Hayden Hijinks

If there actually was an opposition party in Washington, the nomination of Air Force General Michael Hayden to serve as director of the Central Intelligence Agency would have been doomed from the start.

Hayden's involvement as head of the National Security Agency with the illegal warrantless wiretapping program initiated by the Bush administration, his role in the secret accumulation of the phone records of tens of millions of Americans for surveillance purposes, his unapologetic rejection of the rule of law and his limited acquaintance with the Constitution would surely have stalled his nomination. And the fact that a member of the military should not head the civilian intelligence agency that is charged with provided unbiased information to elected officials – as opposed to the Pentagon line – would have finished Hayden off.

In the face of a united Democratic opposition, a sufficient number of Senate Republicans, ill at ease with the administration's reckless approach and increasingly concerned about the damage President Bush and his aides are doing to their party's credibility and political prospects, would have abandoned Hayden.

Unfortunately, there is no opposition party in Washington.

There is, instead, a Democratic Party that, when push comes to shove regularly allows itself to be shoved.

So it come as little surprise that Hayden's nomination has sailed through the Senate, winning approval Friday by a 78-15 vote. Most Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, joined the vast majority of Republicans in rubberstamping George W. Bush's poke-in-the-eye pick to head the CIA.

The die was cast when the Hayden nomination was considered by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Four Democrats who should know better – California's Dianne Feinstein, West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller, Michigan's Carl Levin and Maryland's Barbara Mikulski -- voted with the united Republican majority to approve the appointment. Then, the Senate Armed Committee casually voted to reappoint Hayden as a four-star general, a move that effectively signaled surrender in the debate over whether the CIA should be headed by a military man.

In this disappointing scenario, it should be noted that a handful of Democrats did attempt to check and balance a lawless president by refusing to support his equally lawless nominee. Voting against Hayden's nomination were Democrats Evan Bayh of Indiana, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Hillary Clinton of New York, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Dick Durbin and Barack Obama of Illinois, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Intriguingly, the dissident Democrats were joined in their opposition to Hayden by Senate Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, who has been increasingly restive regarding the administration's assault on basic freedoms.

Predictably, the Senate's most diligent critic of the administration's reckless disregard for the rule of law was the most outspoken objector to Hayden's nomination.

"I voted against the nomination of General Michael Hayden to be Director of the CIA because I am not convinced that the nominee respects the rule of law and Congress's oversight responsibilities," explained Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, who bluntly declared that, "as Director of the NSA, General Hayden directed an illegal program that put Americans on American soil under surveillance without the legally required approval of a judge."

"Our country needs a CIA Director who is committed to fighting terrorism aggressively without breaking the law or infringing on the rights of Americans. General Hayden's role in implementing and publicly defending the warrantless surveillance program does not give me confidence that he is capable of fulfilling this important responsibility," explained Feingold, who cast one of the three dissenting votes when the Hayden nomination was considered by the intelligence committee.

Noting that Hayden had failed in his testimony before the Intelligence Committee to express any reservations about the administration past misdeeds, that the general had evidenced little respect for congressional oversight and that he gave misleading testimony to the Intelligence Committee in 2002, Feingold concluded that, "The stakes are high. Al Qaeda and its affiliates seek to destroy us. We must fight back and we must join this fight together, as a nation. But when Administration officials ignore the law and ignore the other branches of government, it distracts us from fighting our enemies. I am disappointed that the President decided to make such a controversial nomination at this time. While I defer to Presidents in considering nominations to positions in the executive branch, I cannot vote for a nominee whose conduct raises such troubling questions about his adherence to the rule of law."

If there actually was an opposition party in Washington, Feingold's position would be its official stance. Instead, the man who has fought a lonely battle to censure the president for initiating and maintaining an illegal domestic surveillance program, is still dismissed by most of his fellow Democrats as too aggressive, too principled, too committed to the Constitution. So it goes, as the majority of Feingold's Democratic colleagues continue to promote the nominations and the policies of a failed president who polls tell us now has the approval of less than one-third of Americans.

Comments (46)

1. Wow....all those OTHER courageous Democrats (Hillary, Dodd, Dorgan, Obama, Kerry)...

   and Mr Nichols spends the last two paragraphs on Russ Feingold.

   I'm shocked!

   Posted by Mask at 05/26/2006 @ 2:06pm

2. sorry....last FOUR paragraphs!

