Op-Ed

Nominal leader of the Democrats in Congress Nancy Pelosi, following talking points produced by the Republican National Committee, recently told her fellow Dems to keep impeachment off the table.  This past weekend, the Democratic Parties in Maine, New Hampshire, and Hawaii passed resolutions demanding impeachment.  This, of course, raises the question: Whose table is it, Nancy?

Whose table?  Our table!

These states joined the Democratic parties of Nevada, New Mexico, California, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and the executive committee of the North Carolina Democratic Party (their convention is later this month).  If Texas does it, that'll make 10.  Activists in other states have tried to pass impeachment resolutions but been blocked by their state party's leadership.  Most of the states that have succeeded have done so despite opposition from the leadership. This grassroots energy, along with every poll I've seen, suggests that making the coming elections about impeachment would mobilize lots and lots and lots of Democrats.  Not a shred of evidence supports the RNC-Pelosi claim that it would benefit Republicans.

When the House and the Senate pass similar but not identical bills, they create a conference committee to work out the differences.  When they both passed amendments to the "emergency supplemental" spending bill stipulating that none of the money could be used to build permanent bases in Iraq, the conference committee, behind closed doors this week, resolved that non-difference by deleting it. 

This would appear to be a blatant violation of the rules of Congress and an unconstitutional voiding of the will of the people as expressed by their Representatives and Senators.  But it can't appear that way to a people that knows nothing about it.  And it does not appear that way at all to the journalists who inform the public of its government's doings.  Even the minority members of the conference committee and the leaders of the minority party in Congress seem entirely comfortable with this course of events, although Congresswoman Barbara Lee has denounced the Republicans for it.

They got him -- the big, bad, beheading berserker in Iraq.  But, something's gone unreported in all the glee over getting Zarqawi … who invited him into Iraq in the first place?

If you prefer your fairy tales unsoiled by facts, read no further.  If you want the uncomfortable truth, begin with this:  A phone call to Baghdad to Saddam's Palace on the night of April 21, 2003.  It was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on a secure line from Washington to General Jay Garner.

The General had arrives in Baghdad just hours before to take charge of the newly occupied nation.  The message from Rumsfeld was not a heartwarming welcome.  Rummy told Garner, Don't unpack, Jack -- you're fired.

What had Garner done?  The many-starred general had been sent by the President himself to take charge of a deeply dangerous mission. Iraq was tense but relatively peaceful.  Garner's job was to keep the peace and bring democracy.

Unfortunately for the general, he took the President at his word.   But the general was wrong.  "Peace" and "Democracy" were the slogans.

In the old days, they'd brandish the head of the captured chieftain from the battlements. These days, given the effects on human bone and tissue of artillery and 500-pound bombs, there's a cull from an old most-wanted list and then, when the morticians have done their work, a photo of the cadaver's visage, decently cleaned up.

When Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, were located and killed in July 2003, connoisseurs of the mortician's arts were particularly impressed by the efforts taken to make them presentable for post-mortem primetime.

At the White House press conference Thursday morning, there was gloating of course, just as there was when Saddam's sons were killed. It takes an effort now to recall that, like the late Zarqawi, Uday and Qusay, too, were credited with inspiring a large part of the resistance, and then, as now, guarded hopes were expressed in Washington that maybe some sort of a corner had been turned.

In 1975 Dorothy T. Samuel published  "Safe Passage on City Streets," a book that examined the state of mind and behavior of people who tended not to get attacked on city streets or tended to walk away unscathed.  She found that the safest people were not those who focused on the danger, not those who walked in fear, and not those who carried weapons – which, as often as not, were turned against them.  The safest people – though there was no guarantee – were people who put danger out of their minds and when attacked reacted with surprise, indignation, or humanity. 

Conservatives love to talk about the so-called "liberal media" and its influence over the news. But just the opposite is true. And they know it. The media is either dominated by full-fledged kool-aid drinkers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Rupert Murdoch, or sympathizers like Wolf Blitzer, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews and, yes, even the NY Times. It's the Repuglicans whose influence dictates the media's direction, and its coverage of both parties.

As the evidence of global warming becomes inescapable, I fear Americans will switch instead to a fatalistic pessimism. Maybe it’s real and maybe it’s our fault, this sentiment goes, but at this point there’s nothing we can do, so we’re off the hook.

It’s hard to deal with melting arctic glaciers, Katrina refugees who might never return to New Orleans, and floods that recently covered half of Bangladesh. Weather-related catastrophes cost a record $225 billion last year, with the impact of global climate change just beginning. Add in a president deep in denial, and it’s tempting to feel powerless.  We can’t even escape to the Weather Channel without a sense of impending doom.

AUSTIN, Texas -- It occasionally occurs to me that if I could understand the Bush administration's foreign policy, I might like it. After months of threatening Iran with everything up to and including nuclear war, we are now full of Sweet Reason and offering to have diplomatic talks with the very people we have been denouncing as Beyond Vile.

I never mind a good about-face in foreign policy myself. Always reminds me of the times when that great duo Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger decided it would be a good thing to convince the world they were both quite perfectly mad. They succeeded. (Bonus point: What did Richard Nixon say upon first seeing the Great Wall of China? He said, "This is, indeed, a great wall." Almost as good as the time George H.W. Bush barfed on the prime minister of Japan.)

AUSTIN, Texas -- Thank goodness the Republicans are around to tell me what to worry about. The flag-burning crisis -- here in Austin, there's that pall of smoke rising from the West every morning (it's from an area called Tarrytown, where they burn hundreds of flags daily).

You didn't know hundreds of flags were being burned daily? Actually, you can count on your hand the number of incidents reported over the last five years. For instance, there was one flag burned in 2005 by a drunken teenager and one by a protester in California in 2002. This appalling record of ravishment must be stopped. You're clearly not worried about what matters.

Gay marriage, now there's a crisis. Well, OK, so there isn't much gay marriage going on here in Texas. None, in fact. First, we made it illegal. Then, we made it unconstitutional. But President Bush is all concerned about it, so I guess we have to alter the U.S. Constitution.

Gus and Captain Call (of "Lonesome Dove" fame) will be an item -- with who knows who waiting in line right after them.

President Bush in Washington Monday told a room full of revved up anti-gay Christian conservatives that, rather than focus attention on the pressing issues of the day--Iraq, Iranian nukes, the economy, gas prices--one of the biggest priorities facing the country today is making sure homosexuals cannot legally marry. If you believe Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is critical to the moral survival of the country. No matter that recent polls show that Americans view the gay marriage issue as #7 on the priority list. We're in an election year here, folks, and these Repugs desperately need their wedge issue to rile up the base.

"Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them," Bush said in his speech. "And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure." Honestly, has there ever been a more non-issue than this?