No Timetable on the Horizon for Bush and McCain

President George Bush and his would-be successor John McCain have been put in a difficult squeeze of late.

The man they characterize as naive and inexperienced is visiting our troops in Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Iraq and being greeted with smiles, and cheers, and requests for autographs. And that beautiful three-point shot from outside the circle -- wildly applauded by a gym full of American soldiers -- has not been his only score.

He is listening to, and talking with, world leaders in his usual calm, mature, thoughtful, and anything-but-extreme manner. He looks right at home with high level diplomacy. He looks like the dynamic, patriotic, visionary President that he will be, provided we have the wisdom to elect him in November. He just does not fit the caricature the Republicans have so relentlessly tried to sketch for the electorate.

I am not sure Obama had even landed in Kuwait before a magazine reported Iraqi President al Maliki's endorsement of the redeployment schedule from Iraq that Obama has proposed. Of course, our Republican administration quickly persuaded al Maliki to claim he had been misunderstood or misquoted... but he did not specifically retract the words and the German magazine had VERY complete transcripts of the interview. And the translation was by al Maliki's OWN translator. And the recordings have been reviewed by third parties who find his views clear. And now his government says they have a "vision" of US redeployment by mid-2010.

From the New York Times:

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

Bush and McCain, of course, cannot ignore the Iraqi government's clear wish for us to leave their country, so they now agree with Maliki that we can set a "time horizon" for withdrawal! I suppose Ol' 100-year-McCain can argue that horizons go ever, ever on.

And they now meet with the Iranians to boot!

Barack Obama's foreign policy positions are being adopted by the Republicans!

But he is still too naive and inexperienced to trust as President?

Sorry guys, I don't think the usual cartoons -- wind-surfing, swiftboating, Willie Horton, Rovian funny-stuff -- are gonna fool America this time.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time but ...

Two Georges

I have talked before about what I consider the immoral funding of the Republican adventure in Iraq. Today Ruth Marcus covers the topic well.

Confronting the debt amassed during the Revolutionary War, George Washington was determined to pay it off, warning against "ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear." Confronting the enormous costs about to be piled up in Iraq, George Bush determined to press for new tax cuts -- not just "little bitty tax relief," as he put it, but hundreds of billions more.

Do you think Barack or John is closest to George Washington on this issue?
Who is closer to George Bush?

Read the whole article here.

Confirmation

In my very first post in 2005 I wrote:

I believe we should go to war only when there is a clear national interest that can be protected no other way and when there is a strong consensus among the people to support the war.
I believe that lying, exaggerating, or hyping information in order to take our country to war is a high crime.

I therefore believe the current occupant of the White House is right out there with Richard Nixon and James Buchanan in the race for the most dangerous President of all time.

In January 2006 I wrote:

When I read the blogs of those, who at least in regards to the "war on terrorism," are on the radical right, I suspect they largely think themselves realistic "pacifists" forced by terrible circumstances to drop those preventive bombs. Put them at the sites of those bombs, many of these same people would be risking their own lives to save the bystanding babies and even grown babies maimed by their bombs. They are not evil people, just scared and mistaken people.

The evil is in those who manipulate the fear and who look on terrorist attacks, war, and recession as a "trifecta" for their political interests.

In February 2006 I wrote:

I have virtually no respect for George W. Bush. I believe he sold his soul to become president. I think he is shallow. I think he is horribly mistaken and unwilling to face his own errors. I think he surrounds himself with yes-men and refuses to listen to contrary views. I think he is an insecure man who covers his frailties with bluster and swagger. But I don't accuse him of being anti-American. I have to believe that even that little man loves his country and hopes that his mistaken policies will work out for the best for America.

Now, from a very unexpected source, comes confirmation of virtually everything I have ever said about George W. Bush and his arrogant buddies.

Bush's Texas buddy Scott McClellan fesses up:

"Over that summer of 2002, top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."

“As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”

"Bush is plenty smart enouh to be president... A more self-confident executive would be willing to acknowledge failure, to trust people's ability to forgive those who seek redemption for mistakes and show a readiness to change."

“History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

"The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term in office, and that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."

In the late sixties and early seventies when Richard Nixon was being elected and re-elected, I was dumbfounded that so many could not see the lack of self-confidence so obvious in his body language and formalized bluster. I knew on a gut-level that the man could not be trusted. I have had exactly the same gut-level reaction to George W. Bush from the very beginning. You do not want a President who is insecure in who he is. (I won't use the phrase that some got so het up over.)

