If the options are two, we may need a third
In the WaPo article referred to throughout the blogosphere, Glenn Greenwald’s summary defines it best:
I wish we had a genuine, vibrant opposition party. It would be indescribably beneficial if the rare, isolated and usually marginalized voices within the Democratic Party (and the even rarer and more marginalized voices in the GOP) were predominant. But they just aren’t. That’s just a fact that can’t be ignored. The Democratic Party in Congress is largely controlled and led by those who have enabled and affirmatively supported the worst aspects of the Bush foreign policy and the most severe abuses of our country’s political values.
And efforts to apologize for what these Congressional Democrats have done by claiming that they “were virtually helpless to respond,” or suggesting that knowingly inconsequential expressions of private protest are somehow noble, are counter-productive. Why excuse or apologize for the profound failure of those who seek leadership positions on the Intelligence Committee — who, after all, are being briefed precisely because they are expected to act when they learn of illegal behavior — when they abdicate their responsibilities? That only encourages such malfeasance to continue.
Powerful Committee members have all sorts of options for stopping such lawbreaking. They chose not to avail those options, either out of fear, indifference and — apparently in many cases — because they supported the lawbreaking. The solution is to work to replace those who have done that with those who won’t. Torture methods aren’t any less reprehensible when endorsed by Democrats.
And I maintain that we ferret out who knew what, how they responded and judge them as individuals. But certainly, the Democratic House and Senate leaders are complicit and they must be changed.
We may need a third party option to fill the void. But torture, above all, can never be an option for this country.
(See my previous posts from earlier today on this topic here and here.)
A final note: recently Karl Rove started making the case that Democrats pushed Bush into the War on Iraq. Most people dismissed it or derided it, but I felt he was trying to lay the groundwork for a crimiinal defense of BushCo should he/they ever be brought to trial. The WaPo article today is based on Cheney waterboy Porter Goss and some unnamed source. Already Bob Graham has said he doesn’t remember being provided details like waterboarding.
Between Rove’s recent activities and this unnamed source, the need for added detail becomes clear. The majority leadership needs to be changed for its incapacity to lead on the subjects of torture and accountability. but let us use the instruments of justice, beginning with all available evidence, before weighing in with a final determination on the fate of every individual. A WaPo article, by itself, does not suffice for the latter. But the practices of the party leaders have been repeatedly made clear.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Agree we have to consider the source on these most recent stories. However, it has been a puzzlement of long standing, and especially these last two years, why the Dems have hesitated to confront Bushco on a multitude of issues, even when it was clearly politically advantageous to do so. Like a pale shadow of the suicidal Repubs, the Dems have been acting in ways diametrically opposed to their political interest as the country as a whole has sharply diverged from anything having to do with Bush. This is not a typical characteristic of politicians, so other explanations have been sought — the Dems are just weak-spined appeasers, or Darth’s NSA operation has dug up enough dirt on enough of them to keep them in line. These most recent stories present a third, plausible, and hideously sinister explanation: the Dems never have and don’t intend to oppose immoral un-Constitutional totalitarian government. As a democracy we may be well and truly screwed.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:53 am
I made an image to accompany this moment in congressional history:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2046/2098279408_626094b89a.jpg
December 9th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Oh, I agree fully mamayaga. So long as we don’t forget the Feingolds and Kucinichs and Stabenows and dozens of other Dems who’ve been pushing for change with us.
The Democratic Party has recovered from past splits, but this one looks to be a tougher one to hurdle because in addition to the Blue Dogs, there’s more than one professed liberal with blood on their hands.
The time seems too short for a major third party challenge but I sure would love to see a few people running as Independents for Congress in 2008.
Go Cindy Sheehan!
December 9th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Love the graphic Anna! Even though the reality’s incredibly sad.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:23 am
thanks, Kevin! and I agree…I wasn’t smiling when I did it.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I’ve known Bob Graham as a governor and Senator, and there is no way he would have gone along with torture. His was a lonely voice opposing Iraq and a lot of other foolishness. The Repubs have never been stupid enough to show Bob any as explosive as waterboarding, because Bob would light the fuse. He left the Senate because he wanted to, not because he had to and could still get elected in Florida to anything he wanted to run for.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:11 am
There has certainly not been a “Profiles in Courage” moment in all of this. Of course you realize that the people doing the briefings were likely to be the ones to most benefit from releasing just the bare minimum of facts and cloaked in jargon which would obscure rather than enlighten the relevant facts and the scope of the program.
Also, did you notice when the first briefings took place? This was still a time the greatest paranoia about homeland terrorism on the one year anniversary of the WTC attack, before the Iraq war, Abu Ghraib, etc.
I think that, had any of the Democrats managed to get the details written about in the press, violating their secrecy pledge. the outcry would have been not about the program but that someone talked about it. Do you think the populace would have been against those programs at that time? The majority aren’t against them now! Would the Bush administration arrest and try the leaker? Why not? And the committee members weren’t even supposed to consult with anyone about the program, no legal authorities, so, given that challenges to the Bush fascist programs had to be decided by the Supreme Court, what kind of confidence did any of them have that these programs were illegal?
Wouldn’t this give Bush a reason for not briefing the intelligence committees, the fact that they couldn’t keep a secret? Can you imagine what they would have been capable of doing if they never had to tell anyone what they were doing?
I wish someone had the courage to blow the whistle, but given the consequences of doing so, I can’t say that I, myself, would be willing to do so.