   Posted by Mask at 05/26/2006 @ 2:07pm

3. So what is Joe Biden's excuse?

   Posted by Hman23 at 05/26/2006 @ 2:52pm

4. This is a very sad day for America.

   Once again, we must ask ourselves whether the Democratic Party is worthy of being called an opposition party. That is especially tragic in a two-party system, where choice is limited.

   I expect the government to keep me safe from all threats, foreign and domestic. That includes both terrorists and the yuppie fascists in control of the executive branch. The Congressional Democrats have too oftern collaborated with the latter as a means of making it appear that they are being tough on the former.

   Who do they think they're kidding? Bush's abject excuse for a for war on terror is unworthy of any support. And it is long past time that the presumed opposition party should be making compromises with the Bill of Rights with the fascists.

   Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/26/2006 @ 2:52pm

5. Liberty:

   As someone who likes to discuss the Constitution and is a self-described conservative, I thought you might like to take a look at the following for some weekend reading: Power Surge [tinyurl.com]

   It is a compelling (negative) examination of the constituional record of President Bush. It comes from the Cato Institute and was written by Gene Healy and Timothy Lynch, whose previous works include, respectively, "Arrogance of Power Reborn: The Imperial Presidency and Foreign Policy in the Clinton Years," and "Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton." (just so you do not think I am passing off an ACLU policy paper or something written by some other liberal Bush-hater).

   I am surpised that there is not more common ground on Bush's record in these arease between conservatives and liberals.

   Posted by Hman23 at 05/26/2006 @ 3:06pm

6. To Hman:

   I am surpised that there is not more common ground on Bush's record in these arease between conservatives and liberals.

   So am I.

   A conservative used to stand for fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, small government and individual liberty. Now people who continue to call themselves "conservative" stand for borrow-and-spend government financing, yuppie fascism and bloating bureaucracies to intrude into our privite lives.

   Last night, I attended a MoveOn house party to try to develop campaign ideas for November. The things we talked about sounded like some real conservative values: reclaiming the Bill of Rights, fiscal responsibility, restoring Constitutional checks and balances. One could almost feel the spirit of Barry Goldwater in the room with us as much as that of FDR.

   Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/26/2006 @ 3:28pm

7. Jack Rabbit and Liberty -

   Appropriate that Liberty's post was questioning "principles or politics of power" in terms of the Democrats who voted against Hayden's nomination. Liberty's bet is on power. So, Liberty how about asking that same question for where republicans stand on Bush's constitutional record? How else to explain how a majority of Republicans and self-described conservatives still support Bush, if it is not power and defending the party rather than the politician?

   As the authors of the study I cited point out, Bush has set many dangerous precedents. There will come a day when a Democrat is in the White House.

   Posted by Hman23 at 05/26/2006 @ 4:15pm

8. Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/26/2006 @ 3:28pm | ignore this person

   I think the problem with "common ground" you'll find is a lot of disengenuousness among those NOW claiming to support "fiscal responsibility", "reclaiming the Bill of Rights", or "restoring Congressional oversight".

   "fiscal responsibility", when looked into, incorporates trying to figure out how you pay for a "universal health care system", "restoring all the funding cuts of the GOP Congress", an "Apollo program to develop alternative energy" and a dozen other cost proposals....all on ONLY a "repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the top 1%".

   "reclaiming the Bill of Rights"....but excluding the 2nd Amendment and Federalizing more and more state responsibilities and areas of control in violation of the 10th.

   and "restoring Congressional oversight"

   Posted by Mask at 05/26/2006 @ 4:26pm

9. sorry

   "restoring Congressional oversight"....claimed by people who (rightfully so) during the 90s, COMPLAINED about "endless Congressional investigations" into the Clinton Administration.

   and so, it's a little hard to believe those that are "finding common ground" with real conservatives...really mean it.

   Posted by Mask at 05/26/2006 @ 4:27pm

10. Sorry to butt in Mask, but "common ground" does not require unanimity on every issue.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/26/2006 @ 4:34pm

11. SOCIAL FREEDOM PARTY PLATFORM

    We will IMPEACH the President and Vice President

    We will END the war in Iraq

    1. WE WILL PROVIDE EQUAL ACCESS to HEALTH CARE for all Americans.

    2. WE WILL PASS a Medical Privacy Amendment, which will guarantee the right of a person to an abortion, the right of a person to die with dignity, and the right of a person to use any medication, as rights that are central to the private doctor-patient relationship.