Now we have John McCain. His case is a little different. In the eighties he likely compromised his conscience during the Keating Five scandal. From then through the 2000 race he seems to have straightened up and decided that that was not the real him, and really did seem to engage in "straight talk" from his very-conservative viewpoint. Then he was run over by the Bush/Rove-win at-all-costs-ethics-be-damned steamroller. He began to make more compromises. And more compromises. And as the primaries heated up and his standing faded he made more compromises. Last year he supported Bush 95% of the time.

McCain's awkward delivery, lame body language, forced grimace-smiles, and partisan shots at Obama on Tuesday showed a lot of discomfort. Contrast that with the grace, eloquence, confidence, ease, and inspiration of the Obama speech. McCain's speech was about his opponent. Obama's speech was about America.

If America misses the opportunity of this great moment, what a terrible loss it will be.

Psst! Have you Heard?

Pssst. Have you heard? I have. I heard that Barack Obama once said there has to be “an end” to the Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank “that began in 1967.” Yikes!
(Read more.)

...FBI personnel started notifying headquarters as early as 2002 that other government employees were using abusive tactics -- including sexual humiliation, prolonged hand-to-foot shackling and exposure to extreme temperatures -- on detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. Justice officials conveyed some of these concerns in at least one White House meeting in 2003, but the White House apparently ignored them. A year later, the revelation of similar abuses at Abu Ghraib became a source of everlasting shame for American citizens, a serious blow to the United States's moral authority, and a potent rallying cry for the nation's enemies....
(Read more.)

No Third Term.

It is the contention of many of us that a John McCain Presidency would amount to third term for George W. Bush. The most obvious Bush aspect of the rickety platform the Republicans are erecting is the missing exit strategy for Iraq.

But it is not only poor foreign policy that "distinquishes" the Bush-McCain partnership. They also share an affinity for economic advisors who seem more concerned with the welfare of the big business boys than middle America, and who have helped to saddle us with the current recession. Take McCain's right hand man, Phil Gramm -- a likely close advisor to the President should McCain prevail this fall.

SW at Oh!Pinion and the late Molly Ivins take on McCain's buddy the former Senator Gramm here.

January 20

One year from today George Bush and his policies will be history. One of my favorite bloggers has given her take on the major Republican and Democratic candidates to replace Bush. Her opinion seems to be that we have a "paltry choice".

My take is very different.

Ignoring, for the moment, their stands on the issues that face the country, I am very impressed with the field of candidates, by and large. All seven are smart and articulate and have been seriously involved in national public policy. I do not understand why anyone would feel that the candidates are any less able, articulate, sincere, or patriotic than previous fields of candidates in our history.

On the Republican side I was very unimpressed with those who seemed contenders before Iowa. McCain was considered out of it. The lackluster Guiliani led the polls. Another son of a politician with lots of money and not much else was contending. And there was an effort to fill the social conservative void with a disinterested Fred Thompson. Then Huckabee came out of nowhere (this coincided with hiring my niece) and McCain was reborn. Now we seem left with two quality candidates (Huckabee and McCain) and two politicians on the Republican side.

As I have said for months, I believe our major Democratic candidates - Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson, are brilliant. Any one of them could take office today and do very well. Even our "fringe candidates" - Kucinich and Gravel - have contributed strongly to the debate. The eight have now been winnowed down to three contenders - Edwards, Clinton, and Obama.

I have long thought that a prime factor to be considered is the candidate's comfort in his own skin. The quintessential examples of Presidents who have had that confidence, sincerity, eloquence, and calm that I call "comfort in his own skin" are Ronald Reagan for the Republicans and Bill Clinton for the Democrats. On the Republican side Huckabee comes closest to that ideal. McCain lacks the easy eloquence of Huckabee but comes off as sincere. Romney and Guiliani fail the test, partly, perhaps, because they must campaign as more conservative socially, than they probably really are. In this year’s field John Edwards and Barack Obama stand out on the Democratic side (as did Biden earlier), though I think Hillary Clinton has begun to find a more genuine voice, as well.

All of the major candidates have ample experience to perform well as President. Huckabee and Romney were governors, Guiliani ran a big city governement for many years, And McCain has had a long career in Congress. On the Democratic side Obama has the shortest experience, as a state legislator and US Senator, but makes up for it in savvy, vision and eloquence. Edwards has been dealing with national issues through a term in the US Senate and two campaigns for President. Hillary Clinton has been in the thick of national issues during seven years as US Senator and as a partner to Bill Clinton during his service to Arkansas and to the nation.

