Archive for the 'George W. Bush' Category

Just so you know:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war today and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

Many of you likely know this already from having watched the Sunday shows. And many of you knew it even without hearing it again today.

Of course, Democrats pushed back to some extent, too:

But Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers would step up efforts to force Bush to change course. "The president needs a check and a balance," said Levin, D-Mich.

I agree. He needs a check and balance. And while I applaud Levin's efforts, I do so only because I know they kick the can further down the road we all know we're bound to travel here. Senator Levin says the president needs a check and balance, but I don't think he's hearing Secretary Rice. The president will defy your legislation.

The president will defy your legislation.

Now, that doesn't mean this isn't something Levin and his colleagues aren't going to want to see for themselves. But time's a-wastin'. Let's get this show on the road, already. We know what's going to happen, and we know what your choices are going to be at the end of the road: roll over, or impeach.

How do we know? Well, Rice says so. On what basis? Well, to the extent that she needs a basis for a statement like that, she's probably pointing to the fact that this "administration" believes Congress is literally powerless to stop the war.

Levin and his colleagues propose to repeal the 2002 AUMF, replacing it with a resolution that would restrict the use of American forces in Iraq and eventually force a withdrawal. On what grounds does the president plan to defy this? Well, he's got a multilayered strategy available to him. For one thing, he could opt to fall back on the 2001 AUMF -- the one originally passed to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan -- by claiming (as he's already done on numerous occasions) that Iraq is part of the greater war on terror, and that since al Qaeda is (now) operating in Iraq, the 2001 AUMF authorizes our continued presence there.

But couldn't we then amend the 2001 AUMF? Sure, assuming you could get the votes for it. But dig this: Bush doesn't think he needs the 2001 AUMF either. John Yoo tells us why:

In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution [the AUMF], Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents.

Recognized. Not granted.

Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.

If this strikes you as familiar, it may be because I've shown it to you before.

And the same conclusion holds now as held then:

Yoo's theories having reduced Congress to a cipher, from the White House point of view, it hardly makes a difference how they opt to wait out the last two years of Bush's term.

If they'd like to spend it methodically demonstrating Yoo's point for the American public, that option is open to them, and the path runs through Congressional "oversight," subpoenas, repeal of the AUMF and all the other goodies that have been dangled before us as "alternatives" to impeachment.

Again, I applaud the effort to the extent that it hastens the inevitable, but I told you a month ago (and, for the record, several times before that) what Bush's response to this -- and everything else in the Democratic arsenal -- was going to be, and it'll be another month before Levin even puts himself in a position to get that answer.

Yes, I know impeachment is "off the table." But we'll cross paths with it soon enough, since Bush keeps pulling our chairs out from under us.

Last weekend, Hillary told me that I should look elsewhere for a candidate to vote for.

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

That was nice of her, and I promptly took her up on her generous offer. But, alas, it doesn't end there. The war in Iraq is of such import, that it's important we continue to swat aside efforts from pro-war Democrats to pretend that unsavory episode never happened.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have been split for some time about whether she would be better off if she apologized for the vote. Mark Penn, her chief strategist, who was also Mr. Clinton’s pollster, carries considerable influence within the campaign, and he agrees with her that she should keep the “mistake” onus on Mr. Bush and turn her attention to finding “the right end” to the war, as she says.

Foreign policy advisers say they have made similar arguments: look to the future, not the past, and stand by a vote that was based on military intelligence that was widely accepted at the time.

The "mistake" onus is obviously on Bush, but also on everyone that helped make it happen. And Hillary's vote (along with every other Democrat who went along to look "tough") didn't just enable Bush, but it also fueled efforts to marginalize and mock those of us fighting Bush's war. If even the liberal Hillary Clinton supported Bush's war, then those of us opposing it had to be real wackos way outside the mainstream!

We might not be talking about finding the "right end" to the war if she hadn't helped make it a reality in the first place.

Over the next year many of us will try to determine who can best lead us in this time of great strife. And part of being a good leader is 1) exhibiting good judgment on issues of great import, and 2) being able to acknowledge mistakes and adjust accordingly to minimize the damage.

And on this, Hillary has come up far short. While 23 Senators and lots more House Reps saw through the administration's smokescreen and refused to authorize Bush's war (and anyone who voted for Bush's authorization knew damn well it was a carte blanche for him to invade, no matter how many promises he gave about the UN yadda yadda yadda), Hillary was one of those who did.

Now many who voted for the war authorization, most Democrats and even some Republicans (including Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones) have acknowledged the mistake. But Hillary refuses to do so.

