QOTD: Do Ask Do Tell Edition

Richard Clark in this morning's Washington Post:

[T]he decisions that Bush officials made in the [post-9/11] months and years -- on Iraq, on detentions, on interrogations, on wiretapping -- were not appropriate. Careful analysis could have replaced the impulse to break all the rules, even more so because the Sept. 11 attacks, though horrifying, should not have surprised senior officials. Cheney's admission that 9/11 caused him to reassess the threats to the nation only underscores how, for months, top officials had ignored warnings from the CIA and the NSC staff that urgent action was needed to preempt a major al-Qaeda attack.

Thus, when Bush's inner circle first really came to grips with the threat of terrorism, they did so in a state of shock -- a bad state in which to develop a coherent response. Fearful of new attacks, they authorized the most extreme measures available, without assessing whether they were really a good idea.

I believe this zeal stemmed in part from concerns about the 2004 presidential election.... [emphasis added]

The rest is history.

[Edited title.]

Of Lipstick and Legacies

A couple of the big lefty bloggers commented this weekend on this piece from the Washington Post:

Others inside and outside the administration, however, say the upbeat talk masks disappointment and frustration among many White House staffers, who believe Bush's reputation has been unfairly maligned for a series of calamities -- from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to the financial crisis -- that were beyond his control and that he handled well. GOP nominee John McCain's escalating attacks on Bush's tenure have added to the irritation, these people said.

"Everybody kind of wanted to spend the last 100-plus days doing some legacy things, and the financial crisis has thrown a wrench into that," said one prominent Republican who regularly talks with senior White House officials.

"You have a combination of no legacy stuff, a horrible economic mess and the likelihood that Obama is going to win," this person added. "There is a real sadness there."

But of the posts I saw, no one made the obvious point that this stuff is the Bush legacy. The financial crisis, 9/11, (the botched response to Katrina) and the rejection of the GOP at the polls in 2006 and again tomorrow haven't occurred in a political vacuum. These events are correlated, with Bush at their dead center.

Note to Bushies: "This pig is unlipstickable" is not your premise; it's our conclusion.

Bush for Congress? Just Say No!

Steve Coronella at the Christian Science Monitor thinks he has hit on a great idea for George W. Bush's next career -- Congressman. He suggests W look to the example of John Quincy Adams, another legacy president, who served in the House of Representatives after losing a re-election bid in 1828.

More...

Despite this downgrading of his job description, Adams was delighted. "No election or appointment conferred upon me ever gave me so much pleasure," he wrote in his diary.

In his 17 years in the House, Adams cried out against the Mexican War, battled the infamous Gag Rule, which prevented any discussion of petitions against slavery, and championed the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution.

Bush should do the same. That is, he should return to Texas and run for Congress. Surely, he'd get elected – even though he has one of the lowest approval ratings a sitting president has had – due to his years as governor back in the 1990s.

Yeah, I'm sure Bush could count on his family connections and perhaps some help from Karl Rove to get himself a seat in Congress, but I don't see him becoming an outspoken advocate for peace or free speech. He might push for an equivalent to the Smithsonian -- if he could put his name on it. Coronella continues:

But Bush should also make it conditional, as Adams did when he ran for Congress in 1831. Adams allowed his name to be put forward on two conditions that present-day candidates would probably find hard to contemplate: That he would never solicit the votes of his constituents and that he would speak his mind at all times.

This should come pretty easily to Bush. Okay, so he's not a natural orator, able to deliver memorable phrases off the cuff. Who is these days? But he has shown that he's well able to do the vision thing, and with a few smart Congressional aides on his team he can continue that tradition in the House.

Wait! Bush "has shown that he's well able to do the vision thing"? When was that? Was it when he envisioned capturing Osama bin Laden, or when he envisioned punishing al-Qaeda but invaded Iraq instead?

I think Bush should fade into well-earned obscurity once he leaves office. The only value to keeping him in the public eye is as a reminder that we should never again elect a President who is an arrogant, incurious, entitled jerk.

Quote of the Day: Fall Out of Your Chair Laughing Edition

Don Surber:

George Walker Bush brought honor and dignity back to the White House — as he had promised on Aug. 3, 2000.

Honor.
Dignity.

Honor.
Dignity.

Honor.
Dignity.

Bonus head-shaking dumbassery:

He has kept his promises against great odds and much to the displeasure and disappointment of his critics.

Much like Lincoln. Much like Truman. Much like Reagan.

Beyond "Bush Lied"

The Phase II report on Iraq intelligence was finally released last week--the one that Pat Roberts put on hold back in 2004, so it wouldn't hurt Bush's re-election campaign--and the press (along with Jay Rockefeller) are finding, in the words of Kate Klonick, a "chasm between what was said by the President and Vice President, and what was actually known."

WaPo editor Fred Hiatt...not so much. To him, the report is evidence that Bush never lied. For example, he notes,

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

Which, of course, isn't the whole sentence. What he's quoting is this¹:

Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community. [emphasis added]

Yes, it's your standard garden variety misdirection-by-selective-quotation at work. Hiatt again:
More...