None of the candidates is a lightweight. They all strike me as serious folk. All seem sincere patriots who will take the oath of office as a sacred trust. I have some reservation about Romney and Guiliani who seem a bit slippery to me -- Guiliani downright dangerous.

Unfortunately we are in a time when sincerity and patriotism are not enough. We need an inspiring leader who is willing to correct the mistakes of the past eight years while putting together a concensus that can make us one country again. I realize , of course, that no one can please the hateful Limbaughs or Coulters, but I believe the right candidate can unite a majority of us. Someone who will stand on principle but who will also be willing to reach across the aisle and compromise.

I have been an Edwards supporter since 2003, but I am excited at the prospect of either of the other two as our nominee, as well. I find Huckabee and McCain very likable but wrong on the issues. Romney and Guiliani are not likable to me, for whatever that’s worth.

Here's a rundown --

Edwards
Articulate, right on the issues, inspiring speaker, sincere, has been vetted through a national campaign. brilliant mind, strong vision for the future. He has the most completely delineated platform of any candidate. He is a committed husband and father. Unfortunately for us and for him the press decided to ignore him some time ago. Should he manage to pull out a victory in South Carolina, the press would barely mention him but instead blather about Clinton's loss and Obama would be declared the winner even if he were third, because of Clinton's loss. After all, when she won New Hampshire they had to talk about the fact that a majority voted "against" her even though a larger majority voted "against" each of the other candidates -- I suspect a majority of Democrats are like me and will be solidly behind the eventual nominee. I'm sticking with John Edwards through South Carolina, then I'll re-evaluate the situation before we in Georgia vote on February 5.

Clinton
Articulate, right on the issues, good speaker and getting better, unique experience as the partner of a wonderful president, a history of working “across the aisle”, brilliant mind, inspiring as the first woman with a serious shot at the White House. Cannot be further damaged by the Republican swift-boaters. I was intriged by her autobiography. She is about my age and shares much of my history as a baby-boomer and a reformed Republican. We were both greatly influenced by our experiences in Methodist Youth Fellowship. The cold calculation she is accused of in some quarters is simply an invention of the Republican smear machine. As an aspiring professional in the 70s, she had to have a formal exterior. Her dedication to her beliefs is evident and illustrated by her dedication to her marriage.

Obama
Beyond articulate - eloquent, right on the issues, a history of working “across the aisle”, brilliant mind, inspiring as the first black with a serious shot at the White House. He would represent a “passing of the torch” His supposed inexperience does not bother me. Our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, was less experienced. Like Obama he gained his experience in political debate. And like Lincoln, Obama is a poetic and inspiring orator.

Huckabee
Articulate, sincere, had the good sense to hire my brilliant niece as a close aide. BUT... has a crazy, dangerous, disastrous, plan to shift the greatest tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class via the so-called “fair tax”. Wrong on virtually all the issues: anti-choice, pro-constitutional amendments on marriage and abortion, would appoint more Alito/Scalia type justices, no sign he would extract us from Iraq. I won't hold the worst-five-o’clock-shadow-since-Nixon against him, but if I were Charmaine I'd give him an electric razor to use whenever the cameras are pointed the other way!

McCain
Less eloquent but sincere, dislikes Bush about as much as Democrats do, history of reaching across the aisle and treating opponents with respect. Gary Hart and Bill Cohen were his groomsmen.
BUT... is VERY conservative on almost all issues, something of a hothead, a war hawk, likely to appoint right wing judges. A record of infidelity in marriage.*

Romney
Articulate, slick, well-coifed, strong family values, BUT...
a Mormon (Yes, I know, I’m prejudiced. But a serious Mormon has to reject recorded history). A record of big changes of mind - admirably openminded or shamefully wishy-washy or crassly poll-driven, you pick.

Guiliani
It is hard for me to see any thing good about Guiliani, but I’ll try: he is pro-choice.
BUT... he would be the closest thing to a continuation of the present administration. The Bill of Rights would continue under attack, the country’s reputation would continue to be smeared, we could expect to see more cowboy adventures. A record of blatent infidelity in marriage.*

I think it is good for our democracy in 2008 that we have a strong field of candidates for both parties' nominations and that the nominations are not a foregone conclusion after Iowa and New Hampshire but instead we have a real competitive race. The candidates are having to defend their policies and positions to a big hunk of the country. There have been a LOT of "debates" and though they haven't matched the Lincoln-Douglas debates in depth or style, in the aggregate, they have given those paying attention a pretty good look at these guys.