    3. WE WILL RAISE taxes on CORPORATIONS and lower taxes for the average American.

    4. WE WILL REPEAL the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Patriot Act.

    5. WE WILL RAISE the MINIMUM WAGE to $10.00 per hour and place reasonable TARIFFS on imported goods to reward honest labor and protect the American worker.

    6. WE WILL REGULATE the fraud-ridden energy industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the so-called "Health Care Industry."

    7. WE SUPPORT INDEPENDENCE for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and other colonial possessions and will PEACEFULLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY REPLACE the United States Federal Government with five or more smaller free and independent nations.

    Non-violence and Multiparty Democracy REGISTER SOCIAL FREEDOM VOTE SOCIAL FREEDOM http://social.freedom.googlepages.com mailto:socialfreedom@w3.to

    Posted by SocialFreedom at 05/26/2006 @ 4:41pm

12. Thank you for your insightful article. Unfortunately, the democratic party died in 2000 but just like Bruce Willis's character in the Sixth Sense it has yet to realize it. I personally plan on voting Republican in every and any election from now on with the hope that Republicans can maintain power long enough to drive this country literally to its knees. Then perhaps people will be in so much pain (especially in the Red states) and our country will be in so much chaos that a complete dissolution of politics as we know it will be possible. Perhaps then a new Phoenix of democracy will rise. Of course talk like this brings up the specter of Fascism but so what? The United States increasingly resembles Fascist Italy of WWII so the risk appears to be irrelevant and/or moot.

    Posted by dhartleyc60 at 05/26/2006 @ 5:06pm

13. ONE FOR THE IPOD

    Re: U.S. Identity Theft (In-progress)

    BACKIN'USSA...

    (AG apologies to the Beatles / Back in USSR)

    Drove in from Miamied Speech, (DOA-see!) Didn't get to bed last night Oh, the way the paper flag was in my Tea Man, I had a "NO-FLY" flight I'm back in the USSA You can't say how "lucky" you are, boy Back in the USSA, yeah

    Been away so long I hardly know the place Gee, it's sad to be back home Leave it till tomorrow to make my case Honey doncha use this phone I'm back in the USSA You can't say how "lucky" they are, boy Back in the US Back in the US Back in the USSA

    Well the Ukraine polls really knocked me out They leave the west behind And Moscow's vote make me think about OUR "Red"state's always on my my my my my my my my my mind Oh, come on Hu Hey Hu, hey, ah, yeah yeah, yeah, yeah I'm back in the USSA You don't know how lucky you are, boys Back in the USSA

    Well the Ukraine Vote really clocks me out They leave the west behind And Moscow's rights make me wonder about OUR Georgia's always on my my my my my my my my my mind

    Oh, show me round your $now jobbed mountin' way down south Take me to you Daddy's $marm Let me hear your "Bush-I-Like"-uhs ringing out Come and keep your "Rapture" warm I'm back in the USSA Hey, You can't say how $ucky they are, boy Back in the USSA Oh, let 'em $ell you WarFair Honey...

    Posted by ArtistGeneral at 05/26/2006 @ 5:42pm

14. Perhaps the most pathetic day for the Demorcrats since they authorized the war. No excuse for this one either.

    Posted by jpolston at 05/26/2006 @ 7:18pm

15. It is certainly true that the Democrats are never as disciplined as the Republicans, except when they are wrong - when they are wrong they are strictly disciplined.

    It has not been said however, that if a Democrat was president, if Democrats controlled the Congress, that someone as hateful of American principles as Michael Hayden would have been nominated in the 1st place. Michael Hayden is now being sworn in - in the real ceremony - to attack the Constitution, to hatefully do everything in his power to make America less secure, by undermining our intelligence agencies. We have a war based on lies undermining our security, but the Democrats (some) went along with the Republicans (all) and that doesnt mean as the Naderites would falsely claim, that if Al Gore had been president we would be in the same endless quagmire, being destroyed.

    If Al Gore had been president, if the Court hadnt ordered the State of Florida to stop counting votes, there wouldnt be any invasion of Iraq. If Kerry was in there wouldnt be talk of destroying the world in a final fireball of Armageddon, over lies in Iran.

    Posted by conshame at 05/26/2006 @ 9:08pm

16. To Mask:

    I think the problem with "common ground" you'll find is a lot of disengenuousness among those NOW claiming to support "fiscal responsibility", "reclaiming the Bill of Rights", or "restoring Congressional oversight".

    At least superficially, that raises some good points.

