This woman writes for UK's The Guardian. She makes some interesting points, to say the least.
In their quest to convince voters that America is in danger, Republicans are lying about 9/11 and baldly denying history
Megan Carpentier
More than 150 years ago, a disparate group of anti-immigrant, conspiracy-minded Americans became sick of traditional politicians and started a grassroots movement to take political power from the hands of those they no longer trusted. When asked by outsiders what their movement was called, they were ordered to answer, "I know nothing," leading others to call them the Know Nothing party. The movement, however, was co-opted by the traditional parties and undermined by policy disagreements, and many members eventually folded into the Republican party. Some things, apparently, don't change as much as we'd like to believe.
Republican leaders, and the 20-somethings crafting their made-for-television talking points, are apparently counting on the fact that their base still knows nothing, or is at least willing to forget what they do know. Not content to blame the Bush-led Wall Street bailouts on President Obama, or the shoe-bomber reprise on Obama's security and intelligence policies that were nonetheless instituted by his predecessors, Republican thought-leaders like Mary Matalin, former White House press secretary Dana Perino and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani have decided that there is one big thing that just couldn't have happened on the Republicans' watch: 9/11.
Perino started the re-write of history in November, baldly stating: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term." Matalin picked up the torch shortly after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab set his crotch on fire, claiming that Bush "inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history."
Who buys this stuff?
Most astonishingly, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani – who made his national political reputation on the tragedy of the 2,752 people who died from a terrorist attack in the city he led – told Americans on Friday: "We had no domestic attacks under Bush." In the wake of widespread disbelief that Giuliani would repudiate the deaths in his own city in an effort to defend an unpopular former president who presided over not one by two attacks by foreign terrorists on American soil – not including the anthrax attacks – Giuliani was forced to admit he did, indeed, remember September 11th. That is, undoubtedly, a relief to both his wife and his political advisers, if small solace to the families of those whose deaths he seems happy to use as a political weapon against the opposing party.
Repeat something, even a lie, long enough, and some people will believe it. And Guiliani, thrice-divorced, will say anything.
In the end, though, the brain trust – such as it is – of the Republican party wouldn't be attempting to re-write recent history if their focus groups and polls didn't show that truthiness pays political dividends. Shortly after Perino's comments, polls showed voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on issues of national security and that 63% of voters think that "political correctness" – a refusal to disobey laws prohibiting racial profiling – was the root cause of the failure to prevent one soldier's attack on his colleagues at Fort Hood.
Republicans have apparently decided that they can improve their standings with Americans if they can convince them, despite all evidence to the contrary, that terrorist attacks only happen when Democrats are in power. Republicans seem perfectly and increasingly happy to slough off all responsibility for the things that happened and that they caused during their watch, as long as it brings them back to power. The question for Americans ought to be what they'll do with that power when they get it back. Last year, they weren't so keen on keeping Republicans in power. This year, many of them seemingly know nothing about that.
George Santayana once said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In this country, Republicans are trying hard to make sure Americans cannot remember the past in which a Republican president ignored a security assessment warning of the attacks of 11 September, in which he chose to prosecute a war against a country that wasn't, at the time, harbouring the terrorists that attacked us, or in which a terrorist without a Muslim name or Islamic appearance boarded a plane and attempted to detonate his feet. And they certainly don't want us to remember anything about a Republican president who told Americans that he didn't know nothing about the location of the person who masterminded the biggest terrorist attack on American soil, nor did he care. If you know nothing, and no one else does either, you apparently can't be held accountable for anything.
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Monday, January 11, 2010
Saturday, November 28, 2009
After Cheney
IN THE FIELD Biden meeting in Baghdad with Gen. Raymond T. Odierno and Christopher Hill, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.
An interesting article about Biden as Vice President. His experience in the Senate, his personality, his garrulousness, his role in the Obama administration, his succession of Cheney.
Some details from the story stand out for me.
First, this web and tangle of relationships: while Cheney’s staff fought for dominance with the White House, Biden’s is deeply enmeshed in the policy-making structure. His national-security adviser, Antony J. Blinken, and two other aides are also directors in the National Security Council, while a number of former Biden aides occupy important posts in the N.S.C. Thomas Donilon, deputy national-security adviser and coordinator of policy across agencies, has been a close friend of Biden’s since the 1980s; Donilon’s brother, Michael, is a senior adviser to Biden, and Donilon’s wife, Catherine Russell, was Biden’s former administrative assistant and is now chief of staff to Biden’s wife, Jill. During the transition, Biden told James Jones that he didn’t want his own N.S.C. but wanted to be able to call on the N.S.C. as needed. Jones complied; on the first day in office, he told his staff, “You work for the president and the vice president.” National-security aides routinely accompany Biden on his foreign trips. As one policymaker who was not authorized to comment publicly on internal administration issues said to me: “I don’t in my head distinguish between Office of the Vice President people and N.S.C. people. We’re all the White House staff.”
Whether such a sweeping statement is full reality or a variation of reality and wishful thinking, there seems little doubt that the style and substance of the Bush and the Obama administrations are quite different.
THE MEDIATOR So far, Biden has avoided the White House infighting that marked Cheney’s tenure.
The difference between Biden’s role and Cheney’s has at least as much to do with the culture of the two administrations as it does with the men themselves. Bush’s discomfort with world affairs created a vacuum that Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others fought to fill. Moreover, Bush’s tendency toward the snap judgment and the gut call undermined the formal policy process in favor of jockeying for position at key moments. By contrast, there is little question where foreign policy is now decided — in the Oval Office — and the absence of a San Andreas fault line has as much to do with clarity of authority as it does with personal vibes. What’s more, as the agonizingly deliberative debate over policy in Afghanistan has demonstrated, Obama wants to hear a case fully argued out before reaching a conclusion, even at some political risk. This perfectly suits Biden, a gifted expostulator and an indifferent schemer.
Biden is described as a knowledgable Washington hand, experienced in foreign policy matters, and the like.
“When you’re talking about a country which has an 85 percent rate of illiteracy, which has virtually no history of modern governance, you should go in with an overwhelming dose of humility,” he told me. “And you’d better damn well have as precise a notion as you can of what your objective is.”
Saying virtually is, perhaps, being kind.
Biden and those around him do not seem to believe that McChrystal’s strategy can work — not because they question the abilities of the military, but because they think the generals are far too optimistic about the civilian elements upon which the overall plan depends. They are deeply skeptical that the government of President Hamid Karzai can somehow gain legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan people; that the U.S. can quickly develop the enormous civilian capacity that would accompany a military surge, or can train as many as 400,000 Afghan soldiers, especially with attrition rates now running around 25 percent; that Pakistan will accept a policy designed to bolster Afghanistan’s Pashtun-led government; that NATO allies will overcome public resistance to offer major help; or that the U.S. can afford to spend something like $250 billion on Afghanistan at a time when deficits are already running very high.
