You would really think that they wouldn't even try, wouldn't you?

Except that what we've learned during the Bush administration, in case we didn't already know, is that the Big Lie theory works.

Here you go:  

We never argued that he played a role 9/11; political opponents manufactured the claim to question the president's integrity.

Yes, that's Tony Snow writing in USA Today.

Lying sons of bitches! 

(After a Brutal Attack, Many Hope for Change but Few Expect It, NY Times, 07/16/07)

This is an unfortunate side of humanity, but, in my opinion, it is ingrained … genetic if you will. It seems we become so accustomed to our own perceived comfort and feeling of safety that we often have a difficult time moving out of that zone even in the most needful of circumstances.

It can be scarey being part of the solution.

(Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings, Washington Post, 07/20/07)

This is just another step in whatever path the Cheney/Bush administration has set for us, and this administration has no intention of letting Congress, and thus you and I, know where we're going and why.

The list of impeachable offenses committed by the Cheney/Bush administration is long. In short form this is the most corrupt, dishonest and incompetent federal administration in our nation's history. Immediate removal from office is required for the sake of our present and future.

Now we as individuals have a choice: we can huddle fearfully in our little cocoon of perceived comfort and safety, or we can best our fears and be part of the solution (impeachment).

I have three things to offer any politician: my money, my time and my vote. Simply put: no impeachment (and no end to our military involvement in Iraq) … no money, time or vote from me for any Democrat.

But that is only the first step. It appears all of us will be confronted with some very uncomfortable choices as the coming constitutional battle plays out. I don't know what I'll do, but I'm thinking about options already.

I want to be part of the solution.

Th eWashington Post has a new story about a massive new power grab by the Bush administration.

Specifically, they have now officially determined that they are above the law:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

You will remember that the House Judiciary Committee is moving toward charging Bush officials with contempt of Congress for refusing to testify at committee hearings, and the Senate Judiciary Committee is moving in the same directiong, albeit with regard to other officials.

The question occurred to me, though, as it may have occurred to you, to wonder how Congress pursues contempt charges, since prosecutions are generally brought by the executive branch.

It turns out there is a federal law that applies to this situation.

Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, records, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question pertinent to the subject under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee or subcommittee of either House of Congress, and the fact of such failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session or when Congress is not in session, a statement of fact constituting such failure is reported to and filed with the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, it shall be the duty of the said President of the Senate or Speaker of the House, as the case may be, to certify, and he shall so certify, the statement of facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case may be, to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.

2 U.S.C.A. § 194

It's very clear: the duty to bring contempt of Congress charges is mandatory upon the Department of Justice–they have no discretion to fail or refuse to do so.

This isn't how the Bushies see it, though. “A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case,” said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. “And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen.”

In other words, the President is above the law.

This really seems like the most egregious corruption of government power since the Saturday Night Massacre.

You need to read this. Washington Monthly asked Theodore Sorenson to write the speech he wants the Democratic nominee to give next year at the Democratic National Convention. As you probably know, Sorenson was a pseechwriter for JFK and worked closely with him through his presidential campaign and term of office. Since one of the big areas in which we have been faulted has been failures of communication, Washington Monthly asked Sorenson to “write the speech of his dreams”.

I think this is great. Seeing the speech as written reminds us that when they hear what liberals really stand for, Americans are liberals, and the idea of America is a liberal value. This speech attacks the incompetency and corruption of the Bush Administration without acrimony, and lays out the values and goals of a new Democratic Administration in a way that is understandable and compelling.