May the best candidate win in each party.

And, please, may the Democrat win in November.


------

* I mention this personal failing only because some Republicans actually hold the infidelity of Hillary Clinton’s husband against HER, the one who stood by her husband and worked to save her marriage. Two of the major Republican candidates had notorious affairs and ditched assorted wives.

Assurances

Well, once again the presidency - even when the current one is the lamest of ducks - has demostrated its inherant power in our system. At least with a Democratic majority, tiny though it is, the rubber stamp responses are delayed slightly.

Perhaps it is better to have Mukasey at the Justice Department than to have Bush's recess appointment, whoever that might be. Schumer, Fienstein, McCain, Snowe and others seem to think they have assurances that the torture has stopped or will stop when Mukasey is in place. I am not assured, but I am hopeful. And as Sen. Fienstein says, at least he's not Alberto.

Still, my Republican friends, your Mr. Bush continues to drag our nation's reputation through the muck. There is no legitimate reason for our President and his appointees to refuse to call torture torture. By seeming to countenance torture as legitimate "interrogation technique" he defames our country, supplies our enemies with gasoline to pour on the flames of anti-Americanism, and endangers our soldiers. It seems obvious to me that the reason must be that this President is quilty of okaying torture and wants cover through redefinition of the term. This is nothing new, of course, tyrants have used such ruses throughout history.

Oh, well, in 443 days, perhaps, the recovery can begin.


Later Note: S.W. Anderson at Oh!Pinion has some good posts on this topic.

Psst, Judge! Waterboarding is torture.

Illustration taken from Wikipedia. A drawing of torture in Cambodia.

Get a clue, Judge. Waterboarding is torture.

The Geneva Conventions say waterboarding is torture.

Our immoral vice president may not care, but waterboarding is torture.

If you cannot admit that pouring water over a captive's gagged mouth and covered face until he is convinced his death is imminent is torture, you are either too stupid or too evil to be Attorney General of the United States. Waterboarding is torture.

Olympia Snowe knows. John McCain knows. John Warner Knows. Lindsey Graham knows. I know. You, Judge Michael Mukasey, know. Waterboarding is torture.

Say it or do not become Attorney General. Waterboarding is torture.

This was America. We will make it America again. We will not allow the hoodlums in this administration any more leeway to tear down America. Waterboarding is torture, you incredible jerk. Waterboarding is torture.

America does not approve torture. Waterboarding is torture.

It is not about who they are. It is about who we are. Waterboarding is torture.

America is awakening.

Here's something to warm the heart of this good ol' boy. Even here in Georgia -- the state that elected a fellow named Saxby Chambliss to the US Senate after he executed one of the sleasiest campaigns of modern history; that in 2004 gave its electoral college votes to the worst president of my lifetime; even here, the Republican in the White House has lost majority support. Check out this graph from SurveyUSA:

If an election were held today -- oh, if only! -- the current occupant of the White House could expect to receive the electoral votes of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.

Now, we Democrats have to move wisely, to help the country recover from the division of the Bush years. We must be principled in the right, but also realize that when we are elected we serve the whole people. And, if we manage to take back the Presidency and build majorities large enough to be effective in Congress, we still will not be able to wave a magic wand to cure the evils of Republican ascendancy. We will need to be deliberate and unequivical, but measured in redeploying our military, rebuilding alliances, squelching terrorists, reordering our enviromental standards, bolstering the national infrastructure, strengthening our educational system, extending health coverage, etc. To the greatest degree ethically possible, we need to work in a bipartisan way. The American people are sick and tired of the mean-spirited partisanship.

And there will eventually, almost certainly, be another terrorist attack, maybe worse than before, whether a Democratic President is elected in 2008 or not. We must be ready to welcome all Americans to join in the the recovery and NOT use it to divide the country the way Bush did. Our President must be ready to inspire the country to stand up to the terrorists AND preserve our institutions and principles. Never has it been more important to have a President who can inspire. And we will need a President who can stand firm under pressure to give up our principles in the face of terror. I hope and believe Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, or Obama could be the Churchill we will need to solicit "blood, sweat, toil, and tears" of an anquished nation.