Key point there: Pakistan accepting a Pashtun-led Afghani government.
If Al Qaeda can be bottled up on the border with Pakistan through counterterrorism measures involving troops as well as drone attacks, and with the help of an expanded Afghan army, then it is unnecessary to build a secure Afghanistan that can defeat the Taliban.
And perhaps provide a handle on an exit strategy?
Patient and humble are not words that come to mind when you think of Joe Biden; yet even his limitations may suit him for this new world. Biden is the one who knows many little things but no big thing. As gifted as he is at retail politics, he has none of Barack Obama’s talent for the sweeping formulation or inspirational language, which perhaps explains why he has fared so poorly in presidential campaigns. Biden does not project even slightly in the realm of myth. But for this very reason, he is allergic to magical, wish-fulfillment thinking. “Guys,” he’ll say — this is how he describes addressing the Joint Chiefs of Staff — “what if it doesn’t work?” An administration full of youthful true believers, enraptured with their heroic leader, needs a skeptic and a scold. Obama may need one himself. And yet Biden is also, like Obama, an optimist. As vice presidents go, he has more in common with Hubert Humphrey, the happy warrior, than with dark Dick Cheney. He may well, as Tom Lehrer once sang of Humphrey, dream of staging a coup; but he is likely to remain happy as long as he has apple carts to overturn.
An interesting article about Biden as Vice President. His experience in the Senate, his personality, his garrulousness, his role in the Obama administration, his succession of Cheney.
Some details from the story stand out for me.
First, this web and tangle of relationships: while Cheney’s staff fought for dominance with the White House, Biden’s is deeply enmeshed in the policy-making structure. His national-security adviser, Antony J. Blinken, and two other aides are also directors in the National Security Council, while a number of former Biden aides occupy important posts in the N.S.C. Thomas Donilon, deputy national-security adviser and coordinator of policy across agencies, has been a close friend of Biden’s since the 1980s; Donilon’s brother, Michael, is a senior adviser to Biden, and Donilon’s wife, Catherine Russell, was Biden’s former administrative assistant and is now chief of staff to Biden’s wife, Jill. During the transition, Biden told James Jones that he didn’t want his own N.S.C. but wanted to be able to call on the N.S.C. as needed. Jones complied; on the first day in office, he told his staff, “You work for the president and the vice president.” National-security aides routinely accompany Biden on his foreign trips. As one policymaker who was not authorized to comment publicly on internal administration issues said to me: “I don’t in my head distinguish between Office of the Vice President people and N.S.C. people. We’re all the White House staff.”
Whether such a sweeping statement is full reality or a variation of reality and wishful thinking, there seems little doubt that the style and substance of the Bush and the Obama administrations are quite different.
THE MEDIATOR So far, Biden has avoided the White House infighting that marked Cheney’s tenure.
The difference between Biden’s role and Cheney’s has at least as much to do with the culture of the two administrations as it does with the men themselves. Bush’s discomfort with world affairs created a vacuum that Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others fought to fill. Moreover, Bush’s tendency toward the snap judgment and the gut call undermined the formal policy process in favor of jockeying for position at key moments. By contrast, there is little question where foreign policy is now decided — in the Oval Office — and the absence of a San Andreas fault line has as much to do with clarity of authority as it does with personal vibes. What’s more, as the agonizingly deliberative debate over policy in Afghanistan has demonstrated, Obama wants to hear a case fully argued out before reaching a conclusion, even at some political risk. This perfectly suits Biden, a gifted expostulator and an indifferent schemer.
Biden is described as a knowledgable Washington hand, experienced in foreign policy matters, and the like.
“When you’re talking about a country which has an 85 percent rate of illiteracy, which has virtually no history of modern governance, you should go in with an overwhelming dose of humility,” he told me. “And you’d better damn well have as precise a notion as you can of what your objective is.”
Saying virtually is, perhaps, being kind.
Biden and those around him do not seem to believe that McChrystal’s strategy can work — not because they question the abilities of the military, but because they think the generals are far too optimistic about the civilian elements upon which the overall plan depends. They are deeply skeptical that the government of President Hamid Karzai can somehow gain legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan people; that the U.S. can quickly develop the enormous civilian capacity that would accompany a military surge, or can train as many as 400,000 Afghan soldiers, especially with attrition rates now running around 25 percent; that Pakistan will accept a policy designed to bolster Afghanistan’s Pashtun-led government; that NATO allies will overcome public resistance to offer major help; or that the U.S. can afford to spend something like $250 billion on Afghanistan at a time when deficits are already running very high.
Key point there: Pakistan accepting a Pashtun-led Afghani government.
If Al Qaeda can be bottled up on the border with Pakistan through counterterrorism measures involving troops as well as drone attacks, and with the help of an expanded Afghan army, then it is unnecessary to build a secure Afghanistan that can defeat the Taliban.
And perhaps provide a handle on an exit strategy?
Patient and humble are not words that come to mind when you think of Joe Biden; yet even his limitations may suit him for this new world. Biden is the one who knows many little things but no big thing. As gifted as he is at retail politics, he has none of Barack Obama’s talent for the sweeping formulation or inspirational language, which perhaps explains why he has fared so poorly in presidential campaigns. Biden does not project even slightly in the realm of myth. But for this very reason, he is allergic to magical, wish-fulfillment thinking. “Guys,” he’ll say — this is how he describes addressing the Joint Chiefs of Staff — “what if it doesn’t work?” An administration full of youthful true believers, enraptured with their heroic leader, needs a skeptic and a scold. Obama may need one himself. And yet Biden is also, like Obama, an optimist. As vice presidents go, he has more in common with Hubert Humphrey, the happy warrior, than with dark Dick Cheney. He may well, as Tom Lehrer once sang of Humphrey, dream of staging a coup; but he is likely to remain happy as long as he has apple carts to overturn.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Bush memoirs to haunt GOP
For Republicans looking forward to the first Bush-free election in a decade, the book publishing schedule is the bearer of bad news: Between New Year’s Day and next November, as many as five Bush administration officials — including the former president himself — will rehash history in hardback.
First Hank Paulson, that lovable Treasury Secretary, then Laura, then W himself. Should be neat.
The Bush montage plays right into the hands of Democrats, says Democratic strategist Douglas Schoen, who predicts that the midterm elections will be a battle between those who will try to make it a belated referendum on the Bush administration and those who will try to make it a premature referendum on the Obama administration.
