President's Response to Terror Attempt

Excellent post at Kos about the President's response to an effort to blow up a plane. However, this is about Bush's response, or lack thereof, to Richard Reed's attempt to explode a shoe bomb in 2001.
The long and the short of it is that like Obama, Bush did not make any major announcement, did not become immediately involved in the case. Like Obama he monitored the events, but essentially left law enforcement and the courts handle it. The two men responded in much the same way.
Now to be clear, I think Obama's response to this terrorist attempt was correct, and I have no problem with Bush's. Both are handling it (or handled it) in a similar manner and both responses are, I believe, correct. The point here is to the radical difference in the reaction to this approach coming from conservatives. Though Bush and Obama reacted in the same way, somehow to conservatives Bush was admirable and Obama is being a failure. And before anyone claims equal measure of hypocrisy by both Democrats and Republicans, no elected Democrats or officials of the Democratic party offered criticisms of Bush for his handling of this manner. None called him to task for doing to little or failing to be concerned.

Commander-in-Chief

George Bush is vigorously advancing an argument for essentially unlimited Presidential power. The basis for this assertion of power is the President's role as commander-in-chief. He is arguing, as conservatives have been arguing for some time now, that the position of commander-in-chief implies a position that must have authority that is free from any check or review from any source. That this complete independence is inherent to the position of commander-in-chief. In my opinion that is a nonsensical and unsupported interpretation of the meaning of the position of commander-in-chief, as I have argued elsewhere here and here. The appropriate role for the Congress and the commander-in-chief is that Congress will determine that the nation is at war and set the objectives of that war and what resources will be available to achieve those goals. The commander-in-chief is to determine exactly how to use those resources to achieve those goals.

It terns out that I am not alone in seeing the roles as such. This letter was sent by a number of Constitutional scholars to the leaders of Congress back in January, outlining this argument in a more detailed scholarly manner. (Thanks to Balkaninzation for the reference). To quote from the letter's final paragraph

The Constitution's drafters understood the immense national sacrifice that war entails. Moreover, they understood that during time of war presidential power tends to expand. For these reasons, the Constitution assigns Congress the power to initiate war and to fund and define the parameters of military operations.As James Madison wrote, "the constitution supposes what the History of all Gov[ernments] demonstrates, that the Ex[exutive] is the branch of power most interested in war, & the most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl[ative branch]."

The vastly expanded powers claimed by George Bush for the President of the United States have no basis either in good sense nor in our constitution.

Bush's Legacy

List of articles on Bush's "accomplishments".

State of the Bush Presidency

McClatchy has a good piece on the state of the Bush Presidency. It is basically right in claiming that Bush will be able to get little, if anything done, for the rest of his term. He might well be able to stave off major losses, but he will not be able to push through any new measures. The tax cuts will expire and NCLB will have a major overhaul or be abandoned. Little will be left of his main legislative efforts. It is still a big question, however, whether or not he will be able to stonewall investigations into his various power grabs. There are occasional grumblings of Republican disaffection (Sen. Lugar being the latest) but Atrios is consistently right. None of these folks (Lugar, Voinavich, anyone) are actually willing to do anything. So maybe the dam will burst over the next year, but history gives us little reason to believe that it will.

One thing in the article was both amusing and frustrating. The conventional wisdom, at least as represented by the likes of David Broder, has it that the Democrats have killed the immigration bill, in spite of the fact that Democrats largely supported the President's bill and Republicans opposed it. Right in keeping with this analysis we have McClatchy saying

In the Senate, 37 Republicans — including both senators from Bush's home state of Texas — joined 15 Democrats and one independent in blocking the immigration plan.

So the 15 Democrats and on independent blocked the bill, with a little help from the greater than twice than number of Republicans who joined them? I don't think so. Rather, 37 Republicans moved to block the bill and succeeded with the aid of some 15 Democrats and one independent. Note that the 37 Republicans needed only three more votes to block the bill.

Testing Bush

So Kagro X over at Kos has a lengthy post up about the running story of Dick Cheney (and now amazingly George Bush) are exempt from Bush's executive order defining how classified information is to be handled. The major points are noted in the post. For one thing, while Bush and Cheney are now claiming that the order doesn't apply to them, that is no where indicated in the actual order. In fact the order makes specific mention of the role of the President and Vice President at numerous places. To claim now that they have nothing to do with it, is absurd.

