splashes all over his reputation. Of course, he also came back to cash in--an $8 million advance for a book that is sure to be a huge bestseller. I don't want to be unkind, but Greenspan could have avoided all the embarrassing questions if his book was posthumous.

I haven't the read it yet. I have a hunch I am not going to like it.

Senate Blocks Olson as AG; President Picks Ex-Judge

When the White House floated the name of former Solicitor General Ted Olson as the president's preferred replacement for scandal-plagued Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, it was a poke in the eye to responsible members the Senate Judiciary Committee who were pressing for a nominee capable of rebuilding the Justice Department Gonzales had effectively destroyed.

Olson might have been an abler lawyer than the outgoing Attorney General. But the man who led the scheming to get the Supreme Court to prevent an honest recount of Florida presidential votes in 2000 is, if anything, more fiercely partisan and ideologically driven than Gonzales.

With the Justice Department in crisis as a result of instability caused by the politically-motivated firings of key U.S. attorneys, resignations of top-level managers, an exodus of career lawyers and revelations about crude political meddling with the mission of the civil rights division, the idea of putting a committed ideologue like Olson in charge was not merely offensive but frightening to Democratic and Republican senators who take seriously their oversight role.

Members of the Judiciary Committee made it clear, publicly and privately, that Olson would face a fight. Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, began to define the terms of what would have been the first serious confirmation battle of the Bush presidency -- with the word "serious" being defined not by the passions involved but the prospect that the White House might not prevail.

Leahy and other key Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, particularly New York's Chuck Schumer, believed they could defeat Olson's nomination at the committee level with a coalition of Democrats and Republicans who are genuinely worried about the crisis at Judiciary, such as Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter. Even if the nomination got out of committee on a tie vote, Schumer believed that Republicans who are worried about getting reelected in 2008, such as Maine's Susan Collins and Minnesota's Norm Coleman, would join Democrats in rejecting Olson.

After surveying the chamber, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced last week that Olsen would not be confirmed.

The Republican National Committee issued statements grumbling about how: "Dems Try To Choose Bush's Attorney General." Right-wing talk radio geared up for a fight.

But the White House was looking at the same Senate as Reid. And late last week, it appears, the president and his aides blinked.

Olson's name was put back in the drawer. Instead, Bush has nominated former Federal Judge Michael B. Mukasey, a veteran prosecutor from New York who has close ties to former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani but few links to the Bush White House, as third attorney general.

Mukasey is no liberal. He should tough questioning by the Senate -- especially with regard to his past cheerleading for the Patriot Act. But he will also be remembered as the jurist who in 2003 agreed with lawyers for Jose Padilla that an appeal in the case of the accused terrorist could examine the legality of Bush's designation of Padilla as an enemy combatant.

That show of independence, while it came in the context of an overall record of relatively conservative decisions in cases involving Constitutional questions, will sit well with moderate senators who are concerned that the next Attorney General be a competent lawyer rather than a presidential acolyte or an ideological activist.

As Schumer said Sunday, "While he is certainly conservative, Judge Mukasey seems to be the kind of nominee who would put rule of law first and show independence from the White House, our most important criteria. For sure we'd want to ascertain his approach on such important and sensitive issues as wiretapping and the appointment of U.S. attorneys, but he's a lot better than some of the other names mentioned and he has the potential to become a consensus nominee."

Translation: Mukasey's not a perfect pick, and perhaps not even an acceptable selection. But he is a better nominee than Ted Olson, if only because his background suggests that he might take seriously the fundamental task of restoring the Department of Justice.

So there will be no nomination of Olson, and no formal vote by the Judiciary Committee or the full Senate to confirm the most ardent champion of the right-wing Federalist Society's campaign to warp the federal judiciary and the nation's law-enforcement apparatus.

