Glenn Greenwald: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism

[ProSense]

Glenn Greenwald
Saturday August 4, 2007 11:39 EST

Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism

It is staggering, and truly disgusting, that even in August, 2007 -- almost six years removed from the 9/11 attacks and with the Bush presidency cemented as one of the weakest and most despised in American history -- that George W. Bush can "demand" that the Congress jump and re-write legislation at his will, vesting in him still greater surveillance power, by warning them, based solely on his say-so, that if they fail to comply with his demands, the next Terrorist attack will be their fault. And they jump and scamper and comply (Meteor Blades has the list of the 16 Senate Democrats voting in favor; the House will soon follow).

I just finished a discussion panel with ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero which was originally planned to examine his new (superb) book about the work his organization has done for years in battling the endless expansion of executive power and presidential lawbreaking. But the only issue anyone in the room really wanted to discuss -- including us -- was the outrage unfolding on Capitol Hill. And the anger was almost universally directed where it belongs: on Congressional Democrats, who increasingly bear more and more responsibility for the assaults on our constitutional liberties and unparalleled abuses of government power -- many (probably most) of which, it should always be emphasized, remain concealed rather than disclosed.

Examine virtually every Bush scandal and it increasingly bears the mark not merely of Democratic capitulation, but Democratic participation. In August of 2006, the Supreme Court finally asserted the first real limit on Bush's radical executive power theories in Hamdan, only for Congress, months later, to completely eviscerate those minimal limits -- and then go far beyond -- by enacting the grotesque Military Commissions Act with the support of substantial numbers of Democrats. What began as a covert and illegal Bush interrogation and detention program became the officially sanctioned, bipartisan policy of the United States.

Grave dangers are posed to our basic constitutional safeguards by the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor with Sam Alito, whose elevation to the Supreme Court Congressional Democrats chose to permit. Vast abuses and criminality in surveillance remain undisclosed, uninvestigated and unimpeded because Congressional Democrats have stood meekly by while the administration refuses to disclose what it has been doing in how it spies on us. And we remain in Iraq, in direct defiance of the will of the vast majority of the country, because the Democratic Beltway establishment lacks both the courage and the desire to compel an end to that war.

<...>

The common, defining political principle here -- what resonates far more powerfully than any other idea -- is a fervent and passionate belief in our country's constitutional framework, the core liberties it secures, and the checks and balances it offers as a safeguard against tyrannical power. Those who fail to defend that framework, or worse, those who are passively or actively complicit in its further erosion, are all equally culpable. With each day that passes, the radicalism and extremism originally spawned in secret by the Bush presidency becomes less and less his fault and more and more the fault of those who -- having discovered what they have been doing and having been given the power to stop it -- instead acquiesce to it and, worse, enable and endorse it.

Schumer regrets not leading an Alito filibuster

Came across a question that Dems just provided the answer to

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. just saw Glen at the ACLU forum at Yearly Kos

a packed room. an angry crowd. You know, full of haters.

We are now hearing Digby and Firedog and others, waiting for the candidates.

[Me.]

7. Will The Candidates Be Informed In No Uncertain Terms

How fed up we all are?

[Cha]

24. Viva La Haters of this

FASCIST CRAP!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

43. you betcha.

except with FISA, our future looks rather dim.

[bigtree]

2. still dwarfs republican responsibility

the majority of our party has been steadfast in their legislative efforts against Bush's crimes and abuses.

[tom_paine]

9. Yes, but at what point does that cease to matter?

Yes, they certainly are, and by far, the Lesser of Two Evils.

But when considering that they seem utterly reluctant to protect anything TRULY IMPORTANT or to pursue criminal prosecutions where warranted.

When they jump like dogs when Herr Bushler gives them an angry look and a word (something is VERY wrong there...the man has a 26% approval rating...there is DEFINITELY something ELSE at work here), they deflate the base and the very footsoldiers they need to knock on doors and make calls.