So we have a top-tier Democratic candidate for the presidency who showed abysmal judgment on the biggest issue to face our nation in decades, and then has refused to acknowledged her role in helping to make it happen.

That's straight from the "George Bush" style of leadership. And if there's one thing this country had learned, it's that we can't afford another one of those.

I've known for a long time that it's a waste of effort to read George Will, but every once in a while you like to remind yourself just how shameless even a fellow with Important Looking Glasses can be.

George Will knows well, and relishes, the role he plays in America's newspapers. And so it is, I am sure, with no shortage of delight that he uses the leverage he has as America's breakfast table pundit to announce The Bad News: After four years of George W. Bush getting everything he wants in Iraq, the Democrats are to blame for the failure of his plans.

Why? Because they've come to the realization that this incompetent boob of a president is never going to succeed, and the price of his continued grasping is the blood of American troops -- to say nothing (as Republicans do) of the lives of Iraqis we're "liberating" from the oppression of having a pulse. And it is the unfortunate curse of Congressional Democrats that they take that rather seriously.

Will kicks his column off with the charge that many in Congress, on both sides of the aisles, are engaging in "indiscriminate criticism" of the president -- Republicans of the Bush "administration's" nuclear deal with Pyongyang, and Democrats (and some Republicans who of late have come to take their jobs seriously) of Bush's having presided over the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history.

Frankly, that criticism doesn't sound all that indiscriminate to me, but then again, I'm not wearing a tie right now, so what do I know?

Will's treatment of the Pyongyang deal is a throwaway. Conservatives in Congress are disturbed essentially because they've bought the "administration's" rhetoric on North Korean to this point -- that is, that it's been a "serial liar" on this subject and ought not to be trusted. True or not, it's just another example of Bushista rhetoric making it impossible to actually pursue diplomatic solutions that are politically acceptable domestically. Having invested so much in framing the North Koreans as being both untrustworthy and led by a certifiable maniac (focus, people -- we're still talking about North Korea here), conservatives find it difficult to let go of that paradigm and accept a new one. Gosh, who would've believed that of conservatives? Well, besides the people over at Webster's, that is.

After Will's Asian jaunt, he gets to the meat (mostly gristle, really) of his accusations: Democrats are to blame for George Bush's spectacular failure of vision, leadership and just plain competence in Iraq, because they've peered down into the hole and suggested he stop digging. But here's how He of the Scholarly Spectacles puts it:

Regarding Iraq, the Democratic-controlled Congress could do what Democrats say a Democratic president would do: withdraw U.S. forces. A president could simply order that; Congress could defund military operations in Iraq. Congressional Democrats are, however, afraid to do that because they lack the courage of their (professed) conviction that Iraq would be made tranquil by withdrawal of U.S. forces.

As frequently as Will presumes to speak for Democrats, he's never gotten any better at it. And this column holds out no promise of improvement. Are Democrats "afraid" to defund military operations in Iraq? I'd have to let him have that one. They're certainly being incredibly cautious about it. But it's when we come to the why part -- you know, the analysis Will is presumably paid to provide -- that things begin to fall apart. To the extent that it's fair to say Democrats fear this undertaking, it's largely because they assume, quite rightly, that Republicans will demagogue the issue incessantly, and will characterize it as endangering the troops no matter how the funding withdrawal is structured, and how much explicit direction is given to maintaining their safety as they withdraw. In other words, it is not from a lack of courage of their convictions, but from an empirical certainty that their Republican colleagues will react entirely without convictions and opt instead to lie, pretending that the free flag that you get with your coffin amounts to supporting the troops. Will even flubs (intentionally) his guess at what Democratic convictions are. Democrats don't want to withdraw from Iraq because they think it will make that country tranquil. They want to withdraw because George W. Bush is using that theater to destroy the greatest military force in the world, and Democrats, like most Americans, would prefer he not do that.

Will goes on to complain that the funding restrictions proposed by Jack Murtha would "hamstring" the president (in much the same way taking away the allowance of a delinquent child "hamstrings" his ability to buy spray paint, I suppose), grousing as most Republicans do that requiring troops deployed to Iraq be fully rested, trained and armored is "disgusting" or "a plan for surrender." He then turns to the refusal of Senate Democrats to capitulate to GOP demands that they be permitted a vote on a resolution opposing such restrictions, and belittles it as "tiptoeing" toward... well, exactly what he began this section of his column by saying Democrats lacked the will to do.

He finally takes a turn toward the serious, though, in explaining the likely outcome of all this "tiptoeing":

Suppose Democrats write their restrictions on the use of forces into legislation that funds the war. And suppose the president signs the legislation but ignores the restrictions, calling them unconstitutional usurpations of his powers as commander in chief. What could Democrats do? Cross First Street NE and ask the Supreme Court to compel the president to acquiesce in congressional micromanagement of a war? The court probably would refuse to get involved on the grounds that this is a "political question."