    "fiscal responsibility", when looked into, incorporates trying to figure out how you pay for a "universal health care system", "restoring all the funding cuts of the GOP Congress", an "Apollo program to develop alternative energy" and a dozen other cost proposals....all on ONLY a "repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the top 1%".

    While Bush's irresponsible tax cuts should be rolled back, that may not fund all that is being proposed, even assuming that pulling out of Iraq also saves billions of dollars that are now being wasted.

    Personally, I think a good fiscal policy is like a good environmental policy: don't take the resource faster than it can be renewed.

    "reclaiming the Bill of Rights"....but excluding the 2nd Amendment and Federalizing more and more state responsibilities and areas of control in violation of the 10th.

    I don't know about other MoveOn house parties last night, but no one talked about gun control last night at the one I attended. Bush has made such a mess of things that it is now a very low priority.

    "restoring Congressional oversight"....claimed by people who (rightfully so) during the 90s, COMPLAINED about "endless Congressional investigations" into the Clinton Administration.

    Again, you Bush Bubbahs can't seem to defend Bush without bringing up Clinton. Somehow, I really think that manipulating intelligence and distorting facts to start an otherwise unnecessary war is something that merits Congressional oversight much more than Clinton's sex life. It is certainly of a greater historical moment. The idea that anybody things they are even comparable is ridiculous.

    Contrary to what Bush Bubbahs might think, investigations into the regime's misconduct concerning the Iraq war, the treatment of detainees and civil liberties is not thought of among us progressives as payback for the silly investigations and impeachment of President Clinton. Speaking for myself, I would prefer that Congress not waste its time on anything so absurd again. We believe progressive believe that Bush, Cheney and others members of the regime have committed real crimes against the people of the United States and the world at large that warrant their removal from office and eventual imprisonment.

    Even if, instead of simply banging an intern in the back room, Clinton had committed actual impeachable offenses, bringing it up as a way to defend Bush is a red herring. They are completely separate matters that have nothing to do with each other. Bush's misdeeds stand on their own demerits.

    If you want to play a game of "you have nowhere to talk," then it is the Republicans who will have to endure Bush's record of red ink, a botched war on terror, violations of human rights and civil liberties and just plain incompetence and conflict of interest for many, many years.

    The Democrats will pick up the ball this November and I hope they don't blow their chance. It's a sure bet that they'll do better than Bush and the neoconservatives, but one can do a lot better than that and still fail miserably.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/26/2006 @ 9:27pm

17. "yuppie fascists"----what a great term----how about some others like "hippie commies"-----gen-x marxist------kiddie capitalist----"old fart anarchist"====Pleeeeeeeeease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Check the tim foil around your head, signals from outer space must be getting through again.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/26/2006 @ 9:32pm

18. a botched war on terror-----Last time I checked it has been five years since we have been hit by a terrorist attact within the borders of the U.S.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 05/26/2006 @ 9:56pm

19. When was the terrorist attack in America before the last one? The new pearl harbor foretold in the PNAC documents, where George Bush was on a 6 week vacation after being in office 7 months, where John Ashcroft quit flying commercial, where Louis Freeh of the FBI resigned, where Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice never dreamed anyone would fly planes into buildings, where George Bush insisisted there not be an investigation because it would distract our intelligence agencies?

    When was the last terrorist attack, before the 2 that occurred on George Bushs watch, the Anthrax Murders, where the perpetrator was let go just like billionaire Bush Family arms trade business partners brother Osama Bin Laden, brother of Mohammed Bin Laden, was allowed to escape at Tora Bora despite being surrounded by US Special Forces, where the disaster in Iraq was unleashed on the American people rather than go after the guy who did it?

    When was the terrorist attack that occured on Bill Clintons watch? The USS Cole - but that was in December 2000 - just one month before George Bush took office, where George Bush refused to go after the killer until after 911, and still didnt even try to get him?

    Posted by conshame at 05/26/2006 @ 10:15pm

20. Yuppie fascist

    The term yuppie fascist was coined in the Austrian press a few years ago as an epithet for right wing political leader Jörg Haider. It has since become an alternative term for post-fascist, a term coined by the leader of Italy's right wing, Gianfranco Fini, who wanted to stress the distinction between right wing movements of the post-Cold War period with those of Mussolini and Hitler. The term also extends to another well known right wing Eurpopean politician, Jean-Marie LePen of France.