Well, jobs will play a significant role, and the Republicans will try to emphasize that, whilst trying to dodge all those books.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Carter’s Racism Charge Sparks War of Words
Perhaps only Jimmy Carter has the nerve to be as blunt as this; his blunt comments on Israeli apartheid drew similarly passionate reactions.
Former President Jimmy Carter’s view that some of the recent protests against President Obama, including the “You Lie!” outburst by Representative Joe Wilson last week, are “based on racism,” has fueled a new war of words over this already charged issue.
The former president first weighed in on Tuesday during a question-and-answer session at the Carter Center in Atlanta. Mr. Carter responded to a question about Mr. Wilson’s eruption by saying that he did believe it was laced with racism. Coupling the Wilson remark with the images in recent weeks of angry demonstrators wielding signs depicting Mr. Obama as a Nazi or as Adolf Hitler, Mr. Carter said: “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”
I agree with him, and not always, but I see the racism.
He lamented the tone of disrespect toward the current president, adding: “Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care. It’s deeper than that.”
The rancor against the person, the fundamental questioning of his legitimacy, the labeling him a socialist, a Nazi, un-American, it all smacks of hatred of the person, and it is quite disturbing. Perhaps the rancor against Bush went too far, too, but his legitimacy wasn't questioned (other, of course, than his winning the 2000 election because of the Supreme Court's decision, itself a topic for debate).
Mr. Carter’s criticisms drew a sharp response from Michael Steele, the African-American chairman of the Republican party, who called the remarks an “outrage.” In a statement, Mr. Steele said: “President Carter is flat out wrong. This isn’t about race. It is about policy. This is a pathetic distraction by Democrats to shift attention away from the president’s wildly unpopular government-run health care plan that the American people simply oppose. Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families doesn’t create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation.”
Carter isn't wrong. It is not the ex-President who injected race into the public domain. And the President's health care plan is not "wildly unpopular" nor is it a government-run health care plan.
By stepping into the debate in such an explicit way, Mr. Carter used labels that the White House and others have clearly tried to avoid in the wake of Mr. Wilson’s remarks and last weekend’s angry demonstration on the Washington Mall. White House aides and some lawmakers had earlier deflected or dismissed questions centered on whether a racially tinged prism was underfoot, in what seemed a concerted effort to try to stay above the fray.
Above the fray? Race is a subject no one has the nerve to discuss openly, for too many people could get offended.
In a television interview on Sunday, Mr. Wilson, who was officially rebuked by the House on Tuesday, dismissed suggestions that his actions were racially motivated. One of his sons sprung to his defense after Mr. Carter’s remarks were publicized, saying his father didn’t have a “racist bone” in his body.
No one is a racist. There is no racism. We live in a racial Eden. The White House will not approach it openly, for it would be political dynamite, and would draw attention away from policies.
Other prominent officials however, like Representative James Clyburn, the Democratic majority whip from Mr. Wilson’s home state, have publicly implored the White House to directly confront what they view as an unseemly element aimed at, in Mr. Clyburn’s words “delegitimizing” the president. Don’t let it fester, he warned.
There are many people who do not accept President Obama's legitimacy, or even his citizenship. Black skin, a Muslim name.
Nearly all agree that the level of hostility aimed at Mr. Obama runs extremely high. Mr. Hoyer termed it unusually harsh. Some attribute part of the volume to the 24/7, Web-and-cable news driven world that we live in. Mr. Hoyer also noted policy divisions, including those who are also angered by how their tax dollars are being used, given the bank and auto bailouts by the government.
What would have been the alternative? And President Bush was not charged with being a socialist.
Former President Jimmy Carter’s view that some of the recent protests against President Obama, including the “You Lie!” outburst by Representative Joe Wilson last week, are “based on racism,” has fueled a new war of words over this already charged issue.
The former president first weighed in on Tuesday during a question-and-answer session at the Carter Center in Atlanta. Mr. Carter responded to a question about Mr. Wilson’s eruption by saying that he did believe it was laced with racism. Coupling the Wilson remark with the images in recent weeks of angry demonstrators wielding signs depicting Mr. Obama as a Nazi or as Adolf Hitler, Mr. Carter said: “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”
I agree with him, and not always, but I see the racism.
He lamented the tone of disrespect toward the current president, adding: “Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care. It’s deeper than that.”
The rancor against the person, the fundamental questioning of his legitimacy, the labeling him a socialist, a Nazi, un-American, it all smacks of hatred of the person, and it is quite disturbing. Perhaps the rancor against Bush went too far, too, but his legitimacy wasn't questioned (other, of course, than his winning the 2000 election because of the Supreme Court's decision, itself a topic for debate).
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Mr. Carter’s criticisms drew a sharp response from Michael Steele, the African-American chairman of the Republican party, who called the remarks an “outrage.” In a statement, Mr. Steele said: “President Carter is flat out wrong. This isn’t about race. It is about policy. This is a pathetic distraction by Democrats to shift attention away from the president’s wildly unpopular government-run health care plan that the American people simply oppose. Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families doesn’t create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation.”
Carter isn't wrong. It is not the ex-President who injected race into the public domain. And the President's health care plan is not "wildly unpopular" nor is it a government-run health care plan.
By stepping into the debate in such an explicit way, Mr. Carter used labels that the White House and others have clearly tried to avoid in the wake of Mr. Wilson’s remarks and last weekend’s angry demonstration on the Washington Mall. White House aides and some lawmakers had earlier deflected or dismissed questions centered on whether a racially tinged prism was underfoot, in what seemed a concerted effort to try to stay above the fray.
Above the fray? Race is a subject no one has the nerve to discuss openly, for too many people could get offended.
In a television interview on Sunday, Mr. Wilson, who was officially rebuked by the House on Tuesday, dismissed suggestions that his actions were racially motivated. One of his sons sprung to his defense after Mr. Carter’s remarks were publicized, saying his father didn’t have a “racist bone” in his body.
No one is a racist. There is no racism. We live in a racial Eden. The White House will not approach it openly, for it would be political dynamite, and would draw attention away from policies.
Other prominent officials however, like Representative James Clyburn, the Democratic majority whip from Mr. Wilson’s home state, have publicly implored the White House to directly confront what they view as an unseemly element aimed at, in Mr. Clyburn’s words “delegitimizing” the president. Don’t let it fester, he warned.
There are many people who do not accept President Obama's legitimacy, or even his citizenship. Black skin, a Muslim name.
Nearly all agree that the level of hostility aimed at Mr. Obama runs extremely high. Mr. Hoyer termed it unusually harsh. Some attribute part of the volume to the 24/7, Web-and-cable news driven world that we live in. Mr. Hoyer also noted policy divisions, including those who are also angered by how their tax dollars are being used, given the bank and auto bailouts by the government.
What would have been the alternative? And President Bush was not charged with being a socialist.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
In this corner ...
