liberally speaking

Straight Thinking About How to Beat McCain in November

2008-02-05T13:20:00.000-05:00

Democratic voters may have finally found something they can agree with Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter about: none of them is happy about John McCain's front-runner status in the Republican presidential field. (Coulter even claims she would prefer Hillary Clinton to McCain). I don't know whether Limbaugh and Coulter are right to be upset about McCain, but Democratic voters ought to take a deep breath and stop worrying so much, even if McCain does lock up the Republican nomination on Super Tuesday -- McCain is not as formidable a general election candidate as we make him out to be.

It's not hard to see why some Obama and Clinton supporters are worried about McCain. He is a war hero with what seems to be an unchallenged image as a"straight talker", an image regularly burnished by an adoring media. Mere facts cannot affect the received wisdom that McCain is authentic, a truth teller. Last week, Chris Matthews praised McCain's"candor" in admitting his knowledge about economics is limited, even though McCain actually refused to own up to the admission when he was asked about it during a recent debate. (Matthews has also told McCain "you know you're in my heart" , and has said that "the press loves McCain. We're his base.") As documented by Media Matters, a watchdog group focused on conservative bias in the press, the media frequently describes McCain as a "maverick" despite the fact that he almost always votes the party line, on issues from immigration (his position has changed there to line up with the party) to tax cuts (ditto) to Iraq (like Bush, he's always be wrong on that one).

This reality--that McCain has stood with his president and his party on core issues-- is where he is vulnerable in the general election. President Bush is deeply unpopular. Recent polling by ABC News and the Washington Post shows three-quarters of Americans want to see the next president lead the country in a direction different from Bush's. Republicans, 67% ofwhom still approve of Bush's performance, may see it as a plus that McCain stands with the president in touting the surge in Iraq. Democrats and independents, who believe the war was a mistake and that the troops should come home, understand that the surge is a tactic, not a strategy. The troops did their job, as they always do, but Iraq, sadly, remains a mess. There is no real strategy to change the controlling dynamic in Iraq--that millions have fled a country torn apart by continuing sectarian violence. The only solution is a political one, and Iraq's leaders have not stepped up to the challenge, failing to meet more than half of the benchmarks PresidentBush himself set forth as a way to measure the surge's success. McCain's recent statement that it would be"fine with me" if American troops are in Iraq for 100 years may resonate with Republican voters, but to the rest of us it sounds like more of what we have gotten from Bush, a stubborn refusal to recognize reality.

It's not just Iraq--McCain stands with the president's failed policy on tax cuts for the wealthy (after initially opposing them, McCain voted in 2006 to extend them for five years). He has the same position as the president and conservative Republicans when it comes to abortion and judicial nominees--he believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and he would appoint judges who would make it so. (The outcry on the right surrounding McCain's alleged statement that he would nominate Supreme Court justices like Roberts, but not Alito, is much ado about nothing. First, Roberts and Alito vote nearly identically on the Court. Second, McCain denies making the statement, and calls Alito a"magnificent choice".)

McCain likes to describe himself as a footsoldier inthe Reagan revolution, but he has actually been a footsoldier for President Bush, campaigning hard for the president's re-election in 2004. The Washington Post reported that McCain was a "regular presence" onAir Force one during the 2004 campaign. A Bush advisor said McCain was "like a debate coach". McCain has tried to distinguish himself from Bush on issues like the initial handling of the Iraq war and the response to Hurricane Katrina, but the reality is that McCain did all that he could to return this man to the White House in 2004.

McCain may very well put the Republican nomination away on Super (Duper?) Tuesday, but Democrats going to the polls in the hotly contested Obama-Clinton race need not despair. Whether it's Obama or Clinton, or both, on the Democratic ticket, the strategy for opposing McCain in the general election should be clear. Focus like a laser beam on theconnections tying McCain to Bush, and ask the voters whether they want more of what they have been gettingfor the past seven years.

Are We Electing a President, or a Pastor-in-Chief?

2007-12-20T17:34:00.000-05:00

The Republican presidential race seems more like a competition for national pastor-in-chief than chief executive. During one recent debate, candidates were asked if they believe every word of the Bible. Not one politician dismissed the question as irrelevant or out of bounds. Earlier in the year, John McCain asserted that the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation (despite the fact that the words “Christian” and “God” appear a grand total of zero times in the nation’s founding document). The supposedly socially liberal Rudy Giuliani proudly accepted an endorsement from Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, the televangelist who has claimed that some Christian denominations embody the spirit of the Antichrist, and agreed with Jerry Falwell that gays and lesbians caused the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

As the Iowa caucuses approach, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are fighting over which one has the best religious credentials. Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister who has surged to top of the heap in Iowa, has run one ad invoking his status as a “Christian leader” as a reason to vote for him. In another ad, released for Christmas, he tells voters that what really matters at this time of year is “celebrating the birth of Christ.” Elsewhere, he has explained that “faith doesn’t just influence me, it really defines me. I don’t have to wake up every day wondering “what do I need to believe?” The implication is that people who are not sufficiently faithful are morally adrift, unable to string together coherent, consistent beliefs from one day to the next.

Mitt Romney gave a recent speech meant to address concerns about his Mormon faith. The speech was an attempt to demonstrate that Romney, like Huckabee, sees religion as central to his presidential campaign. Romney said that he believes “Jesus Christ is the son of God and the Savior of mankind” and declared that his oath of office would be his “highest promise to God”. Perhaps some evangelical voters will find these statements comforting. They shouldn’t. Whether you’re religious or not, the marriage of religion and politics is cause for concern.

For one thing, with religion a central part of the presidential campaign, it is only natural that candidates will be asked specific questions about their beliefs. That is disturbing; no one should have to answer questions like “does your religion teach that Satan and Christ are brothers?” (a question Huckabee has raised about Romney) or “how would your church’s doctrine about the apocalypse influence your Middle East policy?”

Both Romney and Huckabee have tried to dodge questions about their specific beliefs. But the cat is already out of the bag. Since these men have made faith a central part of their pitch, it is too late for them to declare that details of precisely what they believe are off limits. It is ludicrous for Huckabee to put forth his religious beliefs as a credential, question Romney’s beliefs, and then refuse to answer a question about whether creationism should be taught in public schools.

Romney, for his part, says he won’t publicly delve into Mormon doctrine because, “to do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.” Too late for that Mitt. We already have a religious test. That’s why Romney was forced to give a speech aimed at making his Mormon faith less scary to voters-there is a question as to whether Romney is himself a real Christian, whether he meets the de facto religious test applied to all presidential candidates.

In order to be a serious candidate, in either party, one must be a Christian, of some denomination that doesn’t seem too weird to evangelical voters. It is of course unfathomable to imagine a Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, or agnostic becoming president (in fact, a whisper campaign that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim, helpfully highlighted by the Washington Post on its front page a few weeks ago, depends on the reality that actually being a Muslim would disqualify someone from running for president in 2008).

In his speech pleading with voters not to dismiss him because he is a Mormon, Romney argued that “the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgement of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life.” Romney’s argument is completely baseless - no serious candidate for the presidency, no serious leader in either party, would dare to suggest that religion has no place in public life. No mainstream politician could say what Thomas Jefferson said in 1814, that “our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man’s, and trouble none with mine.” If this principle applied to modern presidential politics, there would have be no need for Romney, or anyone else, to answer questions about his or her faith.

This piece also appears at http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/20/5912/

Is There Anything We Won't Do?

2007-12-17T10:00:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week, ex-CIA agent John Kiriakou confirmed what we already knew. The United States of America has waterboarded terrorism suspects. We have used a technique practiced during the Spanish Inquisition in an attempt to extract information from suspects who, one would logically reason, would say anything to stop the waterboarding, which makes you feel like you are drowning, unable to breath.

Kiriakou says that the decision to waterboard “was a policy decision that came down from the White House.” And, by the way, there is not one documented case of this technique actually saving even a single life.

But let’s assume that waterboarding does have the potential to save lives. Is that the criterion by which we judge our actions? If it is, then why not subject terrorism suspects to mock executions? That doesn’t cause organ failure --one of the standards the Bush administration uses to define when something is torture. The infamous Bybee memo, sent to then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, claimed that, to be torture,the physical pain caused by an interrogator must be"equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." So,why not pull out a suspect’s toenails? Why not tell a suspect that, unless he talks, you will hunt down,torture, and kill his family. That’s not torture—especially if the interrogator doesn’t actually intend to kill anyone (in order to qualify as torture under the Bush standards, the physical pain inflicted must have been the “specific intent” of the interrogator).

I know the Bush administration primly refuses to discuss specific interrogation tactics. But, by their logic, why wouldn’t it be ok to burn a suspect with lit cigarettes, or to hold a pillow over a suspect’s face until he reaches the brink of suffocation (again, no problem at all if the intent is not to kill, cause organ failure or impairment of bodily function). Why not dangle a suspect outside a window 10 stories above the ground? For a public accustomed to Jack Bauer, this would probably make sense—make the bastard talk if he knows something. Or, if we want to use another fictional work as our guide, why not send people to areal life version of George Orwell’s Room 101, where starving rats are let loose on the bound suspect. Again, not torture by the Bush administration’s standard, as long as you intend to stop the rats, eventually.

Why not take any of these actions? Ten years ago, one might have thought the conclusion Kiriakou ultimately reached was obvious. As he put it, “we’re Americans,and we’re better than this.” Somebody needs to get the Bush administration to understand this. Fear is not reason enough for these barbaric practices, this torture committed in our name.

Conservatives an embattled minority in academia?

2007-12-11T12:20:00.000-05:00

(jn response to this piece in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/07/AR2007120701618_pf.html )

Although (or perhaps because) I am a dyed-in-the wool liberal, I agree with Robert Maranto that a diversity of ideas and debate between opposing viewpoints shouldbe central to university life. However, I think it is this very debate in the marketplace of ideas that explains why Maranto finds himself and other right-of-center academics in the minority. They are losing the argument.

Don’t just ask me—ask the American public. According to polling by the Washington Post and ABC News,President Bush’s approval ratings haven’t seen 50%since March 2005 and have been stuck in the low 30s all year. 51% have a favorable view of Democrats, 39% have a favorable view of Republicans. Similarly, a recent CNN poll shows 68% oppose the war in Iraq. Other polling shows 66% think there should be stricter laws regarding handgun sales. 78% believe that people who are in the U.S. without documentation should still be given a chance at citizenship. Just a small minority, 27%, believes that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (and those numbers come from a Fox News poll). A substantial majority, 73%,thinks we should make it easier for women at all income levels to obtain contraceptives. By a 57-38% margin, Americans believe it is the government’s responsibility to make sure Americans have adequate health care.

If the right wing is losing on all these issues before the public, is it so odd that only a minority of academics support the right wing view on these issues? But polls don’t tell us everything of course. Let’s think logically about why the right wing might be underrepresented in academia.

First, a central tenet of learning and of academic endeavor is that you have to back up your position with evidence. It’s not enough for someone to say I believe in creationism, not evolution, or I think that whenever you reduce taxes there is a consequential increase in revenues. You have to back up your views with evidence, with reasoned argument.

Maranto mentions the war in Iraq, complaining that a conservative friend of his who wanted to publicly debate the decision to invade was told it could complicate his tenure decision. I would support a debate on the war in Iraq, but I also think that someone supporting the invasion would have some explaining to do, both before we invaded and now. Before the war, there was not evidence to support the arguments for invasion—to the contrary, the “evidence” presented was full of holes. In short, the president and others who argued for invasion were not telling the truth, as the Washington Post reported in an October 22, 2002 piece by Dana Milbank entitled “ForBush, Facts Are Malleable”. The Milbank piece explained that President Bush was making specific arguments in support of war, including claims aboutIraq’s ability to launch a chemical attack on the U.S. and the time it would take for Iraq to develop a nuclear weapon, that were simply and demonstrably not supported by the very evidence the president cited. I don’t know what arguments Maranto’s friend would have offered in support of invading Iraq, and perhaps he had something better to offer than the president did. But someone in the academy making the intellectually bankrupt arguments President Bush made for the war shouldn’t be surprised if those faulty arguments have consequences—just as there would be consequences formaking an unsupported argument in favor of a liberal viewpoint.

Iraq is not the only issue on which facts expose the flaws in conservative argument. For much of the past25 years, Republicans have insisted that lower taxes produce increased revenues. The first President Bushonce called this “voodoo economics”. He was right. Supply side economic theory has been debunked by evidence. Contrary to conservative arguments,Clinton’s tax increases in the early 1990s did not sink the economy. While Republican presidential candidates continue to insist that tax cuts mean increased revenue, the results of the Bush tax cuts do not bear this out. Even Treasury Secretary HenryPaulson concedes that “as a general rule, I don’t believe that tax cuts pay for themselves.” On economics, the conservative viewpoint, at least on these central issues, is not supported by theevidence. Does Maranto think economists who support these views should be sailing to the top of academia on the merits of their arguments?

Maranto may be engaging in intellectual relativism. He complains that conservative papers and books areless likely than liberal papers to be published. Butall ideas are not created equal. Perhaps conservative writing contains weaker arguments than liberal papers. Perhaps liberal publications predominate because they are more interesting, more likely to be supported by evidence, more conducive to learning and thoughtful discussion.

If Maranto favors the idea of “balance” on all questions, that view too has been discredited. Conservative politicians have become adept at exploiting the media’s desire to present two sides of every issue—no matter whether both positions have anything close to equal evidentiary support. This leads to coverage that presents arguments for creationism (or its dressed-up sibling “intelligent design”) on the same footing as evolution, or stories giving equal time to global warming skeptics.

I don’t mean to be dogmatic, however, and I certainly don’t think any of this is the end of the story. Hey,I’m a liberal -- I really am interested in differentideas and different ways of looking at things. I don’t think I have all the answers. But I wonder if Maranto has fully considered why the academy isn’t clogged with supporters of President Bush and the war in Iraq. The answer might not be that universities have abandoned reasoned inquiry and debate, as Maranto suggests. It may be that his side is losing the debate, on the merits. None of this means there is no place for conservatives in universities. It just means they have to come up with better arguments.

Actor Scott Baio Seizes Power in Bloodless Coup

2007-11-25T15:31:00.000-05:00

Late yesterday afternoon, former television star Scott Baio, best known for his role as Chachi on the 1970s sitcom Happy Days, seized control of the United States government in a daring coup.

Baio and a few followers gained access to the White House after promising to sign autographs for President Bush. The group quickly seized power with the help of key Secret Service agents, who turned out to be obsessive Joanie Loves Chachi (a Happy Days spin-off) fans. Bush, Cheney, and others were quickly ushered outside to Pennsylvania Avenue as Baio's group set up shop in the Oval Office.

This morning, reporters asked Baio how he plans to organize his new government. In response to a question about Happy Days co-star Donnie Most, Baio exclaimed "The Malph! There's always room in my cabinet for a mind like that. Did you see him in Stewardess School? Comic genius. I just hope I can convince him to drop whatever important work he's doing to come on board." (Most played the clowning Ralph Malph on Happy Days. He was also featured in the critically panned, commercially unsuccessful 1986 film, Stewardess School. As of press time, it is believed that he most recently appeared in a regional production of Space Balls: The Musical).

Baio announced that the theme song from his 1980s sitcom Charles in Charge would be the new national anthem. "No one knows the words to the Star Spangled Banner anyways, " Baio explained.

Baio was also asked if Erin Moran, his co-star from Joanie Loves Chachi, would be his First Lady. "If she'll have me," Baio replied, a bit wistfully.

After taking questions from the press, Baio read a short statement he said was intended for Ron Howard,who played the freckle-faced Richie Cunningham on Happy Days and later went on to success as a Hollywood director: "Ronnie, I bet you thought you'd heard the last of me after that Cocoon audition. Steve Guttenberg over me? I would have been great with those old people. Well, I guess now you, and everybody else, will have to take me seriously. Call my assistant and we can talk about how I fit into Cocoon III--that is, if you want to keep making movies."