As galling as it may be to have to deal with a Chambliss or a Thune, who dealt us such painful losses, or a Lieberman, who is so wrong on the war, Democrats must put the country ahead of power and party.

Beware the Stone Zone

Roger with fellow tricksters

Roger Stone surfaces from the sludge again. Roger proudly quotes Nixon on his website:

Roger Stone "is one of the very few excellent political professionals."

-Richard Nixon

You remember Roger? He's the guy who is reported to have ...

• vounteered to infiltrate the McGovern campaign for Nixon ( He was part of Chuck Colson's CREEP group.)
• helped Ollie North raise money for the Contras
• been ordered to disrupt the Florida recount by James Baker
  
• organized the "spontaneous" mob that disrupted the recount of Dade County Florida ballots in 2000
• raised a mysterious $150,000 to unseat Florida judges who ordered the 2000 statewide recount
• been rewarded for his undercover work in Florida by "serving" on the transition team for Bush.
• helped staff Bush's Bureau of Indian Affairs, after which he negotiated Indian gambling contracts that could make him a very wealthy man - we're talking millions -- while also working for anti-gambling interests ala Ralph Reed & Co.... "double agent man, double aaaagent mannnnn."
  
• advertised for sex partners through a magazine and online
• been involved, double agent style, with circulating later-discredited evidence of George Bush's military record
• promoted the presidential campaign of Al Sharpton in 2004 -- double agent style again
  
• called the 83 year-old father of NY Gov. Spitzer and left this recorded message:

“There is not a g**d*** thing your phony, psycho, piece-of-s*** son can do about it. Bernie, your phony loans are about to catch up with you. You will be forced to tell the truth and the fact that your son’s a pathological liar will be known to all.”

I have been aware of this guy since the obscene Republican behavior in Florida in 2000.
You can check out this info at a number of spots on the web. Here are a few sources for lots of links and more info on this sleasebag buddy of our President: Oh!Pinion, Daily Kos, Washington Post, Village Voice, Albany Times-Union, or just google "Roger Stone"

If you want the other side, read the guy's defense here. Methinks if the recording should turn out to be fooled around with, the likeliest fooler-around is Mister Stone himself.

All you terrorists out there, listen up!

This blog has been entirely too apolitical lately, so here's a post I let slide for a while:

I read a post a while back by a blogger who professes to believe that people in America especially the "liberal left"" are more upset by Mike Vick's abuse of dogs than by terrorism against human beings.

This blogger seems to believe that the "liberal left" should be voicing more opposition to terrorism: that those who disagree with the Republican response to terrorism have not been vocal enough in our abhorance of terroristic acts. The blogger wonders why there are not protests againt terrorist acts.

I would not know where or when to protest against terrorism. I guess I could do it here on the Limb. I have never considered terrorists a likely part of my audience. But, fine. I'll say it again, just in case ---

Hey you terrorists, stop it!! I mean it! Right now!

That's ridiculous, of course. If there should be any terrorists in my vast readership, I cannot imagine that they are affected by my words -- other than, perhaps, to be pleased that their atrocities have goaded me into a response.

Why do terrorists terrorize?

They terrorize to cause terror, (duh!) hoping that in our fear we will do what they want us to do.

What do they want?

They've told us. They want radical Islam to rule the world

So:

1. Therefore they need to radicalize Islamic countries
   
2. Therefore they need more Islamic people to become angry enough to join the radical Islamic cause
3. Therefore they want western countries to make "crusades" on radical Islam, especially if there is lots of "collateral damage" among Islamic peoples
   
4. Therefore they try to egg western countries into such a war by terrorist strikes
5. Therefore they are thrilled when westerners rant against radical Islam -- especially when they lump all or most Muslims with the radicals
6. Therefore the vilest among them will murder missionaries, saw off the heads of journalists, send young zealots into city squares with bombs strapped around their waists, fly airliners into tall buildings, and, if they can, detonate a suitcase nuke in downtown Peoria.
   

Every time our side goofs up and attacks a country that did not attack us, bombs a site that includes non-combatants, treats the Koran disrespectfully, tortures Muslim prisoners, shouts "bring 'em on!", looks at or disseminates a terror picture or film of a beheading, rants about the "evils" of Islam, etc., etc., etc. -- when we do those things, we further the terrorist cause.