So I ask again, even if what you say is true, how much toadying and capitulation on the larger issues, how much ignoring felony subpeona refusal and felony perjury and felony hatch Act violations and felony FISA violations and...HOW much of that makes what you said, even if true and I might dispute the "majority" part and substitute "large minority", irrelevant.

Since impeachment, and apparently any meaningful criminal prosecution against the Inner Court of the Royal Bushies, is off the table, we are about to find out.

[FredStembottom]

19. Thanks, tompaine.

I have been a broken record here at DU for years that something hidden is at play and our D.C. Dems' weird, zombie-like behavior defines the outlines of it.

I have maintained this view right through a hundred "powder-dryings", chess moves and scoldings directed at any of us who simply state that our own Democrats don't seem to actually be very bothered by what the Bushies have done and continue to do.

Now we have reached the point where they are willing to GO AGAINST vast popular opinion to HELP SUPPORT the Bush admin's darkest goals!

In a way, I am relieved. In the same way the 35W bridge collapse here in Minneapolis makes the tax-giveaway neglect of our infrastructure astoundingly clear, this vote makes the Dems' complicity in the coronation of King George just as stunningly clear.

[followthemoney]

39. The Dems can't win if they don't want to win.

They will reluctantly inch toward meaningful victory and retreat when they get close. Even if they win the presidency they will wither under attack from the right, concede, and disappoint the majority of Americans on policy issues while the Republicans begin to impeach again on something as irrelevant to the nation as semen stains.

[Cha]

25. One wonders ..What is the majority of

the D.C. Dems Agenda?..after 6 years of hoping they'll act like the loyal opposition instead of the loyal lackies!

Why aren't they trying to uphold our CONSTITUTION?

[KoKo]

12. Read this from the last Graf's of Greenwald's article:

There are many mythologies about what are the defining beliefs and motivations of bloggers and their readers and the attendees at Yearly Kos. One of the principal myths is that it is all driven by a familiar and easily defined ideological agenda and/or a partisan attachment to the Democratic Party. That is all false.

The common, defining political principle here -- what resonates far more powerfully than any other idea -- is a fervent and passionate belief in our country's constitutional framework, the core liberties it secures, and the checks and balances it offers as a safeguard against tyrannical power. Those who fail to defend that framework, or worse, those who are passively or actively complicit in its further erosion, are all equally culpable. With each day that passes, the radicalism and extremism originally spawned in secret by the Bush presidency becomes less and less his fault and more and more the fault of those who -- having discovered what they have been doing and having been given the power to stop it -- instead acquiesce to it and, worse, enable and endorse it.

[PassingFair]

13. Ted Rall Two Party Award for Y-O-U for THAT one!

[FredStembottom]

20. Really, really excellent.

And funny - if I don't cry..........

[Cha]

26. Ted Rall says IT ALL!

The one thing we Progressives can't not do is "VOTE"! VOTE FOR CHANGE!

Get those enablers outta Congress and don't let them near the Oval Office.

[genie_weenie]

3. Is Glenn the next Cindy to be eviscerated by DU members?

For having the temerity to question PARTY MEMBERS! Blasphemy! The PARTY is sacrosanct and must never be questioned! Off to the Pillory with Glenn!

[brentspeak]

4. If people want to criticize Greenwald, then they should feel free to do so

Is there a problem with that?

[tom_paine]

10. No. I think you overestimate that fraction of DU.

Do they exist? Sure, but they will never be any more than 20-30% of us, I think.

Just like in the larger picture with how the Imperial Subjects of Amerika are finally waking up to Bushler.

26% may always believe him no matter what, but the other 74%, some may be a little slower on the uptake but eventually they all come to see what is what.

Same with DUers and the Democratic Leadership, and it pains me to say it.

Disclaimer: Yes, the Dems have done some good things, just not on any of the most important issues, such as protecting the Constitution, restoring liberty or restraining corruption.

But now, enough time has gone by that it is becoming clear how the next 18 months will go, the number of DUers outside that unquestioningly loyal third, waking up to the Democratic Leadership's deficiencies, shall we say, is rising fast and will one day encompass the other 2/3rds of DUers fully.