    Hungarian scholar G. M. Tamas defines the characteristics of post-fascism (or yuppie fascism) as a resistance to the Enlightenment trend toward universal citizenship. This necessitates "cutting the civic and human community in two," something Tamas finds common to post-fascism and it Depression-era predecessors. It is a demand for a homogenous state, purged of what is seen by the yuppie fascists as human waste. Tamas cites anti-immigrant legislation "from Lithuania to California" as a manifestation of post-fascism. Other targets for post-fascists are homosexuals, some racial minorities, AIDS patients and welfare recipients.

    In the US Republican Party, yuppie fascism is manifest in the far right of the party with attempts aimed at immigrants, starting in California with then-Governor Wilson's proposition 187, various attacks on gay rights, including ballot initiatives banning gay marriage. More underhanded examples of yuppie fascism were the voter purges in Florida in 2000 and the unequal supplying of polling places in Ohio in 2004, both aimed at reducing the black (presumably Democratic) vote.

    The Bush regime is hardly a manifestation of traditional conservatism. It is quite something else. This is a model that seems to fit.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/26/2006 @ 10:27pm

21. A botched war on terror

    And last time I checked, this was defined as a struggle to preserve Western Civilization from terrorism. Therefore, to simply say the US has not been hit in five years is in insufficient criteria for success. Since Iraq was invaded, Madrid, Istanbul and London were all targeted. In addition, western tourists have been targeted in Bali and Western allies in Riyadh. There is more terrorism in Iraq now than before the invasion.

    I think it is more than justifiable to deem Bush's idea of a war on terror as "botched."

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/26/2006 @ 10:31pm

22. Posted by CONSHAME 05/26/2006 @ 10:15pm

    Wow. All I can say is that there must be a full moon out there tonight.

    Posted by pontificus at 05/26/2006 @ 10:39pm

23. The die was cast when the Hayden nomination was considered by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Four Democrats who should know better – California's Dianne Feinstein, West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller, Michigan's Carl Levin and Maryland's Barbara Mikulski -- voted with the united Republican majority to approve the appointment.

    Gee, Nichols, you might think that if four of the most left-wing Senators don't have a problem with Hayden, then maybe, just maybe, he's a reasonable choice. But the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party demands ideological purity, and since it has difficulty discerning its own overheated rhetoric from any factual objections, any qualified non-leftist becomes an outrage. In fact, just about everything Nichols comments on, when it comes to the Bush Administration, is an outrage. Don't people like Nichols get outrage fatigue? Or do they just start getting more shrill, like the lefties who tried to shout down McCain at the New School?

    Posted by pontificus at 05/26/2006 @ 10:49pm

24. a botched war on terror-----Last time I checked it has been five years since we have been hit by a terrorist attact within the borders of the U.S.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/26/2006 @ 9:56pm | ignore this person

    Well almost. The anthrax attack on members of congress happened after 9/11...about 4 1/2 years ago. And, like Osama, the perpetrators were never caught.

    Posted by Lillian at 05/26/2006 @ 10:50pm

25. Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/26/2006 @ 9:27pm | ignore this person

    Two points, JACK

    1. The reoccuring LEAP, by which any criticism of the policies, agenda, intelligence, or logic of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party labels you a "Bush Bubbah" (or "Bush-bot" or "neo-con lover" or whatever)....is getting pretty tiresome. I voted for Clinton twice and Kerry in 2004 (yep, Bush in 2000, but only because I didn't trust Gore and his "lockbox").

    2. Just because Bush, Cheney, neo-conservatism and the post 2000 version of the GOP Congress have screwed things up ONE WAY....

    Does NOT mean that "President Russ Feingold" and a Congress of "pure progressives" (no "Republican-lites allowed)...can't screw things up ANOTHER WAY!

    Posted by Mask at 05/26/2006 @ 11:12pm

26. In regard to the future of the Democratic Party, there is a story in a recent _New_Yorker_ (issue of 5/29) you may want to peruse. It is titled "Central Casting" and it's by Jeffrey Goldberg. I won't go into the article in detail, merely call your attention to one passage: "McCaskill (Senatorial candidate in Missouri) says she is a centrist. She is one of many Democrats -- Hillary Clinton being the most visible, and the most diligent -- who are trying to establish themselves with middle-class moderates."