Here at the Limb, we have consistently voiced our belief that America should relentlessly, lethally, aggressively pursue terrorists. We should carry a very big stick. But we should speak very softly. Ranting about terrorism is about the most useless exercise I can imagine. It is worse than useless, actually, since ranting reinforces the terror. Elevating what Bin Laden wanted called a great war into the "Generational War on Terror" is exactly the wrong thing to do. Democrats and Republicans are both to blame for that - along with our sensational press. It should instead be a multifaceted, longterm, unceasing, multinational, and relatively quiet, police action.

Instead of ranting we should make it clear to the terrorists that , while we will beef up our defenses as much as we can, and strike the bad guys whenever possible:

• We will continue our lives as unaffected by the terror as we possibly can.
  
• We will not give up our freedoms in response to terrorism.
  
• We will not compromise our morals and ethics in response to terrorism.
• We will remain true to our founding documents.

I do agree that the public in general is too removed from the war in Iraq. Given that belief I am moving ever closer to the idea that we need universal service in this country. It is too easy to send other folks children into foolish wars.

By the way, if Vick is guilty -- and since I wrote this several weeks ago I've heard tell that he has acknowledged his guilt -- he is a cruel and disturbed human being. But he hasn't quite achieved terrorist status in my Book of Evils. Though I have always heard that animal abuse turns up in the life stories of psycopaths pretty frequently.

"The Most Insidious of Traitors"

I happened across* this quote from the first President Bush. I looked it up. Sure enough, it's right there on the CIA website:

Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.

-President George Bush, Sr.

And now Shrub has given a "get out of jail free card" to a man who tried to cover up the administration exposing of, not just a source, but an actual CIA agent. That must be galling to the old CIA director, Bush, Sr.

(l-r) Bush, Libby, Cheney

I continue to believe that George, Sr., in his heart of hearts, must ache for the damage his son has done to the country and to his name.

BTW: It's also interesting to see him thanking Senator Kerry in this speech from 1999.

* Here is where I found the Bush, Sr. quote. This post and the comments to it are an interesting discussion of the Libby commutation scandal.

Check out this old pressed leaf from the Limb:
April 2006 - A Disastrous Presidency

Obstruction of Justice

I agree with Joe Wilson:

"By commuting [Libby's] sentence, [President Bush] has brought himself and his office into reasonable suspicion of participation in an obstruction of justice. The commutation of [Libby's] sentence in and of itself is participation in obstruction of justice."

Law-and-Order Bush, who set records frying criminals in Texas, thinks little Scooter was harshly treated. He doesn't pardon ol'Scooter though -- uhn-uhn!-- then Scooter wouldn't be able to plead the fifth before Congress or courts. George and Dick need Scooter to stay quiet.

By the way, my Bush-supporting readers, don't call this a liberal conspiracy - Libby was prosecuted, judged, and sentenced by Republicans.

And now we will hear from other Republicans, all the vicious crew who wanted Clinton's head for his lies about personal behavior, I 'spect their tune will have changed.

Remember what this was all about: The White House was busy, not finding solutions to the results of their terrible mistakes, but instead were spending tremendous effort covering up their misdeeds by trying to discredit the truthtellers like Joe Wilson.

Yes, obstruction of justice.

7/3 note: Tony Snow made it plain this morning that a pardon is still an option! I am more certain than ever that the motivation of a commutation from this corrupt President is to give Scooter cover to keep quiet. As his buddies on the Supreme Court exhibited in 2000, Bush has once again shown that oft-stated, long-held, rock-hard Republican principles melt quickly when their power is threatened.

Covering Posteriors

An old story that deserves retelling:

When shortly before the terrorist attacks of 2001, President Bush was presented with evidence that a terrorist attack on our country was likely being planned, he asked no questions, directed no action, called no further meetings. Instead he ended the meeting in a typically cavalier manner. He said to the presenter: "All right. You've covered your ass now."

Try as I might, I cannot imagine Bill Clinton, George Bush, Sr., Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, or Harry Truman responding so flippantly. Those are the Presidents of my lifetime. Neither can I imagine John Kerry, or Al Gore failing to take such a briefing seriously. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, or any of the other current candidates for president behaving so?

That is just one of the multitude of evidences of the shallow, coarse, arrogant, cluelessness of this fraternity-boy President. Ladies and gentlemen, the current occupant of our White House is the least competent President in the history of our country. He is worse than Nixon. Worse than do-nothing Buchanan. We still have a chance to survive his presidency better than we did Buchanan's. But it's far from a sure thing.

Shocking News! The Tragedy in Iraq was Forecast!