But I think the order, and the current response of our chief executives, says a great deal about their competence. One overriding feature of the Bush/Cheney administration is the refusal, under any circumstances, to allow a set of standards to be defined ahead of time, standards by which they might be judged a success or a failure. They are incompetent. Should any standard be defined ahead of time, they would invariably fail to meet it. Their only chance of being viewed by anyone as a success is if the standards of success can be defined after the fact.

We see that again in the current dispute. Even when they have a standard set by themselves, they have to exempt themselves from it. If they were to be held to adhere to any standard, they would demonstrably fail.

Bush Cuts Funding for Troops in Field

Today George Bush, the President of the United States, cut funding for our troops in the field in Iraq. The people of the United States, through their representatives in Congress, had previously authorized further funding to support those troops in the field, provide them with equipment supplies and support, and to aid their safe return to their homes. Out of his petulant insistence in having his own way in all things, George Bush vetoed that funding and put the safety and security of those brave men and women at risk. This is a sad day for our country.

Mission Accomplished

Fourth year anniversery of the great "Mission Accomplished" moment. And to mark the occasion April was the deadliest month in 2007. In fact, for coalition forces it was the fourth deadliest month of the entire war, including the initial hostilities in March of 2003. Indeed the casualty rate has not been this high since January of 2005. Quite an accomplishment Mr. Bush

Suffering over Iraq

From AmericaBlog Joe Subday has this observation

Listen, you Americans, Laura Bush wants you to know the President is suffering over Iraq. In fact, Laura told Anne Curry on the Today Show, that the American people need to know that "no one suffers more than their President and I do." No one? She's as delusional as her husband. Of course, her husband is the person who caused the suffering -- and is the one person who can end it.

I would wager that there are 3,300 families in America that are suffering more than George Bush. And, there are tens of thousands of injured soldiers who are literally suffering.

But Joe just doesn't get it. In the Bush world this country is divided into two classes, a servile class and a privileged class (see here, here, here, here and here). The Bushes, the media, political, social and economic elites are of course part of the privileged class. All those soldiers and soldiers families are part of the servile class so they don't count. Now you can understand. Among the people who actually matter, the privileged class, George and Laura Bush no doubt suffer as much or more than anyone. Once you understand that, it all makes perfect sense and Laura is being fine.

Indeed, once you understand the servile/privileged distinction, much of what has happened over the past six years makes perfect sense. The only question is, do we want that kind of a society. I say, No!

Fantastic

Wow, all I can say is wow.

Well, ok I can say more. This from over at TPM is an advanced copy of remarks that Rahm Emanuel will make tomorrow at the Brookings Institute. Rahm has certainly picked up the steam that we progressives have been longing to see in our Democratic leaders. Go over to Josh's site and read it all, but a few quotes here

His[Rahm's] aides are billing the speech as a broad and far-reaching indictment of the GOP and the Bush administration that seeks to find a common thread in all the GOP scandals from the Attorney Purge to the Katrina failure to the mendacity that brought us the Iraq war.

That common thread: On every conceivable policy front, the administration and the GOP have placed party before country, and government has become politicized to its core. Rather than casting the administration's manifold failings as simply the result of incompetence, Emanuel will argue that they're really driven by nothing more than all-pervasive partisanship -- the imperative of putting party before country, always, without fail.

"There is a common denominator," Emanuel will say. "Instead of promoting solutions to our nation’s broad challenges, the Bush Administration used all the levers of power to promote their party and its narrow interests...Nothing was free from political influence."

This captures a point I've tried to make before. These are not, and should not be treated as, a bunch of individual issues. There is a common theme throughout these issues, which incidentally Rahm has captured very well. I was frustrated in the run up to the 2006 election with talk implying that we had to pick one issue to make the center of the campaign. All the progressive issues are tied together and we can, and should, always make a point of linking them and showing the links. Read the whole thing and look for a full transcript tomorrow. It will be well worth noting.

More Like This

Here is Senator Harry Reid's response to the latest from our Vice President. This is the way that the Democratic leadership needs to talk. This is the kind of thing that the Progressive community has been wanting, has been calling for, for the past six years. To quote in full

Vice President Cheney should be the last person to lecture anyone on how leaders should make decisions.

Leaders should make decisions based on facts and reality, two words that seem to be foreign to the Vice President

This is the same guy who said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that we would be greeted as liberators. And it's the same guy who continues to assert that Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda long after our own intelligence agency conclusively refuted this notion. To suggest he lacks credibility would be an understatement.