Howard, along with Henry Winkler and several other Happy Days regulars, has reportedly gone into hiding.

The sudden power grab is being called the Suede Revolution, a reference both to the bloodess 1989 Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovokia and the fact that the actors who played Leather Tuscadero and the Suedes on Happy Days helped Baio come to power. Anson Williams, who played Potsie on Happy Days, is widely believed to be the new regime's enforcer.

Early polling shows 11% approve of Baio's new role as absolute ruler, 14% disapprove, and 67% believe he can't be any worse than Bush.

Legal Defense Funds Not Just for the Mighty

2007-11-15T15:56:00.000-05:00

Following reports that supporters of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have created a trust fund to help pay for his legal expenses in the event that Gonzales faces criminal charges, a Kansas man facing possible drug possession charges announced similar plans.

"I am calling on my friends and supporters to help me in my time of need," Jack Brohamer wrote in an e-mail solicitation to potential contributors, "I am completely innocent, as this is a complete misunderstanding involving poor outdoor lighting and strong incense, but I do not have the means to pay for a proper legal defense since I have spent most of my career in low-paying jobs. Contributions are not tax-deductibel [sic], but are much appreciated."

Brohamer's appeal paralleled efforts mounted on behalf of Mr. Gonzales. A colleague of Gonzales's sent a similar e-mail seeking help to defray potential legal expenses.

Ian Bledsoe, a friend of Brohamer's, explained that "In the hyper-politicized atmosphere that surrounds drug use in the Plains states, a good man like Jack cannot simply trust that the truth will win out. He must obtain the best representation money can buy. And, ideally, a little will be left over to purchase some much-needed Cheetos and herbal refreshment in the event that Jack gets off."

A contribution form attached to Brohamer's email suggests contributions from $5 to $100. The Topeka District Attorney's office's investigation of Brohamer is likely to conclude later this month. So far, Brohamer's fund has collected $35.28, including two anonymous contributions of $5 each and a $15 contribution from a local 7-11 Brohamer frequents.

Bush Announces New Economic Plan

2007-11-12T18:46:00.000-05:00

Following dire economic reports, including a record federal budget deficit, a plummeting dollar, predictions of a recession, and declining consumer confidence, President Bush unveiled a new economic plan today.

"People may think I'm too busy with the war in Iraq to think about domestic issues. Well, I've got a plan that will shut everybody up," a confident President Bush announced. The President explained that he will bring in a "new economic team, that will implement my specific economic goals, namely giving all of America’s assets to a few very wealthy people." A report released by the White House laid out the key points of the President’s plan: a 100% federal tax rate on all people earning less than $1,000,000 annually, immediate repeal of all taxes on those earning more than $1,000,000 annually, and a requirement that all those with no after-tax income become forced laborers on the estates of the wealthy. Only those able to demonstrate a net worth of $5,000,000 or more would be allowed to vote.

"As F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "the rich are different from you and me," the President joked, "damn right we are—we’ve got more money! And now we’ll have even more!"

The President’s supporters were quick to point out the benefits promised by the new economic plan. "We’re taking about an incredibly simplified tax code—no more need to spend hours preparing your tax returns," gushed an excited Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), "if you’re earning less than a million a year, we take it all. More than a million a year, you keep it all. After all, it’s your money!"

"The unemployment rate will quickly fall to zero—no unemployment. Money will pour into the Treasury's coffers," promised Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY)."As soon as people do their taxes in April, everyone earning less than a million dollars a year will be placed in a kind of indentured servitude, kind of like slavery, except this time it won’t be restricted to African-Americans. Wonder if the liberals will still think we’re racist then?"

President Bush expressed regret that the late Senator Strom Thurmond is not available to lead the new forced labor effort. "The Senator had some experience with tenant farming and sharecropping, and reportedly some memories of the antebellum years. He would have been a natural for implementing the new universal labor program," President Bush explained.

A few Democrats said they would opposes any legislation aimed at implementing the President’s plan, but the White House expressed optimism about getting new laws passed quickly. "After all, most Democrats in Congress are doing pretty well themselves," quipped White House spokesperson Dana Perino.

Democrats Hand Over Own Balls to President at White House Ceremony

2007-11-11T10:24:00.000-05:00

In a Rose Garden ceremony this morning, a congressional delegation led by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) formally handed over their balls to President George W. Bush.

"Recent actions make clear that we don’t need these any more," said Senator Schumer as he handed over a small plastic bag containing his genitalia. "We thought it only fitting that we hand over the essence of our once proud manhood to the man we now roll over for on command: President Bush."

Sen. Feinstein echoed Schumer’s words, just before bowing deferentially to the President and his retinue, which included Vice President Cheney: "As a woman coming of age in the 1950s and 60s, it took me a lot of hard work to develop and maintain these balls. When I graduated from Stanford, women weren’t taken seriously—everyone told me to get a job as a secretary or a teacher, and then get married and raise kids. But I didn’t back down to anyone, and I ended up becoming a United States Senator. That’s why I’m sure the President appreciates exactly what my hand-over signifies, and why this act is so meaningful."

President Bush graciously accepted the delegation, and thanked them for their gesture. "Today’s ceremony only formalizes what is already clear: most Democrats in Congress have about as much spunk as a neutered golden retriever. Sorry, that’s an insult to the retriever."

Leading experts agreed with the president. "After the Democrats took control of Congress last fall, most people assumed they would move swiftly to confront a deeply unpopular president, especially on the catastrophic war in Iraq," said P.E. Gordon, associate professor at the Kennedy School of Government. "Instead, they capitulated on issue after issue where the public had their back—Iraq, warrantless spying, habeas corpus. A lot of voters who expected change are asking themselves: do the Democrats have any balls at all? Well, I guess it’s clear now that, actually, they don’t"

After the ceremony, the President declared that "I will be issuing an executive order declaring that all Democratic members of Congress have to take out my trash and do my laundry, on a rotating basis, according to seniority." Sen. Feinstein eagerly stepped forward to schedule a time when she could be placed on laundry detail, as Sen. Schumer shifted his feet and chuckled uncomfortably. "I’m just kidding guys!" the president laughed as he tousled Feinstein’s hair and poked Schumer in the ribs. (A spokesman for the president later announced that Executive Order 11876 would in fact be issued shortly,assigning certain "high-level caretaker duties, vital to national security" to congressional Democrats).

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) also attended today’s ceremony, although he had already turned in his balls in late 2001.

A version of this piece also appears at http://www.tomburka.com/, Opinions You Should Have.

President Bush Discusses Post-White House Plans

2007-11-10T10:46:00.000-05:00

As President Bush heads into the last year of his presidency, his thoughts naturally turn to post-White House plans. At a press gaggle aboard Air Force One, President Bush discussed some of his ideas yesterday.

"I've been thinking about writing a book--Presidenting for Dummies. You know, like those Sex for Dummies or The Internet for Dummies books," an animated President Bush told reporters. "Chapter 1 would be something like: So now you're president: how to get started. I'd include stuff about foreign policy and budgets."

The president touched on a number of other ideas, including undercover agent ("don't out me like Scooter Libby did, guys!"), cub reporter, special envoy to the Middle East, and oddly, marine biologist ("I like that Seinfeld episode where George pulls the golfball out of the whale's blowhole").

Presidential scholar Tom Brookens of the University of Massachusetts commented on the president's plan. "Bush isn't as dumb as some people think--it's more a lack of intellectual curiousity. I'm sure if you put him in the right environment, with the proper encouragement, he could do something impressive. Sure, he won't be writing constitutions for new democracies, winning a Nobel Prize, or running for Congress, but maybe he could do something with his hands, under supervision, for short periods of time, with plenty of breaks. As long as he's not planning catastrophic wars, pretty much whatever he does will probably be fine with most Americans."

President Bush Personally Presses Musharraf to Hold Elections, Gently Reminds Bin Laden to Turn Himself In

2007-11-07T21:09:00.000-05:00

With Pakistan under martial law, President Bush boldly stepped into the breach yesterday and told its President, Pervez Musharraf, that he must hold elections and relinquish his post as military leader.

Leading experts marveled at the President's genius. "Other leaders might have cut off aid to the troubled nation, one of the world's 11 nuclear powers. Lesser men might have introduced United Nations resolutions calling for sanctions," said Stan Papi of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Americans can rest assured that their president understands that all it takes to resolve a crisis like this is a simple phone call."

President Musharraf reportedly responded by meekly apologizing and promisingto give up his dictatorial powers immediately. President Bush hung up the phone and next called Russian President Vladimir Putin, asking that that the Russian leader put an end to his autocratic rule. "I told Putin, look, it's time to cut it out," said President Bush at an afternoon conference. "Of course, he agreed, and asked exactly what I wanted him to do, and when. I understand he'll also be sending me a care package of caviar and those funny little Russian dolls."

Later yesterday, President Bush broadcast an appeal to Osama Bin Laden, politely asking the terrorist leader to turn himself in as quickly as possible. State Department officials anticipate that Bin Laden will make arrangements for his surrender in the very near future.

AG Nominee Mukasey Explains When Waterboarding May Not Be So Bad

2007-11-04T15:04:00.000-05:00

In written responses to questions posed by members of Congress, Judge Michael Mukasey, President's Bush's nominee for Attorney General, explained that whether waterboarding is illegal depends on the "facts and circumstances", including the "particular technique" employed.

Mukasey further explained his answer at a press conference this afternoon."I have heard that some practitioners of waterboarding make sure to place a pillow under the head of their subject, just before they tie him or her down, place cloth over the mouth, and pour water through the cloth to simulate drowning," Mukasey stated. "Is that torture? I'm not sure. In other cases, the waterboarder may test the temperature of the water before pouring it down the waterboardee's throat in order to be sure it's neither too cold, nor too hot. I don't know about you, but that kind of sensitivity would, in my view, go a long way toward beating a torture rap."

The ghost of 15th century Spanish inquisitor Tomas deTorquemada agreed with Judge Mukasey. "This is the kind of thing I'd be very uncomfortable judging until all the facts are in. Saying all waterboarding is torture is like saying it's always wrong to place a suspected heretic on the rack, or to burn a known witch at the stake. These things are open to interpretation."

Bush Foreign Policy Patterned on Board Game

2007-11-03T16:09:00.000-04:00

A former classmate of President George W. Bush said today that he believes the Bush administration’s foreign policy has its origins in a board game Mr. Bush frequently played in college.

"George and I played a lot of RISK at Yale," said Bob Pendergast of Darien, Connecticut at a news conference held today in Manhattan. "The way he always started out was to put as many armies as he could in the Middle East. He used to say his dad [President George H. W. Bush, at the time director of the Central Intelligence Agency] told him the key to foreign policy was to destabilize the Middle East by sending troops in to set up regimes that would be friendly to the U.S. I thought this was a dumb strategy—the Middle East has a lot of borders and is hard to defend. Plus it doesn’t really help you get control of a continent—which is what you want to do at the beginning of a RISK game. George said he would do the same thing if he ever became president. George used to drink while we were playing, so I didn’t take this too seriously, but looking at his foreign policy decisions as president, I guess he meant it."

(RISK is a game of world domination sold by Parker Brothers. The object is to acquire control of territories while wiping your opponents off the map.)

Pendergast described Bush as a poor RISK player. "He was so stuck on the Middle East. It was easy to beat him, especially if you were playing him one on one. All you had to do was take control of Australia or South America and let George fight it out with East Africa and Afghanistan [two territories bordering the Middle East territory on the RISK game board]. After we had placed our armies, the game was usually pretty much over."

Pendergast pointed to recent events to support his analysis: "You know how we went into Iraq, right? And now we’re talking about going after Iran, plus we’ve still got troops in Afghanistan? Well, it’s pretty obvious to me that George is going to try to hold the Middle East, and maybe expand into East Africa or the Ukraine from there. If I was [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, I’d be massing troops on the Ukrainian border right now."

Foreign policy expert Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was skeptical of Mr. Pendergast’s theory. "I find it difficult to believe that a 21st century superpower would base its foreign policy on a childrens’ board game. Moreover, President Bush is not the only person responsible for American foreign policy—there’s Secretary of State Rice, the Joint Chiefs, Vice President Cheney. In any event, what moron would try to hold the Middle East? What’s Bush thinking, that he’ll take over Asia and start getting 7 extra armies a turn? Yeah, right—like he’ll ever be able to hold Asia. He should fortify his borders in North America and maybe try to come into Europe through Greenland."

Pendergast expressed concern that the administration’s foreign policy might leave the United States vulnerable to attack. "Does [Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates know that Kamchatka can attack Alaska?" Pendergast wondered, referring to the fact that a RISK player can attack North America from a territory named after a peninsula on Asia’s far eastern coast. "I wonder how many troops we have up there? If it were me, I’d be transferring armies up there pretty damn quick, before someone figures out they can come at us that way."

The White House could not be reached for comment, although a reporter who called heard what sounded like dice rolling and excited shouts in the background.

Giuliani Named Free Safety in Charge of Antiterrorism

2007-11-03T15:50:00.000-04:00

Earlier today, the Bush administration named Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani to the newly created position of Free Safety in Charge of Antiterrorism. The move is believed to give Giuliani a boost in his presidential bid.

"I'm excited, and ready to kick ass," a perspiring Giuliani said as he danced around in football pads and a helmet. "This new position gives me the authority to take out bad guys wherever and whenever I like, as I long as I observe NFL rules. That means no holding, offsides, or pass interference, but I can freely waterboard or detain suspects without access to an attorney." The latter tactics are not prohibited by the NFL, or current administration policy.

New Englad Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey both agreed that the Giuliani nomination was a smart move. "Here we have a guy who is chomping at the bit to bring in terrorists, and is also a football fan " Judge Mukasey said at an early morning press conference. "The administration has given him the leeway to do whatever is necessary to haul in suspects, while making clear that he has to abide by the well-known rules of conduct that apply during every NFL game. These rules will establish a basic standard for humane treatment that are a needed modernization of the outdated Geneva conventions. Plus, they're a lot easier for everyone to understand and defend at press conferences."

Brady agreed. "Getting terrorists is serious business, and avoiding penalties in the NFL is no easy feat. I expect big things from Giuliani. I hope he doesn't show up when we play the Jets--I'd hate to see Randy Moss or Coach Belichick detained indefinitely. Coach Belichick already had that bad press over the videotaping of other teams' signs. That may well be enough for Giuliani to bring him in and perhaps even initiate rendition proceedings that put Belichick at the mercy of some other team he has no connection with. Plus, I hear Giuliani is a big hitter on pass plays over the middle."

The campaigns of other presidential candidates had no immediate comment. It is believed to be likely that ABC will launch a new reality show associated with Giuliani's new post.

Has Bush had Enough?

2006-11-28T22:41:00.000-05:00

I have no direct evidence to support this theory (but hey, after the invasion of Iraq, who needs evidence anymore), but I wonder if Bush is sick of being president.

Even someone like Bill Clinton, who wanted to be president practically from birth, would find the present circumstances challenging, to say the least. We have what looks like a hopeless situation in Iraq (even Great Britain is signaling that it has had enough and may be pulling soldiers out by the end of 2007). There is trouble in Lebanon and Israel. North Korea and Iran are thumbing their noses at us. Vladimir Putin seems to be auditioning to be a character in the next James Bond movie. The US dollar is sinking like a stone. The opposition party just took both houses of Congress, and a leading news magazine just ran a cover that mocks Bush for having to be taken under his father's wing.

It would take someobody who is truly committed to being president, truly committed to grappling with hard problems, to take on these circumstances. That doesn't seem like Bush.

Maybe I'm wrong. maybe Bush will be energized by these obstacles. Maybe he will draw on some hidden reserve of strength. But I can't help but wonder if he isn't thinking, at least sometimes: how did I get myself into this mess, and how will I get through the next two-plus years?

A Uniter, Not a Divider?