So, I believe you are mistaken about Greenwalk being pilloried. Oh, he'll take some but as I said, a rapidly increasing majority of DUers are now coming to see that he is correct, at least to some degree.

Would that it were not so!

[KaptBunnyPants]

11. Hey, Cindy is the one that went libertarian.

Everybody gets hate at DU, we don't all abandon our beliefs because of it. This is not a conservative site, and Cindy is a conservative now. If Glenn were to get hit in the head with a brick and wake up a libertarian, I'd stop listening to what he has to say too.

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. Oh good grief

Cindy is NOT a libertarian or a conservative. She is far more progressive than most of DU all put together. She also didn't abandon anyone or any of her beliefs. However, she WAS abandoned by many on the left. Speaking truth to power has that effect sometimes.

[BlooInBloo]

31. She's not a Democrat. And that's enough.

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. And how are those Dems working for you these days?

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

35. Not nearly as well as I'd like, but oodles better than libertarians....

... And further weakening due to spin-offs doesn't strike me as the way to go. Ben Franklin said something about that.

[KaptBunnyPants]

33. Anyone who talks about how the 16th amendment is illegitimate is not progressive.

Income taxes are the culmination of efforts of real progressives to get some measure of fairness into the US tax code. Nearly every state signed onto it, but aristocratic conservatives and their libertarian attack puppies have been complaining since. Espousing far right Bircher style arguments against an amendment which is progressive in nature, nearly a century old, and which has never faces a serious challenge in court gets you kicked out of the progressive club. And she was not abandoned by the left, she was seduced by anti-government conservatism after a bunch of anonymous dick holes on DU said nasty things to her. She's part of Alex Jones' club now, an interesting bunch but not progressive in nature. They hate all government, and tend to believe in satanic conspiracies being behind all the world problems.

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. She is not part of Alex Jones club

She has talked about LEGALLY refusing to pay taxes to support war.

And yes, the left abandoned her.

[BlooInBloo]

30. Though I love his work, I'll rip on him if he calls me a member of the party of slavery...

... Sorry, I don't just slavishly follow people *no matter what* they say.

I don't expect Greenwald to do such an idiotic and deceitful thing, however. So I'm not worried.

[depakid]

5. If there's a third party candidate- they're going to garner a lot of votes

and they may well throw the election to the Republicans.

If that happens, the Democrats have only themselves to blame.

[msongs]

6. seems pretty accurate to me nt

[MikeNearMcChord]

8. George Bush version of the famous Lenin line

Lenin: When we hang the last capitalist, the fool will sell us the rope.

Bush: When we imprison the last Democrat at Gitmo, the fool will vote us the authorization. :grr:

[chill_wind]

14. A *very* good one. Thank you. n/t

[Individualist]

15. K&R

[mrdmk]

16. The only reason for this madness is because the "Beltway" is afraid of the people

There can be no other reason for this giveaway of the constitution. This bill authorizes the spying on American Citizens with impunity.

[broadcaster]

22. Congress is surely complicit with Bush now..no doubt. n/t

[FredStembottom]

23. Here's something I wrote here at DU in March, 2006:

>>>>>There simply is no one like me or you there in D.C.
They comprise a completely closed society worried what might happen if they should accidentally do something that enables an army of bus drivers and massage therapists to arrive at real power.

And while they feel some genuine guilt for being part of a tiny, privileged elite, no senator wants to take rash actions that could spin out of control resulting in red leather Nascar jackets in the Senate cloak-room!<<<<<<<<

And sums up a view I have held quite easily for about 25 years. Nothing the D.C. Dems do even budges this view for me.

Out here in the hinterlands it's quite different, of course. Being a part of the Democratic Party at the local level puts you together with a nearly complete spectrum of the American populace. But what do we do? We send Old White "Christian" Millionaires to D.C. everytime (Bulletin: Is Minnesota pioneering change with Klobuchar and Ellison? Stay tuned!)

We need to send us to represent us.

[chill_wind]

28. Good points. You have a wonderful way with words. n/t

[chill_wind]

17. The hard cold truth frightens and angers, and he's not afraid to tell it.

And he tried to tell us this the last time this debate went around.
His blog was one I turned to every day after he exposed all of the last FISA bill skullduggery.