The American people are tired of politics as usual, and I intend to offer them, in this campaign, something unusual in recent American politics: the truth. Neither bureaucracies nor nations function well when their actions are hidden from public view and accountability. From now on, whatever mistakes I make, whatever dangers we face, the people shall know the truth—and the truth shall make them free. After eight years of secrecy and mendacity, here are some truths the people deserve to hear:

We remain essentially a nation under siege. The threat of another terrorist attack upon our homeland has not been reduced by all the new layers of porous bureaucracy that proved their ineptitude in New Orleans; nor by all the needless, mindless curbs on our personal liberties and privacy; nor by expensive new weaponry that is utterly useless in stopping a fanatic willing to blow himself up for his cause. Indeed, our vulnerability to another attack has only been worsened in the years since the attacks of September 11th—worsened by our government convincing more than 1 billion Muslims that we are prejudiced against their faith, dismissive of international law, and indifferent to the deaths of their innocent children; worsened by our failure to understand their culture or to provide a safe haven for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees displaced by a war we started; worsened by our failure to continue our indispensable role in the Middle East peace process.

We have adopted some of the most indefensible tactics of our enemies, including torture and indefinite detention.

We have degraded our military.

We have treated our most serious adversaries, such as Iran and North Korea, in the most juvenile manner—by giving them the silent treatment. In so doing, we have weakened, not strengthened, our bargaining position and our leadership.

At home, as health care costs have grown and coverage disappeared, we have done nothing but coddle the insurance, pharmaceutical, and health care industries that feed the problem.

As global warming worsens, we have done nothing but deny the obvious and give regulatory favors to polluters.

As growing economic inequality tarnishes our democracy, we have done nothing but carve out more tax breaks for the rich.

During these last several years, our nation has been bitterly divided and deceived by illicit actions in high places, by violations of federal, constitutional, and international law. I do not favor further widening the nation’s wounds, now or next year, through continuous investigations, indictments, and impeachments. I am confident that history will hold these malefactors accountable for their deeds, and the country will move on.

Instead, I shall seek a renewal of unity among all Americans, an unprecedented unity we will need for years to come in order to face unprecedented danger.

We will be safer from terrorist attack only when we have earned the respect of all other nations instead of their fear, respect for our values and not merely our weapons.

( – promoted by JDRyan)

A few months ago, I let you know about the Farm Bill reauthorization that is going on in Washington right now. This is a very important bill that has huge ramifications for all farmers, as well as rural development issues and and nutrition. As the Times-Argus is reporting, there's some good and bad to be had in the new bill. A major issue that caught my eye was this:

The House Agriculture Committee voted Wednesday to ban federal subsidies to farmers with incomes averaging more than $1 million a year and stop farmers from collecting payments for multiple properties.

Only farmers whose incomes exceed $2.5 million a year are now disqualified from such aid. More below the jump.

If I'm reading this correctly, this is a substantial blow to Big Agribusiness who, putting aside whether the idea of any farm subsidies are good or bad benefit much more than a small or even mid-sized family farm.  Factory farms, in particular reap a huge windfall at the taxpayer trough:

Research by Tufts University has shown that from 1997 to 2005, the four largest broiler chicken companies paid $5 billion less than the cost of production for their feed — mostly corn and soybean meal produced by family farmers. The four largest hog companies (producing 50 percent of U.S. hogs) paid $3 billion less than the cost of production for their feed.

So, although the bill also increases direct subsidy amounts (non-production related),if this subsidy cap makes it into the final legislation, it is a huge step forward in scaling back corporate welfare, although there's still a long way to go to keep local family farms functioning and not struggling so much. It takes on even more relevace when VT dairy farms have had one of the worst years in three decades last year.

Some other highlights from the article are  mixed bag, such as boosting support for fruit and vegetable producers, reauthorizing federal nutrition programs, including food stamps, increasing subsidies for some conservation programs that pay farmers to protect environmentally sensitive land,and providing loan guarantees for ethanol refineries. Personally, I'm not too thrilled about the ethanol subsidies… we're currently subsidizing it to the tune of 51 cents per gallon,  the increase in corn use is causeing food prices to go up, and there's a host other problems with the program, as well.  

The House may take action on it this year and there has been no action from the Senate as of yet. I'll keep you posted with any new developments I hear on this important bill.