2006-11-11T22:57:00.000-05:00

The press has been spending a lot of time wondering about whether the Democrats will work with Republicans now that they have won majorities in both houses of Congress. The better question is whether President Bush will decide that now is the time to finally fulfill his six year old pledge to unite, not divide, Americans.

It may be interesting to remember President Bush's bipartisan efforts after he won re-election in 2004. Or, as Borat might say, Not!!!

President Bush crowed about "political capital" he had earned, and intended to spend. He promptly embarked on a quixotic attempt to privatize Social Security that didn't win support within his own party, let alone the opposition.

In the days since the 2006 election, President Bush has signalled he still believes in going it alone, announcing he will try to push controversial measures (like retroactively approving warrantless wiretapping and confirming John Bolton as ambassador to the UN) through a lame duck session of Congress before the newly elected Congress begins its work in January.

This is probably a no-go. As in 2004, both Republicans and Democrats reject Bush's agenda. Outgoing Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) has said he will not permit the Bolton nomination to be pushed through. Senator Leahy (D-VT) has raised serious concerns about an attempt to reroactively ok warrantless wiretapping.

Of course, political realities can change quickly. But as of now, if President Bush continues to choose unilateralism, he will become an irrelevancy.

The Media as Echo Chamber for Propaganda?

2006-11-11T00:52:00.000-05:00

The media has been reporting that Al Qaeda has issued statements mocking President Bush and praising American voters for making a "reasonable" choice in this week's election.

I hope no one will think this is "evidence" that terrorists are on the Democrats' side. Let's use our heads here. The terrorists' statements are propaganda. They would love to help divide Americans.

Media reports have failed to make this observation. Instead, they uncritically report the terrorists' statement, helping spread the propaganda.

The reality is all Americans want to bring terrorists to justice. Some of us are frustrated, to say the least, that troops were diverted from Afghanistan (where Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were located) to Iraq (where Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were not).

I'm not saying the media shouldn't report on terrorist propaganda. I am hoping that next time they will infuse their reports with some skepticism, or thoughtful commentary, or both.

Serving as a echo chamber for terrorist propaganda is beneath our media. They can do better.

Republican Senator Believes Secret NSA Spying Broke the Law

2006-02-05T13:25:00.000-05:00

Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has used some strong language to criticize the illegal warrantless spying program. He called the Bush administration's justifications "strained" and "unrealistic", and he apparently believes the administration has violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which clearly requires that warrants be obtained. Here's a link that cites Specter's remarks:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060205/ap_on_go_co/domestic_spying

Still not sure how this is not a blockbuster story. We have an administration that has admitted to spying on Americans without following legal procedures that require court approval of a warrant. Even members of the president's party think the warrantless surveillance (which is ongoing, by the way!) is illegal. Does it matter if the president has broken the law, and has defiantly pledged to continue breaking the law?

Not yet. But the Judiciary Committee begins hearings tomorrow on this matter. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be the first witness. Look for him to try to distract the committee by bringing up red herrings. Hopefully the committee will focus on the specific question of whether the administration broke the law. If Republicans have the courage to find what is obvious, that the secret warrantless spying was illegal, it is to be hoped they will also find the courage to hold the administration accountable. That is probably wishful thinking, but it shouldn't be. In this country, no one is supposed to be above the law.

We Don't Negotiate With Terrorists...

2006-01-29T15:47:00.000-05:00

except when we do: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/29/15401/5438

yes, another Bush flip flop. The running total (wildly incomplete, it's just my own nonexhaustive list):

(1) we don't negotiate with terrorists--but we will negotiate with Sunni insurgents
(2) hearings on secret spying (first against, now for)
(3) McCain anti-torture legislation (first against, then for, then possibly against again after trying to reserve right to deviate from legislation)
(4) talking about secret spying program (first said he couldn't talk about it at all because it is classified, then acknowledged it was going on and said it would continue)
(5) all judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote...except Harriet Myers, who was withdrawn when opposed by the radical right
(5) Department of Homeland Security (first opposed, then supported)
(6) reduction of specific pollutant emissions (supported during 2000 campaign, then opposed)

2006-01-28T19:44:00.000-05:00

I'm sure you'll be as surprised as I was to read this article, describing the Bush administration's failure to keep its promises to the people in New Orleans and elsewhere who were hit by Hurricane Katrina:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701818_pf.html

(also linked to at The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ -- "Broken Promises")

I seem to remember Bush making a statement about how he was going to address the underlying problem of poverty that was exposed by the hurricane. I'm guessing he's going to roll out his plan for doing just that in his State of the Union speech, if not sooner. Most likely he'll pay for it by rolling back the tax cuts for high income Americans. Don't hold your breath though.

Democracy in the Middle East (?)

2006-01-28T19:34:00.000-05:00

Did anyone notice that the United States pumped two million dollars into Palestine in an (unsuccessful) attempt to influence election results there? Here's a link to an article that mentions this (in a throwaway line near the end of the piece): http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0127-02.htm Here's the quote I'm talking about:

"That Hamas' victory was a serious blow to the Bush administration hopes, however, was made clear by reports this week that Washington had spent more than two million dollars on dozens of small projects in recent months to bolster Fatah's image in the constituencies in which Hamas had done well in last year's municipal polls. " (emphasis added).

What would the Bush administration say if, for instance, China spent millions of dollars trying to influence a US election by helping the Democrats? I seem to remember quite an uproar several years ago, during the Clinton years, when Republicans suggested just that. But apparently it is ok for the US to choose sides in elections in the Middle East and inject money into the process in an attempt to help our preferred party. Wonder if that will help our image in the Arab and Muslim world?

Could Bush Ever Be Impeached? (Long shot of course, but...)

2006-01-24T00:32:00.000-05:00

The headline I wanted to use is "White House Bracing for Impeachment", but I didn't want to give anyone a heart attack. That comes from a story in a conservative publication--a sister publication to the Republican party organ known as the Washington Times.

Here's a link: http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/Default.asp

Saw this at the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

wow. We're a long way away, but this at least gives a glimmer of hope.

Missing the Point About Bin Laden

2006-01-22T15:50:00.000-05:00

Chris Matthews has been getting a lot of criticism for comparing Bin Laden's statements in his recently released tape with Michael Moore, and rightly so. This is part of a pattern. Republicans and their supporters in the media have spent the past four years comparing Democrats and liberals with terrorists. In the 2002 election, Democrat Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran and triple amputee, saw his face morphed into Osama Bin Laden's in attack ads. (Cleland lost his Georgia senate seat to Saxby Chambliss, who avoided service in Vietnam based on knee problems, or something of the sort). During the 2004 campaign, Dick Cheney suggested that voting for Kerry was a vote for Bin Laden. Recently, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the foaming at the mouth gang of reactionary pit bulls have spent a lot of time and energy comparing the Bin Laden tape with Democratic statements about the war in Iraq.

These geniuses are missing the big picture. Hell, they're missing the enormous picture, they're missing the picture on the jumbotron at the Super Bowl. It doesn't matter whether Bin Laden makes statements critical of the war in Iraq. What matters is that Bin Laden helped orchestrate the attacks on 9/11, as well as other attacks. What matters is that he still wants to launch attacks against the US and elsewhere. What matters is that we haven't caught him. What matters is that we diverted resources away from hunting for him and his followers and opened a new front in Iraq, where no terrorists had previously been operating.

Bin Laden could release a tape tomorrow saying he endorses Bush's Medicare reforms. He could publish an op-ed eulogizing the late Gene McCarthy. Who cares? Here's the difference between liberals and Bin Laden. Bin Laden is a murderer and wants to continue murdering. It doesn't matter what liberals (or anyone) say. Bin Laden will continue in this vein until we catch him (which Bush promised to do more than four years ago).

Bin Laden is a fanatic, a zealot, a murderer. One thing no one calls him is stupid. It is quite possible he intended his tape to have exactly the effect it has had; that is, being used to divide Americans. If that is the case, then Matthews, Hannity, and others are playing Bin Laden's game. That doesn't mean they are terrorists or have anything in common with Bin Laden. It just means they should use their critical thinking faculties and stop trying to divide Americans.

One of the most infuriating comments made by those who have compared Bin Laden with Democrats came from Tucker Carlson on MSNBC. He said the threats Bin Laden made against the US in his latest tape were just "background noise". Nothing to pay attention to--Bin Laden makes threats like this all the time, Carlson says. Huh? Yes, Bin Laden has made threats before, and has, horribly, carried them out. I hope our government doesn't see Bin Laden's threats as background noise. The only background noise I hear is the sound of talking heads mindlessly comparing nonviolent critics of the war in Iraq with murdering terrorists.

A Few Good Men, Revisited: Bush as Jack Nicholson

2006-01-18T18:30:00.000-05:00

Remember the movie A Few Good Men? In the climactic scene, Tom Cruise's defense attorney goads a confession out of Jack Nicholson's tough guy Marine commander. In a line that has become a staple of pop culture, Nicholson warns Cruise he "can't handle the truth" about what he, Nicholson, as commander of the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, has to do to protect Americans. When Cruise demands the truth, Nicholson admits that he authorized a "Code Red" hazing that resulted in murder.

President Bush recently had his own A Few Good Men moment when he admitted authorizing illegal warrantless surveillance of Americans, in violation of federal law and the Constitution. Like Nicholson's Marine commander, Bush claims that he had to break the law in order to protect us. Unlike Nicholson, there have been no tangible consequences for Bush.

The Bush administration consistently keeps Americans in the dark. Like Nicholson's character, they claim to know best how to protect us and would prefer we simply keep our mouths shut, opening them only to thank our protectors for the blanket of security they provide. This is not democracy. Democracy demands an informed citizenry, engaged in and aware of important decisions. The Bush administration's approach treats us like cosseted children.

In the movie, Nicholson is portrayed as a power mad authority figure, someone who goes too far and has to be reined in by the legal system. It is no excuse for him to explain that he was only acting to protect Americans and that we live in a dangerous world that requires armed men to guard its borders. Immediately after Nicholson makes his confession, he is advised of his Miranda rights and taken into custody.

In real life, at least so far, Bush has successfully used the same excuses to justify his decision to set aside the law. Like Nicholson, he tells us we live in a dangerous world and that he is only acting to protect us. Bush reminds us that there are people who wish to do the United States harm and suggests that unless he has unlimited power to act against terrorists, or those he thinks are terrorists, Americans will die.

This is no way to govern a democracy. Scaring Americans into surrendering their freedom is shameful, to say the least. It didn't work for Nicholson in A Few Good Men and it shouldn't work for Bush now. Unfortunately, we don't have a Tom Cruise to expose Bush to the nation. Bush's Nicholson moment happened without any dashing protagonist to egg him on or stoke an audience's outrage. Now that Bush has made his stunning admission, we all need a few good men, and women, to, as Cruise did on screen, call a spade a spade. In this country, no one is above the law. Violations of law are not excused by the fact that we live in a dangerous world. Those who provide our security do not earn the right to demand grateful silence from the nation. It's time for someone to read Bush his Miranda rights, at least symbolically.

Another Bush Flip-Flop

2006-01-13T23:21:00.000-05:00

Forgive my bitterness, but I have decided to track Bush flip flops. Hypocrisy bugs me.

The latest: Bush opposed Senate hearings into his illegal warrantless spying program--until he changed his mind and said hearings will be "good for democracy", as USA Today reports: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-11-bush_x.htm

Bush voters may have to stop congratulating themselves for opposing that notorious flipflopper Jon Kerry.

This is far from an exhaustive list, but here's the running flipflop total:

(1) hearings on secret spying (first against, now for)
(2) McCain anti-torture legislation (first against, then for, then possibly against again after trying to reserve right to deviate from legislation)
(3) talking about secret spying program (first said he couldn't talk about it at all because it is classified, then acknowledged it was going on and said it would continue)
(4) Department of Homeland Security (first opposed, then supported)
(5) reduction of specific pollutant emissions (supported during 2000 campaign, then opposed)

Secret Spying May Have Started Before 9/11

2006-01-13T22:53:00.000-05:00

Here's the link: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

Just a gut feeling, but I think this story will keep getting bigger, especially if we ever find out who was spied on.

Deja Vu at the Judiciary Committee

2006-01-09T19:04:00.000-05:00

After the first day of the Alito hearing, headlines proclaimed that Judge Alito "pledges to do what the law requires."

Huh? Is this supposed to contrast with those judges who swear to do the opposite of what the law requires? Seems like an extremely bland platitude, meaning absolutely nothing.

In fact, this is a carefully chosen political statement, a piece of rhetoric torn from the Republican playbook. Alito's statement is indeed meant to suggest that there are judges who do not follow the law. In the Bizarro world that is Republican dogma, such judges are known as "liberal activists".

Who are these devil may care, black robed commies? The rhetoric does not get into specifics. For years, the vague spectre of the liberal activist judge is invoked whenever Republicans talk about the courts, and especially when a nomination is pending.

The "logic" works as follows. "Conservative" judges follow the law precisely as as it is written. They do nothing more than apply clear legal principles to the cases that come before them. Those wacky liberals make it up as they go along, infusing their decisions with a dash of social engineering, a smidgen of political correctness and a dollop of paternalistic activism.

The script works great. Everyone knows it by heart. It is so much a part of Americans politics that Americans know exactly what Alito means when he promises to "do what the law requires."
The reality is that Alito's pledge is based on a false dichotomy. Who are these liberal pinko judges out to wreck America? We never hear them mentioned by name. We almost never hear specific decisions mentioned as examples of activist judging.

Real judging and real law are not as simple as the Republicans would have us believe. If their premise were correct and judging was simply a matter of applying clear, objective principles, then there would be no need for human Supreme Court justices. Cases could be decided by computers.

In fact, the law does not work that way. Different judges reach different decisions, not because one side is following the law while the other is legislating from the bench, but because many legal questions--especially the hard cases that reach the Supreme Court--do not lend themselves to clear, unassailable conclusions. Real law and real judging depend on deciding the meaning of ambiguous statutory terms and opaque constitutional phrasing. There may not be one objective result when a case comes before the Supreme Court involving, say, gender discrimination by the government. Analyzing such a case depends on poring over past decisions and applying tricky judge-made principles that are used to apply the lofty promise of "equal protection" under the 14th Amendment to real world problems never dreamed of by the framers.

Members of the judiciary committee should pull open the curtain that cloaks the judicial process in mystery. They can do this by asking Judge Alito simple questions. Are you a strict constructionist? How does a strict constructionist differ from an activist--and be specific? Can you give us examples of activist decisions? Can you tell us how a strict constructionist would interpret ambiguous constitutional language such as is found, for example, in the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth amendments?

The reality behind the rhetoric is that the law is not a simple matter of applying clear principles to cases. Legal answers, especially to questions before the Supreme Court, are often complicated and ambiguous. The fact that different judges decide hard cases differently does not mean one side has a lock on absolute truth while the other is making things up as it goes along.

All nominees who appear before the Judiciary Committee can promise to follow the law; there is nothing unique in Judge Alito's statement. The real question is how they will decide hard cases. Let's dump the rhetoric, look at Judge Alito's past decisions, and ask him to explain his decisionmaking process in those past decisions. If he is outside the mainstream, he should be rejected, whether he solemnly pledges to "do what the law requires" or not.

A False Choice

2006-01-03T20:39:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program raises a lot of questions. Who was spied on? Why? How will this constitutional crisis resolve itself? Will Congress force the President to obey federal law, or will the President realize he can violate the law with impunity?

Apart from these concrete, legally rooted, questions, more philosophical questions also come to mind. Can American concepts of liberty survive an unending, vaguely defined "war on terror"? How much are we willing to surrender for security? Some leading Republicans, notably Senators Trent Lott and John Cornyn, claim that liberty doesn't matter if we are dead. Therefore, they argue, the administration should do whatever is necessary to protect Americans, and worry about constitutional rights later.

There are several problems with this position. I will focus on one: Lott and Cornyn are making an incorrect assumption. They assume that we can make a deal to insure our physical safety. Give the President your freedom, they say, and he will protect you.

