The Ledbetter Veto

Via Elyzabethe.  Even the Supreme Court analysis of the case is very much disingenuous.  The so-called “typo” analysis is just an excuse to rule on behalf of the corporate defendant. 

The truth is that the legislative intent was so obvious that every other level of court read the statute properly and along the lines of what congress explicitly intended in their committee report. 

It’s the type of technicality that so-called “Rule of Law” Republicans and Federalists rail against whenever it works against their interests. 

The whole idea that Congress needs to pass a new law (and that Bush is threatening to veto it) just to correct what was obviously the intent of the law in the first place is absurd.  And it only seeks to accomplish what is in fact a major goal of the Bush brand of Republicans and his merry band of jurists: frustrating the electorate. 

If you get screwed over enough by the government, then maybe you agree with them that the government is just out to screw you over. 

Gonzales perjury, Part 2

Ask and you shall receive. 

I don’t think this really surprised anyone.  Now the Bush Administration is on record admitting that there were intelligence programs working alongside the Terrorist Surveillance Program authorized by one of Bush’s executive orders after 9/11. 

The NSA wiretap scandal disclosed by James Risen of the NY Times back in December of 2005 and acknowledged by the Bush administration as the Terrorist Surveillance Program was just one of many other intelligence programs. 

Which fits.  Bush claimed that the TSP only monitored communications where at least one of the targets was a known member of Al Qaeda. 

The evidence, however, pointed to activities which far exceeded this limited scope.  Data-mining, secret agreements with telephone/wireless companies for access to all of their records, federal agents who worked undercover to infiltrate organizations considered to be politically antithetical to Bush Administration policies. 

When I posted about this the other day, I thought it was interesting that in order to save Gonzales’ butt from perjury charges, the Bush Administration would have to disclose at least the existence of other programs. 

Can the apologists continue to pretend that we’re not at the edge of something irrevocably and undeniably unconstitutional here? 

Gonzales perjury?

Maybe not for at least one issue much discussed. 

When he said that the confrontation leading to the infamous hospital visit was not about the NSA wiretapping program disclosed by the President, he probably was not lying. 

It was about another program.  Or intelligence activities.  And the question again is what was so horrifyingly beyond the pale that if continued most of the top officials at the DOJ threatened to resign, including Ashcroft? 

We figure that out and I assure you Watergate will no longer be the standard by which all other presidential abuses are measured.  Whatever that program was it operated for over two years after 9/11. 

Conventional Conservative Wisdom isn’t that wise

Adrienne over at Girl From the South wrote this about the upcoming election. 

Obama, Hillary and Edwards are pushing for expanded funding for abortion? Are they insane? Democrats are going to vote for them no matter what. Why are they pushing such a controversial issue this early in the campaign? After the Democratic party won the 2006 election by masquerading as Republicans, are they going to out-liberalize each other now?

Earlier in the post, she also wrote this –

Want to motivate conservatives to vote on Election Day so that you get a Republican in the White House?

Not to pick on Adrienne in particular, but she’s got it exactly wrong.  I’ve noticed a number of misconceptions about what it takes to win elections, weaknesses and strengths of both Republicans and Democrats, and the electoral prospects of Republicans. 

First of all, it simply is not true that the conservatives just need to motivate their base and they get elected.  This was the cover story for the Rove strategy in 2002, 2004, and 2006.  It had two effects. 

One was that it allowed Bush and congressional candidates to “talk to the right,” without isolating independents.  The idea being that all the conservative talk was just a part of the “strategy” and Bush would govern more moderately. 

Two – it provided a plausible enough reason for the success of their candidates.  The so called GOTV operation of conservatives masked the voter suppression effort that was being conducted nationwide, especially in key districts.  What history will show, and is starting to show more clearly with the investigations into the U.S. Attorney firings, is that Rove organized and directed voter suppression operations which when run in conjunction with getting out the vote, was effective in providing the winning margin in close races. 

It is also not true that many winning Democrats in 2006 ran as Republicans.  In fact, many of the more conservative Dems (for example, Harold Ford) who ran on conservative values lost.  Adrienne has fallen for one of the post-election spins put forth by Republican strategists to mask what was a resounding defeat for Bush’s agenda and the war. 

