Archive for the 'George W. Bush' Category

Kossacks dpg and BTD note an interview yesterday with Ed Schultz with Senator Obama. While Obama and Schultz cover a lot of ground, it's the Iraq portion of the interview that is of particular interest.

Unfortunately, Obama punted on Iraq by playing a card that I've seen floated more and more frequently lately, the "we're being held hostage by a madman card." The problem, this talking point goes, is that even if Congress does act to get our troops out, Bush will probably just keep them there anyway.

Here's Obama's formulation of that ultimately defeatest point:

I have concerns about cutting off funding . . . Jim Webb has some concerns, both of us have been consistent critics of the war. I think there is a possibility, given how obstinate the Administration is, that if we try to cut off funding, Bush is hellbent on doing what he is doing . . . he may decide to play chicken and say "you guys do whatever you want [I'm keeping the troops there]" . . . .

So anything Congress might do will just be ignored by Bush anyway, so why bother to act? That's quite the governing philosophy for a Senator to live by. The basic truth is that Congress does indeed have the power to defund this war, a power recognized by both Bush and Cheney:

WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . .

GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . .

WSJ: You do?

GWB: Oh yeah, they can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional authority of Congress....

WSJ: Can they put caps on total deployments in Iraq?

GWB: They can . . . through the purse. In others, I don't know if they're going to. And I don't want to predict. But they have the right to try to use the power of the purse to determine policy.

"Congress, obviously, has to support the effort through the power of the purse, so they have got a role to play and we certainly recognize that," Cheney said. "But also, you cannot run a war by committee.... You cannot simply stick your finger up in the wind and say, 'Gee, public opinion's against, we better quit' " Cheney agreed. That would "validate the al-Qaeda view of the world," he added.

There is definitely an "I dare you to" posture behind those messages. But Congress, last time I read the Constitution, is in a position to take up that dare. Meaning that in this game of chicken, Congress is in the same position of power as the president. That's what holding the purse strings is all about.

And that's what being a coequal branch of government really boils down to. As the branch of government that speaks for the people, those people with the title of "Representative" are precisely the ones who should have their fingers in the wind. When they test those winds, they will find that the American people want a way out of Iraq. They will also find that more of the public supports defunding the war than those who oppose it. It's a slim majority in this poll (by Fox!), 45% to 44%, but its a number that is likely to keep increasing as this war continues to drag on.

There are few good options at this point for Iraq. The damage this administration has done to that country, to Afghanistan, to the entire region is incalculable. As is the damage done domestically. Can there be any other answer, domestically, than to bring an end it? That's not going to happen with a Congress that persists in the belief that it is not as powerful as the President.

By now, you've all likely seen this Washington Post headline:

Shortages Threaten Guard's Capability
88 Percent of Units Rated 'Not Ready'

And it probably comes as no surprise to you. After all, it's practically become the secret Conventional Wisdom (if such a thing can possibly exist): George W. Bush is destroying America's Armed Forces.

And sure, we all knew this:

"We can't sustain the [National Guard and reserves] on the course we're on," said Arnold L. Punaro, chairman of the 13-member Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, established by Congress in 2005.

And this:

"The Department of Defense is not adequately equipping the National Guard for its domestic missions," the commission's report found. It faulted the Pentagon for a lack of budgeting for "civil support" in domestic emergencies, criticizing the "flawed assumption" that as long as the military is prepared to fight a major war, it is ready to respond to a disaster or emergency at home.

And this:

In the Washington area, Guard officials worry about a catastrophic attack. In the event of "a very large . . . chemical, biological or nuclear incident in the national capital region, I would need every truck I was authorized, and we don't have that," said Col. Robert Simpson, director of the joint staff for the Virginia National Guard. "We are definitely short trucks, all wheeled vehicles," as well as radios, bulldozers and other gear, Simpson said. The state Guard could handle ordinary contingencies such as "bad winter weather," he said.

But you only know that because you're a bunch of liberal moonbats, and you read "newspapers."

Well, traitor smarty-pants, did you know this?

Some employers, already pinched by mobilizations of workers who are in the National Guard or reserves, are saying privately they’ll be reluctant to hire new employee-reservists.

Discriminating against someone because of their military obligations is illegal, but 51 percent of employers who responded to an informal, online poll by Workforce Management magazine said they would not hire an employee who is a citizen-soldier "if they knew that a military reservist or National Guard member could be called up and taken away from their job for an indeterminate amount of time," as the question was posed.

Yes, that's right. The hard workin', job providin', beer-with-the-preznit wantin' backbone of 'merika -- not you, dummies, your bosses -- are at the point where they'd rather break the law (and hate on the troops, too) than put their money where their mouths are, and support Th' Decider.

