DVO and DFA

The Christmas holiday is passed, the fiber-optic Santa packed away, and the campaigns for the March primary are about to swing into high gear. I am going to advocate again for my favorite Democratic candidate, and it's not to beg for money (though you would never be discouraged from donating).

David Van Os needs your help in securing the endorsement of his campaign for Texas Attorney General from the good folks at Democracy for America.

The seal of approval from DFA is a coveted one in progressive circles, and there’s no candidate who is more deserving. So click here, and write a few words as to why you think he merits their endorsement.

Don’t have the words? Don’t know the man well enough to do so? Let me help you with that.

Van Os has been fighting the Bush regime long before he went to Florida in 2000 to contest the recount in Bush v. Gore. He’s been fighting for working men and women long before he was the general counsel for the Texas AFL-CIO. He fought against the illegal and immoral war in Iraq way before he went to Camp Casey this summer. He’s been a warrior for economic and social justice for the people of Texas all of his life. You can read more about his life here, but you can also take my word for it. David Van Os walks the walk.

In 2004, Van Os ran for a seat on the Texas Supreme Court because he wanted to take that court back from the mega-corporations which have it bought, paid for, and tucked in their vest pockets. At a time when the PATRIOT Act was our biggest concern, he chose to fight to restore the constitutional checks and balances that protect the rights and liberties of all Texans.

He is running for the office of Texas Attorney General in 2006 in order to carry the same fight to a new front. Texas is under withering assault by swarms of corrupt Republicans lining their pockets with the millions of dollars flowing from ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco and the other big oil companies, from State Farm and Allstate and the other insurance companies, and all of the other assorted lobbyists and mouthpieces of greed. A strong attorney general in Austin, vested with the power inherent in the Texas Constitution’s Bill of Rights, can do more to achieve economic and social justice for Texans than twenty congressmen in Washington DC.

With your help, DFA will be influenced to throw the weight of their endorsement behind David’s campaign, and that will be a big push forward in returning the state of Texas back to the people (and away from corporate control).

Take two minutes and write a recommendation on behalf of David Van Os, and then click 'send'.

I got you a Christmas card

You can open it by clicking here.

Happy Holidays, and thanks for reading me this year.

The War on Terror (abridged version)

If you vote for Kerry, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you don't renew the Patriot Act, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you don't pass this spending bill, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you force us to leave Iraq, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you don't let us torture people, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you don't let us eavesdrop on you, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you challenge our authority, you will be attacked by terrorists.

Bush war powers, Tom Daschle, anthrax and September 18, 2001

The Washington Post details the backstory regarding the resolution passed after 9/11 (the one which Bush claims gives him the authority to spy on us):

The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

The Justice Department acknowledged yesterday, in a letter to Congress, that the president's October 2001 eavesdropping order did not comply with "the 'procedures' of" the law that has regulated domestic espionage since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, established a secret intelligence court and made it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant from that court, "except as authorized by statute."

... The congressional resolution of Sept. 18, 2001, formally titled "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," made no reference to surveillance or to the president's intelligence-gathering powers, and the Bush administration made no public claim of new authority until news accounts disclosed the secret NSA operation.

I'll explain why I added the emphasis to the date above in just a moment. As Daschle explains:

The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress -- but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional language.

...

If the stories in the media over the past week are accurate, the president has exercised authority that I do not believe is granted to him in the Constitution, and that I know is not granted to him in the law that I helped negotiate with his counsel and that Congress approved in the days after Sept. 11. For that reason, the president should explain the specific legal justification for his authorization of these actions, Congress should fully investigate these actions and the president's justification for them, and the administration should cooperate fully with that investigation.

Now then.

The same day that joint resolution passed in Congress -- September 18, 2001, and a resolution changed at the last minute by Daschle to prevent Bush from declaring war on Americans in the name of terror -- that same day, Americans were targeted in a domestic terrorist attack.

Letters laced with anthrax were dropped in mailboxes around the country. One originally thought to be postmarked 9/18/01 was addressed to Tom Daschle (scroll down to just above "Elsewhere Monday"). This letter was actually mailed in early October. Here's some images of anthrax letters.

That was a heckuva job on that investigation, wasn't it?

(Special thanks goes to bettyellen and Syrinx for their research.)

Is flip-flopping patriotic?

SusanG at Kos points out the latest:

From MSNBC six days ago:

Mr Bush, in an effort to force passage of the bill, warned on Friday he would veto any temporary extension of the (Patriot) act.

From AP today:

The White House is hailing the Senate's vote to extend the Patriot Act for six months, a day after vowing President Bush wouldn't accept a short-term extension.

Press Secretary Scott McClellan calls Wednesday night's Senate vote "an important victory for the American people."

It's truly astounding how myopic and forgetful the administration presumes us to be.