And supporting abortion rights will not hurt Democratic candidates.  The pro-choice position is the majority position in this country. 

The one thing, in my opinion, that will turn voters off more than anything is pandering.  Most voters, conservative and progressive, want moral clarity from their candidates.  They don’t like candidates who split hairs or have cute middle of the road positions on everything.  A candidate who unequivocally supports abortion rights will not be harmed by losing support from independents.  But a candidate who appears to be nervous about the issue and talks out of both sides of her mouth will be. 

From 2000 – 2005, Rove did an excellent job providing cover to conservative candidates who spoke unequivocally about their values.  They also did an excellent job forcing Democrats to vacillate in moral ambiguity between what amounted to a lot of false choices (i.e., support Bush or support the terrorists). 

The difference in 2006 for the candidates that won was that they carved out their positions with clarity and from that perch offered a compelling criticism of the Bush agenda. 

And the real ironic thing, in my opinion, is that the moral clarity of many Republicans has proved to be quite hollow.  Has there been a party in recent history more compromised by politics, sexual mores, corruption, and factionalism? 

Zap! Pow! Al Qaeda on the Run!

This is total crap. 

One of the new memes being pushed by the Bush Administration to bolster their shaky performance in Iraq is this idea that the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan is operating in Iraq. 

And wouldn’t you know it?  One day after releasing an unclassified version of the NIE, which despite intense efforts at sanitizing and spinning could not hide the fact that Al Qaeda is no worse for wear after six years of the Global War on Terror, the Bush Administration announces capturing the “leader” of the Iraqi version of Al Qaeda. 

Their official story is full of information which conveniently enough echoes the contention that the real Al Qaeda has been giving orders and controlling/influencing the Iraqi Al Qaeda.  So we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here or in Afghanistan/Pakistan.  So pulling resources out of Afghanistan/Pakistan and into Iraq wasn’t stupid.  It was far-sighted. 

Puh-leeze. 

Here’s what the Bush administration still doesn’t get about Al Qaeda.  It’s decentralized.  You can’t cut off the head and expect it to wither away. 

The Bush administration has been guilty since the day they took office of seeing terrorism as a state-sponsored threat.  It is exactly why they didn’t take the threat of Al Qaeda seriously in the first place.  And they are still applying the top-down state model to any analysis involving them. 

They replaced the government in Afghanistan and expected Al Qaeda to go away.  They pressure the government in Pakistan to “crack down” on Al Qaeda on the Western border, as if the Pakistani government could simply stop it if they wanted to.  They keep talking about capturing the “No. 2” or the “No. 3” guy in the organization. 

This is basically a reflection of the analysis we’d use to construct war plans against the Soviets.  Everyone knew that the Soviets ran their organizations from the top down, with little or no room for improvisation on the ground.  That is why we employed a “cut off the head” strategy against them in our war planning. 

We are used to constructing our foreign policy and war planning against centralized governments.  Well, Al Qaeda developed a management style that placed a premium on improvisation and adjustments on the ground.  It was an absolute necessity when fighting against vastly superior resources of the Soviets in the ’80s and everyone else in the ’90s.*  Less organizational control meant more operational security and a better chance to survive even the biggest setbacks. 

So take the recent news with a hefty grain of salt.  The fact that they are spinning the story in this way, in my opinion, belies a total lack of competence and progress on the ground. 

* For simplicity’s sake, I’m conflating the Afghan fighters from the ’80s with Al Qaeda, even though as a distinct entity Al Qaeda did not exist until the early to mid-’90s.  Al Qaeda was heavily influenced by the success of the mujahideen and so the point I am making is still relevant, even if technically anachronistic. 

Staffers are “Stunned” that Bush drops by meeting on Iraq

Am I the only one who finds it remotely humorous that staffers were “stunned” that Bush stopped by a meeting on Iraq in the White House? 

Potential Supreme Court Nominees

I missed this last week but it’s definitely worth a read and hopefully will start an important discussion.  Tom Goldstein over at SCOTUSblog previews who a Democratic President might nominate to fill potentially vacant seats in the next term.  He also has a follow-up here. 

I think a lot of people during the 2004 elections overlooked the importance of filling the Supreme Court.  Until Katrina, the ideological bent of this Preznit was hidden in plain sight and his two S.C. appointments were perfect examples of this. 