The Vice President's and others' attacks on those who disagree with their failed policies are signs of desperation. They are lashing out because they know the days are numbered for their failed strategy and that the American people and a bipartisan majority are determined to force this Administration to change course in Iraq.

This is all exactly correct. The Administration, the Vice President in particular, has no credibility when it comes to making decisions regarding national security or foreign policy (or much else really). The policies of this Administration have indeed failed and people should feel free to state this clearly and emphatically. And finally the current lashing out by the Administration is a clear sign of their desperation. The Democratic leadership, the Democratic party and the Progressive movement need now to hold firm and oppose the policies of Dick Cheney and George Bush and eventually a changed policy in Iraq will be produced. A policy in accordance with the desires and interests of the American people.

Gonzales

Gonzales increased Bush's confidence. Kind of says it all.

I've been saying

that Bush cannot let Alberto go. It seems others are agreeing with this take.

White House Reaction to Alberto Gonzales

This is too rich. White House insiders think AG hurt himself with the Senate yesterday, but no one knows what Bush will do. The money quote though is

No one is looking for a replacement yet, sources said, and the White House is waiting to see how this plays out with the public and members of Congress over the next couple of days.

Remember when this was the White House that, unlike that bad Mr. Clinton, didn't follow the polls. No they just "see how this plays out with the public and members of Congress" which is an entirely different thing, just couldn't be moor different. And then they need to watch public opinion to determine how Alberto Gonzales's testimony went over. A more pitiful trainwreck, outside of a six year old caught with his hand in the cookie jar, has not been seen in decades, and they need to watch public opinion to figure out how it went. Sigh.

Bush's fingerprints

Read the reporting by Josh Marshall on the news coming out of Arizona. It would seem that there is growing evidence that the Attorney purge, at least Iglesias' firing was ordered by George Bush himself.

Secrecy and Torture

Scott Horton is an Attorney in NY and author of the blog No Comment. Read what he has to say about Torture, Secrecy and the Bush Administration.

Extending troop deployments

So on Tuesday President Bush addressed the American Legion and, among other things, took the opportunity to lay into Congress over the war funding supplemental

The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country.

This is what Bush was saying on Tuesday. Now set aside for a moment the absurdity of him claiming that because Congress has passed a bill that will require him to bring troops home sooner than he wants, he will veto the bill, forcing the troops to stay there longer, and this will be the fault of Congress. Let's for a moment believe that there is some plausible reason behind his basic claim. On Tuesday he is claiming that if Congress presents him with a bill with a time line, then because of the time line he will be forced to extend troop deployments. Ok.

On Wednesday the Pentagon, you know the Pentagon ultimately answerable to and run by George Bush, announces that troop deployments will be extended by three months. This is you know, well before the bill from Congress is presented to him. So, this increase in the troop deployment time is not being caused by the form of the bill presented by Congress, because you know there is not yet a bill being presented by Congress. This in spite of the fact that 24-hours earlier the President was saying that Congress was, maybe, going to force the increase in the troop deployment time.

Something is a little fishy. It gets worse.

It turns out that the announcement on Wednesday was forced because someone leaked the increase in the troop deployments to the press.

In terms of why we're announcing it simultaneously with the unit commanders, I'll be very blunt. Some very thoughtless person in this building made the unilateral decision yesterday to deny the army the opportunity to notify unit commanders who could then talk to their troops 48 hours before we made a public announcement. And, I can't tell you how angry it makes many of us that one individual would create potentially so much hardship not only for our servicemen and women but their families, by letting them read about something like this in the newspapers.

So it would seem that the Pentagon was expecting to increase the length of the troop deployments, and would need to increase those deployments whatever form the funding bill from Congress took.

Mind you from President Bush accusing Congress of forcing this to happen depending upon the form that the funding bill takes, until Gates is announcing the new policy, takes approximately 24-hours. But that is only because "some thoughtless person in this building" leaked the information. Could it be that the White House plan was to sit on this information until the bill came from Congress then make the announcement and blame Congress, even though they were planning this change all along? I wonder.

Mind you it gets even worse. The "good" explanation, the one that the White House wants you to believe is that George Bush doesn't know what's going on.

Dana Perino explained the timing by claiming that President Bush had been in the dark about the troop deployments until the morning it was announced:

Q So why did he tell the American Legion that people would be staying in Iraq longer because of the Democrats, when his own Pentagon, 24 hours later, was going to keep people there longer?