If I could kick and rec this 10 more times, I would.

[Peace Patriot]

18. Democratic participation in Bush Junta tyranny: the "Help America Vote Act"

Go back to October 2002, and the passage in that same month of

The Iraq War Resolution (IWR), and

the "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA).

They are closely related, the one, giving George Bush carte blanche to launch an unjust, heinous war on Iraq, and the other giving rightwing Bushite electronic voting corporations the power to force that war down the throats of the American people, by fast-tracking extremely insecure and insider hackable electronic voting systems all over the country, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls (and no controls on lavish lobbying).

56% of the American people opposed the Iraq war from the beginning (Feb. '03), after they had heard Colin Powell's 100% pack of lies to the UN, just before the invasion. About 50% of the people at that time believed that Saddam may have WMDs and/or had something to do with 9/11 (this was before the pack of lies was fully exposed) but clearly the majority did not believe the Bush Junta that war was necessary or warranted. About half of the 56% opposed to the war was against it outright; the other half would agree only if it were a UN peacekeeping mission (international consensus) which the Bush Junta could not achieve. World opposition, and opposition of major allies, was intense.

56% is a significant majority. It would be a landslide in a presidential election (and believe me it was). The War Party knew that that majority would be silenced briefly, with U.S. soldiers at max risk during the invasion, but the opposition would then start growing as the bogus and heinous nature of this war was exposed. It is now over 70% who oppose this war and want it ended--an overwhelming consensus of the American people. 70%! And a purported 'Democratic' Congress just ESCALATED the war instead, and gave war criminals George Bush and Dick Cheney $100 billion more to keep killing Iraqis until they sign over their oil rights. Now they are cementing the end of the Constitution into law!

How did the War Party achieve this? The answer is staring us in the face. It was the under-the-radar "Help America Vote for Bush's War Act"--aka, HAVA, a bill that was far more lethal to our democracy than the IWR, because it was designed to prevent a change of course. It means that rightwing Bushite corporations can tweak almost any vote count in the country without detection, and can EASILY flip entire elections. There are many things wrong with our election system, but this, the one that is least talked about, is the democracy-killer. Secret rightwing corporate control of the vote count.

Continued war and the end of the Constitution are the expectable outcome of Diebold/ES&S "trade secret" vote counting. Nothing short of "trade secret" vote counting could have achieved them in the land of the free, home of the brave.

ALL but two* of the Democratic Senators in the Anthrax Congress voted FOR the end of transparent vote counting (HAVA). The DNC/DLC establishment of that period came down like a ton of bricks on anyone who questioned the electronic voting system or its results. They are still covering it up and protecting it. And the good Democrats (there are some) live in fear of Diebold/ES&S's power--not only to change election results, but also to call down the wrath of the corporate media in a 'swiftboating,' such as happened to Calif Secretary of State Kevin Shelley (who went after Diebold just before the 2004 (s)election).

Until we regain public control of vote counting, American democracy is over--a struggle that is now on-going in many states (with notable achievements in California yesterday). The "Help America Vote for Bush Act" WAS the fascist coup. And both parties participated in it.

-------------------------

*(H. Clinton and C. Schumer, probably because of New Yorkers' affection for their old, reliable and virtually unriggable lever voting machines, not because of Clinton's and Schumer's belief in democracy. ALL OTHER DEMOCRATIC SENATORS and about half the House Dems voted FOR it. Christopher Dodd was one of the chief architects of it, colluding with the biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney.)

[Dr.Phool]

27. I got to talk face to face with Chris Dodd for 30 minutes a couple of weeks ago.

He still thinks that HAVA was a good bill. He claims that the real problem is that they only funded about 15% of it.

I think he's full of shit myself. And he wants to be president? NOT!!!!

[The Vinyl Ripper]

21. One word explains it......

Anthrax

[glitch]

34. Welcome to DU. And it's not just anthrax that bush-cheney have in their armory. nt

[The Vinyl Ripper]

36. Thanks for the welcome

Yes, there is more in their armory, but that is the one which truly scares people..