Spoiling for a Bush-Cheney Fight Atlantic Online - -The former vice-president plans to slam Bush in his memoir, and pundits are oddly eager. Dick Cheney, the most powerful American vice-president in history, thinks his considered opinion was ignored under Bush's second term.
And not even the former President is beyond the Dick's ire.
Video
And not even the former President is beyond the Dick's ire.
Video
Cheney, preparing his memoirs, unloads on Bush for bowing to ... Los Angeles Times
O, I can't wait for this one! And, who leaked this? As if we don't know.
O, I can't wait for this one! And, who leaked this? As if we don't know.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Left concerned
Neither liberals nor Republicans have yet figured out President Obama. Each expected him to be the president each imagined he'd be, as defined by each, and he has turned out different. Both are rankled.
A Supreme Court filing from the Obama administration last month has set off alarm bells on the left. The filing was a friend-of-the-court brief, and it mostly dealt with an excruciatingly technical question about the attorney-client privilege. But its last five pages were about the state secrets privilege, which was not at issue in the case. That privilege, a favorite tool of the Bush administration, allows the government to shut down lawsuits by invoking national security.
The Obama administration’s brief argued, though no one had asked, that the state secrets privilege was rooted in the Constitution.
No socialist, as Republicans warned and continue to repeat, he is also turning out to be less liberal than the liberals expected.
On the campaign trail and in more recent statements, President Obama has indicated that he wants to limit the use of the state secrets privilege. In courtrooms, however, there has been little evidence of a new approach.
The Administration has been playing it very cautiously.
A federal judge in San Francisco, for instance, last year rejected a version of the constitutional argument in a case brought by Mr. Eisenberg’s client, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. The foundation said it had been subjected to illegal surveillance in the Bush years. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the charity’s suit must be dismissed under the state secrets privilege.
This is where the issue of the pedigree of the privilege really matters. If the privilege is an ordinary common-law rule of evidence, Congress is probably free to alter it. If it is required by the Constitution, things get more complicated.
The judge in San Francisco, Vaughn R. Walker, ruled that Congress had indeed overridden the state secrets privilege when it enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The judge said that by setting up a secret court to consider requests for intelligence surveillance, and by setting up other domestic regulations of foreign intelligence surveillance, “Congress intended for the executive branch to relinquish its near-total control over whether the fact of unlawful surveillance could be protected as a secret.”
The government’s recent brief cited the leading Supreme Court decision on state secrets, United States v. Reynolds in 1953, but it said nothing about Judge Walker’s reading of it.
This last case is an interesting one: It concerned an Air Force accident report. The government refused to turn it over in an injury lawsuit, saying that disclosure of the report would endanger national security by revealing military secrets.
And?
When the report was finally released in 1996, it contained no secrets, but it did show that the deaths of nine men in the crash of a B-29 bomber had been caused by the Air Force’s negligence.
Nixon also claimed national security, often.
Thus, the first case in which the Supreme Court recognized the state secrets privilege illustrated how problematic it can be. By giving the executive branch close to unilateral power to have lawsuits dismissed on national security grounds, the privilege can become a way to conceal government misconduct.
The recent brief from the Obama administration cited just one decision directly invoking the Constitution as the basis for the state secrets privilege. Other courts have said the state secrets privilege is rooted in the common law.
A Supreme Court filing from the Obama administration last month has set off alarm bells on the left. The filing was a friend-of-the-court brief, and it mostly dealt with an excruciatingly technical question about the attorney-client privilege. But its last five pages were about the state secrets privilege, which was not at issue in the case. That privilege, a favorite tool of the Bush administration, allows the government to shut down lawsuits by invoking national security.
The Obama administration’s brief argued, though no one had asked, that the state secrets privilege was rooted in the Constitution.
No socialist, as Republicans warned and continue to repeat, he is also turning out to be less liberal than the liberals expected.
On the campaign trail and in more recent statements, President Obama has indicated that he wants to limit the use of the state secrets privilege. In courtrooms, however, there has been little evidence of a new approach.
The Administration has been playing it very cautiously.
A federal judge in San Francisco, for instance, last year rejected a version of the constitutional argument in a case brought by Mr. Eisenberg’s client, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. The foundation said it had been subjected to illegal surveillance in the Bush years. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the charity’s suit must be dismissed under the state secrets privilege.
This is where the issue of the pedigree of the privilege really matters. If the privilege is an ordinary common-law rule of evidence, Congress is probably free to alter it. If it is required by the Constitution, things get more complicated.
The judge in San Francisco, Vaughn R. Walker, ruled that Congress had indeed overridden the state secrets privilege when it enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The judge said that by setting up a secret court to consider requests for intelligence surveillance, and by setting up other domestic regulations of foreign intelligence surveillance, “Congress intended for the executive branch to relinquish its near-total control over whether the fact of unlawful surveillance could be protected as a secret.”
The government’s recent brief cited the leading Supreme Court decision on state secrets, United States v. Reynolds in 1953, but it said nothing about Judge Walker’s reading of it.
This last case is an interesting one: It concerned an Air Force accident report. The government refused to turn it over in an injury lawsuit, saying that disclosure of the report would endanger national security by revealing military secrets.
And?
When the report was finally released in 1996, it contained no secrets, but it did show that the deaths of nine men in the crash of a B-29 bomber had been caused by the Air Force’s negligence.
Nixon also claimed national security, often.
Thus, the first case in which the Supreme Court recognized the state secrets privilege illustrated how problematic it can be. By giving the executive branch close to unilateral power to have lawsuits dismissed on national security grounds, the privilege can become a way to conceal government misconduct.
The recent brief from the Obama administration cited just one decision directly invoking the Constitution as the basis for the state secrets privilege. Other courts have said the state secrets privilege is rooted in the common law.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Dick and Trent
Reading Angler, an utterly fascinating book by Barton Gellman, whom I first heard of and saw two nights ago on the Rachel Maddow Show; ran into my old Mississippi buddy, loosely speaking, of course, Trent Lott, who in between being conservative and right wing, took tome out to write (ahem!) a book: Herding Cats. Surprisingly, Hewlett does not own it. Ommission.
Lott, Trent. (2005). Herding cats: a life in politics. New York: Regan Books.
Gellman, Barton. (2008). Angler: the Cheney vice presidency. New York: Penguin Press.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.’s in U.S.
Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda, according to former administration officials.
Testing the Constitution?
Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the terrorism suspects, who came to be known as the Lackawanna Six, and declare them enemy combatants.
Cheney, of course; he seems to have believed anything he decided to do would be legal. Surely John Yoo could have written him a memo declaring the actions constitutional.
Mr. Bush ultimately decided against the proposal to use military force.
For whatever reason, he made the right decision.