The confirmation hearings were maddening in the sense that the media, Bush, many politicians, and the nominees themselves pretended that their appointment was about anything but making the Court radically more conservative. 

Hopefully, the dialogue about the next nominee is more informed, honest, and helpful. 

Getting Owned – Part III of Perlstein’s series

Rick Perlstein has part 3 up now of his “The Foreclosing of America” series. 

Here is where I wrote about the first two parts and provided links.  Rick’s writing brings into sharp focus the absolute irresponsibility of policy making under neo-conservative rule. 

Impeach!!!

Via Not Atrios –

Bill Moyers has John Nichols and Bill Fein on to talk impeachment.  It might seem weird to describe it as such but I thought the nearly forty minutes of this interview to be electrifying.  It should be required viewing by any high school social studies class as it gives a desperately needed perspective on the last 7 and a half years. 

For those who are not aware, Bill Fein was one of the guys who drafted the articles of impeachment… against Bill Clinton. 

Here’s a taste, but you really should just go watch the whole thing. 

BILL MOYERS: You just said in one sentence there “impeach Bush and Cheney.” You’re talking about taking that ax against the head of government, both of them.

JOHN NICHOLS: No. No, no, no.

BRUCE FEIN: It’s not an ax, Bill.

JOHN NICHOLS: We’re talking–

BRUCE FEIN: It’s not an ax– it’s not–Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.

JOHN NICHOLS: You are being–

BRUCE FEIN: –we cannot entrust the reins of power, unchecked power, with these people. They’re untrustworthy. They’re asserting theories of governments that are monarchical. We don’t want them to exercise it. We don’t want Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or anyone in the future to exercise that.

JOHN NICHOLS: Bill Moyers, you are making a mistake. You are making a mistake that too many people make.

BILL MOYERS: Yes.

JOHN NICHOLS: You are seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don’t mistake the medicine for the disease. When you have a constitutional crisis, the founders are very clear. They said there is a way to deal with this. We don’t have to have a war. We don’t have to raise an army and go to Washington. We have procedures in place where we can sanction a president appropriately, do what needs to be done up to the point of removing him from office and continue the republic. So we’re not talking here about taking an ax to government. Quite the opposite. We are talking about applying some necessary strong medicine that may cure not merely the crisis of the moment but, done right-

BRUCE FEIN: Moreover, it’s–

JOHN NICHOLS: –might actually cure–

BRUCE FEIN: It’s not an attack on Bush and Cheney in the sense of their personal– attacks. Listen, if you impeach them, they can live happily ever after into their-

JOHN NICHOLS: And go to San Clemente.

BRUCE FEIN: Yes, go to San Clemente or go back to the ranch or whatever. But it’s saying no, it’s the Constitution that’s more important than your aggrandizing of power. And not just for you because the precedent that would be set would bind every successor in the presidency as well, no matter Republican, Democrat, Independent, or otherwise.

“This is a Gary Trudeau cartoon live. We’re only missing the feather.”

Best quote from the hearings today in which Harriet Miers did not show up.  TPM has a great highlight video. 

Please, Congress, for the sake of the government, the principle of the separation of powers, your oversight responsibilities, and your own reflection in the mirror, hold Harriet Miers and the White House in contempt of Congress. 

The Potemkin Candidate

First we had the photo op president (see here and here).  Now it looks like we’re getting the photo op candidate in Rudy Giuliani. 

Now it’s no secret that Giuliani’s entire campaign is premised on his 9/11 performance when he became known as “America’s mayor” by breathless media pundits everywhere. 

Apparently, the substance of that leadership is being disputed by the International Association of Firefighters.  You can find more information here and here. 

So how will the media cover what basically amounts to a refutation of the entire reason Giuliani is considered a candidate?  As a horse race, of course!  Digby has more.  But here’s the heart of her point: 

But for some reason, the media has come to habitually weigh the prospective competence and leadership qualities of candidates on the basis of how well they thwart smears. This stands in for real questions of leadership and competence, even in the case of Giuliani, whose entire rationale for running rests on his leadership and competence on 9/11 — and which is being attacked specifically in this ad. There is no need to substitute his campaign’s response for the real thing.