[Raster]

38. Kicked and Recommended! And I ask again: cowards or collaborators?

Either way, accomplices to the crime(s).
Wake up America!:kick:

[KoKo]

40. Another Kick...It's a great read...even better afer the sad events of this vote tonight...

:kick:

[Canuckistanian]

41. K&R

My last post for tonight.

What a total sham.

[cal04]

42. Update Interview with Dodd

UPDATE II: This afternoon I interviewed Sen. Chris Dodd, who more than any other presidential candidate is attempting to make issues of executive power and constitutional encroachments the centerpiece of his campaign. I'll post the entire transcript and some commentary in a few days, but for now here is part of the discussion we had concerning last night's FISA vote in the Senate (Dodd, along with Obama and Clinton, voted against the FISA bill):

GG: Can you describe what you think it is that motivated 16 of your colleagues in the Democratic caucus to vote in favor of this bill?

CD: No, I really can't . . . We had caucuses during the day, so everyone knew what was there. You had a vote at 10:00 at night, people say I didn't know what was there, then normally I can understand, but we had a caucus during the day. There was a lot of conversation about it.

(snip)
Dodd, by his own candid admission, has no good explanation for the Democrats' behavior, which repeats itself endlessly. He has no good explanation as to why so many of his Democratic colleagues are so deeply afraid of being attacked by one of the weakest presidents in modern American history.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. These days, when I think of the average Democratic Congresscritter,

including the media-anointed "top tier" candidates, my feelings veer between anger, frustration, and sorrow.

Oh, there are still some good, gutsy people out there, many of them utterly despised and belittled by the DLC, but those few figures, such as Kucinich, DeFazio, Ellison, Conyers, Boxer, and a few others who still fight for the right without any MSM attention are the only shining lights that keep me from going totally Green.

The rest have lost their way or never had a way to begin with. They're in it for the power and influence and the knowledge that a cushy job awaits them if they suck up to the right Washington movers and shakers. They call themselves Democrats, but they vote with the Republicanites as often as not.

"United we stand, divided we fall" isn't just a catchy slogan; it's the truth.

There was ONE time when all the Democrats resisted the Busheviks unanimously, ONE TIME. That was when the Bushboy wanted to privatize Social Security. All the Democratic Congresscritters assembled and declared their support for Social Security, and suddenly, the topic disappeared from the mainstream press.

You see, Democrats, standing up and being gutsy WORKS!

You could have stood up to the Bushies so many times: on the IWR, on the bankruptcy bill, on the Patriot Act (you could at least have insisted on having time to read the damn thing before being forced to vote on it and walked out if the Republicanites forced the issue), on just about everything that Bush has proposed.

Such a bunch of craven cowardly, compromised Congresscritters--you have been given the greatest political challenge of my lifetime of 50+ years, and you are acting as if it's business as usual. I give most of you an "F."

[windoe]

45. A Clarification

'You're either with us or you're against us'----was a rare truth told by Bush. I believe this was a threat to anyone going against his agenda, and he has the money to reward anyone doing him favors. I speak into a vacuum when I talk about this, no one wants to consider this possibility. Corruption is on BOTH sides of the government, played in different ways. What we are after are our Constitutional Rights, this is NOT partisan!!!
IF we unite the country to merely regain our Constitutional Rights by outing corruption on both sides, We the People would be lethal.
My point is that the Democratic Party contains all the diverse groups of our country, Republicans are much less diverse, so easier to unify.
Impeachment and Resolution of Iraq need immediate attention, and we must focus on the bottom line in order to get this done.
-Who is complicit in not supporting the Constitution? The list of those on BOTH sides who support the neo con agenda are not supporting the Constitution and need to be put on notice.
True patriots who wish to conserve the Constitution are not trying to break up the Democratic Party by calling out those who are conceding to Bush/Cheney agenda. Bush and Cheney have been successful, not a failure in their eyes, (which explains their collective smirk)

(Apology, meant to be a main topic)