Survivors have reported that water filled their mouth, throat and lungs. The pressure, according to one survivor, was so great that he thought his eardrums would burst.  While being subjected to this treatment, people pass out. Repeatedly. They are revived only to have to endure the treatment again. They don’t just come to believe they are going to drown. They do begin to drown.

In fact, the sense of drowning is so strong that an excellent case could be made that water boarding is a kind of particularly cruel mock-execution in which the victim not only suffers the psychological fear of death, but experiences much of the physical pain as well.

For a man who wishes to be the chief law enforcement officer of this nation to refuse to state without equivocation that such treatment is torture is unacceptable. For the Justice Department to be lead by someone whose sense of justice is so perverted by political considerations that he cannot testify under oath that water boarding is a violation not only of international and federal law, but also of basic human decency is obscene.

Please. Right now. Call your Senators and tell them to refuse to confirm Mukasey.

Now, I appreciate that with our nation fighting two wars (oops! Did you forget about Afghanistan?) and the economy in serious trouble, US Senators don’t have much to do. Especially since they seem to mostly be rolling over and playing dead as the administration shreds the Constitution. However, do they really think they need to be ad critics?

72 US Senators thought the issue of the day was MoveOn’s ad.

Well, at least we have our priorities.

Military leaders don’t like to lose. If you show them an enemy, they will seek to use the tools they have to defeat that enemy. It’s what they do. They will invade. They will project force. They will use guns and bombs. They will endorse a surge. They will argue for more time. No military leader wants to say, “we can’t win.”

And yet, the situation in Iraq isn’t one that our military can win. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying they aren’t the best in the world. In so far as I know, they are. I’m not saying the troops aren’t willing. They seem to be throwing themselves in harm’s way with a heroism that is truly heartrending.

What I am saying is that the problem in Iraq isn’t a military problem. We’re using the wrong tool to try to solve the puzzle and all that is happening as a result is a lot of death.

The issue in Iraq is that Saddam, however cruel a despot he might have been, held together disparate forces that now have turned against one another. And don’t think this is all about religion either. There is plenty of political and/or “resource” based violence going on. The military, no matter how many we send over there, cannot force unreasonable people to come to a reasonable and peaceful compromise that will allow them to live together.

Especially not when they seem to be enjoying the fight.

So, Gen. Petraeus has a problem. He’s faced with having to use our Armed Forces to try to effect a win on a battlefield that is, largely, irrelevant to victory.

On top of that, Gen. Petraeus has been betrayed by his Commander in Chief who has elected to hide behind his military leaders rather than deal himself with the political consequences of an unjustified and unpopular war. A good commander knows that you can’t lead while using your troops as human shields. But Bush is doing exactly that. And, it appears, that to add insult to injury, he is also scripting what his human shield will say.

All of this means that the Republican mantra of “wait until September to see if the surge is working” will soon be “wait until the end of Bush’s term to see if the surge ‘continues’ to improve the situation.”

And then, of course, the whole problem (and the ensuing mess) will be dropped into Bush’s successor’s lap.

Mr. President, have you at long last no shame?

Frankly, I doubt he’s that clever. But in the end, the question of his technical truthfulness is a matter of concern only in any eventual criminal proceeding. When it comes to the matter of impeachment, I think we can safely say that having a civil officer of the United States give so much thought and effort to misleading Congress should at least be considered a grave breech of his oath of office. After all, he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and by attempting to circumvent the oversight role of Congress in such a venal fashion he has surely failed in that most basic duty.

This administration has shown nothing but contempt for any action of Congress that doesn’t exactly conform to the demands of Bush & Co. Perhaps they believe that in this post-9/11 world, we can’t afford to be a democracy anymore. Unfortunately for them, the founders didn’t provide for a means for the Constitution to be suspended. Nor did the founders provide for the conversion of a presidency into a dictatorship – even in a national emergency.