Bang! Constitutional crisis. A conundrum with no easy exit. Either Congress caves and permits the war to continue to spiral out of control and destroy America's armed forces in this "cakewalk" gone awry, or it turns to the only remedy available to them in such a showdown: impeachment.

So, would you proceed with caution? Would you "tiptoe?" Not America's Bold Breakfast Table Pundit! He's for jumping in with both feet!

Yeah, right.

Will kindly ends his column by proving my earlier point: that Republicans will demagogue the issue to death. Which I suppose is appropriate, considering that they're already demagoguing the troops to death, in the most literal sense. Ending the war, he says, means Congress will "legislate decisive failure of the Iraq operation."

The failure of the Iraq operation, George, was written in the history books over the past four years and 3,000+ American deaths. Four years of blank checks from a Rubber Stamp Republican Congress Politburo, and four years of a virtual merry-go-round of Pentagon brass kept whirling as Commander Cuckoobananas fired anyone who wouldn't tell him that brazen carbombings of American bases, the now-weekly downing of billion dollar helicopters, and resort of the insurgency (in it's Last Throes^TM, mind you!) to the detonation of makeshift "dirty bombs" fueled with poison chlorine gas represents "progress."

The failure of the Iraq operation, Will would have us believe, becomes a legislative failure if Mommy and Daddy Congress are finally forced to ground Junior over four solid years of failing grades.

Did you think they were gone for good?

The answer's "not just no, but HELL NO!"

Check today's edition of The Hill:

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), is calling elements of a Peru free-trade agreement (FTA) signed by the Bush administration a threat to national security. The chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee has warned Democratic leaders on trade that the deal grants a United Arab Emirates company the ability to invest in U.S. ports.

Murtha has asked Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to demand that the administration alter the free-trade deal it negotiated with Peru to prevent enterprises there from investing in U.S. landside port activities.

If the administration fails to make such changes, Murtha and Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) charge that a "trade pact-granted right" to invest in U.S. ports would be handed to Dubai Ports World (DPW).

How would this happen?

Murtha and Taylor argue that the issue is particularly sensitive with the pending Peru FTA because Dubai Ports World has acquired a 30-year concession to develop and operate a new container terminal just outside of Lima. The move makes DPW an enterprise in Peru that under the FTA would be able to make investments in the U.S., according to the congressmen.

The "administration," though, argues that the "essential security" provision in this and other trade deals allows the U.S. to unilaterally prevent such things, if deemed necessary to, well, its "essential security."

But:

Murtha and Taylor, however, argue the provision is insufficient since Peru could in turn sue the U.S. under the deal’s dispute-settlement system. A successful challenge could cost the U.S. millions in taxpayer dollars, the two congressmen say.

Big Time Republican donors exposed as terrorism suspects (even as the GOP keeps their money), and now caught trying to shoehorn DPW back into the U.S.

Wonder of wonders, it's another bad week for the GOP and the "administration." And we haven't even hit the Friday news dump yet.

Did you miss this nugget in yesterday's Midday Open Thread?

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari pled not guilty in a Manhattan federal court last Friday, denying charges that he's a terrorist financier. But that's a matter in some dispute, and not just by the prosecutors. According to The Blotter at ABC News.com, the indictment charges that he arranged for $152,000 worth of bank transfers to fund a terror training camp. But if that doesn't convince you he's a funding terrorists, maybe this will: Alishtari also gave 10% of that total to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Ten percent? Now that's what I call a tithing program! Those Republicans really have the faith-based fundraising thing down pat!

And true to form, the GOoPers aren't letting the money go easily. In fact, the NRCC hasn't yet been able to sputter out a line on what it intends to do with those funds. My guess? Same as they're doing with the rest of their funds: fighting the rest of America on the escalation, and trying to kill as many troops as they can before Murtha gets them armored up and trained.

But there's more to the story than just one embarrassing donation. It's a symptom of a thoroughgoing Republican sociopathy.

Responsibility (note to Republican readers: duck!) for this woeful, but likely inevitable tale has to be laid as much at the feet of Tom DeLay as at George Bush's. Tom's still dragging down the rotted out corpse of the Republican Party he and George smothered with their greed, even as The Hammer himself languishes somewhere beyond the political grave.