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

The next conclusion in the report:

Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Hiatt:

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

The report:

Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves....The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information. [emphasis added]

And so on. Shocking, isn't it: the guy who runs the WaPo editorial pages--home to some of the most egregious Iraq cheerleading over the last 5 years--writes a thoroughly dishonest editorial defending the Bush administration's dishonesty on Iraq.

(Also worth noting: aside from Hiatt's misrepresentation of the report, the report itself omits any mention of what turned out to be the most reliable source we had. But that's another story.)

That said, I've never been a fan of the 'Bush lied' line. The problem is that it leaves too many loopholes for Bush, because the common understanding of the word 'lie' is so easily narrowed to exclude. As long as Bush believed it, he wasn't 'lying'. As long as somebody told him something like what he said (Hiatt's defense), he wasn't 'lying'.

Froomkin's piece on the McClellan book last week offers a more useful perspective:

But when, time and again, the "lack of candor" conveniently furthers political goals, how are we not to conclude that it is, well, pretty much the same thing as lying?

Consider the way McClellan describes Bush in one particularly seminal case study. Recalling a conversation he overheard between Bush and a supporter in the 2000 race, when questions were being raised about Bush's possible cocaine use as a young man, McClellan quotes Bush as saying: "You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember."

McClellan notes the absurdity of such a statement, then writes: "I know Bush, and I know he genuinely believes what he says. He isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie, particularly when speaking in private to a supporter or friend. So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true and that, deep down, he knew was not true. And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious: political convenience....

"In the years to come, as I worked closely with President Bush, I would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment....[emphasis added]

And of course, that isn't 'lying'--that is, it doesn't meet the narrow definition of 'lying' advanced by the wingnuts (and Fred Hiatt).

Which is why I argue that there is no useful moral distinction between a) willful ignorance, b) self-deception, and c) the deliberate and conscious deception of others. Any given statement by Bush at any given point could be any of the three (or a combination thereof), but there's no percentage in parsing out the difference. When the result is the same, 'intent' doesn't really matter.



¹I had to OCR the .pdf, as it was provided in a no-text-information format.

Et Tu, Brute?

The WaPo had so much going on this morning I barely knew where to start. Lil Scotty Mclelland's article had 812 975 comments when I looked at it and I'm willing to bet that lots of **##'s got removed. A quick impression of the article reminds me of the story of Aron Ralston, the climber who cut off his own arm with a pocketknife to survive. Somebody's figured out there were war crimes and is doing their best to avoid being charged with one while at the same time trying to provide imaginary cover for those left behind. And Katrina was a costly blunder. No kidding.

While still smiling More... at the image of Lil Scotty realizing he had been had and hoping that he has a loyal security detail, I moved on to the right whining about how MSNBC is too left leaning and how they don't like Lil John McCain as much as they like Lil Obama, knowing full well that they had to turn their attention somewhere as soon as they got rid of Lil Hillary. Now that was a hatchet job, with several people wielding the hatchets. Sort of like the stories on John Edwards haircut. Designed to do nothing to further policy or decent political discussions and quite a lot to do with making sure that the candidate they were in love with had no viable competition. After enduring all these years of Fox News I have little to no sympathy for people who whine about the press.

But the Meyerson article, oh Mr. Meyerson, you raised my blood pressure so high, the first thing that I did was reach for my Fosinopril. Let me state first that Hillary was neither my first or second choice in the California primary, but neither one of them were still running, but their names were still on the ballot by the time it was our turn to vote. So, as is usual out here in California, we had to pick the lesser of two evils and it wasn't Obama. Sigh, I'm really tired non-choices like that. Anyway, back to your article.

Hillary's campaign ruined democracy and feminism? Are you serious?Blow it out your ass. Oops, I see you already did. The Democratic Party (they're in the Constitution where?) had no right to exclude the votes of the people of Florida and Michigan, no matter what time frame they held their election in, because they are citizens of the United States and deserve to have their votes counted. Period. And if Obama had won those states he wouldn't want those delegates seated? Get real.

The hypocrisy of anyone talking about Indiana's photo ID requirement in order to vote and then disregarding the votes of thousands of people in two other states is mind boggling. Not quite as mind boggling as accusing women of ruining democracy while you briefly mention the rampant sexism in the united campaign against Hillary and then you attack her supporters for complaining about it, but it's darned close. From start to finish, this race hasn't been about policy issues, it's been about hair, clothes and makeup. Throw in a little bowling and a shot of whiskey (if I was her I would have been so grateful to have had an excuse for a drink since the press hounded her almost as much as they do Paris or Britney neither one of which are anywhere near the same intelligence or contributions to society) with the guys and you have a campaign.

I'm a feminist because I'm a woman. I consider myself the equal of any man under normal circumstances. And the abnormal ones would be so abnormal that whatever sex you are will be one of the last things on your mind. While I may not be able to heave boulders due to brute strength (is that needed anymore?), I am quite capable of using a lever and gravity to accomplish the same task. The odds are that a man invented the hammer, the javelin and the sword, but a woman invented the wheel, pulley, lever and pivot. You develop what you need to survive. Or conquer, as the case may be.