Sudan

There’s a must-read article out today in the McClatchy newspapers.  It’s a well written compact assessment of a significant change in the dynamics of the Sudanese conflict.  Specifically, the fact that now some janjaweed gangs are supporting some rebels as part of a overall trend in which loyalties are changing, groups are being splintered into more and more factions, and aid workers are increasingly vulnerable. 

The account of the clashes around Songa village on June 9 and 10, given by African Union peacekeepers manning a small mountain outpost here in central Darfur, illustrates part of an increasingly upside-down security picture in Darfur. With some janjaweed now fighting alongside rebels they once tried to kill – and with the rebels riven by disputes and attacking peacekeepers and aid workers – this is hardly the same conflict of four years ago.

…

Now there’s a new set of problems: Few people know who’s attacking or why. Armed groups are breaking off and recombining according to the tactical advantage that day. Aid agencies and peacekeepers are at greater risk than ever.

I’ve followed this conflict off and on for a long time.  I’ve also got some friends who are in STAND, an extremely active student organization designed to raise awareness about the genocide in Sudan.  A couple years ago, in front of the White House, I attended a rally with Darfur survivors and had an opportunity to speak with a few.  What’s going on there is horrifying. 

Most people I know believe that the leadership of the United States can make a difference there and many have advocated for U.S. troops to intervene.  The U.N. is notoriously slow to act, especially when it comes to sending troops, and extremely risk adverse.  And there are significant challenges to any military action.  Without an extremely careful and well crafted plan with clearly obtainable objectives and defined benchmarks for success, it would be a classic mission creep scenario. 

The real key to success is in putting the full diplomatic and economic weight, with carrots and sticks, of the world and most especially the United States behind the effort to stabilize the region.  Any military forces could then be used mostly to provide security for refugee and humanitarian camps. 

Which is why this is so disheartening: 

Diplomats acknowledged that they stumbled after the peace accord, missing opportunities to win over other rebel groups. Experts said that U.S. engagement foundered when Zoellick left the State Department a few months later, briefly leaving the Bush administration without a point person for Darfur.

Clearly it is difficult to place the blame for a situation like this on any one thing.  There’s enough to go around.  But the one constant calming force, the one thing that should be a given, is the efficacy of American leadership.  Our credibility and commitment is a calming influence, or at least should be. 

Gut Feelings – Al Qaeda and the Meaning of Strength

By now everyone has heard of DHS Secretary Chertoff’s gut feeling that Al Qaeda was going to attack us this summer.  He was roundly and rightly ridiculed.  Apparently, our Preznit is the only one allowed to speak and fear from the gut. 

Now, in today’s Washington Post, there’s an article which says that Al Qaeda may be as strong if not stronger than it has been since 2001.  Notwithstanding the fact that, if true, this means that everything we’ve done, lost, sacrificed, bought, and tried since 9/11 has been wasted, I find the whole idea of measuring the level of Al Qaeda’s strength ridiculously difficult. 

First of all, it is in Al Qaeda’s interest to exaggerate its capability.  It relies on raising money and recruitment to survive and it can only do this if (a) it conducts effective operations and influences policy around the world and/or (b) everyone thinks it conducts effective operations and influences policy around the world. 

Second, it is in the Bush administration’s interest to exaggerate Al Qaeda’s capability.  A significant portion of the Republican/Bush political strategy is to convince people that the Al Qaeda barbarians are at the gate and this menacing specter can only be faced with Big Daddy Republicans in charge. 

So both Al Qaeda and the Bush administration are, in effect, promoting the same story.  Members of Al Qaeda are everywhere countering U.S. interests, attempting to foil and frustrate us at every turn.  They’re in Iraq, in Iran, in Syria, in Africa, in Europe, and even right here somewhere on your block, spying on your children, writing in their notebooks, patiently plodding, biding their time, and building a bomb. 

And they’re getting better and stronger and more lethal and sneakier.  And we just need to perservere, we just need to survive, and we just need to be trusted.  We’re in war, dammit! 

And every foiled “terrorist plot” is understood to reinforce that narrative. 

Except that most of these plots, when studied carefully and when the details are properly fleshed out beyond the scary “gut feelings” of what might have been, are amateur-ish and bungling.  Especially when compared to the awesome reputation of the super criminal infection that we hear about whenever Al Qaeda is described by our “serious” foreign policy makers. 