How so? Let's begin with a cite to TPMmuckraker:

Josh, looking into Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari (aka Michael Mixon), the New York businessman indicted last week for terrorist financing and bilking investors of millions of dollars, notes that Alishtari, in addition to doling out thousands to the National Republican Congressional Committee, also claims in an online CV to be a member of the "White House Business Advisory Committee" and at having been a "National Republican Congressional Committee [New York State] Businessman of the Year" in 2002 and 2003.

Looking into the situation, Paul Kiel of the Muckraker finds pretty much what I did when I looked into these NRCC trinkets back in April of 2005. As Kiel puts it:

As ABC's new ace investigative reporter Justin Rood reports today in his story on Alishtari, "the NRCC 'Businessperson of the Year' fundraising campaign, which gave such 'awards' to at least 1,900 GOP donors, has been derided as a telemarketing scam by political watchdogs."

He goes on to note that "the calls frequently featured a recording of ex-Majority Leader's Tom DeLay (R-TX)," and that the program traces its roots back to at least 1998.

A more in-depth look at this and similar programs (including the "Physician of the Year" award), like the 2005 story from ABC's old ace investigative reporter Brian Ross, reveals that DeLay's involvement went well beyond providing the voice track:

The Republicans, under the direction of DeLay, came up with the idea for the awards five years ago as a means of helping to raise funds for the congressional campaign efforts for their party.

And now we see the natural consequences of the Bizarro World created when the sick visions of Tom "I am the federal government" DeLay and George "Money trumps peace" Bush are thrown together: Republicans happily gripping and grinning at fundraisers, raking with sweaty palms at huge wads of cash, even as they claim that the money and the donors are inextricably linked to the terrorism they delight in accusing others of being "soft" on.

Who knows where Alishtari might have landed himself next, waving all that oh-so-irresistible Republican cash around? Bush can thank his lucky stars that there was a federal prosecutor on his toes up in New York, or he might have had Al Qaeda bunking in the Lincoln Bedroom before too long.

Whew!

Sound crazy? Well, not too long ago, Dubya had this nutbar in the White House with him:

Which nutbar is that? The one on the right. That's Ayham Sameraei, and he's there in his former capacity as Iraq's electricity minister. But today, he's traded that in for the glamorous life of an international fugitive:

A Sunni Arab who claimed ties to the insurgency, Sameraei was arrested in August of this year and charged with a dozen counts of misallocating millions of dollars in Iraqi government money. He was sentenced in October to two years' imprisonment. At that time, security contractors took him to the U.S. Embassy before he could be jailed, but U.S. officials handed him over to Iraqi authorities.

A U.S. Embassy spokesman confirmed Monday that Sameraei was no longer in prison. He said U.S. officials scrambled into the evening to locate him.

An Arab financial criminal with ties to the insurgency terra! In the White House? Heavens to Betsy!

But there's no way that could ever happen... again. Right?

Right?

Wonder how long before Abu Gonzales fires that prosecutor?

By all rights, this should be a mortal wound to the Strong Daddy Security Party. The Party of the 1% Doctrine.

But there are no "rights" -- and certainly precious little justice -- in the country run by these "deciders" and bullshit artists. Scaring the daylights out of people with constant threats of "terra! terra!" and fueling xenophobia for political profit, even while they secretly feast on what they themselves say is Arab, terrorist-connected money.

They're spying on Quakers and tapping your phones, but can't figure this one out until it's "too late" and the checks are cashed?

Republican USA: You've been played for suckers. Again.

Today George W. Bush attended ceremonies at Mount Vernon to honor the 275th birthday of George Washington, a.k.a., the Father of our Country.  Said Bush:

You know, George Washington was born about 80 miles down the river from Mount Vernon in the year 1732. As a young man, he went West, and explored the frontier, and it changed his life. As he grew older, he became convinced that America had a great westward destiny as a nation of free people, independent of the empires of Europe. George Washington became the central figure in our nation's struggle for independence. At age 43, he took command of the Continental Army. At age 51, he was a triumphant hero of the war. And at age 57, he was the obvious and only choice to be the first President of the United States.

Now let's imagine George Washington's response.

You know, George Bush was born about 300 miles north of here in the year 1946. As a young man, he was an average student, became a cheerleader and developed a taste for alcohol.  As he grew older, he became convinced that he didn't want to go to Vietnam, avoided serving both there and in the Texas Air National Guard and discovered cocaine.  At age 32, he ran for Congress and lost.  At age 40, he failed in the oil business.  At age 43, he bought a baseball team and traded away Sammy Sosa.  At age 48, he became the Governor of Texas.  At age, 54 the Supreme Court named him President of the United States.  And now 60 years old, having waged two losing war efforts that has cost America its moral standing in the world, hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, he is the obvious and only choice to be the worst President of the United States.

My nod to President's Day.