The Washington Post has broken the story (gasp!) that intelligence analysts knew, and advised the administration, before the Republicans invaded Iraq (without a consensus of support in the world or even at home) that the likely result would be terrible sectarian violence, new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan for Al Qaeda, a surge of radical politics in Islamic countries, an opportunity for Iran to exert more influence in the region, and a financial windfall for terrorist groups. Good grief! I knew those things were likely and I am just a reader of the news with one college course in the history of the Middle East who has lived 60 years in an reasonably sane state of awareness.

The magnitude of the Republican folly of the last six years is mindboggling, and plain for all to see. Though a small percentage (less than 30%) of Americans still profess support for Bush, I believe, if you could read their hearts you'd see most know a castastrophic error was made and fib to the interviewers in a misplaced sense of patriotic duty.

Randon Flickr Blogging: 0088

Hold it, boy!

Brush-cutting and bush-hogging at the Crawford ranch is one thing, George, but this is a whole 'nother matter ---- and despite the legendary precedent, cutting cherry trees here is not gonna make you first in the hearts of your countrymen!
(Click on the pic to see the original.)
----

Tom Hilton at If I Ran The Zoo originated and posts "Random Flickr-blogging" every Monday and invites other participants. Check out how it works here.

A Few Recent Matson Cartoons

I haven't sent you off for a chuckle at the expense of Shrub and Co. lately. Here are a few Matson cartoons to check out. Just click on the detail to visit the real thing at R.J. Matson's website.

By the way, when you vote next, remember that polls indicate that 75% of the upstanding folks who choose the Republican nominees still support The Decider. When you vote for a Republican you are voting for the choices of the Ann Coulters, Sean Hannitys, Dick Cheneys, Alberto Gonzaleses, etc. of the world.

Lies

Tom Hilton at If I Ran the Zoo has performed a valuable service for those who haven't been paying attention. He has published a chart to distinquish the lies of Scooter Libby from the famous lie of Bill Clinton.

The most telling thing about the Libby case is that it left no reasonable doubt that the priorities of the Republican administration were not winning the war in Iraq, securing Afghanistan, protecting New Orleans, taking care of our wounded troops, finding OBL, etc., etc., etc. Bush, Rove, Libby, Cheney and company were instead concentrating their considerable talents on smearing their political enemies and covering their tracks on the hyping of the war.

Romney: Coulter speech "a good thing"

Governor Mitt Romney believes that Jesus preached among the horse-riding!, steel-using!, pre-Columbian Indians and that Joseph Smith found some gold tablets with that whole astounding new chapter of history engraved on them (sometimes in King James' or Shakespeare's words a thousand years before either lived) -- I'll try not to hold that against him: Harry Reid shares those same strange beliefs. I personally know a number of fine up-standing folk who are Mormons. I happen to believe their religion is among the goofiest of major cults. But I would consider an otherwise level-headed Mormon for President if I shared his/her ethical, moral, and political views.

Despite my disbelief in Mormonism (Sorry Rachel, I respect your right to believe it, but it doesn't fly in my book of mixed metaphors), his astonishing religious beliefs do not disqualify Brother Mitt.

But Mr. Romney also believes that Ann Coulter occupying a prestigious conservative podium to rant about "faggots" is "a good thing". It is fine to afterwards admit to the outragegeousness of her comments, but you, Mr. Mitt, knew of her previous vile words. Any conservative who treats Ann Coulter as a legitimate spokesperson for his cause has lost his moral compass and I can no longer give his moral, ethical, or political judgments any credence. Period.

"Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."

Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

-George Washington

Terrorism is not new. You might get the opposite impression if you only read the weblogs of the far right.

When the Hessians brutally pounded, hacked, and pierced wounded American soldiers during the Revolution, George Washington could have responded with similar tactics but instead Washington commanded that American soldiers would, in the face of incredible terrorism, treat these heartless enemies civilly.

After the war a quarter of the Hessians stayed in America and became, in effect, part of the Revolution they had fought.

The audio for an NPR report that reminded me of this story was broadcast this morning. It will be available on the NPR website at 1 p.m. today.

George Washington's response to terrorism

This NPR page includes Washington's famous Rules of Civility.

The current President was not mentioned in the report, but the contrast of the characters of GW and the foul-mouthed, swaggering, "bring-em-on" GWB is too stark not to leap to mind. That a Revolution led by such character could devolve into the present administration is ... revolting.