    A "centrist" or "moderate" from this perspective is, then, a radical national imperialist, in agreement with recent military adventures that cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and ready for more. Other "centrist" or "moderate" positions seem to be: agreement with the abolition of Constitutional rights, ever-increasing surveillance, heavy deficit spending, tax cuts for the rich, and a slide towards theocracy manifest in the campaign to outlaw abortion, contraception and homosexuality. These observations accord with election results in the "Red" states and the recent poll wherein something like two-thirds of Americans declared themselves favorable to the NSA's warrantless surveillance of their telephone calls, so I do not think they are figments of the reporter's imagination.

    I do not see any way of bridging the gap between people who believe in these things and people like myself and my friends and neighbors (I live in New York City) who are not going to vote for anyone who favors them or even condones them. The Democratic Party that tries to stretch from one to the other will be sadly paralyzed (as we now observe); if it tries to take a position at either pole, it will surely break apart.

    I don't know if anything can reverse the slide of much of America into the new Dark Ages which so many of its citizens seem to desire, but it surely is not the poor Democratic Party, and there is not much use cursing it for its failure. However much you beat a dead horse....

    Posted by Anarcissie at 05/26/2006 @ 11:13pm

27. To Mask:

    Does NOT mean that "President Russ Feingold" and a Congress of "pure progressives" (no "Republican-lites allowed)...can't screw things up ANOTHER WAY!

    I think we're in agreement on that.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/26/2006 @ 11:23pm

28. Good post, ANARCISSIE. When friends chide me for my vote for Nader in '00, I ask them what they have seen from the Dems since then to strengthen their ties to the "liberal" party. The subject is usually changed with lightning speed. D's and R's are tossed around to play to built in audiences who give less thought to their political votes than they do to the choice between Taylor Hicks or Katherine McPhee.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/27/2006 @ 12:15am

29. than they do to the choice between Taylor Hicks or Katherine McPhee.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 05/27/2006 @ 12:15am | ignore this person

    Careful, TJ...you'll get Ms vanden Heuval mad at you for dissing "McPheever"!

    Posted by Mask at 05/27/2006 @ 09:13am

30. Posted by ANARCISSIE 05/26/2006 @ 11:13pm

    agreement with the abolition of Constitutional rights, ever-increasing surveillance, heavy deficit spending, tax cuts for the rich, and a slide towards theocracy manifest in the campaign to outlaw abortion, contraception and homosexuality.

    These observations accord with election results in the "Red" states and the recent poll wherein something like two-thirds of Americans declared themselves favorable to the NSA's warrantless surveillance of their telephone calls, so I do not think they are figments of the reporter's imagination.

    I do not see any way of bridging the gap between people who believe in these things and people like myself and my friends and neighbors (I live in New York City) who are not going to vote for anyone who favors them or eve...

    Riiiiiiggghhtt, anybody who doesn't agree with you is for abolishing constitutional rights and is in favor of outlawing abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. Oh yeah, that's reasonable. You get the "Straw Man" award of the day.

    When people characterize those who disagree with them as fascists by definition, that's a form of intolerance. Sadly, this form of intolerance is now taught quite openly in many American universities, along with blaming of America for all the ills of the world. Nothing demonstrates the intellectual corruption of the radical left more than statements like those made above.

    Maybe if you got out of Manhattan occasionally, you'd realize there's a whole world of people out there in the US, who, although they may not agree with you on every issue, are just as reasonable and intelligent as you are. Some of them, I dare say it, might actually be more so, difficult as you may find that to believe.

    Posted by pontificus at 05/27/2006 @ 09:34am

31. And another day of vote swaping and CYA is brought to an end. Thank you, Congress!

    At least Feingold provides a figleaf for prowar Murtha-plan flogging propaganda rags like The Nation. Without him, there'd be no excuse to even write about the donks.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 05/27/2006 @ 09:41am

32. Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/26/2006 @ 9:27pm

    Even if, instead of simply banging an intern in the back room, Clinton had committed actual impeachable offenses, bringing it up as a way to defend Bush is a red herring.

    "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels

    On September 9, Independent Counsel Starr submitted a detailed report to the Congress in which he contended that there was "substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment" by lying under oath in the Jones litigation and obstructing justice by urging Ms. Lewinsky "... to to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false"

    Posted by pontificus at 05/27/2006 @ 10:25am

33. C'mon folks, let's praise the dems, and the repubs too, who voted against the Cia Nominee. good Hillary, bad Shumer.

    don't fall into the same trap the repubs are in, which is to erase distinctions. we need "good" repubs and we certainly need dems who stand up to the regime.