The reality is that there can be no such guarantee. The choice between security and liberty is a false one, because we cannot "choose" security, as if we were selecting a candidate on a ballot. Unfortunately, no one can guarantee there will be no more attacks on American soil. No matter how many phones we tap, no matter how many prisoners we torture, no matter how many constitutional amendments we suspend, we can never 100% insure the safety of the American people. Against the backdrop of this grim reality, men like Lott and Cornyn are willing to sell their freedom quite cheaply.

The President and his defenders are simply unwilling to speak frankly to Americans. In this, I believe they are severely underestimating Americans. This nation made it through revolution, civil war, world wars, and a cold war that threatened the possibility of nuclear annihilation. In the past, Americans did not to surrender to fear. When asked by their government to sacrifice, Americans have responded.

This administration has asked little, if anything, of Americans, other than those in the armed services. What would happen if President Bush leveled with us? What if he said, "Look, there are no guarantees in life. There are accidents, there are acts of god, and, tragically, there are terrorists attacks. We can choose to take refuge, figuratively and literally, allowing fear to rule our lives. Or we can say: the United States is still the United States. We will go on with our lives. Our government will take necessary actions to respond to the possibility of attacks, but it will always follow the law. This country has withstood far worse than this. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda do not have the power to alter our democracy, to narrow our liberties, to rewrite our Constitution. Only we can do that. And we will never do that. This is America, and it will always be America."

We have a vacuum of leadership. There is no George Washington to rally the troops, no FDR telling us to reject fear. Instead, we have a President who exploits fear and uncertainty for political advantage. We have "leaders" in Congress like Senators Lott and Cornyn who would turn us into frightened children, seeking security as if we were buying protection from a schoolyard bully. We can do a lot better than this. Our elected officials are underestimating us.

It is unfortunately true that security cannot be guaranteed. But liberty and our constitutional democracy can be guaranteed, if those in power have the courage to come out of their psychological bunkers and defend our Constitution.

8 Ideas for Democrats in 2006

2005-12-30T23:10:00.001-05:00

I remember almost going crazy in 1994 over the Republicans' "Contract with America". The idea of Newt Gingrich solemnly entering into a covenant with the American people seemed, well, repellent. I can't remember many of its details today, but I do remember that it seemed to give the Republican a united vision. That November, they won a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

Though I don't remember many details, I do remember the Republicans focused on Congressional scandals to drive the idea that Democrats had grown corrupt and power mad after 40 years of controlling the Congress (I also remember a lot of talk about "term limits" which mysteriously died down once Republicans got control of the House). The scandals back then were penny ante stuff compared with what is going on now--there was a "franking" scandal involving members of Congress using postage for personal business. I imagine as much as hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars were lost. Compare that to the millions Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham raked in from defense contractors in exchange for helping them get Pentagon contracts, or the indictment accusing Tom DeLay of using illegal corporate contributions to win an election, or the brewing Abramoff scandal, said to involve 20 members of Congress.

Democrats are onto this already. Senate minority leader Harry Reid is launching a "red state" tour aimed at focusing attention on Republican scandals. This is a good start and should be a central plank in the Democrats' platform for 2006. Here is a bare bones platform, including that idea, as well as others.

1. Corruption and cronyism: focus on specific scandals involving Republicans in Congress and on cronies Bush appointed to his administration (think FEMA's Brownie). The idea is that Republicans are out of control and unchecked--having one party control the excutive and legislative branches is not good for Americans. Republicans are a party of corruption and illicit favors; Democrats will clean this up. Specific ideas: real penalties for ethical violations by members of Congress, real scrutiny of presidential appointees, put teeth in campaign finance law enforcement to punish violations swiftly.

2. Helping American families: the idea here is that some people are doing great in recent years, but many are working hard, playing by the rules and continue to struggle. A catastrophic event like a medical emergency or a lost job can push families into bankrupcty. Go back to the Clinton promise: Americans who play by the rules and work hard should be able to make it, should be able to raise children, should not be forced into bankruptcy. Specific ideas: policies that reward work (reverse capital gains tax cuts and income tax breaks for the wealthy, give tax breaks to middle and working class families, fix alternative minimum tax that hurts many middle class families), health care reform--gradually expand Medicaid (perhaps start with coverage of all children under 18, or under 12). Fund it with money that comes from repealing tax cuts for the wealthy.

3. Break our dependence on fossil fuels from the Middle East: first step should be convening an open forum to discuss solutions (in contrast with Dick Cheney's closed door session with energy bigwigs who got to write energy policy). Invite experts in the field, but also get input from ordinary Americans. All options on the table--we can look at increased drilling at home, though be realistic about how much oil that will yield and what environmental consequences could be.

4. Get serious about defending America: the bipartisan 9/11 commission gave the administration something like 4 F's, 12 D's and 2 incompletes on a "report card" for protecting America. Address all of these issues within specific time period, perhaps six months. Remind Americans we are glad no attacks have occurred since 9/11 but we cannot rest on that and must take warnings seriously. There were warnings before 9/11 that we did not heed because there had been no attacks on American soil and we thought we were safe. We can't let that happen again.

5. Bring focus to war on terror: we took our eye off the ball (i.e away from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who attacked us on 9/11) when we invaded Iraq based on misrepresentations. We need a comprehensive plan to address threats abroad, not just in Iraq. Afghanistan is still a mess, and Al Qaeda operates around the world. Follow Congressman John Murtha's plan to redeploy troops from Iraq within 6 months and send them to other places where they are needed, retaining a force near Iraq that can return if necessary.

6. Real support for the troops: our troops deserve the best. They shouldn't have to ask loved ones to send them necessary equipment, at their own expense. We will make sure they have everything they need--from vehicle armor to personal armor. We will end the practice of awarding no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton that then defraud the Pentagon and serve our troops expired meals. We will make sure their loved ones are supported at home with a safety net for families that cannot make it financially or emotionally when a family member is called to duty. We will make sure our troops receive adequate health benefits and top health care. Our troops do everything we ask of them, we should be ashamed not to give them everything they need and deserve.

7. Address presidential abuses of power that have accompanied war on terror: no more torture, shut down the secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, force the President to obey the Constitution rather than bypassing federal law and ordering secret warrantless spying, draft a bipartisan Patriot Act that allows us to go after terrorists while respecting the U.S. Constitution. Point out we are losing respect abroad; the United States is no longer known as a defender of human rights, but rather as an abuser. This hurts our ability to gain necessary allies in the war on terror. Most importantly, torture, secret prisons, indefinite detentions, and secret spying are simply not consonant with American values.

8. Make sure the administration fulfills its promise to rebuild New Orleans and to address underlying issues of poverty, as President Bush promised.

That's all for now. Maybe someone can up with 2 more ideas, and/or a catchy name for the platform...

It's Not About the Leak

2005-12-30T19:04:00.000-05:00

It has been reported that the Justice Department is opening an investigation to determine who told the New York Times about the administration's secret warrantless spying program. According to a White House spokesman (Trent Duffy, pinchhitting for Scott McClellan), the investigation is an important one because "the leaking of classified information is a serious issue."

Exactly how dumb does the administration think we are? We just watched them soft-pedal the Valerie Plame leak for the last couple of years. Bush took that leak of classified information somewhat less than seriously. The New York Daily News reported(http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html ) Bush knew for more than two years that Rove had spoken to the media about Plame. But the president did nothing. Rove still works for the White House, while Plame's career ended when her cover was blown. Although Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby has been indicted, the White House has not so much as reprimanded anyone involved in the leak.

For some inscrutable reason, right wingers argue that leaking Plame's cover to the press was not all that serious. To recap why it matters, Plame was a NOC (nonofficial cover) CIA agent. In a nutshell, that means she had a fake identity (as a private consultant) that served as her cover while she conducted intelligence work on behalf of the United States. We do not know much about the details of what her work involved (remember, it was all classified before her cover was blown), but it has been reported that her work involved gathering intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction. Serious stuff.

How anyone decides that leaking an undercover CIA agent's identity for political purposes is no big deal, while leaking the existence of unlawful activity by the White House is a grave problem demanding immediate action is beyond me. But the real point here is not to get distracted. The administration would like nothing better than for attention to shift away from its illegal spying onto who leaked this information. They'd be just as happy if the media started debating which is worse: leaking Plame's identity or leaking the existence of the secret spying program.

Let's not play their game. The Justice Department is investigating the leak? Fine and dandy. We can briefly observe that the administration is hypocritically breathless about the secret spying leak while it brushed off the Plame leak. But the real focus has to stay on the secret spying program itself. Take a page from the administration's playbook and repeat, over and over, why this matters. There is a federal law requiring the president to obtain a warrant when he orders surveillance of Americans. The president did not follow this law. He ordered spying without warrants. His actions violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as well as the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

When the leak investigation story makes it to the Sunday talk shows, Hardball, etc. let's hope our side keeps its eye on the ball. The secret spying story is about the President breaking the law. It's not about who informed the New York Times of that fact.

What Else Don't We Know About? (Part II)

2005-12-29T22:12:00.000-05:00

John Dean has described the Bush administration as more secretive than Richard Nixon’s infamously obsessive presidency. Dean knows something about the topic—he served as Nixon’s White House Counsel. As stories about some of the Bush administration’s secrets come out, we’re all getting an idea of just how close to the vest the Bush men and women hold their cards.

Secrecy is not inherently a bad thing and may, of course, be necessary at times. However, for President Bush, secrecy seems to be a way to keep very unpleasant, possibly illegal, activities hidden. Nearly three years ago, Bush and his then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice authorized wiretapping of the home and office telephones, and e-mail, of members of the United Nations Security Council. The administration apparently wanted to find out how Security Council members would vote on a resolution for war in Iraq. Last month, we learned that the administration set up secret CIA prisons in Soviet-era facilities in eastern Europe. This may have been an attempt to avoid legal restrictions on torture and other coercive interrogation methods. We still don’t know who Vice President Cheney met with to develop energy policy early in the administration’s first term; nor do we know why it has been necessary to keep this information secret.

Most recently it has been reported, and President Bush himself acknowledged, that the administration ordered secret wiretapping of Americans without seeking warrants or court orders, as required by federal statute. As the administration has been mum about the details of this program, we can only speculate as to why this spying was conducted in secret.

These are some of the secret activities that have been uncovered. A question that naturally arises is: what else is the President up to? What else is there that we don’t know about? Will we find out next year that the administration has a political enemies list made up of journalists and others considered hostile to the administration’s views? Has the FBI been rifling through the bank records of thousands of Americans, without a warrant? Have federal agents been entering Americans’ homes without warrants? Exactly how many Americans have been placed under government surveillance, and why?

The only way to begin to get answers to these questions is for Congress to truly fulfill its oversight duties. It needs to ask tough questions of the president, and it is no longer sufficient for the president or his advisors to say “trust us”. If the administration is concerned about confidentiality, it can ask for appropriate measures to be taken. Congress has dealt with classified information before and there are procedures set up to keep national security information secret (and if those procedures aren’t good enough, better ones can be implemented). But there must be oversight, and it is not enough to tell a few Congressional leaders about secret spying on the condition that they can tell no one else or even consult with anyone else about possible illegality.

This president has demonstrated he cannot be permitted to operate behind closed doors. In fact, no president should be left entirely to his own devices. We have a constitutional system of checks and balances provided by the separation of powers among the three branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial. That brilliantly designed system cannot operate, however, when the president keeps the other branches in the dark. It is not enough for the president to say “we are at war and I need to be able to address national security issues”. That cannot be an excuse for untrammeled executive power or unquestioned presidential secrecy. For one thing, the vaguely defined (and undeclared) “war on terror” threatens to go on indefinitely. Does this president expect Congress, the judiciary, and the American people to cede power indefinitely to this and future administrations?

Republicans currently control both branches of Congress. However, some Republican Senators, including Spector, Snowe, Hagel and others, have voiced serious concerns about the secret surveillance program and have indicated they will hold investigations. It is to be hoped that these investigations take place and that members of Congress make clear that neither this administration, nor any administration, has carte blanche to decide when to operate in secrecy.

What about Bin Laden?

2005-12-29T21:16:00.000-05:00

Remember Osama Bin Laden? You know, the terrorist mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, the leader of Al Qaeda, the one President Bush promised to deliver to justice “dead or alive”? Four years ago, Bin Laden was public enemy number one. Now, we rarely hear about him, and the President hardly ever mentions him.

To some extent, Bin Laden is a symbol. He may not personally be in a position to orchestrate new attacks; he may be sick, or even dead, for all we know. What Bin Laden reminds us of, however, is that the Bush administration took its eye off the ball when it made Iraq the focal point of its vaguely defined “war on terror.” The administration exploits the vagueness of this undeclared war by repeating, over and over, that we are fighting “terrorists” in Iraq (none of whom, by the way, operated there before the war began). Americans most likely understand this to mean that the insurgency is largely, if not completely, made up of Al Qaeda members doing Bin Laden's bidding.

Earlier this month, Congressman John Murtha, who gets his information from top Pentagon officials, said that only about 7% of the insurgents are foreign fighters. Whether or not Congressman Murtha is correct, Iraq is hardly the only place in the world where Al Qaeda operates. In fact, it is probably misleading to refer to Al Qaeda as if it were one cohesive entity. Many commentators compare it to a franchise operation that spawns copycat groups who are only loosely connected with Bin Laden, if at all.

Whatever Al Qaeda’s precise contours, it is clear that it does not limit itself to political boundaries. The administration’s rallying cry of “let’s fight them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here” makes no sense given that there have been attacks in Britain, Spain, Jordan, and elsewhere since the war in Iraq began. The nebulously defined “terrorists” will not obligingly agree to stay within the confines of any one country while we engage them in conventional warfare.

The fact is, Americans have no way to know if the Bush administration is actually addressing the most imminent threats to our nation. Over the past three years, the administration has clearly acted as if the greatest threat is in Iraq, whether in the person of Saddam Hussein or in the form of the insurgency. We just don’t know if this is correct. We don’t have access to intelligence. We must take it on faith that the administration has done the right thing by concentrating the bulk of our military manpower, along with hundreds of billions of dollars, in Iraq.

I do not mean to suggest that the administration is unconcerned with the safety of the American people. I am sure it is concerned. Whether it has done everything it can to protect Americans is a different matter. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission recently gave the administration a “report card” on preparation against attacks that included 5 F’s, 12 D’s and two incompletes. The administration likes to rest on the most happy fact that there have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11. Like all Americans, I am very glad of this and hope for much more of the same. However, reasoned scrutiny reveals the logical flaw in the administration’s claim that we are safe because there have been no additional attacks. Based on the administration’s logic, we were all very safe on September 10, 2001, as there had been no previous attacks on American soil. Obviously, the relevant issue, looking ahead, is not what has happened, but what threats are out there. Again, ordinary Americans do not know.

What we do know is that this administration went to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or Bin Laden, our sworn enemy. We have committed the bulk of our military to the war in Iraq for an undefined period of time. By definition, this means that we did not focus our full efforts on pursuing Bin Laden and Al Qaeda operatives outside of Iraq. Is it too much to ask the President to convince us that he understands there are threats beyond Iraq? Is it too much to ask that the President remembers his pledge to bring the people who attacked us on 9/11 to justice, including Bin Laden himself?

Legislating from the White House

2005-12-28T18:47:00.000-05:00

For years, Republicans have urged a distinction between judges who are "strict constructionists" (their type of judges) and those they call "activists" (crazy liberals). Activist judges, they tell us, are judges who "legislate from the bench", in other words, judges who supposedly make up the law as they go along. President Bush frequently describes his own judicial nominees as judges who do not legislate from the bench and instead will simply apply the laws as written by Congress, or as stated in the Constitution. We rarely, if ever, hear specific examples of actual decisions deemed to be the result of judicial activism, although we can assume Roe v. Wade is a case conservatives see as an activist opinion.