A decision to dispatch troops into the streets to make arrests would be nearly unprecedented in American history, as both the Constitution and subsequent laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.
The Fourth Amendment bans “unreasonable” searches and seizures without probable cause. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the military from acting in a law enforcement capacity.
In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose.
A broad interpretation? Isn't that akin to judicial activism?
Testing the Constitution?
Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the terrorism suspects, who came to be known as the Lackawanna Six, and declare them enemy combatants.
Cheney, of course; he seems to have believed anything he decided to do would be legal. Surely John Yoo could have written him a memo declaring the actions constitutional.
Mr. Bush ultimately decided against the proposal to use military force.
For whatever reason, he made the right decision.
A decision to dispatch troops into the streets to make arrests would be nearly unprecedented in American history, as both the Constitution and subsequent laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.
The Fourth Amendment bans “unreasonable” searches and seizures without probable cause. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the military from acting in a law enforcement capacity.
In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose.
A broad interpretation? Isn't that akin to judicial activism?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Threat to Niger 's Democracy
A woman selling vegetables at a market in Niamey, the capital of Niger. The country ranks fifth from the bottom in the United Nations human development index.
Tens of thousands have taken to the streets to protest President Mamadou Tandja’s slow-moving coup d’état, as his critics call it: his plan to stay beyond the legal limit of two terms in his colonial-era palace, a gleaming oasis of whitewashed order amid dilapidated government buildings and mud-brick houses.
In his push for a new constitution that would abolish term limits and give him more power after 10 years as president, Mr. Tandja dissolved a high court that ruled against his bid to remain in office; dismissed a fractious Parliament; took steps to muzzle the press, including shutting down a radio and television station; and arrested opposition leaders.
Just as Chávez, Correa and Morales have done, as Zelaya want to do, In Latin America, one in power in Africa works to perpetuate his power.
Niger’s president, Mamadou Tandja, is seeking a new constitution that will allow him to stay in office past two terms and increase his power.
Democracy is new here in one of the world’s poorest countries, barely a decade old in this vast land of about 14 million people, most of it desert, bigger in area than France, Spain and Portugal together. Uranium deposits, among the world’s largest, provide the government with revenue, but the citizens here do not have much.
Yellow cake, W. Bush announced, Iraq sought to get, and he and Blair used that line to help justify their decision to make war.
Most of Niger’s citizens live on less than a dollar a day.
Most live on less than a dollar a day, and mortality rates for mothers and children are well above the African average — double in the case of women giving birth. The country ranks fifth from the bottom in the United Nations human development index, and persistent malnutrition stalks rural areas, aid workers say. In the capital, the hugely swollen limbs of insistent beggars testify to the effects of unchecked disease.
One thing the people have dearly acquired, though, after decades of coups, military strongmen and weak governments, is a political order that has resembled democracy, albeit with lapses: two successful presidential elections, defeated candidates who go home without causing turmoil, an outspoken opposition and an alert if beleaguered press. The citizens are manifestly unwilling to give up their shaky gains.
In the presidential palace, an airy Moorish-style edifice built for the French governors and well hidden from the road, Mr. Tandja beamed and said he wanted to stay on only because the people were begging him to do so. “The people demand it,” Mr. Tandja said. “My obligation is to never betray the aspirations of the people. It’s the people who asked.”
What people, one wonders.
Although the United States and the European Union have condemned Mr. Tandja’s moves, analysts say that because of an oil deal with the Chinese and support from the Libyan leader Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, he may be relatively invulnerable to Western pressure, despite the considerable presence of outside aid in Niger’s budget.
Mr. Tandja insisted that he had not “violated any act of the Constitution.”
A union leader here who also heads the protests angrily disagreed.
“Unfortunately, he’s made us miss our entrance into the great court of democratic nations, like Ghana and Mali,” said Issoufou Sidibé, secretary general of the Democratic Confederation of Workers in Niger. “He’s made us totally miss what would have been our triumphant entry. It’s made every Nigerien who is proud of his country very angry.”
Tens of thousands have taken to the streets to protest President Mamadou Tandja’s slow-moving coup d’état, as his critics call it: his plan to stay beyond the legal limit of two terms in his colonial-era palace, a gleaming oasis of whitewashed order amid dilapidated government buildings and mud-brick houses.
In his push for a new constitution that would abolish term limits and give him more power after 10 years as president, Mr. Tandja dissolved a high court that ruled against his bid to remain in office; dismissed a fractious Parliament; took steps to muzzle the press, including shutting down a radio and television station; and arrested opposition leaders.
Just as Chávez, Correa and Morales have done, as Zelaya want to do, In Latin America, one in power in Africa works to perpetuate his power.
Niger’s president, Mamadou Tandja, is seeking a new constitution that will allow him to stay in office past two terms and increase his power.
Democracy is new here in one of the world’s poorest countries, barely a decade old in this vast land of about 14 million people, most of it desert, bigger in area than France, Spain and Portugal together. Uranium deposits, among the world’s largest, provide the government with revenue, but the citizens here do not have much.
Yellow cake, W. Bush announced, Iraq sought to get, and he and Blair used that line to help justify their decision to make war.
Most of Niger’s citizens live on less than a dollar a day.
Most live on less than a dollar a day, and mortality rates for mothers and children are well above the African average — double in the case of women giving birth. The country ranks fifth from the bottom in the United Nations human development index, and persistent malnutrition stalks rural areas, aid workers say. In the capital, the hugely swollen limbs of insistent beggars testify to the effects of unchecked disease.
One thing the people have dearly acquired, though, after decades of coups, military strongmen and weak governments, is a political order that has resembled democracy, albeit with lapses: two successful presidential elections, defeated candidates who go home without causing turmoil, an outspoken opposition and an alert if beleaguered press. The citizens are manifestly unwilling to give up their shaky gains.
In the presidential palace, an airy Moorish-style edifice built for the French governors and well hidden from the road, Mr. Tandja beamed and said he wanted to stay on only because the people were begging him to do so. “The people demand it,” Mr. Tandja said. “My obligation is to never betray the aspirations of the people. It’s the people who asked.”
What people, one wonders.
Although the United States and the European Union have condemned Mr. Tandja’s moves, analysts say that because of an oil deal with the Chinese and support from the Libyan leader Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, he may be relatively invulnerable to Western pressure, despite the considerable presence of outside aid in Niger’s budget.
Mr. Tandja insisted that he had not “violated any act of the Constitution.”
A union leader here who also heads the protests angrily disagreed.
“Unfortunately, he’s made us miss our entrance into the great court of democratic nations, like Ghana and Mali,” said Issoufou Sidibé, secretary general of the Democratic Confederation of Workers in Niger. “He’s made us totally miss what would have been our triumphant entry. It’s made every Nigerien who is proud of his country very angry.”