    Zero, you are a nihilist above all, and please watch the gratuitous anti gay slurs.

    this is above all a fight for the middle, the extremes can take care of themselves.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/27/2006 @ 10:35am

34. To Pontifiicus:

    On September 9, Independent Counsel Starr submitted a detailed report to the Congress in which he contended that there was "substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment" by lying under oath in the Jones litigation and obstructing justice by urging Ms. Lewinsky "... to to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false"

    So what? Mr. Starr and his partisan, unprofessional investigation have no standing with me. Case dismissed.

    And it's still a red herring.

    The point remains: President Clinton's crimes, in as much as they were crimes, do not in any way reflect on a case that can be built against Mr. Bush. It doesn't matter what Clinton did. If he had ax murdered his mother, it still doesn't mean that Bush and his merry band of prevaricators didn't manipulate intelligence and misrepresent the threat posed by Iraq, haven't employed torture on detained persons and don't wiretap American citizens without a warrant.

    That's what we're talking about. Get with the program.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/27/2006 @ 11:01am

35. Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/27/2006 @ 11:01am

    So what? Mr. Starr and his partisan, unprofessional investigation have no standing with me. Case dismissed.

    Not good enough. You live in a country and a society where we all agree to live by the same laws and agree to live with the legal system which enforces them. To say 'I reject the legal system under which I live' is ignorant and antisocial. We cannot pick and choose the laws we choose to obey to suit us.

    And it's still a red herring.

    The point remains: President Clinton's crimes, in as much as they were crimes, do not in any way reflect on a case that can be built against Mr. Bush. It doesn't matter what Clinton did. If he had ax murdered his mother, it still doesn't mean that Bush and his merry band of prevaricators didn't manipulate intelligence and misrepresent the threat posed by Iraq, haven't employed torture on detained persons and don't wiretap American citizens without a warrant.

    That's all true. But you still need someone with legal standing to make an accusation of wrongdoing, and then you need a conviction. You have neither.

    Posted by pontificus at 05/27/2006 @ 11:06am

36. Some day in the not too distant future, Feingold will rise up to lead a resurgent democratic party, one based on principle and conviction, not political "expediency" (and I use that word loosely). On that day, many of Feingold's currently cowed, wimpy and scared democratic colleagues will be out of office, and left to ponder whether a little more backcone and principle could have saved them...

    Posted by FreetheNation at 05/27/2006 @ 11:58am

37. To Pontificus (11:01 am post):

    Fine. We don't agree on the merits of the Clinton impeachment; however, we agree that it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. So, we should agree to disagree on it and not bring it up again.

    And while it is true that we need a person of legal standing to bring the accusation, we are working on that. A majority of members in the House of Representatives would have legal standing to impeach Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and others who have committed the high crimes and misdemeanors which I outlined above.

    Meanwhile, since impeachment is a political process, the matter is up for public discussion.

    Wholesale warrantless wiretapping in my view is a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment and impeachable on its face. The Senate erred yesterday in approving General Hayden as DCI.

    Addressing Mr. Nichols' points, I am particularly disappointed in the Senate Democrats who voted in favor of the nomination. One of those is my senator, Dianne Feinstein. My wife sent her a letter yesterday saying that she will not vote for her; while I will not vote for her Republican opponent in November, I am considering withholding my vote from her, even though I believe it is imperative that the Democrats take control of both Houses of Congress in order to more effectively investigate the misdeeds of Mr. Bush and other members his regime and to bring charges against Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney in an impeachment process.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/27/2006 @ 11:59am

38. To Pontificus (addendum):

    I will also add that in the meantime, should I find any listening device in my telephone, I will feel within my rights to treat it as I would any other bug: throw it on the floor and step on it.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/27/2006 @ 12:03pm

39. Not good enough. You live in a country and a society where we all agree to live by the same laws and agree to live with the legal system which enforces them. To say 'I reject the legal system under which I live' is ignorant and antisocial. We cannot pick and choose the laws we choose to obey to suit us.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/27/2006 @ 11:06am

    We can't...

    but you can.

    I've gotten a rather large number of consensual blowjobs from a number of different women. Never once were charges of sexual harassment trumped up against me. Never once was an independent council appointed to investigate those trumped up charges. And never once was I dragged before a grand jury, placed under oath and questioned about those consensual blowjobs.

    I'm actually kind of curious why Rome is sitting on its hands on this issue.

    Maybe you hamsters are so repulsed by sex that sitting on your hands is a means of preventing them from reaching the zipper?