Time for Civics 101. Only one branch of the federal government is assigned authority by the Constitution to make the laws. That is, of course, Congress, the legislative branch. Just as judges may not legislate from the bench, so too the president may not "legislate from the White House". Congress makes the law, the president executes the law (hence the term "executive branch"). The presidential oath of office acknowledges this constitutional reality.

George W. Bush is an activist president. The president has admitted as much. He has told us he decided to ignore the law Congress passed regarding wiretapping--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law requires the administration to seek a warrant or court order when listening in on Americans' telephone calls or peeking at their emails. The president claims the law is too restrictive--it doesn't give him the speed or flexibility needed to fight this new (and vaguely defined, as well as undeclared) "war on terror".

Many observers have pointed out the law actually does allow the president to act quickly and seek a warrant up to 72 hours after surveillance has begun. Let's leave that (important) point aside for now. What I'm addressing here is the president's defiant assertion that he may rewrite federal statutes on the fly, without going through the constitutionally required legislative process.

If the president disagreed with FISA and thought he should have more power to engage in surveilance, he could have proposed new legislation, or changes to FISA. He chose not to and simply rewrote the law himself, unilaterally removing the requirement that a warrant or court order be obtained. Whether he is right or wrong about what is needed is not the issue. The question is whether the president may take over Congress's role as lawmaker. That is why we have a constitutional crisis on our hands, and that is why many conservatives are very concerned. That is why conservative pundit George Will has voiced concern about presidential overreaching, that is why the Washington Times ran an op-ed criticizing the warrantless surveillance, and that is why Republican Senators Spector, Snowe, Hagel, and others are calling for congressional investigations.

The administration's distinction between activist and strict constructionist judges is, in fact, not as neat and simple as it sounds. But that is not the issue here. Whether or not there actually are activist judges, there certainly is an activist president. It is to be hoped that conservatives who condemn activist judges will have the intellectual consistency to reject an activist president. Permitting or condoning this activist president means setting aside our constitutional framework and accepting a president who is, quite simply, above the law.

Liberal Is Not a Dirty Word

2005-12-24T19:38:00.001-05:00

Let's try some free association. What do you think of when you hear the word "liberal"? If you listen to Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, you will probably free associate from "liberal" this way: "hates America", "liar", "commie", "coward", "godless", even "traitor" or "the enemy".

This type of "thinking" is on the level of playground namecalling. It's roughly the equivalent of a 6 year old calling someone he doesn't like a "doodyhead". It is highly generalized, nonspecific, and unsupported by evidence (the same may or may not be true of the 6 year old's insult). But it has been effective. Democrats are afraid to identify themselves as liberals, and liberal haters (I won't call them "conservatives" because I think the title doesn't fit, as I'll explain in another post) use it only as an insult and/or tend to blur the word's meaning with "Democrat" i.e. all Democrats they disagree with are hated "liberals".

The liberal haters rarely talk in specifics and rarely discuss real liberals. What do they even mean when they use the word? I will discuss some real liberals here and explain what the word really means.

Here are some real liberals who, most Americans would agree, don't deserve to be slandered as traitors or cowards. Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Abraham Lincoln (of a very different Republican party), Lucretia Mott, Martin Luther King, Jr., Susan B. Anthony, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Thurgood Marshall, Robert Kennedy, Most current Democrats don't qualify as liberals because the political spectrum has moved so much to the right in recent years. However, a few modern liberals include Russ Feingold and the late Paul Wellstone.

What is a "liberal"? The dictionary defines "liberal" as broadminded, not bound by authoritarianism, free from bigotry, open to new ideas for progress, tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others.

Abolitionists who fought to eliminate slavery before the Civil War were liberals. Those who fought for women to gain the right to vote (including Stanton, Anthony, and Mott), were liberals. Opponents of racial segregation who rejected "separate but equal" and risked their lives (and sometimes lost their lives) in the Jim Crow South standing up to bigots were liberals. Progressives who instituted the five day, 40 hour work week and ended child labor in factories were liberals. Men and women who declared, and declare, that women have the same right to be doctors, lawyers, and CEOs that men do are liberals.

Few Americans would see ending slavery, giving women the right to vote or eliminating segregated schools, lunchcounters, and drinking fountains as radical ideas today. At the time, of course, they were quite radical ideas. Today they are firmly American ideas, but no less liberal.

Our Constitution, including its Bill of Rights, is a liberal document. Again, at the time, it was a radical idea to declare that political power was derived from the people, as opposed to god or king. It was radical to enshrine as law the principles of free speech, the religious Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, due process, or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishment. Today, of course, these are thoroughly "American" principles we all embrace (well, at least for now--reports of warrantless surveillance and openended detentions present a direct threat to some of these basic principles). Democracy itself is a liberal idea--the proposition that everexpanding members of the population (first property holding white men, then all white men, then all men, finally and men and women) choose their representatives and leaders was a radical rejection of authoritarian rule, now an accepted American value.

Here's what being liberal means to me. It means making the values enshrined in the Constitution real. It means speaking up when you disagree with the government (no matter which party is in power). It means wanting the best for all Americans. It means demanding that our government tells us the truth. It means fighting for equality and fighting against bigotry. It means being open minded-- not just accepting different viewpoints, but listening to and learning from different viewpoints and being able to change. It means denouncing torture, no matter who is doing the torturing. It means believing in the universal human capacity for reason, the force that led our country's founders in an Age of Reason to question the divine right of kings. It means rejecting leaders who ask us to surrender our liberty to their agendas. It means making sure the needs of ordinary Americans are not subordinated to the desires of the wealthy and powerful. It means, in short, striving to fulfill the ideals central to this nation's founding. To be liberal is to be American.

Interesting Experience

2005-12-23T23:30:00.000-05:00

I spent some time over the past 2 days on a board at Hannity.com. Initially, I went there because I wanted to vote in a poll that asked a slanted question--choices were (a) should we pull out of Iraq immediately or (b) should we "stay the course"? The poll choices ignored the fact that no Democrat on the national stage supports position (a)--the closest is the Murtha position calling for withdrawal over the next 6 months (and keeping forces nearby so we could go back in if necessary). After I voted, I started reading posts and felt compelled to respond. It snowballed from there--I ended up posting about 20 times over 2 days (and some LONG posts, complete with links to facts backing my positions).

I read post after post that simply repeated slogans or threw insults at liberals. Liberals were derided as "the enemy" and accused of treason. Empty statements like "love it or leave it", "stay the course", "finish the job", "keep them on the run", "we can either fight them over there or in the US" were plentiful. One post said liberals were monkeys because they believe in evolution. Other posts described liberals as "godless","communists" and/or "cowards". Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein morphed into what was described as "the same enemy".

There were also more thoughtful posts though. I exchanged comments with one poster who made the reasonable point that whatever you think of the reasons given for going to war in Iraq (almost none of which turned out to be true), the insurgents are a problem to be dealt with. He is right and I'm not sure anyone really knows how to solve this problem. But I don't see "stay the course" as an answer. It's a slogan. However, what he had to say made me think.

What frustrated me the most was the persistent refusal to use facts. People would make sweeping comments, like "liberals hate the troops" or "liberals think Americans are dumb" or "Dems want to bring the country down", "libs want us to lose", "Dems in Congress are stopping the generals from winning". None of the many people who made accusations like this ever backed up these sweeping generalizations with facts. That is frustrating, to say the least. I tried my best to point this out (over and over!).

There were also plenty of specifically incorrect points. One poster said "thank God we didn't have a liberal Dem in office during WWII! I'd never have been born." I reminded her FDR, the ORIGINAL liberal Dem was president during the war and advocated going to war early on while many conservatives like Charles Lindbergh and Arthur Vandenberg (didn't mention the latter by name) urged the US to stay out of the war. No one responded to that post! another poster claimed Bush had never flip-flopped (to her credit, when I gave some examples--some of which are posted on this blog, she was quite gracious) Another poster, again quite polite and friendly to me when I responded to him (thanked me for my "nice post"), attacked "selfish Dems" and wondered how many in Congress had served in the military (the poster himself was a veteran). I pointed out to him that many Dems in Congress had served (and gave examples). It was interesting to notice he didn't mind that few in the Bush admin have served. As I say though, he was quite polite and thanked me for my response.

One of the most frustrating exchanges involved a poster who was defending Halliburton. He started off by claiming Michael Moore made more money off the war than Halliburton. I pointed out to him that Halliburton has been accused of widespread fraud. His initial response was--it's just allegations, I thought "you people" believe in innocent until proven guilty, if you're right I'll apologize, but you won't be right. I pointed out presumed innocence is not something "you people" believe, it's constitutional due process. And I pointed him to links explaining several Halliburton employees have already pled guilty to criminal acts--it's moved beyond mere allegations. He was unmoved---said it was just a few bad apples. I pointed to stories of widespread fraud involving millions of dollars and witnesses who said Halliburton gave expired food to troops in Iraq. I reminded him Halliburton has been accused of cheating our military and our troops. I quoted a Republican Congressman who agreed there were serious concerns. Nothing mattered--he simply was unwilling to see anything wrong with Halliburton.

I don't mean to be 100% negative. I enjoyed the posting, even enjoyed reading the posts I disagreed with. I got some very gracious responses and some friendly responses. No one was dismissive of me, no one called me any terrible names. No one wrote anything personally attacking me (though there were plenty of generalized attacks against liberals and Democrats). And some of the liberals who posted (liberals were a decided minority on the Hannity site of course, but not nonexistent) were guilty of the problems I describe above---using insult, invective, name calling, failing to point to facts.

I knew I wouldn't change any minds, and really that was not my goal. I think different views are good. I do get upset about misinformation, slogans, namecalling. My main goal was to show Hannity's viewers/listeners that liberals are real people, not monsters drooling over the opportunity to undermine America. I reminded that we are all Americans, we all support the troops, supporting the troops doesn't mean we have to support everything the president does, and it should mean more than putting a yellow decal on your car. It should mean speaking up when companies defraud the military and asking Congress and the President to make sure our troops have the body armor and vehicle armor they need. I pointed out some of the troops are actually liberal Democrats themselves, and plenty have served in the past (I gave examples).

It was clear to me, as it has been clear before when I have spoken to other people I know, that many people who enjoy Hannity/Fox have reduced political debate to slogan and insults. I don't think this is wholly their fault--Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others do them a disservice and preach hatred, reduced to convenient soundbites. They spend lots of time telling people how liberals are the devil and encouraging viewers to turn off their minds. It's not surprising that people absorb and repeat what they hear from those they trust. I'm sure liberals are guilty of this at times too, and I know there are certainly times when I have been closeminded, overly general, or overly emotional. No one is perfect. I am hoping my mind remains open.

I try to be open-minded. I certainly do not agree with everything Democratic politicians say or do. I urged posters at the Hannity site to apply the same standard to those they support. It was an interesting couple of days...

Constitutional Crisis

2005-12-20T12:58:00.000-05:00

When George W. Bush ran for president in 2000, he liked to dramatically raise his right hand during public appearances. The Bush campaign was drawing a contrast between President Clinton, who did not tell the truth about an affair with Monica Lewinsky, and Bush, who would “restore honor and integrity to the White House” from the moment he raised his hand and swore on the Bible in taking the oath of office.

When Bush won the election and swore that oath, he swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. There were no exceptions. He did not promise to defend the Constitution “except during time of war or national emergency.” The Constitution itself similarly provides no such exceptions. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find a provision permitting the president to suspend or otherwise deviate from the Constitution in certain circumstances.

Last Saturday, President Bush admitted that he has set aside federal statute and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by ordering secret surveillance of Americans. Although applicable law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment, very clearly forbid such activity, absent a warrant or court order, President Bush says he has decided such actions are necessary to defend Americans.

This is an administration that solemnly invokes the principle of strict construction of federal law and the Constitution. It accuses liberal judges of making up the law as they go along, while conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito simply apply the law as it is written. But the administration’s position on the secret spying seems to be that the president has special unwritten powers associated with his role as Commander in Chief that permit him to take this action. Again, nothing in the Constitution actually says this.

Apparently the president is not himself a strict constructionist. If he were, he would recognize that the Constitution does not give him authority to set aside federal law or the Constitution, even if he deems it necessary.

What we have here is not judicial activism but presidential activism. We have a president who has decided, by fiat, that the law does not apply to him when he decides otherwise. The president has defiantly admitted he broke the law and is daring Congress to do something about it. He has said he will continue to order secret surveillance without bothering to comply with the law. Never mind that FISA provides the president with very broad powers to conduct surveillance by obtaining warrants pursuant to a lenient standard and even by conducting emergency surveillance for up to 72 hours before obtaining a warrant. This is not really about security. It is about power. The president is speaking a language of raw, untrammelled power, and he is daring the other branches of government to get in his way.

This is, quite simply, a constitutional crisis. Either the Constitution means what it says, or it does not. Either the president must obey the law, or he is above the law. Either Congress or the judiciary will stop the president, or he will have the power to suspend federal law and the Constitution at his whim.

President Bush often tells us that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. The terrorists have no power to abridge our liberties. They cannot search our bank records. They cannot wiretap our telephone conversations. They cannot search our e-mails. They cannot arrest and incarcerate us without probable cause or a trial. Only our government can do that. Our government, which says it is fighting for democracy and defending freedom, has announced that our most basic freedoms may be sacrificed in the name of security.

More than two centuries ago, Founding Father Patrick Henry famously declared “give me liberty, or give me death”. President Bush now tells us he will take our liberty from us in order to protect us from death. That is not the United States of America. If, in fighting an open-ended, vaguely defined war on terror, we set aside the basis for our constitutional democracy, then we might as well suspend the Constitution and make clear that the president may act as he chooses. It is to be fervently hoped that the system will work and the president will not be permitted to operate above the law.

What Else Don't We Know About?

2005-12-18T01:20:00.000-05:00

Thanks to the belated New York Times story (they held up publication for a year or so at the administration's request), we now know the Bush administration has been violating federal statute and the Constitution since at least 2002 by illegally spying on Americans.

It seems unlikely this is the only such activity the administration has engaged in. At the next opportunity, someone in the media needs to find out from the president or his press secretary what else we don't know about. Has the administration assigned operatives to tail Americans, regardless of whether there was probable cause to believe a crime was being or had been committed? Has it rummaged through bank records or other personal information without benefit of a warrant? Have federal officials entered peoples' homes without warrants?

If the administration has engaged in other illegal activity in the name of the war on terror, we need to know about it, and it needs to stop. If the Bush administration is trying to recreate George Orwell's 1984, perhaps it will be so good as to let us know all of the details of its adventure into absolute power.

President Flip-Flop

2005-12-17T15:00:00.000-05:00

This is a minor foootnote in light of the news that the President believes he is above the law and is unrepentant about breaking the law. But in the interest of bearing witness to hypocrisy, it should be noted that President Bush has flip-flopped on major issues at least twice this week. Bush opposed the McCain anti-torture legislation -- until he decided to support it. Bush said he couldn't talk about illegal spying until he changed his mind the next day and proudly acknowledged his disdain for the constitution's separation of powers. Of course, this is not the first time Bush has switched positions -- see, for example, his opposing the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (until he decided to support it) and his 2000 campaign promise to reduce certain pollutant emissions (withdrawn once he was elected).

I guess Kerry wasn't the only one who could flip-flop.

Update: Is the President Above the Law?

2005-12-17T14:56:00.000-05:00

Bush admitted today that he did order illegal spying on Americans. He said he is doing what is necessary to fight the war on terror. He did not apologize and said he would do this again.

We have heard from this President, ad nauseam, that the terrorists hate us for "our freedoms." Now he is telling us it is sometimes necessary to violate the Constitution in order to fight terror. Kind of sounds like the old Vietnam-era maxim--"we had to destroy the village in order to save it".

If we suspend the Constitution and cede all our rights to this administration, will the terrorists stop hating us?

This is upside down, black is white, Orwellian stuff.

Is the President above the law?

