So I had a flashback...

...to the Coyote Club. It was the mid-eighties, some of my very best ass-years. Back when 501's on chicks with clean faces who smelled like soap were sexy. Remember?

These guys rocked the joint to the rafters and the party in the parking lot lasted 'til almost dawn.

Doc S - were you there?







Rock the fuck on!

A “bold new assertion of executive authority” my ass. Call it what it is…a declaration of dictatorship.

There is no rule of law. We are no longer a nation of laws. Not so long as this president is allowed to occupy the Peoples House. Not when he proclaims that he is above all law.

Yesterday, the administration asserted that under the false flag of executive privilege that the Justice Department will be prohibited from pursuing contempt charges against presidential aides and White House officials in the matter of the wrongful firing of nine U.S. Attorneys.

This unprecedented and stunning assertion on the part of the White House sets up a Constitutional showdown between the president who fancies himself a king and a Congress attempting to reassert their standing as a co-equal branch of government with oversight authority, after six years of a rubber-stamp, feckless Republican body taht abdicated all responsibility in favor of blind political fealty.

The way the system is set up, the House or Senate citation of Contempt must be submitted to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the Grand Jury for it’s action.”

Yesterday, the administration made the breathtaking argument that the Congress has no power to compel a U.S. Attorney to pursue the charges in such a case as the U.S. Attorney firings. "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."

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, said the administration's stance is simply "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all…"is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

From the Washington Post:

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

Yesterday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment . But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Now, the Congress does have the power to hold their own trials, and even condemn people found in contempt to serve jail time. Known as Inherent Contempt, the procedure was invoked frequently in the 19^th century, but has not been used since 1934 (Jurney v McCracken).

When Inherent Contempt is invoked, it involves only the house issuing the citation for contempt. Following the issuance of the citation, Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate is empowered to arrest the person named in the citation and deliver them to the floor of the chamber, where they can be held to answer the charges and then be subjected to punishment that the chamber dictates as appropriate. This usually involves imprisonment for either punishment or coercive effect, or the charge of contempt might be dismissed.

The way it stands right now, it seems entirely possible that Harriet Meiers will be the first person cited for Inherent Contempt in 73 years.

What a proud legacy this administration offers for posterity.

Future generations will not be kind to us when they write the history of this shameful era. At our gravesides, it will be invective that issues forth, not eulogies. And if we do not impeach these imperial pricks, we will deserve the scorn and derision that will certainly be our due.

Well, it is the summer rerun season

[Cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose]

“Wait for September” is the new mantra. It pleadingly falls from the lips of every supporter of continuing the occupation of Iraq; from the fervent true-believers to the craven, profit-driven enablers. “Wait for September. Wait for General Petraeus’ report.” issues forth from many a fetid maw.

Call me cynical, but I know what his report is going to say. What did John McCain say the other day? “I’ve seen this movie before.”?

Well, I have read the Op-Ed before. Six weeks before the 2004 elections, in the Washington Post, to be exact.

I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.

The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq.

In recent months, I have observed thousands of Iraqis in training and then watched as they have conducted numerous operations. Although there have been reverses -- not to mention horrific terrorist attacks -- there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do. The future undoubtedly will be full of difficulties, especially in places such as Fallujah. We must expect setbacks and recognize that not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the challenges ahead.

Hell, he will even re-predict that "the next 60 days will be crucial." That groundwork was laid a couple of days ago when they floated the "November before we see real results" trial balloon. Just like he did before. On May 17th the Politico reported that he was saying then that there would be "nothing Definitive" by September.

Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January, in time to help with security missions during the Iraqi elections at the end of that month.

And he will appeal for patience in September 2007 just like he did in September 2004.

There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq's elections approach. Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.

Paul Krugman and I are in total agreement this morning:

I don’t know why the op-ed article that General Petraeus published in The Washington Post on Sept. 26, 2004, hasn’t gotten more attention. After all, it puts to rest any notion that the general stands above politics: I don’t think it’s standard practice for serving military officers to publish opinion pieces that are strikingly helpful to an incumbent, six weeks before a national election.

In the article, General Petraeus told us that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously.” And those security forces were doing just fine: their leaders “are displaying courage and resilience” and “momentum has gathered in recent months.”

In other words, General Petraeus, without saying anything falsifiable, conveyed the totally misleading impression, highly convenient for his political masters, that victory was just around the corner. And the best guess has to be that he’ll do the same thing three years later.

You know, at this point I think we need to stop blaming Mr. Bush for the mess we’re in. He is what he always was, and everyone except a hard core of equally delusional loyalists knows it.

Yet Mr. Bush keeps doing damage because many people who understand how his folly is endangering the nation’s security still refuse, out of political caution and careerism, to do anything about it.

Now I am not going to come right out and call the General a Loyal Bushie, but there is certainly a case that could be made if one were to assert that position. I have heard some grumbling that Petraeus got the billet and the fourth star because “he can be counted on.” That he will do the presidents bidding and allow him to run out the clock while ~30 Americans in his command are sacrificed to that end every single week. That is 2100 more between now and the end of this presidents term. An affable Westmoreland is no less a craven prick than the original.

And this infuriates me. The oath Petraeus took as an officer of the United States Army was to the Constitution of this nation, not to a president, not to a political party, not to a king; not to any man. The Constitution. The Social Contract itself. He also has an obligation to the soldiers who serve in his command. Should he abdicate either for political reasons; that, in my eyes, is tantamount to treason.

It is time to demand an end to this folly, this failed presidency, this threat to the American experiment. The remedy is in the Constitution. It is impeachment. And it is necessary. Not just because I don’t like this guy and want to begrudge him power; but because I do not want any American president to ever have the powers that this one has claimed. The only way to undo the damage, and stop the war, is to impeach this bastard already.

Friday Catblogging: I've learned my lesson and will get this out of the way early from now on edition

Honestly, on the two occasions when Charlie actually did something, I took pictures and posted the evidence that he is not a plush-toy. He has, since settling in, decided that he can sleep any damned where he sees fit. And he does.

Yesterday morning, he decided Zoe's bed would do nicely.

And the shutter of the camera annoyed him visibly.

And Buddy Impeachment has an infuriating habit of taking over my chair every time I get up. He has larceny in his heart, I just know it. I can feel it. So I heed the advice of wise men like Mark Twain when I move this creature.



And finally - The reason I am catblogging instead of sleeping at 1:00 a.m.

Zoe Anne - Age Three. Skippy, don't you think

she is the cutest t-shirt model ever?

And...Suddenly camera shy.