I’m curious. If this is true:

Defying the White House, Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday the House will change its rules to avoid a required vote this year on a hotly disputed free-trade agreement with Colombia.

Why then is it so hard to say, change some rules and make war funding votes not happen? I’m sure there’s a “reason.”

From Congressional Daily (subscription only, no link, sorry)

To break an impasse over legislation overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, House Democratic leaders are considering the option of taking up a Senate-passed FISA bill in stages, congressional sources said today. Under the plan, the House would vote separately on the first title of the bill, which authorizes surveillance activities, and then on the bill’s second title, which grants retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration’s warrantless electronic surveillance activities. The two would be recombined, assuming passage of both titles. In this way, Democratic leaders believe they can give an out to lawmakers opposed to the retroactive immunity provision. Republican leadership sources said their caucus would back such a plan because not only would it give Democratic leaders the out they need, it would provide a political win for the GOP. It remains to be seen if such a move will placate liberal Democrats who adamantly oppose giving in to the Bush administration on the immunity issue.  Read more 

Yet another Matt. And because you’ll want to know while you’re reading it, CoR members. Yeah, it’s more complicated than you think. Or not. Depending on how you view which of them are “on your side.” A sample:

Why it “just wasn’t going to happen” is the controversy. In and around the halls of Congress, the notion that the Democrats made a sincere effort to end the war meets with, at best, derisive laughter. Though few congressional aides would think of saying so on the record, in private many dismiss their party’s lame anti-war effort as an absurd dog-and-pony show, a calculated attempt to score political points without ever being serious about bringing the troops home.

“Yeah, the amount of expletives that flew in our office alone was unbelievable,” says an aide to one staunchly anti-war House member. “It was all about the public show. Reid and Pelosi would say they were taking this tough stand against Bush, but if you actually looked at what they were sending to a vote, it was like Swiss cheese. Full of holes.”  Read more 

“If the House had nothing better to do, this futile partisan act would be a waste of time,” said Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman. “The ’people’s House’ should reflect the priorities of the American people, not the fantasies of left-wing bloggers.”“

Thanks for caring, honey.

Oh, Congress held some administration officials in contempt. Good on them, I hope it’s backed up with some jail time.

But if it had been your kid you’d probably be a little on the side of the polemic, I’m betting. For those people, and all the children who are exploited for political gain when they suffer, but never really helped by those who use them, this is for you:

Florida law enforcement officials have been denied access to the office computers of disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley, despite a direct appeal to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for help in their investigation of sexually explicit messages sent to current and former teenage congressional pages.

In response to a letter sent to Pelosi last month by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, House Deputy General Counsel Kerry Kircher denied the agency’s request, citing the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, which protects congressional papers.

“We have received (the House’s) response, and our investigative team is reviewing it,” FDLE spokesperson Heather Smith told ABC News. She said despite the House refusal to provide access to Foley’s computers, the FDLE is still investigating the former Republican who now sells real estate in Palm Beach, Fla.

Foley resigned Sept. 29, 2006, hours after ABC News questioned him about sexually explicit messages with former congressional pages, some of whom were under the age of 18 at the time of the exchanges.

and isn’t that weird, abc won’t seem to let me copy and paste from that page, hmmm  Read more 

Amazing play, indeed.  Read more 

So it doesn’t look like the newly empowered Dems and their rabid vanguard in the netroots are going to be able to end the war this week. Rather than fume, stew, or drink myself silly, I thought I’d see if I could direct some energy towards a worthy project that serves all our liberal purposes. The Punch Clock Project sounds like a great idea, and I think we should bring it back to the conversation.

Sadly, Rep. Gillibrand is one of only two elected officials to participate in this program, and even she doesn’t quite get it right. The idea is a simple one, stunningly simple when you think about it: our officials should use that wonderous technology known as the “Intertubes,” and tell us what they do with their working day. Here’s what the Punch Clock folks are asking for:  Read more 

Ruh-roh, Shaggy. Looks like the IG has received that phone call. I can smell the OSP ballsweat stench from here:

A long awaited Pentagon Inspector General’s report into the Office of Special Plans and its activities surrounding pre-war intelligence in the lead up to the Iraq war has been completed, RAW STORY has learned.

According to sources close to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the classified version of the Pentagon IG’s report will be released to committee members Friday. Two to three declassified pages may also be concurrently released to the public.

A Senate aide on the committee, while not commenting on particular questions regarding the IG’s report, confirmed that a major focal point involves former Deputy Undersecretary for Defense Policy, Douglas Feith – a keystone of the Administration’s intelligence on Iraq and Director of the notoriously secretive Pentagon Office of Special Plans from September 2002 to June 2003.  Read more 

You, good progressive. Or rather, you will be, if you don’t start paying more attention to women in politics. The time for sitting quietly at the back of the bus in the name of unity is past, and I’m going to start harping on this a lot more. Just take a gander at this report, from which I offer a small sample:

 Read more 

I’m just a dumb blogger, and like me, thousands have spilled ink upon a subject in which their expertise is limited. Still, it feels good to have these guys saying what we’ve been saying here at Corrente for years. I’m having some issues pasting sections, so just go read it. The bottom line: Congress can end this war, by setting limits on the number of troops, the area of authorized conflict, and by controlling the purse strings. There is plenty of precedent, and the SCOTUS has said so not only to other Presidents, but to Bush himself three times now. Thus, an end to the war, beyond all the bullshit, is simply a matter of will on the part of the majority. It’s not just me saying this, but professors of law from Yale, Georgetown, Chicago, Harvard, Indiana, Fordham…will anyone in Congress take these voices more seriously than the unelected and uneducated bobbleheads in the media?  Read more 

No, really. Hahahaha. I do love Louise. Way to show ’em what ’having a pair’ really means. This is an argument for why we need more ovaries in office.  Read more 

WaPo via Steve:

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.  Read more 

So a popular topic in the ether now that we’ve got a Democratic congress: should Bush be impeached? I’m going to a discussion on Sunday led by various progressive groups (Code Pink, AfterDowningStreet, etc) on the topic, and I wonder what strategy people will end up advocating. Your thoughts?

To me, it seems like there are several options, and a lot depends on Bush’s behavior for the next two years. On the surface, it makes little sense to make the first priority of Congress impeaching Bush; despite the satisfaction we’d feel, too many Americans aren’t as informed/angry as they need to be to make it stick. But…and it’s a big but, isn’t it?

-Signing statements. How should Pelosi and Reid act when Bush decides that some law they pass doesn’t apply to him? To me, this is a top Constitutional question that must be answered. Elections don’t matter if the Executive is unitary.  Read more 

I am so tired of not being able to understand “what is important” from a news “report.” Or rather, I hate feeling like there is so much more going on in a story, and the reporters and editors who bring me information just can’t be bothered to find out what that is. Tell me what I am to understand from this very mixed blurb:

By NATASHA T. METZLER
WASHINGTON (AP) - American support for the fledgling Iraqi government is not unconditional, and Iraq should expect changes in the U.S. role, incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Saturday.

“In the days ahead, the Iraqis must make the tough decisions and accept responsibility for their future,” Hoyer, D-Md., said during the weekly Democratic radio address. “And the Iraqis must know: Our commitment, while great, is not unending.”  Read more 

Sirota has two good pieces up about the foolishness of clinging to terms like "Democrat" and "Republican" and of worrying about "bipartisanship" and "centrist mandates." They're very good, and I want to be among the first voices joining his, as progressives understand the opportunities and challenges of this incoming Congress and what can be done there.  Read more