Now that we're supposedly in the 21st century, the skills needed to survive are quite different since we don't have anything left to conquer except each other. And what a shame that is. Nowadays this can be done way too efficiently and requires no brute strength (and judging by reduced requirements to join the military, a minimum of intelligence) at all. Just because one is tall, short, white, brown, black, blue eyed, brown eyed, male, female, rich, poor, right handed, left handed, religious or nonreligious, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindi, Muslim, skinny, fat, young or old does not automatically infer competency, incompetency, superiority, stupidity or a tendency towards evil. To say that the women who support Clinton and want the delegates seated is to make a mockery of both democracy and feminism while showing a complete disregard for the people of the two states not being represented and a whopping display of misogyny because women are being so vocal about how their candidate got marginalized, all under the cloak of rules instead of common sense and compassion. But those are traits that come to people who think and who have spent more than enough time clinging to the bottom rung of the ladder to recognize when someone is stamping on their fingers and trying to make them fall off into nonexistence.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way we are ever going to have fair elections in this country is if we have a national primary, followed by the national elections thirty days later. Between television, radio and the internet people will have plenty of opportunity to explore their candidate and the press will have less of an opportunity to choose our candidates for us.

And that's what most of the press and Mr. Meyerson are really afraid of.

3Bs and Debsweb.

House Holds Closed Session To Discuss Warrantless Wiretapping

The US House held a rare closed session last night to discuss the pending FISA bill that would regulate government spying on phone calls and emails. Ironically, according to the Rachel Maddow Show, House members had to wait several hours to start the session so the chamber could be swept for bugs.

George W. Bush, who insists that the new FISA bill must include immunity for telecom companies who broke the law by allowing the government to eavesdrop on customers without proper authorization, is pulling out all the stops now. Having failed to frighten House Democrats with the specters of national security breaches or telecom bankruptcy, he's now playing the patriotism card. To wit, telecoms that broke the law were showing their love of country and should be rewarded for it.

Apparently it has slipped his mind that those same telecoms cut off their "patriotic" wiretaps when the government failed to pay its phone bill.

The House is expected to vote on the bill today before adjourning for the Easter recess. Bush has vowed to lie down on the floor and kick and scream veto it if he doesn't get his way.

UPDATE: The bill passed 213-197. It goes to the Senate after the Easter break.

World War III Averted -- What Now?

Now that Bush and Cheney's favorite toy has been taken away, what will the White House do to occupy themselves during the rest of their (incredibly lame-duck) term?

These are my suggestions:

1. Help repair the Republican Party's future prospects by requiring the redesign of stalls in every Midwestern airport's men's rooms.

2. Purge the Supreme Court of those annoying judicial activists that don't pass the Bat Boy litmus test (teach the controversy!).
3. Bring federal resources to bear in the ongoing search for the real killer of Nicole Simpson.

4. Learn to correctly pronounce the names of any three Middle East heads of state.

5. Keep an eye on the twins by offering Ozzy and Rob Zombie the use of Air Force One on their U.S. tour, in exchange for backstage passes.

Yours?

[cross-posted at Blue Mass Group]

Questions And More Questions

Jose Padilla. Good grief, where in America can you find twelve people dumber than Bush, with the memory of Gonzales and the soul of Cheney? Miami, as in Florida. Well that answers that question.

Can printing more money be far behind? It didn't take long for elation turned to panic, did it?

Why is everybody so surprised that Robert Mueller kept accurate notes? Every medical professional (even me) in the country knew that Ashcroft was definitely not "lucid". This story is old news and even worse, it's about a subject that most Americans like to ignore. Until it happens to them, by which time it is way too late.

From my place.

Laws? We don' need no stinkin' laws!

Impersonating a law enforcement officer is illegal everywhere and is usually a pretty serious offense. So when you find someone doing it, my guess is that it's often for monetary gain, and there is no question in the perp's mind that it's illegal. Not so Jay Garrity, the controversial ex-aide to Mitt Romney who apparently created bogus law enforcement badges so that he and other Romney staffers could intimidate reporters, avoid tolls, and gain early access to campaign venues.

So why does this seem so god-damned offensive? Perhaps because it's symptomatic of laissez faire attitude toward law that has a huge proponent in the current administration. I mean, why shouldn't Romney's staffers do what it takes to gain advantage over the other GOP hopefuls? They're not hurting anybody...not really. So what does it matter if they break a few laws in the process? Bush and his administration do it...all the time. Hell, in the name of national security, Bush has taken to creating law by executive fiat.

Of course, for those of us on the other side, this looks like imperial arrogance. "You want documents on how we politicized the Justice Department? F*ck you! We're the GOP and we do what we want." "Filibusters? F*ck you! We're the GOP, and we'll use any tactic that furthers our goals even ones we threatened to take away from you." "Impersonating an officer? Well...f*ck you! We do what we must to get our man elected. We're serving the greater good here."

Conservatives often argue that things are different now--that sometimes we need to go to extremes to protect our country. Well, I don't know about protecting the country, but on the former point I have to agree. Things certainly are different now. We know this because ordinary people have internalized the "whatever it takes" attitude. They're learning the lesson that Bu$hCo is teaching.