How the obstructionists are screwing the whistleblowers

[UPDATE: I've changed my original title to this post—"How the bad guys are obstructing justice for whistleblowers"—because my point, about Congressional obstructionism that prevents justice in the broad sense, could be misread as implying illegality—obstruction of justice. The problem I'm getting at is that screwing whistleblowers is legal.]

You may have read the eye-popping new Associated Press report [1]: "One after the other," brave Americans who "have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired, and demoted. Or worse." If you haven't yet: read the whole thing [1]. It's one of the most important pieces of journalism this year.

Read my whole post, too. I have a story about this story. It's about a conservative plot to shred the public will. One in which Republicans are glad to make national security whistleblowers collateral damage, with the added bonus of protecting their corrupt cronies to boot. Stay with me: it's a bit of a roundabout tale. Too roundabout, apparently, for the media to report.

One of Campaign for America's Future's major projects this year has been to shout from the rooftops about a clear pattern the mainstream media stubbornly refuses to get: from their dank back rooms [2], Republicans plot to sabotage the new Democratic majority's overwhelmingly popular legislative agenda, in order to claim publicly the Democrats can't get anything done—"mugging the postman and then complaining that the mail isn't delivered on time." [3] Sometimes, they even slip up and admit it: "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail," minority whip Trent Lott [4] told Roll Call, "and so far it's working for us." And yet the pundits still refuse to get it; they just point out [5] how irritated the public is getting that the mail isn't being delivered on time!!

Well, let me try to beat the lesson into their GOP-propaganda-thickened skulls.

So far President Bush has either vetoed or pledged to veto 26 bills. The single biggest category is the dozen appropriations bills that have to pass if the government is to continue operating: when a Democratic draft differs by a mere jot or tittle from the White House's, George Bush, the most profligate spender in presidential history, claims that the Democrats are out-of-control spenders, and promises a veto. He's done that on ten of the twelve appropriations packages so far. This may well be preparation for a nuclear option [6]: forcing a government shutdown, blaming the resulting carnage on the Democrats for refusing to "reach across the aisle."

The other threatened bills fit into one or both of the following categories:

(1) they hold Bush and his conservatives accountable for what they've done to the country (H.R. 1255 [7], for example, would reverse the Bush executive order letting his hide his papers from future historians).

(2) They are overwhelmingly commonsensical and popular. H.R. 1401 [8], for instance, takes steps to protect trains and buses from terrorist attacks like the one that killed 191 commuters in 2004. H.R. 4 [9] would finally let Medicare negotiate for lower drug prices. H.R. 1252 and H.R. 2264 are innovative strategies for keeping down energy costs [10]; H.R. 2269 [11] is the biggest single increase in college aid since the G.I. bill; H.R. 2831 [12] would moot the Supreme Court's insane and unsound decision blocking women from suing for pay discrimination; H.R. 3221 and H.R. 2276 both fight for a renewable energy future [13]. And then there is, as my colleague Bill Scher is heroically documenting [14], the White House's bizarre crusade against children's health care legislation.

Like I said: overwhelmingly popular stuff [15]. But that's why Bush is vetoing them: because the public wants them. By making it look like the Democrats baited the nation with a dazzling new direction, then switched and gave us nothing, he can force the Democratic congress's approval ratings lower, giving them nothing to run on in 2008.

Sick enough. But it gets worse. I left out one threatened veto from the above. It's for a bill so supremely commonsensical, so supremely right, so supremely unobjectionable, and so desperately needed to upend the most disgusting conservative abuses of power [16] imaginable, that the President's threat to veto it may even sicker—sorry, Bill!--than his S-CHIP obstructionism.

It is the H.R. 985 [17]: the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.

You might have heard the story, heretofore too obscure—the AP article [1] blessedly leads with it—about Navy vet Donald Vance, the employee of the Iraqi-owned security contractor who reported to the FBI that his boss was running "a Wal-Mart for guns," then mysteriously found himself incarcerated in an American military prison for 97 days, subjected to our nation's notorious "enhanced interrogation techniques." He's suing in federal court. Under current runaway conservative court rulings, however, which limit the scope of disclosures protected under current law, and set a ridiculously high "irrefutable proof" standard for whistleblowers, they might have a tough time of it.

Unless H.R. 985, which moots those court decisions, passes.

It also protects them by closing a loophole in existing whistleblower laws by extending protection to employees of federal contractors. Although federal employees don't have an easy time of it either. You might remember the case of Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse, the civilian contracting officer in the Army Corps of Engineers who was demoted—and, the AP article [1] devastatingly narrates—ostracized for testifying before Congress about Halliburton fraud. Julie McBride, "morale, welfare, and recreation coordinator" at Camp Fallujah saw Halliburton doubling and tripling the actual number of soldiers who used their facilities to pad out their bills. She raised her voice. "Halliburton placed me under guard and kept me in seclusion. My property was searched, and I was specifically told that I was not allowed to speak to any member of the U.S. military. I remained under guard until I was flown out of the country."

This is why one senior advisor to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition quoted in the article tells people they should keep their council. People ask him: "Should I do this?" He tells them not to. "If they're married, they'll lose their family. They will lose their jobs. they will lose everything."

Not, however, if the Democrats' H.R. 985 is signed by the President.

Lo and behold, he has promised [18] (PDF) to veto it. Exposing his cronies to the light of justice, the White House says, "could compromise national security, is unconstitutional, and is overly burdensome and unnecessary."

A trifecta!

That, anyway, is their public claim. You can imagine the discussions that go on in Rovemort's underground lair [2]: Kill it. Will make Cheney look bad. And Democrats look good....

Sick freaks.

That's what the conservative obstruction strategy means. The Associated Press, as good as their report on the whistleblower crisis is, neglected the most important part of the story: progressives have advanced legislation to end it. And conservatives have conspired to keep the corrupt status quo in place.

Don't like it? Sign our petition [19] for presentation to the obstructionists. Most of all: spread the word. Got a blog? Tell the story. Got friends and relatives and coworkers? Explain to them how the conservative minority does business: mugging the postman and then complaining that the mail isn't delivered on time.