But no one should mistake what has happened: Olson has been blocked by the Senate. That is good news for the Justice Department, for the rule of law and for the Republic. It is, as well, a welcome indication that the system of checks and balances might yet be restored to a proper equilibrium. Hopefully, that restoration will continue with a thorough examination of Mukasey's nomination that will recognize his superiority to Olson while still seeking assurances of his commitment both to cleaning up the mess made by Alberto Gonzales and, most importantly, standing up where necessary to the White House's assaults on the Justice Department and the rule of law.


John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure forRoyalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use ofthe 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democraticleaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by thefounders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

A Constitution to "Chain the Dogs of War"

Two-hundred and twenty years ago this week, the patriots who had stuck through the long process of drafting a Constitution for the new United States finally approved the document. The primary purpose of their creation was, in the language of their time, to "chain the dogs of war."

The American colonies has suffered the cruel fates of wars plotted and pursued by the royal families of distant Europe, and they set about to assure that the nation they had freed from the grip of British imperialism would not, itself, be subjected to the imperial whims of presidents who might someday imagine themselves to be kings.

"The executive should be able to repel and not to commence war," explained Roger Sherman, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Connecticut, who moved to make clear the intent of the founders that nothing in their exposition of the powers of the executive branch should be conceived as authorizing the president to "make war." An executive could assume the mantle of commander-in-chief only when it was necessary to defend the country; never to wage kingly wars of whim.

Sherman's resolution was approved overwhelmingly by the Philadelphia convention that finished its work September 17, 1787.

George Mason, the Virginia delegate who was the strongest advocate for restraint on the executive, summed up the sentiments of the delegates when he said: "I am for clogging rather than facilitating war."

So was the Constitution defined. Indeed, in arguing for its ratification, Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson explained, "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important part in declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."

The procedures are clearly outlined. Wars must be declared by the houses of Congress. And the power to continue any war is rested entirely in the funding authority that is given Congress. The president does not enjoy the privilege of declaring or maintaining a war. He is merely a manager of military affairs in a time of conflict; and even in that he is required to defer on matters of consequence to the Congress.

This, we know, to be the law of the land.

Yet, as we mark the 220th anniversary of the Constitution, more than 160,000 young Americans are mired in the quagmire of an undeclared war in Iraq. More than 3,700 of them have died already, and the toll expands on a daily basis – as does the rate at which innocent Iraqis are killed, maimed and rendered homeless. More than $200 million is extracted from the federal treasury each day to pay for this war, despite the fact that it is, by any Constitutional standard, entirely illegitimate.

The founders would not question for a moment that the Congress has the authority to use the power of the purse to end this war. Indeed, they would argue today as they did in their time, that a failure to do so would imperil the Republic.

But the founders would be even more worried about the precedent set by the current president's seizure of ungranted authority for warmaking and so much else, and they would remind us, as George Mason did, that with regard to the Constitution: "No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued."

The voters dealt with last fall with the Republican Congress that had collaborated with Bush to thwart the rule of law. The unfortunate reality of the moment is that a Democratic Congress that was elected to restore a measure of balance to the federal stage has responded to necessity with caution. But that does not change the eternal reality of the Republic, which is that this "opposition" Congress has a simple, basic, yet essential Constitutional duty. Members of the House and Senate must impeach and try a president who is assaulting the most basic precepts of the American experiment. Anything less is a mockery of the document they swear an oath to defend – and an invitation to this and future presidents to further unchain the dogs of war that the founders struggled so mightily to contain.


John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure forRoyalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use ofthe 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democraticleaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by thefounders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Greenspan, Iraq & Oil

For the last few years, the Beltway punditocracy and think-tank-ocracy have blasted antiwar protesters for their "No Blood for Oil" banners, buttons and signs. Simplistic, if not utterly simpleminded, they rail. Will those who've policed what is permissible in our debates about the reasons why Bush & Co. launched this disastrous war now target their venomous attacks on former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan? They now have reason to--but don't hold your breath. According to Bob Woodward's Washington Post cover story about Greenspan's forthcoming memoir, to be published this Monday, the former Fed Chair writes: " I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."