2005-12-16T23:18:00.000-05:00

The New York Times has reported that President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance of Americans inside the United States without seeking a warrant from a court. Here's a link to the story. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

If it turns out the reports are true, then President Bush decided he was above the law and gave orders for the NSA to conduct illegal warrantless surveillance that violated the Constitution, the document on which our nation is founded.

This is extremely serious stuff. Yes, we face threats today. But if we agree that the president has carte blanche to take whatever action he deems appropriate to combat terrorism, then we might as well suspend the Constitution and name Bush dictator. That is not an exaggeration--again, if this happened as reported, then President Bush (who reportedly personally authorized wiretapping) set aside the law and decided he need not obey it.

In retrospect, this should not be a surprise. The administration has argued for an incredibly expansive vision of presidential power that basically means during time of war the president can do anything he deems necessary to protect the American people. This is the language of dictatorship. Here's a link to another Times article explaining the administration's theory of sweeping executive power. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17legal.html?hp&ex=1134795600&en=3fb2a61c1230f802&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I do not mean to suggest that we are living in a Stalinist state. But this is extremely scary stuff. Fortunately, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress seem to recognize that. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Meeting immediately said he would conduct hearings on this matter. Five Republicans joined Democrats in blocking reauthorization of the Patriot Act today, and it seems they were influenced by the secret spying story.

If this story turns out to be true, we are facing a constitutional crisis. Is the executive branch above the law? Can Congress stop the executive from acting in violation of the Constitution? Early signs are encouraging, as Republicans seem stunned and outraged by this revelation. I hope they will maintain their resolve if it becomes clear that the Bush administration has indeed placed itself above the law.

Look on the Bright Side

2005-12-16T16:06:00.000-05:00

When the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank in April 1912, over fifteen hundred people died. If Donald Rumsfeld had been around back then, he might have wondered why newspapers overlooked the positive aspects of the story. Things weren’t all bad on that tragic night. For one thing, over 700 people were rescued and lived. A whopping 74% of women on board the ship survived, as well as 52% of children. And the Carpathia, the first ship that came by to pick up Titanic’s survivors, had a successful Atlantic crossing; not one passenger was lost.

That’s the kind of Pollyanna-ish spin Americans can expect from their not-so-beloved Defense Secretary. Before the war in Iraq began, Rumsfeld brushed off the idea that it might last more than a few months. Nearly three years later, he asserts that news coverage of the war is too negative, claiming there is a contrast between the stories of suicide attacks and dead soldiers that Americans read and the views of the Iraqi people and U.S. troops themselves. Rumsfeld threatened to make a complete break with reality when he recently compared Iraq with America’s World War Two victory at Iwo Jima: “You couldn’t tell the full story of Iwo Jima simply by listing the 26,000 [American casualties],” Rumsfeld insisted, “So too, in Iraq, it’s appropriate to note not only how many Americans have been killed…but what they died for, or more accurately what they lived for.” The Secretary said that context is missing from reports of suicide attacks.

I am fortunate to be one of the few observers whose head did not explode when reading the transcript of Rumsfeld’s speech, given at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Therefore, the task falls to me to point out some of the major flaws in the Secretary’s umm, what do we call it? Logic?

Iwo Jima was a major American victory coming after many other American victories had pushed the Japanese back from their strongholds in the Pacific. It followed major American triumphs in the Phillippines and at the battle of Leyte Gulf. We suffered grievous casualties at Iwo Jima, but nearly every Japanese soldier on the island was wiped out. Of nearly 22,000 Japanese defenders, only 200 survived to be taken prisoner. This was a huge victory. Iwo Jima was secured and became an important air base used for the ongoing Pacific campaign. To put it in a larger context (as Rumsfeld demands for Iraq), things were also going well on the European front. American troops were marching across Europe to meet Russian troops coming from the east, where they met in Berlin just a couple of months later. Total victory was in sight and came less than six months later with V-J Day.

All this contrasts with the quagmire in Iraq. We do not control Iraq. Not even Baghdad is secure. American soldiers are dying at an alarming rate—11 Marines were killed just the other day and more than 2,000 have died in all. There is no evidence that we are close to defeating the insurgency. There is every reason to expect it will continue as long as we keep troops in Iraq. In short, there is no end in sight. When Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently appeared before a Senate Committee she refused to say whether American troops might still be needed in Iraq in 10 years.

None of this takes anything away from the bravery or idealism of our troops in Iraq. They have done everything that has been asked of them and are continuing to perform their duties under conditions that would drive most of us stark raving mad.

It does nothing to help our troops, however, to brush aside reality. Reality is that we have been in Iraq for nearly three years. No WMD were found. The country has been torn apart by sectarian violence. U.S. credibility is gone. A majority of Americans no longer support the president and no longer think it was a good idea to invade Iraq.

The fact is that creative (though warped) thinking can make even the worst disaster sound like it has an upside. On the tragic day when the Challenger space shuttle exploded, seven crew members were killed, but 99.9% of NASA employees survived the day. When the plague swept through 14th Century Europe, it killed an estimated 34 million people. But more than two thirds of Europeans lived on. When a flu pandemic hit just after World War One, millions died worldwide. But most people survived that too.

Maybe we should try to take Secretary Rumsfeld’s advice. We have a Secretary of Defense who helped author a costly, tragic war in Iraq that, after nearly three years, has achieved none of its promised objectives. On the positive side, there are rumors that Rumsfeld may be on his way out of office as many are clamoring for his exit. Maybe there’s something to positive thinking after all.

The Conservative Culture of Victimhood

2005-12-08T16:04:00.000-05:00

Not so long ago, it was in vogue for conservatives to accuse liberals of fostering a “culture of victimhood”. What this meant is that conservatives had heard enough of women, African-Americans, and other minorities complaining about inequality.

After years of telling women, African-Americans, Hispanics, gays, lesbians, the disabled and others to “get over it”, conservatives finally decided they would develop their own narrative of victimization. In recent years, we have heard that white men are an endangered species, that Christians are an embattled and widely persecuted group in the United States, and that conservatives face discrimination of their own, for instance, in academia. The latest episode in this unreality series is the assertion that there is a “War on Christmas”. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News claims this is part of the “secular progressive agenda…to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square”.

O’Reilly’s silly attempt to force a non-issue onto centerstage of public debate does not merit attention for its own sake. However, the underlying theme of white male/Christian/religious/ conservative persecution should catch our attention as it (a) runs counter to reality and (b) is an example of rank hypocrisy on the part of those who used to delight in ridiculing supposed liberal whiners.

Take a look at American institutions of power—Congress, the White House, the federal courts, corporate boardrooms. You will find the overwhelming majority of elites are white men. How many members of Congress are agnostic, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist? Similarly, few are gay, lesbian or female —the overwhelming majority is Christian, white, male, and straight. Congress opens legislative sessions with prayers. President Bush does the same at cabinet meetings. The White House has an Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Conservatives control both branches of Congress and the White House. The Supreme Court is as conservative as it has been for decades—the most “liberal” member is probably Justice Souter, a Republican appointee who would have sat squarely at the political center of past Courts. “Liberal” is a dirty word in American politics—when’s the last time a presidential (or any) candidate proudly declared him or herself to be a liberal? By contrast, President Bush proudly describes himself as a “compassionate conservative”. There is no infamy associated with identifying oneself as a conservative. “Liberal” brings to mind tax and spend, socialist, even communist. Years of overheated conservative rhetoric have made the word radioactive.

According to the CIA’s world factbook, three quarters of Americans are either Protestant or Catholic. (The CIA factbook also says 81% are white, but there is no separate listing for Hispanics so it is not clear exactly how to parse this statistic). Our president is an evangelical Christian who makes his faith clear in his rhetoric and his policy choices. Who exactly are these atheistic Grinches who supposedly wield the power to ruin Christmas and banish religion from American life? No one seems to have identified any hard proof of their existence. If they did exist, they wouldn’t get very far with their sinister agenda.

Why have conservatives seized on a rhetoric of victimhood? I don’t know—my guess is they realized (consciously or otherwise) it was an effective talking point, a good way to play on and redirect feelings of humiliation and anger that reside in white men and the religiously faithful who nostalgically yearn for a mythic past when everyone went to church, women knew their place, and (here I am sympathetic) high school graduates could find good jobs with benefits that allowed them to raise families and send kids to college.

If Bill O’Reilly has his way, we will waste our time arguing about figments of his imagination. The reality is that, though this is a multicultural country with no state religion, it is predominantly Christian, and (some) men have held on to their positions of power in elite sectors of society. 21st century Archie Bunkers have plenty to be mad about—stagnant wages, vanishing fringe benefits, a disastrous war in Iraq, failure to improve national security. Conservatives would rather have them get angry at those who have the least power to affect their lives—atheists, gays, lesbians, ethnic and racial minorities, feminists. Scapegoating is a an old and tired political tactic used to deflect responsibility from failed governments to powerless straw men. So is developing a rhetoric of victimization. Turnabout is fairplay. Hey, Bill O’Reilly: get over it!

God's Choice for President?

2005-11-28T21:21:00.000-05:00

President Bush has made clear that religion is an important aspect of his personal life, and of his presidency. During his first presidential campaign, he cited Jesus Christ as the political philosopher he most admires. Just before the 2000 election, in an interview with a website called beliefnet.com, Bush said that his personal faith had a significant impact on his political beliefs, and influenced him on matters like Medicare and prescription drugs. Once elected, President Bush established an Office of Faith Based Initiatives in the White House and continued to weave religion into his rhetoric and to cite it as a basis for policy choices, as, for example, in the context of stem cell research and gay marriage.

A recent article in the New Yorker suggests Bush’s merging of religion and his presidency goes even further. Seymour Hersh reports that a former senior official who served in Bush’s first term was told Bush felt God had placed him in office to deal with the war on terror. The former official further explained that Bush privately saw his party’s midterm victories in 2002 as “another manifestation of divine purpose.” Elsewhere, there have been reports that the President said he believed God had told him to “strike down Iraq” before the United States invaded that country.

I do not have Sy Hersh’s sources and of course have no way to independently confirm if his reporting is accurate. But I have no reason not to believe him. He is a respected journalist with a reputation for cultivating reliable sources more in the mold of Deep Throat than Scooter Libby. Let’s assume he is correct. Why does the president feel the need to keep these ideas private? Why not publicly announce his belief that God guides him in Iraq, God placed him in the White House, and elections in his favor are evidence of God’s purpose?

The United States in 2005 does not have a political climate that is hostile to religion. To the contrary, it seems mandatory that candidates for public office openly express their devotion to God. We saw John Kerry’s attempts (sometimes criticized as fumbling or opportunistic) to infuse religion into his campaign last year. It is hard to think of any officeholder, or candidate for high office (Congress or the White House), who is openly agnostic or atheist. Polls show the United States to be the most religious industrialized nation in the world. And most Americans are Christian; a Pew Research Council poll in 2002 showed 82% of Americans identify as Christian. Other polls show that nearly one half of Americans believe the creation story in Genesis is literally correct and about three quarters believe that the miracles described in the Bible actually happened.

Against this backdrop, does the President, or do his advisors, believe there is a limit on what at least some Americans will bear when it comes to the mixing of religion and the presidency? Perhaps the President believes some Americans would find it blasphemous for him to identify as essentially a messenger or tool of divinity. Or perhaps he is concerned critics would ridicule him as a zealot.

None of this is to attack religion. I do not question the President’s, or anyone’s, personal faith. What I do wonder about is a President who might believe God placed him in the White House, God instructed him to make war, and God favored his political party with electoral victory. This is very dangerous ground. If the President believes he is chosen by God, he may believe he can do no wrong, as everything he does is part of God’s plan. Hersh’s article in the New Yorker suggests as much. Hersh’s source, the former senior official, says that when he tried to tell the President we weren’t winning in Iraq, the President didn’t want to hear it. We often hear that the President surrounds himself with yes men and women and that robust debate is not part of his decisionmaking process. Maybe this can be understood in the context of his religious conviction. As Bush puts it, he answers to “a higher father”.

Bush has made religion an integral and public part of his presidency. That means that questions about how his religion affects his decisions are legitimate. This must be done respectfully, of course. No one should denigrate the President’s faith or suggest in any way that religious belief itself is inherently suspect. But Americans have the right to know if their President governs based on a belief that he is God’s instrument, as opposed to the chief executive of a constitutional democracy, answerable to the American people.

Honoring the Fallen

2005-11-20T17:09:00.000-05:00

To mark the somber occasion of the 2,000th American military death in Iraq, President Bush trotted out a tried and true talking point, insisting, as he has in the past, that “the best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission” in Iraq.

This statement is a particularly insidious talking point; it is meant to cut off all debate about Iraq. There is a sinister elegance to the statement. It suggests that anyone who questions the Bush administration's policy in Iraq is dishonoring brave Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice, because the policy is itself a way of honoring their deaths. The statement neatly links dead American soldiers with the Bush administration in an unbreakable bond.

The president’s statement is also insidious because it co-opts every fallen soldier as a posthumous draftee of the administration’s policy. Some soldiers, and their families, would undoubtedly have it no other way; they supported the president in life and would have no problem supporting him in death. But we know this is not a universal feeling. There are soldiers who, while honoring their commitment to serve, did not agree with the president’s policy. There are even soldiers -- heaven forfend!—who voted against the president in the last election. That is their right as Americans.

As an example, Cindy Sheehan has made it clear that she does not want the president to use her son Casey’s death as an argument for staying the course in Iraq. Yet the president ignores her wishes, and the wishes of other mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters of the fallen who, like Ms. Sheehan, do not support the president. There is something heartless about this, about subordinating the wishes of those who lost their loved ones to a blunt political purpose.

The administration’s talking point is eerily Orwellian. In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, a group of farm animals rise up against their cruel human masters and seize control of the farm. The farm’s pigs, who lead the other animals after the rebellion, train their supporters to loudly chant “four legs good, too legs bad” whenever any dissenter voices opposition to their rule. The president’s “honor the fallen” statement has the same purpose; it is intended to drown out dissent, indeed, to make dissent unpatriotic.

The president has set up a false choice. It is quite possible to honor the soldiers while questioning U.S. policy in Iraq. These are separate issues. There are no reports of Americans questioning the bravery or integrity of soldiers who have fought and died in Iraq. This appears to be a universal, or nearly universal, view among Americans; that our military is deserving of respect. But many Americans do question the president’s policy in Iraq. The president suggests that they can only be faithful to the troops by supporting him; in other words, there is something unpatriotic about opposing the administration’s policy in Iraq.

Another Republican president, who Bush has identified as a hero, exposed the fallacy of the attempt to equate patriotism with loyalty to a particular administration. Theodore Roosevelt declared that “patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official.” There is no evidence that Americans on either side of the Iraq debate have abandoned their country.

Patriotic Americans, Americans who support the troops, and honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, are not required to support the administration. Those who support the president can be patriots, just as those who oppose the president can be patriots. Similarly, those who fight our wars, and those who fall, are worthy of being honored whether they supported the president or not, and whether the policy in Iraq is changed or not. Their sacrifice is a matter of record and cannot be erased. The president should recognize this, and should stop insisting he knows best how to honor the fallen troops. We should have a real, open, honest debate about what to do in Iraq, without the implicit charge that those who oppose the president are dishonoring their fallen countrymen and women.

The New McCarthyism

2005-11-20T17:06:00.000-05:00

Last Friday, Republicans in Congress forced a vote on a resolution they had no intention of passing. Following conservative, hawkish Democratic Congressman John Murtha’s eloquent and emotional statement about the war in Iraq, in which he concluded it is time to begin taking the troops out of Iraq, Republicans played politics with the war by proposing a “sense of the House” resolution stating that troops should be pulled out of Iraq immediately. Only three Democrats voted in favor of this resolution. The other 200 or so (including Murtha himself) do not favor an immediate pullout, the “cut and run” straw man that talking point spouting Republicans endlessly blather about.