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Cheney to Publish His Memoir
Former Vice President Dick Cheney is working on a book.
The deal was negotiated by Robert Barnett, a Washington lawyer who also represents Mr. Bush, former President Bill Clinton and President Obama.
Is there any better proof of what C. Wright Mills called the Power Elite?
June 24, 2009
Cheney to Publish His Memoir
By MOTOKO RICH
As widely expected, Vice President Dick Cheney has signed a deal with an imprint of Simon & Schuster to write a memoir about his life in politics and his service in four presidential administrations. A spokesman for Simon & Schuster said Mr. Cheney would write a book for Threshold Editions, where Mary Matalin, his close friend and adviser, is editor in chief.
Mr. Cheney, who had been looking for a publisher for about two months, joins a roster of Bush administration figures writing memoirs, including President George W. Bush; his wife, Laura; former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.; former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; and Karl Rove, the former presidential political adviser. Mr. Rove’s book will also be published by Threshold.
Mr. Cheney’s memoir, which will focus on the past 40 years of his life, mostly in Washington, will be published in the spring of 2011. The deal was negotiated by Robert Barnett, a Washington lawyer who also represents Mr. Bush, former President Bill Clinton and President Obama.
The former vice president is working with his eldest daughter, Liz Cheney, on the memoir. Ms. Cheney is helping with research and “filling in the gaps.”
“He’s a student of history, and I think he never really planned to write a book,” Ms. Cheney said. “But I think because the job he just finished is obviously his last job he’ll ever have in government and because he cares about history and has been part of so many consequential events over the last 40 years, he wants to make sure that his story is told, and told in a way that his grandchildren will be able to understand and appreciate even 20 or 30 years from now.”
She said Mr. Cheney had been writing out his thoughts in longhand but had also begun writing on a laptop, working in homes on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, in Virginia and in Wyoming.
In addition to covering his roles in the administrations of Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, George Bush and George W. Bush, Mr. Cheney will write about his private-sector experience, including his time as chief executive of the Halliburton Company, the oil field services provider.
A person familiar with the negotiations said Mr. Cheney would receive around $2 million for his book. The spokesman for Simon & Schuster declined to comment.
The deal was negotiated by Robert Barnett, a Washington lawyer who also represents Mr. Bush, former President Bill Clinton and President Obama.
Is there any better proof of what C. Wright Mills called the Power Elite?
June 24, 2009
Cheney to Publish His Memoir
By MOTOKO RICH
As widely expected, Vice President Dick Cheney has signed a deal with an imprint of Simon & Schuster to write a memoir about his life in politics and his service in four presidential administrations. A spokesman for Simon & Schuster said Mr. Cheney would write a book for Threshold Editions, where Mary Matalin, his close friend and adviser, is editor in chief.
Mr. Cheney, who had been looking for a publisher for about two months, joins a roster of Bush administration figures writing memoirs, including President George W. Bush; his wife, Laura; former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.; former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; and Karl Rove, the former presidential political adviser. Mr. Rove’s book will also be published by Threshold.
Mr. Cheney’s memoir, which will focus on the past 40 years of his life, mostly in Washington, will be published in the spring of 2011. The deal was negotiated by Robert Barnett, a Washington lawyer who also represents Mr. Bush, former President Bill Clinton and President Obama.
The former vice president is working with his eldest daughter, Liz Cheney, on the memoir. Ms. Cheney is helping with research and “filling in the gaps.”
“He’s a student of history, and I think he never really planned to write a book,” Ms. Cheney said. “But I think because the job he just finished is obviously his last job he’ll ever have in government and because he cares about history and has been part of so many consequential events over the last 40 years, he wants to make sure that his story is told, and told in a way that his grandchildren will be able to understand and appreciate even 20 or 30 years from now.”
She said Mr. Cheney had been writing out his thoughts in longhand but had also begun writing on a laptop, working in homes on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, in Virginia and in Wyoming.
In addition to covering his roles in the administrations of Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, George Bush and George W. Bush, Mr. Cheney will write about his private-sector experience, including his time as chief executive of the Halliburton Company, the oil field services provider.
A person familiar with the negotiations said Mr. Cheney would receive around $2 million for his book. The spokesman for Simon & Schuster declined to comment.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Hi y'all, it's George, George W.
I wondered how long it'd be before he came out of the ranch.Last night, George W. Bush gave his first speech since the torture flap exploded. The GOP still eschews the ex-president on a personal level but, says Matthew Yglesias, it’s now fully embracing his legacy.
How is that possible?
Though the former president remains buried in ignominy, he can console himself with the fact that the GOP seems to have implicitly decided that they just can't quit Bush.
Some habits are difficult to break.
Friday, May 22, 2009
a Transition for the Record Books
Ursula Burns will become the next chief executive of Xerox
Anne Mulcahy
In 2007, Ursula M. Burns accepted a National Medal of Technology for Xerox from President Bush at the White House.
After eight years of hard work turning around a company in disarray, Anne M. Mulcahy has managed to make her departure as chief executive of Xerox look effortless.
During a shareholders’ meeting on Thursday, Ms. Mulcahy revealed that she would retire as chief executive in July but remain chairwoman. Her handpicked successor is Ursula M. Burns, the president of the company. The management change had been predicted for years, making it one of the least tumultuous power changes in Xerox’s recent history.
According to Xerox, this is the first time a female chief executive has replaced another female chief executive at a Fortune 500 company. In addition, Ms. Burns is the first African-American woman to run a company this large. Xerox reported revenue of $17.6 billion in 2008.
Xerox declined to make either executive available for interviews.
Anne Mulcahy
In 2007, Ursula M. Burns accepted a National Medal of Technology for Xerox from President Bush at the White House.
After eight years of hard work turning around a company in disarray, Anne M. Mulcahy has managed to make her departure as chief executive of Xerox look effortless.
During a shareholders’ meeting on Thursday, Ms. Mulcahy revealed that she would retire as chief executive in July but remain chairwoman. Her handpicked successor is Ursula M. Burns, the president of the company. The management change had been predicted for years, making it one of the least tumultuous power changes in Xerox’s recent history.
According to Xerox, this is the first time a female chief executive has replaced another female chief executive at a Fortune 500 company. In addition, Ms. Burns is the first African-American woman to run a company this large. Xerox reported revenue of $17.6 billion in 2008.
Xerox declined to make either executive available for interviews.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Push in Spain to Limit Reach of the Courts
Judge Baltasar Garzón, left, has opened an inquiry into complaints of torture filed by four former Guantánamo detainees
Spain’s crusading judges could lose their power to investigate human rights violations that occur anywhere in the world after Spanish lawmakers called for restrictions of the judiciary’s reach.
