Letters to the Editor
Ché Pasa
Published Letters: 865 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Karen M re: The Congress Problem
[Read the article: FDL Book Salon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This congress has already signed a law to undo that weird exception allowing Gonzales/Bush to install DOJ attorneys without Senate oversight.
Congress indeed passed such a measure, but -- no surprise -- His Majesty has not granted His Assent. Consequently, it is in limbo, and the provisions which allow appointment of US Attorneys without Senate confirmation continue in effect. This is an example where Congress did the right thing and Bush is thwarting their will, quite defiantly.
What should be done? The rationalizers will tell us that Congress has already done everything it can, which is crap, pure unadulterated stinking crap. "But we don't have the votes!!!!" Oh? Is that a fact? I believe the measure passed 420 to 14 in the House, or something like that, and 92 to 3 in the Senate, or whatever. They most certainly do have the votes, in other words.
Ok then, let's try this: the President hasn't signed or vetoed the bill. It's awaiting his action. We can't do anything till he does something. We'll just wait. That'll be good. Yeah. We'll wait. We have more important things to do in the meantime.
Like what exactly?
You see how circular this gets. And it is part of what is driving the Congressional approval numbers into the toilet.
Real leadership would be hammering the message that the President is dithering. He is trying to thwart the will of the Congress and the people. Every single day. They would be making this into the biggest brou-ha-ha since Whitewater, and they would be relentless.
Instead? Nada. Not. A. Peep.
Side note about Nancy Pelosi. Who I happen to have a good deal of admiration for. I believe she is very seriously opposed to the Iraq War and Occupation, and if there was anything she thought she could do to bring it to an end, she would do it. But here's a clue (perhaps) to how hamstrung she may think she is:
I don't live in San Francisco, but I am in contact with people who live there (in her district) and I visit when I can. In -- I believe -- Jan 2004, Pelosi attended a constituent meeting in San Francisco, and of course the issue of the war (which she has always opposed) came up, along with the frustration people felt that so many Democrats (not Pelosi, and not even a majority of the House Democrats at the time) voted for the IWR.
And she said something that struck me and a lot of people as bizarre. Paraphrasing, she said that if people had contacted their members of Congress, if they had taken to the streets in substantial numbers in October of 2002, and not waited till February of 2003 (when it was too late) to protest the war, it might not have happened.
Apparently she did not know that millions of Americans called their Congressional offices, and hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest the impending war on Iraq in October of 2002.
Why didn't she know?
For one thing, those protests were not reported on in the New York Times or the Washington Post (nor were they in McClatchy papers at the time -- because the Post and the Times didn't report them!) with anything like accuracy or detail. They weren't reported on teevee, either. Apparently, all the calls to the congressional offices "melted down" the switchboards so that in essence, the phones just stopped working for a day or two. Staff apparently did not inform their Members that the People were protesting, or if they did, they made light of it.
In other words, direct action by the People did not penetrate the hermetic seal around the Members of Congress. They had no idea there were massive protests in October 2002. At least Nancy Pelosi didn't.
And this is one of the main flaws of the status quo. Congressmembers only know what they read in the major papers, see on the teevee (when they have a chance to watch) and hear from their staff and the lobbyists who can get in to see them. They don't see or hear much else -- they can't, they don't have time, and many have little interest.
I'm sure that they really don't understand the People's outrage at them right now. As far as they are concerned, they are doing the best they can, doing what they think is "right."
But they ignore the People at their peril, and those who continue to rationalize their poor judgement are not even being heard any more.
The People deserve better.
-
Kitt: Re: Laura Logan
[Read the article: McClatchy reports on shift in Iraq propaganda]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well sure, some blogs were touting her smashmouthing O'Reilly and such, and that's all well and good. Logan has been one of the better field reporters in Iraq, though CBS News has hardly been consistently reliable since the Rather imbroglio.
But here's the thing: the blogs were going to town over Logan's denunciations of the O'Reilly-ite nonsense. That's not really featuring her reporting is it? More attention needs to be paid to the alternatives to propaganda and spin. Glenn takes a big step in that direction (and it is also on other blogs) by touting McClatchy's reporting.
That's all I'm saying.
-
Karen M: Thanks for the info regarding that US Attorneys
[Read the article: FDL Book Salon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]measure. One tries to keep up, and yet one falls behind. ;-)
(I swear I saw a story just last week that said he hadn't signed it yet...)
Meanwhile, of course, there is another unconfirmed appointee in office that no one can do anything about. Funny, once this legal dodge was revealed, the White House and DoJ were all conciliatory, saying they never intended that their nominees wouldn't go through the Senate confirmation process. Never, never, never. They'd send them all up to the Senate. Any day now. My stars. Would you just look. Given that it is the Los Angeles to San Luis district, we can just imagine what sort of vote caging and other irregularities are planned for the upcoming election season.