Oh, they'll still tell you they do (though in ever-dwindling numbers). But they've got their fingers crossed behind their backs with one hand, and have a death grip on their wallets with the other hand.

Carry on your war, Mr. President. Just do it with someone else's workers.

David Broder is considered the "dean" of the DC punditry because ... well, who knows. I mean, this is the guy who says things like this:

It may seem perverse to suggest that, at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback. But don't be astonished if that is the case.

And that wasn't in some reality-addled wingnut publication, but in the supposedly credible Washington Post.

So let's see Bush's numbers in the two subsequent weeks. (From Polling Report unless otherwise hyperlinked.)

Yeah, that's 29 percent in the latest CBS/NYT poll. But lucky for Broder, that ABC News poll is clear sign of Bush's "political comeback". Color me "astonished"!

Or maybe not. But lucky for Broder, we've given him roughly two Friedman units -- until the end of 2007 -- to see whether his prediction does any better than his Iraq War cheerleading. Given his recent record, I won't be holding my breath.

Maybe Broder can claim victory when Bush bounces all the way back to 36 percent in the NYT/CBS poll.

• Right wing efforts to destroy Nancy Pelosi are failing miserably.

  [I]deological liberals HAVE thrown their lot with Pelosi as an individual, giving her a 68-19 approve/disapprove rating among the group.

  And moderate voters who tilted away from Bush, the Iraq war and congressional Republicans last fall -- who've yet to fully embrace the new Congress as a whole -- are in some cases are voicing a more than 2-to-1 approval of Madame Speaker.

  Ideological moderates approve of her job performance 55-26, while self-identified independents support her work 45-34 so far.

  In fact, Pelosi is far more popular amongst moderates and independents than the overall Congress -- a lesson to Blue Dogs who think they alone represent "the center". They do not.

• Reps. Boucher (D-VA) and Doolittle (R-Corruptionville) are introducing legislation to reform the DCMA. It's clear copyright owners have been able to trash Fair Use rights, and the balance must be restored.
• Dear Brian Lamb, claiming that C-SPAN holds copyright on footage of congressional committee meetings is undemocratic.
• North Korea has nuclear weapons today because of George Bush. This may not be a foreign policy disaster on the scale of Iraq, but it's a disastrous one nonetheless.

  Because of a weapons program that may not even have existed (and no one ever thought was far advanced) the White House the White House got the North Koreans to restart their plutonium program and then sat by while they produced a half dozen or a dozen real nuclear weapons -- not the Doug Feith/John Bolton kind, but the real thing.

  Idiots.

• Now Michigan is trying to move up its primary schedule. They should just give up and have a national primary. And yeah, that'll cost a lot of money. But if a candidate can't raise money, he or she has no business running for president anyway.
• Funny how the same people who get the vapors over the Clenis, don't seem to have a problem with Giuliani's multiple marriages, marriage to a second-cousin, rampant womanizing, and general mistreatment of his ex-wives.

  When Giuliani met Hanover on a blind date in the early 1980s, his first marriage to Regina, his second cousin, was already over. Hanover, who went on to appear in the television series Ally McBeal, was a glamorous soulmate who seemed to enjoy the spotlight as much as he did.

  They had two children, Andrew, 21, and Caroline, 17, but in 1996 Hanover stopped calling herself by his last name and a year later Vanity Fair magazine said that he was having an "intimate relationship" with a senior member of his staff.

  In 2000, without telling Hanover first, Giuliani announced at a press conference that he was separating from her. She retaliated by accusing him of being unfaithful with the employee, but he was already with Nathan [...]

  Yet however vicious the personal attacks on Giuliani, they are unlikely to dent his reputation for competence. He did, after all, handle the September 11 attacks while bunking with gay friends in the midst of an affair and a divorce battle.

  Digby wonders what happened to the culture war?

  The Christian Right supporting Rudy Giuliani proves that the culture war is nothing but a GOP scam and we can stop obsessively worrying about offending these people with our godless, fancy-pants, big-city ways.

• Did you hear the latest slam against Hillary? She gives money to charity! Only an independent counsel can get to the bottom of this nefarious plot!
• (mcjoan) Arthur Schlesinger, historian, Kennedy White House staffer, and unabashed liberal, has died at age 89.

  In his last book, "War and the American Presidency," published in 2004, Mr. Schlesinger challenged the foundations of the foreign policy of President Bush, calling the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath "a ghastly mess." He said the president’s curbs on civil liberties would have the same result as similar actions throughout American history.

  "We hate ourselves in the morning," he wrote.

Hey remember how the war on terror is, like, the worst war this country has ever faced? Remember how WWII and the Nazi threat (and its millions of murders) pales in comparison to the scary scariness of a bunch of A-rabs cradling AK-47s and RPG-7s in caves?