I watched some of the vote on the resolution on C-Span. As members voted on a preliminary issue, C-Span took calls from viewers. I was struck by the vitriol, bile, and pure hatred voiced by callers who support the President. They called Democrats “communists”, and “cowards and traitors” (more than one caller used these words). They equated support for the troops with support for the administration – which means, of course, if you don’t support President Bush, you don’t support the troops in the field. They said criticizing the troops undermined the morale of the troops in Iraq, who don’t like to know their president is being criticized at home (which assumes, of course, that all soldiers support Bush).

Where do Americans get the idea that critics of the war are treasonous, dishonorable cowards? From their leaders and from conservative media. Responding to Congressman Murtha’s statement, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan suggested that Murtha (a decorated 37 year Marine veteran) wanted to “surrender” to terrorists. Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R-OH) called Murtha a “coward” on the House floor (she was shamed into striking her insult from the record). Congressman Geoff Davis (R-KY) says the “liberal leadership have…cooperated with our enemies and our emboldening our enemies.” Fox News’ Sean Hannity told his guest, General Wesley Clark, that he he’s “had it with [Democrats] undermining our troops, undermining our commander in chief while we’re at war.” Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently scorned what he called “the surrender wing of American foreign policy”. On Veteran’s Day, President Bush himself slimed Democratic critics of the war in Iraq, calling them “deeply irresponsible”, saying they were “send[ing] the wrong signal to our troops and [the] enemy”. He continued by suggesting that it was not clear if critics of the war support the troops.

At least one Republican in Congress has rejected this new McCarthyism. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said at a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations last week that “question[ing] your government is not unpatriotic—to not question your government is unpatriotic.” He scolded the Bush administration not to “demonize” those who disagree with its policies.

When George W. Bush ran for president in 2000, he promised to raise the level of public discourse. Just the opposite has happened. We have reached a point where the White House Press Secretary and members of Congress find it acceptable to question the courage and patriotism of a decorated Marine in Congress who has dared to raise questions about an unpopular war. If President Bush still wants to elevate the tone of debate, he will issue an unequivocal public statement reminding his supporters that we are all Americans, that raising questions about the war in Iraq does not make someone a traitor, and that dissent does not make someone a supporter of terrorism. Don’t hold your breath on this though. The administration’s strategy at the moment is to slander and insult anyone who dissents. The longer this continues, the more likely ordinary Americans will feel emboldened to call their neighbors and fellow Americans from the other political party traitors, communists, and surrender monkeys. We can do much better than this, but we probably won’t, at least not anytime soon.

Another Downside To Staying in Iraq

2005-11-14T10:20:00.000-05:00

Why are more than 150,000 American troops mired in Iraq, nearly three years after the invasion? President Bush explains that we are fighting terrorists there so we don’t have to fight them inside the United States. He adds that we have to “complete the mission” in Iraq to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops.

These simplistic platitudes are empty, meaningless and prevent Americans from focusing on what is really going on in Iraq with regard to Al Qaeda, and what it really means for Americans and the world. If terrorists bogged down in Iraq were incapable of launching attacks elsewhere, there would have been no attacks in Madrid, London, Bali, or other non-Iraqi targets struck by Al Qaeda after the invasion of Iraq, most recently, Amman, Jordan. If the war in Iraq is ineffective, or even harming American goals, then remaining there does nothing to honor the sacrifice of the fallen. Truly honoring those who gave their lives to protect Americans means making sure American forces are deployed in the manner most likely to prevent future terrorist attacks. It is by no means clear that staying in Iraq accomplishes this goal, and the contrary may well be true—staying in Iraq may be strengthening Al Qaeda.

Last week Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for deadly suicide attacks in Amman, saying the attacks were carried out by four Iraqis, including a husband and wife. Jordan is an ally of the United States. It is a Muslim nation that has made peace with Israel. It is not a democracy (democracy isn’t on the march everywhere in the Middle East); it is ruled by King Abdullah, who was educated in the United States and Great Britain, often dresses in western style business suits, and has forged close relationships with western countries, including the United States.

Peter Scheuer, a former CIA analyst with expertise concerning Al Qaeda (he has written multiple books about Al Qaeda, including “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror”) suggests that the attacks in Jordan are related to what is going on in Iraq. President Bush claims it is a good thing that Iraq has become a magnet attracting terrorists to the country. Scheuer asserts something quite different, that Al Qaeda has a plan to use Iraq as a staging base for attacks on other “apostate” governments in the region, nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and ultimately Israel. If Scheuer is correct, then the President is very, very wrong about what Iraq means for Al Qaeda.

President Bush likes to take credit for the fact that (thankfully) the United States has not been hit with a domestic terror attack since 9/11. Who gets the blame for the post-invasion terrorist attacks in Iraq and by Iraqis? Saddam Hussein was a monster, but he was not, and other Iraqis were not, carrying out terrorist attacks against foreigners prior to the March 2003 invasion. Now terrorists carry out frequent attacks within Iraq, and, apparently, have begun to launch attacks into neighboring countries.

If Iraqis can travel to Jordan to carry out suicide attacks, obviously it is possible that they can travel to other countries as well for the same awful purpose. Someone needs to ask President Bush whether we are making ourselves safer in Iraq, or whether we are breeding new terrorists in Iraq who will not feel constrained by geographic borders when they plot future attacks.

(A similar piece also appears at globalpolitician.com -- http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1379&cid=2&sid=38 )

Exit Miers, Enter Politics

2005-11-08T17:13:00.000-05:00

Whatever Harriet Miers and President Bush say publicly, the real reason Miers withdrew her nomination to the Supreme Court was that she was not acceptable to ultraconservatives.
Hard-core conservatives in the Republican Party, such as Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and hard-charging conservative interest groups such as Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council, have made clear that they demand a nominee with established conservative bona fides, someone in the Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas mold. They will settle for nothing less. They don't want to take a chance on someone whose views, for example, on Roe v. Wade, are not known. They don't want another David Souter, who, though nominated by Bush's father, has turned out to be one of the more
liberal members of a staunchly conservative court.

All this reveals the hypocrisy of standard conservative arguments about the courts and judicial nominations. Earlier this year, conservatives railed against Democratic threats to filibuster extreme Bush nominees. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) solemnly invoked the principle that "all nominees deserve an up-or-down vote." The Miers episode exposes an exception to this rule; if a nominee is not palatable to conservatives, that nominee does not deserve an up-or- down vote. He or she will be forced to withdraw, at the whim of ultraconservatives (some of whom are not elected officials).

For years, conservatives have promoted the idea that judges are not political creatures. Their objection to the "liberal judges" who supposedly infest our court system is that they are guided by politics, not law. That is what conservatives mean when they accuse judges of "legislating from the bench" and when they praise "strict constructionists" (supposedly guided by objective truth, not politics). The implication is that judges can and should decide cases based on objective legal principles, not on ideology.

But the reaction to Miers shows that conservatives do believe ideology has a place - it's just a question of which one. Thus, the cry against Miers: Conservatives could not be sure she was conservative enough.

To be sure, some did question Miers' qualifications. But the real issue was her ideology. Clarence Thomas was barely, if at all, more qualified than Miers. But conservatives did not torpedo his nomination and would gladly support someone in his mold, with his qualifications, today. What separated Miers from Thomas in the eyes of conservatives was not her legal credentials, but her ideological ones.

Lawyers, judges, and law professors have observed for years the fact that politics does not stop at the courtroom door. Legal realism, the commonsense-based theory that judges' personal views, biases, and subjective preferences affect their decision-making, has been around since the 1930s. Law students learn about it in school and see it firsthand when they go into practice.
No objective legal source can tell judges how to apply ambiguous, but deeply important, constitutional principles such as "due process" and "equal protection" to cases. Judges are, at least in some cases, guided by their politics. They are human beings, not machines. That is the lesson of legal realism, and that is the reality of our legal system.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather have a human being deciding death penalty cases than a computer that can spit out supposedly objective strict-constructionist logic. It is past time that we openly acknowledge this reality as regards judicial nominations, especially Supreme Court nominations.

Presidents choose nominees for political reasons, hoping they will deliver decisions congenial to their ideology and party. It should be fair game for either party to challenge a nominee as too far to one or another political side of the spectrum, too much outside the mainstream. We should all acknowledge this reality: that nominees are themselves judged, at least in part, on their political views (to the extent that they can be known, or discovered).

Now that President Bush, in deference to the conservatives who sank Miers' nomination, has nominated the conservative Judge Samuel Alito, a judge nicknamed "Scalito" for his similarities to Scalia, liberals should feel free to challenge the nominee. If conservatives chastise them for injecting politics into the process, liberals can point to Harriet Miers and remind conservatives that they did not invent the idea that, when it comes to judicial nominees, politics matters.

(This piece appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer at http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/13047628.htm )

Ten More Years in Iraq?

2005-11-03T15:04:00.000-05:00

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to assure Americans that progress is being made in Iraq and that there is a plan for victory. However, when she was asked whether U.S. soldiers might still be in Iraq in five years, or even ten years, she refused to answer, saying she couldn’t speculate and that we would stay until victory was achieved. When Senator John Kerry asked Secretary Rice to define victory, she gave an answer that set new standards for vagueness and uncertainty. She said victory means “laying the foundation for an Iraqi government that is clearly moving along its political path…a permanent government that has begun to really deal with its sectarian differences..”.

It has already been two and a half years since U.S. forces entered Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein from power. Before the war, the Bush administration reassured us that victory would be speedy and relatively painless. No one talked about troops being stationed in Iraq indefinitely and it is hard to believe Americans would have supported a war that called for our troops to police the country for two years, let alone ten.

Two and a half years later, the time for empty promises and vague pronouncements has passed. It is absolutely unacceptable to consider the possibility that U.S. troops might stay in Iraq until 2015 or later. It is equally unacceptable to believe that Secretary Rice’s standard for victory has any more solidity than a cloud in the sky. U.S. troops are going to stay in Iraq until the country makes real progress on its sectarian differences? If history is any guide, that could take decades, if it ever happens. Imagine if Richard Nixon had sent U.S. troops to the West Bank of the Jordan River in 1973, declaring they would stay there until sectarian differences were ironed out. Our soldiers might still be there; the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis still continues, 30 years later, despite an ongoing Israeli troop presence. Or what if the United States had sent troops to Northern Ireland in 1969, announcing the same benchmark for victory? We might have welcomed our troops home twenty nine years later, when the Good Friday agreement was concluded.

It is irrational to ask Americans to put their heads down and wait for Secretary Rice’s nebulous vision of victory to be realized. And it is simply not worth the price. Following Secretary Rice’s “plan” might mean ten or twenty more years of U.S. troop presence in Iraq, billions of dollars, and, most unacceptably, thousands of deaths.

Leaving Iraq does not mean giving up the war on terror. To the contrary, it would create an opportunity for America to re-focus its energies on fighting that war. This war cannot be won by occupying countries; insurgents will hold out for years, as they have already done in Iraq and Afghanistan. That does not mean we are letting the terrorists win. It means we will use our military intelligence, in cooperation with allies, to hunt down terrorists wherever they are and to thwart their plans. Victory in this war means, first and foremost, preventing terrorist attacks. Despite what the Bush administration insists, keeping American troops in Iraq does not prevent Al Qaeda from striking outside Iraq. If that logic were true, the attacks in Madrid and London (not to mention others in Bali, Eqypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere) would not have occurred.

Fighting the war on terror also means asking the military to hunt down Al Qaeda members, not by indefinitely occupying countries where they are located (if that was the strategy, the United States would have to send our troops to a host of countries across the globe), but by performing clearly defined missions. For instance, when intelligence locates a Qaeda training camp in the mountains of Afghanistan, troops would be sent in to root them out. These troops would not spend their down time presenting easy targets for insurgents; rather, they would act as rapid response forces, quickly responding to threats, performing their jobs, and returning home.

Our soldiers have done everything that we have asked of them. Their families have done everything asked of them. Too many soldiers have died, been maimed, and been psychologically scarred. Too many families have lost loved ones. It is time to bring our troops home and re-focus our energies on a real war against terror, not the mirage the Bush administration has offered us in Iraq.

Fear Itself

2005-10-25T15:21:00.000-04:00

When Franklin Roosevelt took office as president in 1933, the United States was in the middle of the Great Depression. In fact, there was a worldwide economic depression. Fascism was on the rise in Europe. Mussolini ruled Italy. In January, two months before FDR was inaugurated, Hitler had been sworn in as Chancellor of Germany. On March 4, 1933, the day before Hitler formally consolidated dictatorial power, FDR gave his first inaugural address. Roosevelt told a nation facing economic calamity at home and the growing threat of fascism abroad that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

For Americans in 1933, those must have been powerful, moving words. Even seventy years later, they stir emotion. They also might make today’s Americans wonder where leaders like FDR are to be found now. Today, leaders tell Americans “be afraid, be very afraid.” During last year’s presidential campaign, the Bush campaign ran a television ad, featuring a menacing pack of wolves, that accused John Kerry of weakening America’s defenses and leaving Americans vulnerable. Vice President Cheney warned that if Kerry was elected, “the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.” The message was clear: the Bush campaign wanted Americans to be afraid, and hoped that fear, not reason, would move them to vote for Bush.

Even after winning re-election, Bush still wants Americans to be afraid, to give in to the unreasoning, unjustified terror FDR warned Americans against. Earlier this month, in a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush warned that Islamic radicals have grandly sinister dreams. They seek “to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East”. They have targeted Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Jordan for “potential takeover.” Bin Laden and his followers are fighting a “war against humanity”. They aim at establishing a “radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.” Militants would also like to “destroy Israel”, “intimidate Europe”, “assault the American people and blackmail our government into isolation.” Ultimately, Bush suggested, they seek dominion over all people—he quoted Al Qaeda’s Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as threatening to achieve “victory over the human race”. Other leaders are taking Bush’s cue. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney recently said that “Islamic terrorists want to bring down our government” and “put in place a huge theocracy.”

In the NED speech, Bush implicitly compared Bin Laden to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot and solemnly intoned that “evil men obsessed with ambition…must be taken very seriously…” Of course, no one disputes that Bin Laden must be taken seriously. But he is not Hitler of 1939, or even 1933. He controls no state, no world class military. He does not have the ability to take over another country by force. He may threaten grandiosely evil deeds, but threats do not make it so.

Instead of rationally confronting the problem Bin Laden poses, Bush tries to make us terrified. Yes, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are a danger. Americans remember what happened on September 11. (In fact, many Americans notice that Bush has not fulfilled his promise to capture Bin Laden “dead or alive”.) But we must not make Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda “franchise” into more than they are. Associating Bin Laden with lofty goals like restoring the Islamic Caliphate adds to the Bin Laden legend as a man who has stared down two superpowers. We do not need to give anyone a reason to believe Bin Laden’s own hype, that he is a once in a millenium hero in the mold of Saladin, the Islamic hero who defeated the Crusaders. That is only likely to make Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts more fruitful.

The reality is that Al Qaeda has limited resources. Last year, the Institute for Strategic Studies estimated its total strength at less than 20,000. That does not mean Al Qaeda is something to be dismissed. Even a few terrorists can inflict horrible damage. But nothing is to be gained by making Al Qaeda into more than it is. Well, nothing helpful is to be gained. By scaring Americans, Bush may regain his grip on a presidency that is sliding away from him, after the failed response to Katrina, a hopeless war in Iraq, and scandals within the Republican party and possibly the White House itself. But political gain comes at an unconscionable price for Americans, who are asked not to reject fear, but to embrace it, and blindly to assign their trust to a leader who tells them he is the only one who can protect them.

Bush has told us what he thinks Al Qaeda is capable of doing. He neglects to consider what Americans, motivated by real leadership, rather than fear, are capable of doing. A leader who appeals to Americans’ better qualities might find a brave nation, ready to stand up to whatever threats it faces, and unwilling to give in to fear.