Lawmakers approved a nonbinding proposal late Tuesday urging the Socialist government to change a law — currently the most far-reaching in Europe — that enables investigators to probe alleged human rights crimes regardless of where they are committed or where the defendants live.
It has long seemed out of bounds, to me, that a Spanish judge can reach into another nation's sovereign borders.
Spanish lawyers have gained a reputation for activism in recent years by using the principle of universal jurisdiction to pursue cases against suspected human rights violators overseas, most famously the former Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet.
Of course I was glad to see Pinochet nabbed, but it still seemed absurd that a Spanish judge's power reached so far.
However, the Guantánamo case and one filed against Israeli officials this year created a diplomatic headache for the government of Prime Minister José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero and prompted calls for a change in the law.
That is not justice, but politics.
Israel complained in January after the National Court decided to investigate seven current or former Israeli officials over an air attack in Gaza that killed a top Hamas militant in 2002 but also 14 other people, including 9 children.
That seems was anti-Israeli more than anything else.
“The cases brought in Spain are a way of persuading or forcing the courts of others countries to deal with the crimes they are not dealing with at home,” Reed Brody, an international law specialist for Human Rights Watch in Brussels, said by telephone on Wednesday. “For instance, the cases brought in Spain against Americans may help persuade the Obama administration to try the cases where they belong. ”
That judgment assumes it is correct in saying there are cases, and not political convictions. And, more, it assumes, presumes, the speaker has the right to "persuade or force" others to conform to what he judges to be right.
Spain’s crusading judges could lose their power to investigate human rights violations that occur anywhere in the world after Spanish lawmakers called for restrictions of the judiciary’s reach.
Lawmakers approved a nonbinding proposal late Tuesday urging the Socialist government to change a law — currently the most far-reaching in Europe — that enables investigators to probe alleged human rights crimes regardless of where they are committed or where the defendants live.
It has long seemed out of bounds, to me, that a Spanish judge can reach into another nation's sovereign borders.
Spanish lawyers have gained a reputation for activism in recent years by using the principle of universal jurisdiction to pursue cases against suspected human rights violators overseas, most famously the former Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet.
Of course I was glad to see Pinochet nabbed, but it still seemed absurd that a Spanish judge's power reached so far.
However, the Guantánamo case and one filed against Israeli officials this year created a diplomatic headache for the government of Prime Minister José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero and prompted calls for a change in the law.
That is not justice, but politics.
Israel complained in January after the National Court decided to investigate seven current or former Israeli officials over an air attack in Gaza that killed a top Hamas militant in 2002 but also 14 other people, including 9 children.
That seems was anti-Israeli more than anything else.
“The cases brought in Spain are a way of persuading or forcing the courts of others countries to deal with the crimes they are not dealing with at home,” Reed Brody, an international law specialist for Human Rights Watch in Brussels, said by telephone on Wednesday. “For instance, the cases brought in Spain against Americans may help persuade the Obama administration to try the cases where they belong. ”
That judgment assumes it is correct in saying there are cases, and not political convictions. And, more, it assumes, presumes, the speaker has the right to "persuade or force" others to conform to what he judges to be right.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
No good deed goes unpunished
A VH-71 flies farther and faster than the helicopters in the current presidential fleet.
Obama Finds That Saving on Copters Could Be Costly
The president is learning that in the world of defense contracting, frugality can be expensive. Some lawmakers and military experts warn that his effort to avoid wasting billions of dollars could end up doing just that.
A Washington paradox: trying to save money costs money.
Obama Finds That Saving on Copters Could Be Costly
The president is learning that in the world of defense contracting, frugality can be expensive. Some lawmakers and military experts warn that his effort to avoid wasting billions of dollars could end up doing just that.
A Washington paradox: trying to save money costs money.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Storm Clouds Gather Over Obama Nominees
Although the parties have changed places, the nomination wars continue. Senate Republicans are struggling to adapt to an altered political world when it comes to candidates for federal courts and senior Justice Department posts.
No longer able simply to defend choices made by a fellow Republican, as they did under President George W. Bush, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have turned into vocal critics of many of President Obama’s legal nominees. They complain that several are committed liberal ideologues, much in the way Democrats complained that Mr. Bush’s choices were committed conservative ideologues.
Same old game, but there's a new sheriff in town.
The current Republican focus is on a pair of nominees: Mr. Obama’s first selection for a federal appeals court seat, David F. Hamilton, and his choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, Dawn Johnsen. (By coincidence, the two are in-laws.)
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, has complained that the Democrats are moving too quickly to consider Mr. Hamilton, a federal trial judge in Indiana since 1994. The committee has set for Wednesday the confirmation hearing on Judge Hamilton, who was nominated only in mid-March.
Specter is a slime. He tries to play the center, and sometimes does (he voted for the stimulus bill), but he often moves right and lobs grenades.
But the attacks on the nomination of Ms. Johnsen, who is married to Judge Hamilton’s brother, have been more severe. Ms. Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University, was an unsparing critic of memorandums, written by lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration, that said the president could largely ignore international treaties and Congress in fighting terrorists and that critics have portrayed as allowing torture in interrogation.
It is incomprehensible that a lawyer would wrote an opinion stating that the president can ignore treaties and Congress.
The broad reading of presidential authority was “outlandish,” and the constitutional arguments were “shockingly flawed,” Ms. Johnsen has written. While her language was harsh, the memos have largely been withdrawn, and among lawyers a consensus agreeing with her views has emerged.
Nonetheless, Republicans have denounced her comments. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the committee’s minority, said Ms. Johnsen lacked the “requisite seriousness” to head the Office of Legal Counsel.
Cornyn makes Specter seem a statesman.
No longer able simply to defend choices made by a fellow Republican, as they did under President George W. Bush, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have turned into vocal critics of many of President Obama’s legal nominees. They complain that several are committed liberal ideologues, much in the way Democrats complained that Mr. Bush’s choices were committed conservative ideologues.
Same old game, but there's a new sheriff in town.
The current Republican focus is on a pair of nominees: Mr. Obama’s first selection for a federal appeals court seat, David F. Hamilton, and his choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, Dawn Johnsen. (By coincidence, the two are in-laws.)
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, has complained that the Democrats are moving too quickly to consider Mr. Hamilton, a federal trial judge in Indiana since 1994. The committee has set for Wednesday the confirmation hearing on Judge Hamilton, who was nominated only in mid-March.
Specter is a slime. He tries to play the center, and sometimes does (he voted for the stimulus bill), but he often moves right and lobs grenades.