MS. PERINO: Well, one, I don’t know if the President knew about the — the meeting — remember, yesterday morning is when Secretary Gates came and talked to the President. […]

Q And so the President didn’t know about his own policy until Wednesday?

MS. PERINO: I’m not aware that the President knew that there was going to be — that Secretary Gates had come to any decisions.

So, the best explanation, is that George Bush was so concerned about the possibility that the form of the funding bill might force troop deployments to be extended, but was unaware that his existing policies were doing exactly that anyway. Now that he knows that his current plan is going to force these extensions, which on Wednesday were a real concern, does it matter any more? Apparently not. And this is the "good" explanation.

Twelve Critical Days

With regard to the Iraq War funding bill there are upcoming 11 or 12 critical days, a window where we can have an opportunity, perhaps, to force Bush's hand and prevent the bill from being vetoed, or at least make the veto as costly and difficult as possible. To understand my idea here, first look at the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

So my first point is that from the time the bill is delivered to Bush's desk, there are 11 or 12 days (depending on the day of the week when it arrives, how many Sundays get skipped before the ten days are up) for him to veto the bill, or it becomes law "in like manner as if he had signed it" providing we can keep the House and Senate in session for that time. I assume that keeping the Congress in session will not be a problem.

My next point is that we need to create media events and political pressure of all types to convey the messages that

1. if President Bush vetoes the bill, then he is defunding the troops in Iraq.
2. Please President Bush, do not defund the troops in Iraq.

By media events and political pressure I'm talking about

• letter writing campaigns to the press, to Congress and to the White House
• Speeches and rallies by Senators, Congressmen and women, Presidential Candidates
• Marches and rallies by citizens
• Whatever else we can think of
  

If we can do that we can make it as difficult as possible for him to veto the bill, certainly on the same day that such an event is going on.

My final point is that if we can keep this up for twelve days he will either have to veto the bill on the same day that these things are in the news, or it will become law.

Lee Iacocca

Lee Iacocca, sometime you love him, sometimes you hate him. This is one of those love him times. I could not have said it better myself. From The Carpetbagger (read it all there and follow the links, but here's a taste)

Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, “Stay the course.”

Stay the course? You’ve got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I’ll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

Bush Weakening II

This is another great post by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. He discusses the White House brouhaha over Nancy Pelosi going to Syria. I think he nails the issue (not surprisingly I should think this as it goes along with my previous post). Bush is weakening and Nancy Pelosi going to Syria and doing the sorts of things that a US President and/or Secretary of State should be doing, point up the inability of this White House to do its job. George Bush no longer has the credibility or stature to perform on the international stage the way the President of the United States ought to be able to. What is more striking about this dust up though is that George Bush seems far less concerned over his inability to do the job, than he is over the fact that Nancy Pelosi doing it points up his failure. George Bush doesn't much care if he fails, or if his failures hurt the United States or the people of the United States. George Bush is only angered if his failures get publicly displayed so that he looks bad.

This ties in to the desire in this administration for such unparalleled and absolute power to seize and arrest people without oversight. Such power granted to government officials is not used to provide the citizenry with better security. It is invariably used so that the government officials can continue to do a mediocre or louse job of providing security but not fear having their failures become publicly known. That is what George Bush wants these powers for.

Sub 30

Poll: Bush Approval Rating At New Low, On Eve Of State Of Union, President's Approval Rating Falls To 28%, A New Low - CBS News
Look, for reality based folks, and for our forces in Iraq, Bush's approval has been a slow tortuous decline. Unfortunately, that is the way these things go. People just do not immediately give up on something they have invested in. But as we are seeing now, his approval will only decline. Likewise, as I've written earlier, it will take some time for opposition in the House and Senate to grow until Bush can be made irrelevant. It will happen, and it will happen this year, I believe. Probably before the summer is out. Also note here how the congressional dynamic is changing already. Sen. John Warner is going to introduce a resolution in opposition to escalation. Warner is a very influential Senator on the Republican side. His loss to the opposition will seriously change the willingness of other Republicans to support the President. Recall that for anything to be done, we will eventually need some 16 or 17 Republican Senators to support the opposition.

powered by performancing firefox

Update [9:40 PM 01/22/2007] And look at this from the AP. More on Warner's defection, and Sen. Susan Collins and Sen. Norm Coleman have joined the fun. The number of defecting Republicans in the Senate is up to five, and Warner counts for a lot.