So what’s the truth?  How strong is Al Qaeda?  Are they planning something? 

All I can say is that, whatever the true strength, we’ve made Al Qaeda’s job a lot easier by our constant fear-mongering. 

Sex Ed – Bush style

NARAL pointed out that a government web-site designed to help parents teach their teens about sex says that “Abortions can have complications. There may be emotional consequences, as well: some women say that they feel sad and some use more alcohol or drugs than before.” 

It looks like the government has taken down the web-page but Think Progress has the visual. 

Atrios replies that Bush makes him sad and more likely to drink and use drugs.  “Can we outlaw him now?”

Re: Testimony

Check out constitutional law scholar Marty Lederman’s take here and here. My own personal take is that Congress has no other choice than to hold Taylor and Miers in contempt if they refuse to testify. Otherwise, they risk signalling to the President that they’re just going to keep rolling over whenever he makes any claim of executive privilege, no matter how tenuous.

Testimony

I predict that the questioning of Sara Taylor will lead us to very few important revelations, that the Bush White House’s view of “confidential communications” will very likely extend over any communications that would be helpful or incriminate anyone in his inner circle, and that Ms. Taylor will voice her support for the President. 

The President has already staked out his ground and dared Congress to move him.  The real question is will the Senate stake out their ground and push him to court. 

Bush on Health Care…

… in his speech today – “People have access to health care in this country.  After all, just go to an emergency room.” 

Tell that to Edith Isabel Rodriguez.  Oh, wait.  She’s dead. 

The Kool-Aid

Digby, as usual, puts her finger on something rather important.  The disgusting and overwhelming cost of this war is not only putting us in debt.  It’s affecting our spending priorities right now. 

Presumably, if this war was so damn important, then raising taxes wouldn’t seem so terrible.  The fact that the major supporters of this war are also, by and large, big opponents of any raise in taxes belies a serious mental issue, don’t you think?  If you think sustaining an extremely expensive war and keeping taxes low are compatible, what other crazy things make sense to you? 

Why even put a date on this headline?

“Bush stays course, rebuffs demand for change“

A microcosm of what’s wrong in Iraq

McClatchy Newspapers (probably the most consistently high-quality paper media there is right now) has an excellent article about the four Blackwater contractors who were killed in Fallujah back in 2004.  Or rather, it’s about the four contractors who didn’t get killed and the F.U.B.A.R. way missions are drawn up by the cowboys who get paid by the Pentagon to operate outside oversight. 

One of the team members who survived complained about their supervisor, Tom Powell. 

“Why did we all want to kill him?” team member Daniel Browne wrote the following day. “He had sent us on this (expletive) mission and over our protest. We weren’t sighted in, we had no maps, we had not enough sleep, we was taking 2 of our guys cutting off (our) field of fire. As we went over these things we new the other team had the same complaints. They too had their people cut.”

Doesn’t that sum up the whole war?  No plan, improperly equipped, overworked, rushed into the mission, and lacking the requisite number of people to help minimize risk. 

And how about this quote?

Shupe and the other team members were concerned that a vehicle with a driver and one passenger could not protect themselves against an attack from the rear.

Powell said that he was keeping two men from the squad in Baghdad.

Shupe argued back, according to his memo: “I stated very sarcastically, `you are going to split my team so you can have an admin guy and a phone watch…..my guys were fighting jet lag, we have not sighted our weapons in, we have no maps of the route, and no one is familiar with the route.'”

Powell responded: “The route is easy you just drive to Falluja, then through Fallujah to Al Ramiadia then to the boarder.”

“The route is easy.”  Isn’t that the same sort of hubris that led the President to say, “Mission accomplished” and “Bring it on?” 

The whole point of military planning (and many of these guys in Blackwell were former military) is reducing the risk and maximizing the potential benefit of every action.  Every officer and non-commissioned officer gets trained in it.  They learn to ask questions, go over check-lists, and weigh costs against the mission objectives. 

At no point during this war has the military method of planning been applied to the big picture.  Partly because none of the main policy makers ever served in the military.  And partly because the costs of the war don’t seem very costly to them.