Remember?

Well, apparently it's not that scary after all. At least compared to those even scarier union workers.

The U.S. Senate began debating legislation to bolster America's security on Wednesday with the White House threatening a veto because one part would extend union protection to 45,000 airport workers [...]

The overall bill would implement many of the stalled recommendations of the bipartisan commission created after the September 11 attacks.

The measure refines other recommendations and imposes new ones, such as the labor provision, and would let state and local governments share information with federal authorities, build better communication systems and provide grants to help high-risk areas prepare for disasters.

But White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said if the labor provision remains in the legislation, "the president's senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill."

Thirty-six Republican senators sent a letter to Bush on Tuesday saying they would provide the needed votes to sustain a veto in the 100-member Senate.

Got that? Terrorism is the GREATEST THREAT EVER to face this country. But apparently, implementing measures that would make our nation safer from terrorists will get vetoed and upheld by at least 36 Senate Republicans simply because 45,000 airport workers would be unionized.

They are putting the nation's safety in peril over the GOP's ideological jihad against unions.

Not that this would be the first time that ideology trumps our nation's security.

When Condoleezza Rice told America on Sunday that the president would defy legislation restricting his options in continuing the war in Iraq, she may have sparked more questions than answers.

You may have asked yourself, "What business is it of the Secretary of State to issue a statement like that?" And that'd be a good question. You wouldn't be the first to wonder whether grafting the former National Security Adviser onto the Department of State had left us without a functioning diplomatic capacity.

Maybe you asked yourself on what grounds the president would feel entitled to defy an Act of Congress. We discussed that the other day.

Or maybe you asked yourself, "How does Rice know for sure that the president is going to do that?" The answer to that one is, because he's already done it.

From all indications, the plan proposed by Rep. Jack Murtha, the chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, would include (among other things) restrictions on the use of DoD funds for the deployment of troops who haven't been afforded adequate time for resetting and retraining at home. Conservative Democrats, led by the so-called Blue Dogs, are reportedly nervous about Murtha's plan, and may be floating a less-confrontational approach that merely requires the president to affirmatively certify when he orders such a deployment.

But in the face of Rice's declaration, does either plan really stand a chance?

Not by themselves, if Bush's record can inform the matter.

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The Act authorizes funding to defend the United States and its interests abroad and provides much- needed flexibility to manage effectively the personnel and taxpayer resources devoted to the national defense.

Section 541(a) of the Act amends section 991 of title 10 of the United States Code to purport to place limits on the number of days on which a member of the Armed Forces may be deployed, unless the Secretary of Defense or a senior civilian or military officer to whom the Secretary has delegated authority under section 541(a) approves the continued deployment. Section 1023 purports to place restrictions on use of the U.S. Armed Forces in certain operations. The executive branch shall construe the restrictions on deployment and use of the Armed Forces in sections 541(a) and 1023 as advisory in nature, so that the provisions are consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and to supervise the unitary executive branch.

What you are looking at is George W. Bush's signing statement nullifying language in a duly-passed and signed Act of Congress, that appeared to require something considerably less embarrassing to the "administration" than what conservative House Democrats demand as an alternative to Murtha's outright prohibitions. As you can see, The Decider considers it to be within his "inherent powers" to ignore even this minimal inconvenience when he violates the readiness standards of our Armed Forces.

In other words, we've actually been down this road before -- and with almost-unanimous Republican support (minus Ron Paul) -- but to no avail.

Do the Blue Dogs, whose criticism of the Murtha plan is being led by Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah and Jim Cooper of Tennessee, really think they're onto something here? Given that Bush ignored even this kid glove treatment, do we really think the Blue Dogs think they're gonna put one past the president by "forcing" him to approve the deployments personally? Neither plan stands a chance at being accepted by the "administration," but at least Murtha's had the virtue of actually trying to do something about the president's continued violation of military readiness policy, even if some would consider it much less than necessary. For the president to defy Murtha's funding prohibitions sets up a direct constitutional conflict. For the president to defy the Blue Dog plan saves him some paperwork.

But maybe that's just what the Blue Dogs want. Because the president's rejection of the Murtha plan puts them right where they're most afraid to be: actually confronting the president on Iraq.

The House Democratic Caucus meets tonight to see if the Members can hash out a strategy that they can pursue with sufficient unity. The question the media will be covering, no doubt, is which plan, if any, emerges from that meeting with the leadership's blessing. The real story -- that all plans (even those approved by Republicans, like that in the 2004 bill) will suffer the same fate at the hands of a president who believes himself above constraint by Congress and the courts alike -- will likely get no coverage at all.