Not So Great Expectations for Miers

2005-10-13T11:51:00.000-04:00

President Bush has benefited politically from low expectations. During his debates with Al Gore in 2000, absurdly low expectations allowed Bush to claim victory, or at least a respectable showing, by simply managing to show up, stand erect, and not drool on himself. Even in 2004, no one expected much from Bush in debates with his rival John Kerry and low expectations again aided the president.

Low expectations might also help Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Conservatives have described Miers as an unqualified mediocrity. Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer bluntly stated that “if Miers were not a crony of the president, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke.” Former Nixon loyalist Pat Buchanan described Miers’s qualifications for the Court as “non-existent.”

I am no fan of either Mr. Krauthammer or Mr. Buchanan, but I agree with their assessments. However, Ms. Miers now has nowhere to go but up. The reality is that Ms. Miers is an experienced lawyer who headed up a large law firm and has been White House counsel. Although she may not be John Roberts, she will probably be able to present reasonably coherent answers at her Senate hearing. Given the low expectations set for her, this could help swing the dynamic in her favor. The White House might be able to use even a merely competent performance by Miers at the hearing to argue that people have misjudged her.
If Democrats choose to oppose Ms. Miers (and it is not entirely clear that they will do so—Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid initially seemed to endorse Miers, though he has backed away from that position), they will want to consider how the expectations game might play out. They might want to start talking up Ms. Miers’s experience, predicting that she will do at least a competent job of answering questions from Arlen Specter and Joe Biden. She might not be John Roberts, but it is hard to see her dissolving in a pool of diffidence before the Judiciary Committee.

The point, Democrats might remind us, is not only whether Miers is basically qualified or generally competent. It is whether she will answer questions that tell Americans she is in the mainstream. Republicans have opened the door to challenging Miers on her ideology, and Democrats can now do the same. Republican Senator Sam Brownback has made clear he is skeptical of Miers because of her views, or because he cannot be sure what her views are. Brownback complained that when he met with Miers, she would not discuss Roe v. Wade and did not assure him she was prepared to consider overruling the abortion decision. Gary Bauer, a leading opponent of abortion, has said the fact that Miers is an evangelical does not comfort him—he wants to know what she will do about Roe. Senator Jeff Sessions, like Brownback a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, worries Miers might be another Souter—someone who betrays conservatives on abortion and other issues: “I think conservatives do not have confidence she has a well-formed judicial philosophy, and they are afraid she might drift and be a part of the activist group like Justice Souter has”.

Republicans used to complain about a litmus test on abortion for Supreme Court nominees. Now they have their own test; no one supporting Roe need apply. Conservatives have made clear that they are willing to oppose nominees based on ideology, which means it can’t be off limits for Democrats to do the same. Democrats who oppose Miers should insist she makes at least some of her views known at the upcoming hearing—this can be done without asking for her opinion on specific cases that may come before the Court.

Americans don’t know much about Miers, who has not served as a judge and has not written about the important issues of the day, and we need to find out whether she is an extremist before we hand her a lifetime seat on the Court. The fact that ultraconservatives like James Dobson and Jay Sekulow have indicated they support her, and that Dobson has cited secret information as the basis for his support, suggests Miers may harbor some extreme views. Some Democrats have signaled that they will indeed focus on Miers’s ideology. Senator Dick Durbin says Miers needs to “explain who she is and what she believes.” Senator Charles Schumer said that Bush’s request that we “trust him” on Miers is not good enough.

Conservatives have given a golden opportunity to Democrats who choose to oppose Miers. Questions about ideology are not off-limits. If Miers refuses to answer such questions, Democrats can follow conservatives in saying that the president’s word here is not good enough and they cannot confirm a blank slate to sit on the highest court in the land.

The President's Compassion (?)

2005-09-19T23:55:00.000-04:00

As they always seem to do when disaster strikes, Americans have responded to Hurricane Katrina with generosity for those affected. They have opened their wallets, and sometimes their homes. The Red Cross alone has received hundreds of millions of dollars in donations; its servers were overwhelmed by people trying to contribute on the internet. Celebrities have donated money and time. Former Vice President Al Gore chartered a flight to evacuate people from New Orleans to Chattanooga; he and his son flew along with the passengers.

Although President Bush constantly urges Americans to donate to the Red Cross and calls on the “armies of compassion” to respond to this disaster, it is not clear that he has taken any significant personal action of his own to respond. President Bush’s response has largely focused on political damage control and carefully choreographed photo ops, not on personal acts of kindness.

Last week, President Bush finally acknowledged personal responsibility for the tragically mismanaged response to Katrina. Even with this acknowledgement, a glaring failure remains. Why hasn’t the president made some prominent personal gesture to demonstrate concern for those his government failed? Crawford, Texas is about five hundred miles from New Orleans. The president could have opened his ranch to displaced survivors. When the president visited the distressed region, he could have taken survivors out with him on Air Force One. He could announce that he will donate half of his $400,000 salary for 2005 to the Red Cross. He would probably manage to get by; he has housing and other necessities paid for by the government, and he has substantial assets.

The president has moved slowly in responding to this tragedy. It is to be hoped that, in time, he will recognize the importance of a personal gesture of compassion. In the absence of such an act, words that aim at compassion ring hollow. Mr. Bush speaks of the importance of personal generosity, but his actions (or inactions) speak louder than his words. The actions of his one-time rival, Mr. Gore, say something quite different. Mr. Gore’s face has not flooded the airwaves; a sheriff who briefly spoke with the former Vice President said that “[Mr. Gore] was not visiting with the media. He was busy working to help the refugees.”

Bush Doesn't Know if U.S. Capable of Dealing with Terrorist Attack

2005-09-19T22:35:00.000-04:00

President Bush made news last week when he said that “Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government, and to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility." What he said next has not been as widely remarked on, but should be a bombshell (no pun intended). The president said that he does not know if the United States is capable of dealing with a severe terrorist attack.

This is shocking news. The President of the United States has admitted he doesn’t know whether his government is prepared to deal with a severe terrorist attack. Why isn’t the media commenting more widely on it? This is a president whose 2004 campaign focused on accusing his rival John Kerry of leaving Americans unprotected against terrorist attacks. On October 22, 2004, President Bush said that John Kerry and his advisors “do not understand the enemy we face and have no idea how to win the war and keep America secure.” The Bush campaign ran a television ad (featuring a menacing pack of wolves) that accused Kerry of weakening America’s defenses and leaving Americans vulnerable. Vice President Cheney warned that if Kerry was elected, “the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.”

The “Kerry is weak on terrorism” (a/k/a “vote for Kerry and you might die”) strategy seemed to work. An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken about a month before the election showed that 59% of voters believed the United States was safer than it had been on September 11. On what ABC called Bush’s “cornerstone issue”, Bush led Kerry 54-37 percent in being trusted to handle terrorism. Exit polls showed that voters considered the threat of terrorism one of the two most important issues affecting their vote.

Now we learn, ten months after the election, that President Bush doesn’t even know whether we are capable of dealing with a severe terrorist attack. The President says that he wants to be able to answer this question. How about answering a few other questions while you’re at it. Mr. President, what have you done to prepare for the consequences of a severe attack? What emergency preparations are in place? Who has been responsible for making these preparations—was it Brownie at FEMA? Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff? Can one of them (or Brown’s replacement) assure Americans that their government is capable of helping those affected by an attack? Is protecting Americans a priority for your government? If it is, then why don’t you know if we are able to respond to a severe attack?

As long as President Bush is in the mood to be accountable, maybe he will get around to explaining to Americans why it has taken him four years since September 11 to find out whether we are prepared to deal with a severe attack. More importantly, maybe he will tell Americans what steps he will take to make us secure. Until he does, Americans should demand that he do so, immediately. How about this: no more vacations until this question is answered.

Who Needs the United States Government? (We All Do)

2005-09-12T15:08:00.000-04:00

Over the past week, the United States government has proven incapable of providing relief to citizens in desperate need. The consequences were immediate and devastating for thousands of residents of New Orleans and other affected areas. For days, people were trapped in hellish conditions, without food, water, medicine, or sanitation. It seems certain that thousands of people died.

When disasters like Hurricane Katrina occur, Americans naturally look to the federal government for help. This is not surprising. The federal government has a budget of more than one trillion dollars. It has more than one million employees. It has an agency dedicated to emergency management. It is far bigger and has far more resources than state and local governments. It is natural that Americans expect the federal government to be the entity most capable of responding to the worst crises, including disasters like Katrina.

Sadly, those in charge -- our supposed leaders -- do not seem to understand why the federal government is essential. For the past quarter century, conservatives have hypocritically damned the federal government, even as they presided over it for most of those years. Ronald Reagan criticized wasteful federal spending, even as spending and deficits ballooned during his administrations. George W. Bush brought more of the same—denouncing the federal government as a problem to be solved by reduced spending (again, even as spending and deficits increased on his watch). This critique has given the Republican party a focus and singlemindedness Democrats have lacked. It is easy to say what the Republicans have stood for in recent decades; limited federal government has been the cornerstone of their philosophy.
The Democratic heirs to FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society have been unable to deliver an effective rejoinder to the conservative critique of national government. In 1984, Walter Mondale’s attempt to defend the Democratic vision of government became associated only with higher taxes. A decade later, Bill Clinton famously conceded that the era of big government had ended. Presidential standard bearers Al Gore and John Kerry defanged their rhetoric in order to avoid sounding like big government types.

A question, glaringly unasked over the past quarter century, has forced itself into the national consciousness over the past week: why exactly do we need the United States government? Conservative rhetoric suggested that government was more a problem than a solution, an obstacle to be removed from the path of the free market system. Of course, even conservatives did not advocate dismantling the entire government. For one thing, lavish military spending marked Republican administrations. Beyond the military, however, it was unclear that conservatives saw any part of the federal government as essential. They endorsed states’ rights at almost every turn (though not when it came to gay marriage or medical marijuana). In opposition, Democrats were unable to articulate why we need federal government.
In the flooded streets of New Orleans, we finally have a clear, resounding answer. State and city authorities were first unable to muster the resources needed to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people, then to care for and protect those left behind. Ordinary citizens stuck in the city looked, in vain, to the federal government for help. On television, they asked how the United States could deliver aid to other countries and fight a war overseas in Iraq while forsaking its own citizens.

This is an “emperor has no clothes” moment. Twenty five years of Republican rhetoric have been stripped naked. Criticizing big government sounded good when all it seemed to mean was lower taxes. But, it turns out, those taxes pay for something, and reduced spending can have very real consequences. The Bush administration cut funding for strengthening the levees in New Orleans. That decision had a human cost not factored into the budget calculus.
It is time to ask basic questions about government, questions that were asked when this country was founded, but questions that need to be asked again, after years of assault on the concept of national government. Why do we have a government at all? Why did we form a national government? Government, at its essence, means civilization. We have government for the same reason cavemen banded together into tribes, and the people of the Fertile Crescent formed cities. Government exists to make life better, less dangerous, more sane. It accomplishes collective tasks that would overwhelm individuals. A national government exists for the same reasons, and can marshal far greater resources than smaller state or local entities, taking advantage of economies of scale and a larger tax base.

The country’s founders made their reasons for forming a national government explicit in the preamble to the United States Constitution: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
During the past week, the United States government utterly failed to insure domestic tranquility or to promote the general welfare in New Orleans. After this failure, we must reexamine all of the platitudes that have become dogma over the past quarter century: that government is a problem to be reined in, not a resource; that the private sector can be counted on to fill in gaps unaddressed by government; that taxes may only be lowered, never raised; that private sector principles should be applied to the public sector. When searching for something good that could come out of this national tragedy, President Bush clumsily looked forward to the reconstruction of Trent Lott’s house in Mississippi. If we really want to hope for something good born from tragedy, we should reimagine, as our forebears once did, our national government as a force for good that will be there when its desperate citizens cry out for help.

This piece was originally published by commondreams.org: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0905-23.htm

What if Nothing Really Changes After Katrina?

2005-09-08T15:50:00.000-04:00

So far, the Bush administration’s strategy for dealing with the major league screw-ups everyone with a TV witnessed last week is, basically, to hope the criticisms go away. That approach has worked in the past, when questions were raised about whether 9/11 might have been prevented or why no WMD were found in Iraq. Bush waited things out and shrugged off fallout from each would-be political albatross.

This time, one hopes, it will be different. There are signs that even some in the president’s own party recognize the enormity of the administration’s clueless, incompetent response to Katrina. Susan Collins, a Republican Senator from Maine, has described the response (in a joint statement issued with Senator Joe Lieberman) as an “immense failure”, and has promised to investigate the “lack of preparedness and inadequate response” to Katrina. David Vitter, Republican Senator from Louisiana, gave the federal government a grade of F for its response to the storm. Newt Gingrich asked how we could be confident about the government’s ability to respond to a terrorist attack when it couldn’t handle Katrina.

There will surely be an investigation. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Speaker Dennis Hastert have announced the formation of a “Hurricane Katrina Joint Review Committee” (House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says Democrats will not participate, charging the committee is set up along partisan lines designed to insulate the president from blame). But what will an investigation, what can an investigation, accomplish, if the president continues to refuse to accept and assign blame? As of now, it is not even clear that he will fire the bumbling FEMA Director, Michael Brown, who is woefully unqualified for his job and seems far out of his element (which previously involved Arabian horses). We have a president who seems congenitally incapable of admitting a mistake or holding a friend accountable. Remember last year’s debate when Bush struggled to think of a mistake he’d made? He couldn’t come up with one. Can he now? Congresswoman Pelosi says that she urged the president to fire FEMA Director Brown. The president asked her why. Pelosi responded, “because of all that went wrong, of all that didn’t go right last week.” The president’s breathtaking response was “what didn’t go right?” Even now, when thousands American citizens were abandoned by their government, left to die in the hell of the Superdome, the president can’t own up to a mistake and can’t acknowledge reality.

From where the president sits, why should he concede anything? Bush does not face another election campaign. Certainly he’d like to see his party do well in the off-year elections, but I doubt that is enough of a motivating factor to produce fundamental change in Bush’s make-up. What effect will the investigation promised by Frist and Hastert have? There was of course a commission that investigated 9/11. President Bush did not suffer any obvious negative consequences when that investigation concluded. What will a Katrina commission do? It will not ask the president to resign and it cannot force him to do anything.

What happened last week -- government officials unprepared and ignorant, thousands dead, thousands left to fend for themselves, -- is too serious for the typical months-long investigation followed by a milquetoast report that has no real effect on anything. It is clear that our government was not prepared to deal with Hurricane Katrina. What else is it unprepared to deal with? Do we have to wait for the next disaster to find out? Whether anything will really change will depend on a sustained, insistent national outcry. We owe it to those who were abandoned in New Orleans and elsewhere to make sure the president can’t shrug this one off, and that real changes in emergency preparation are made that might save lives in the future.

culture of life is a lie

2005-09-08T11:48:00.000-04:00

The White House web site contains a brief paragraph entitled “President’s Statement on Terry Schiavo”. That statement contains this assertion: “It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected…”.

It is likely that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people died in New Orleans and other areas hit by Hurricane Katrina. Who protected them? Where is the outrage among fellow culture-of-lifers like Phyllis Schlafly, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, or Pat Robertson? Shouldn’t they have been screaming at Bush last week to snap into action, as he did with Ms. Schiavo, to do everything in his power to save thousands in the Superdome?

If it wasn’t clear before, it is painfully obvious now that the “culture of life” is a lie, a sham, a political prop. It only applies to fetuses and the privileged. It clearly does not apply to the poor, the dispossessed, the black Americans of New Orleans.

The President and his men, and women, can continue to bob and weave, using talking points like “blame game” to try to divert attention from their inaction. But the grim, naked reality cannot be denied. There is no culture of life in the United States. Poor black Americans, the needy, the old, are left to fend for themselves. If the President has the temerity to invoke his devotion to a “culture of life” in the future, he should be ignored, or jeered. And someone should remove the “President’s Statement on Terry Schiavo” from the White House website. It is an insult to those who were left to die in New Orleans.