    (and that might explain why you piss yourself at every loud noise)

    Posted by Will C. at 05/27/2006 @ 1:40pm

40. Off topic:

    Just saw a report on CNN that Gonzales and Mueller have decided to take a stand on the law.

    Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and FBI Director Robert Mueller --indicated they would resign if forced to give the seized materials back, the officials said.

    Some in the administration, led by the vice president's office, argued the FBI overreached and violated constitutional law.

    Inside the White House, the two administration sources told CNN that Vice Presidential Chief of Staff David Addington believed the FBI had crossed a constitutional line. Addington, usually a strong proponent of presidential power, asserted that in this case the FBI went too far and violated the separation of powers.

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/27/jefferson.fbi/index.html

    The advancement of legal theory in this era is truly a wonder. THIS is the cause for which Gonzales will stand up and say that the rule of law is beyond the power and rights of any single man, perhaps even an entire leg of the government? THIS is the investigation on which he will stake his career? What a loada poop.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/27/2006 @ 2:14pm

41. Michael Hayden is tasked by George Bush with undermining the CIA, making America less safe, and making sure the CIA never tells him the truth when he asks them for advice. Conservatives think this is funny, they talk about a blowjob. Ken Starr didnt press criminal charges, Ken Starr said he didnt want to press any criminal charges at all, he said it would send a wrong message to go to court. So Conservatives only bring up Bill Clinton because they know they cannot support the policies of George Bush. George Bush is attacking America with the intention of doing us in - and that is where the ideology of Conservatism was headed all along - going back even before Reagan told us we had to have a Salvadoran Option in El Salvador, said trust us, said its necessary to give Saddam Hussein chemical weapons, Reagan said its for naitonal security, now we have a Salvadoran Plan in Iraq - which is not working.

    We are not dealing with World War 2, we are not dealing with a blowjob, we are dealing with Iraq, we are spending 2 trillion there, not on energy independence, and when the troops come home Iraq will still need weapons to defend themselves from our allies.

    Posted by conshame at 05/27/2006 @ 3:22pm

42. Conshame

    did you just escape the clutch's of hamsterland...

    good job!

    welcome home!

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 05/27/2006 @ 6:37pm

43. What I really don't understand is, why? Nobody has yet explained to me the abject surrender of men like Schumer of New York and Lahey of Vermont, to allow a confessed, unindicted criminal take over at CIA? Does this guy have recordings of every chat with a bag-man or rendevous arrangement with a hooker that these dopes have made in the last five years? Is that what's driving this, good old fashioned blackmail? Or is this really the last days of the Roman Senate, where if Augustus lets them in on a secret or two, and reaches out for advice from time to time, they'll be happy to let the Emperor do the heavy lifting, and take the heat, of actual governance? Either way, I'm concerned as hell.

    Posted by James Levy at 05/28/2006 @ 12:24am

44. Posted by JAMES LEVY 05/28/2006 @ 12:24am | ignore this person

    Nothing quite so dramatic. It's just good old fashioned vote swapping. It goes something like this:

    Clinton never met a bush appointee she didn't like, but she needs a principled vote or two to show the saps back in NY that she's not just a rubber stamp for Chimperor. So she cuts a deal with a senator (probably Schumer) who would normally vote against the slimeball nom and swaps votes.

    There's really nothing all that mysterous about it.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 05/28/2006 @ 09:56am

45. George Bush supporters, Conservatives, we are now dealing with a head of CIA tasked with making America less safe.

    Conservatives are obsessed with the abstract, they talk about a republic vs a democracy, and they miss the republic vs an empire. Conservatives talk about currency, yet they do not see what is being done to currency in Iraq. In fact, Conservatives buy into George Bushs explanation, that employers hiring people for under the minimum wage are tricked by false green cards - for the most part. Theyre worried about gay monogamy - theyre scared gay people are going to be monogamous - theyre not worried about the disaster in Iraq - how dare you say its bad there, why doesnt anybody report all the good things in Iraq.

    Conservatives and their supporters just crack jokes, they just crack these dumb jokes, talking about blow jobs. Talking about World War 2 - ha ha.

    Posted by conshame at 05/28/2006 @ 11:56am

46. Posted by CONSHAME 05/28/2006 @ 11:56am

    You need to smoke the pot after you post, not before, because although I'm sure it all sounds brilliant to you at the time, you really do not make much sense at all.

    Posted by pontificus at 05/29/2006 @ 07:32am