Please, contact your federal Representative and tell him or her that Congress must act to preserve its institutional integrity. We cannot have a justice department lead by a man who believes that it is acceptable to either lie or mislead when under oath. We cannot have a chief law enforcement officer who so publicly flouts the law. We cannot continue to have Alberto Gonzales. Impeachment is the right solution for what has become a national embarrassment.

To find out who your federal representative is and to e-mail her or him, visit Project Vote Smart.

The other night I attended the meeting of the Bay State chapter of the Stonewall (read: GBLT) Democrats. It was held in a “social club” (not gay) in an industrial park somewhere near the Massachusetts headquarters of the Democratic party. When I arrived, Mr. Adistius and I found the front door of the club locked. Another man was obviously looking for the same meeting and rang the bell (which we had overlooked). We waited.

The door remained locked. Politics, I was to learn, requires persistence.

The more adventurous gentleman found a sliding door and opened it only to discover another locked door. That, Mr. Adistius and I comforted ourselves, is what you get for trying to be clever. Just when we had decided that the Stonewall in Stonewall Democrats referred to stonewalling, some nice woman yelled at us from a side entrance and lead us through the back of the club into a small bar where the meeting was taking place.

I hasten to add that the only beverage on offer was water. This was a endorsement meeting and entirely, depressingly sober. And, I must say, for a meeting of the GBLT community very understated in the snack offerings. No one, as far as I could tell, touched the three or four bowls of cookies and pretzels that sat next to the lone pitcher of water. Politics, in addition to being hard work, is oddly unrewarding.

The room was underground and there was no apparent ventilation. I mention this because the room smelled strongly of cigarette smoke. Slowly, as the meeting wore on, my eyes began to turn red and sting. Mr. Adistius, who only kicked the habit 6 months ago, probably felt like he had started smoking again.

We were meeting to hear from candidates running to replace the excellent Rep. Meehan, who is becoming a UMASS Chancellor (and good luck to him). Two candidates (Barry Finegold and Jamie Eldridge) joined us and a third (Niki Tsongas) sent a representative to speak for her. Everyone assured us that they supported GBLT rights, including equal marriage. Everyone tried to establish their record as a friend of the gay community. Everyone claimed the progressive label. Progressive must be fashionable again.

What impressed me, however, was that Jamie Eldridge said he supports conducting impeachment hearings into the misconduct of the President and Vice-President as it relates to the wiretapping scandal and the misinformation campaign leading up to the Iraq war. He emphasized the seriousness of impeachment, but said that he thought enough evidence had been uncovered to hold hearings. Now, that’s what I wanted to hear.

Sure, I support GBLT rights. I like that Mr. Adistius and I are legally and lawfully wed. I like living in a state that recognizes our relationship. But, more than that, I am a fan of the Constitution. And I really do believe that this President and his administration represent a serious threat to our form of democracy.

So, after much voting, the Stonewall Democrats made their endorsements. (I had to raise my hand at least seven times. I’m telling you: politics is hard work). But more importantly, I made mine.

Yes, I know Nikki is in the lead in the “we know her and we loved Paul” race. But I’ve always believed that electing the widow of popular pol because of her association with him was a dicey game. And besides, Niki wasn’t there to tell me she would hold impeachment hearings, too. And I believe in voting for the candidate who matches your values and beliefs. You’ll not find me talking (too much) about “electability.” That’s how we get into these horrible Tweedledee versus Tweedlenutjob elections. I want a candidate that is proudly pro-labor. I want someone who is loudly in favor of health care reform. I want someone who will actually work to advance the values of the Democratic party. I want someone who won’t say that impeachment is off the table.

And so, in the Democratic Primary for the Fifth Massachusetts Congressional District, I endorse Jamie Eldridge.

It’s my first endorsement for the blog. In my first post. Damn. That felt good.

As soon as my lungs recover from the atmosphere, I’ll return to the Stonewall Democrats as they consider endorsements for the special election to replace the (irreplaceable and handsome) Jarret Barrios, who is retiring to work for Blue Cross Blue Shield. (Really, Jarret, come back to public service. You made politics more fun to watch. And your battle against the fluffanutter was Presidential material. Did I mention that you are handsome? Smart, too.)