But the attacks on the nomination of Ms. Johnsen, who is married to Judge Hamilton’s brother, have been more severe. Ms. Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University, was an unsparing critic of memorandums, written by lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration, that said the president could largely ignore international treaties and Congress in fighting terrorists and that critics have portrayed as allowing torture in interrogation.
It is incomprehensible that a lawyer would wrote an opinion stating that the president can ignore treaties and Congress.
The broad reading of presidential authority was “outlandish,” and the constitutional arguments were “shockingly flawed,” Ms. Johnsen has written. While her language was harsh, the memos have largely been withdrawn, and among lawyers a consensus agreeing with her views has emerged.
Nonetheless, Republicans have denounced her comments. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the committee’s minority, said Ms. Johnsen lacked the “requisite seriousness” to head the Office of Legal Counsel.
Cornyn makes Specter seem a statesman.
Monday, March 9, 2009
President’s Political Protector Is Ever Close at Hand
Mr. Axelrod with President Obama in the Oval Office on Thursday.
He also helps decide which fights to pick and which ones to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington. The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Mr. Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Mr. Limbaugh said he hoped that Mr. Obama would “fail.”
At first, I thought it was foolhardy for the President of the United States to parry with that buffoon, but it has proven to be a prescient move.
The two men have never met, but in his new role as commentator, Mr. Rove has criticized Mr. Axelrod as politicizing the White House.
Politicizing? What the hell did Rove do?
He also helps decide which fights to pick and which ones to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington. The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Mr. Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Mr. Limbaugh said he hoped that Mr. Obama would “fail.”
At first, I thought it was foolhardy for the President of the United States to parry with that buffoon, but it has proven to be a prescient move.
The two men have never met, but in his new role as commentator, Mr. Rove has criticized Mr. Axelrod as politicizing the White House.
Politicizing? What the hell did Rove do?
Terror-War Fallout Lingers Over Bush Lawyers
Where are the Bush lawyers now? Far away from the reins of government, it is to be hoped.
When John C. Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer, was selected by President George W. Bush in May 2004 to join a government board charged with releasing historical Nazi and Japanese war crimes records, trouble quickly followed.
The Abu Ghraib torture scandal was exploding, and fellow panelists learned that Mr. Yoo had written secret legal opinions saying presidents have sweeping wartime power to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. They protested that it was absurd to name Mr. Yoo, who they believed might have sanctioned war crimes, to a war crimes commission.
Secret? The Geneva Conventions are the core of international humanitarian law. One might suppose wartime is precisely the time to observe the Conventions.
White House officials canceled the appointment, though it had already been announced in a news release, and kept the episode quiet. “We saved them from incredible embarrassment,” said Thomas H. Baer, one of the dissenting panelists.
Interactive Feature Where Are They Now?
The Obama administration last week began releasing more secret memorandums written by Mr. Yoo and others that made such wide-ranging claims about presidential power that Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, called them “shocking.”
Specter is hardly my favorite. He seems to have leeway in foreign policy matters, but mostly conforms to the Republican line in most matters.
“I think the legal profession in the United States has been seriously hurt by their conduct,” said Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University. He called the disputed legal opinions “sloppy, one-sided and incompetent” and added, “There has to be accountability.”
Are the opinions well written? Or were they conveniently written?
Mr. Yoo declined to comment. But in a March 7 opinion column in The Wall Street Journal, he defended his recently disclosed work and warned that the Obama administration risked harming national security if it punished lawyers like himself.
He hides behind specious arguments. Good legal work is its own best defense.
For some of Mr. Bush’s lawyers, the most likely consequence may be wariness from potential employers. The former White House counsel and attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, for example, has not found a job since resigning in 2007 amid accusations that he misled Congress about surveillance without warrants and the firing of United States attorneys. He recently told The Wall Street Journal that the controversy surrounding him had made law firms “skittish” about hiring him, calling himself “one of the many casualties of the war on terror.”
What a crock.
But Mr. Richman, of Columbia, said any punishment against Bush lawyers is unlikely unless e-mail messages or early drafts turn up proving that they blatantly altered their legal conclusions to fit a policy agenda. Mr. Richman said that would be unlikely for Mr. Yoo, who had pushed an aggressive theory of presidential power long before the administration recruited him.
“The selection of Yoo was putting in place someone where you sort of had an idea what he would say,” Mr. Richman said. “Most academics are in the center of most things, but there are some outliers. And he was an outlier.”
When John C. Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer, was selected by President George W. Bush in May 2004 to join a government board charged with releasing historical Nazi and Japanese war crimes records, trouble quickly followed.
The Abu Ghraib torture scandal was exploding, and fellow panelists learned that Mr. Yoo had written secret legal opinions saying presidents have sweeping wartime power to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. They protested that it was absurd to name Mr. Yoo, who they believed might have sanctioned war crimes, to a war crimes commission.
Secret? The Geneva Conventions are the core of international humanitarian law. One might suppose wartime is precisely the time to observe the Conventions.
White House officials canceled the appointment, though it had already been announced in a news release, and kept the episode quiet. “We saved them from incredible embarrassment,” said Thomas H. Baer, one of the dissenting panelists.
Interactive Feature Where Are They Now?The Obama administration last week began releasing more secret memorandums written by Mr. Yoo and others that made such wide-ranging claims about presidential power that Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, called them “shocking.”
Specter is hardly my favorite. He seems to have leeway in foreign policy matters, but mostly conforms to the Republican line in most matters.
“I think the legal profession in the United States has been seriously hurt by their conduct,” said Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University. He called the disputed legal opinions “sloppy, one-sided and incompetent” and added, “There has to be accountability.”
Are the opinions well written? Or were they conveniently written?
Mr. Yoo declined to comment. But in a March 7 opinion column in The Wall Street Journal, he defended his recently disclosed work and warned that the Obama administration risked harming national security if it punished lawyers like himself.
He hides behind specious arguments. Good legal work is its own best defense.
For some of Mr. Bush’s lawyers, the most likely consequence may be wariness from potential employers. The former White House counsel and attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, for example, has not found a job since resigning in 2007 amid accusations that he misled Congress about surveillance without warrants and the firing of United States attorneys. He recently told The Wall Street Journal that the controversy surrounding him had made law firms “skittish” about hiring him, calling himself “one of the many casualties of the war on terror.”
What a crock.
But Mr. Richman, of Columbia, said any punishment against Bush lawyers is unlikely unless e-mail messages or early drafts turn up proving that they blatantly altered their legal conclusions to fit a policy agenda. Mr. Richman said that would be unlikely for Mr. Yoo, who had pushed an aggressive theory of presidential power long before the administration recruited him.
“The selection of Yoo was putting in place someone where you sort of had an idea what he would say,” Mr. Richman said. “Most academics are in the center of most things, but there are some outliers. And he was an outlier.”
Saturday, March 7, 2009
For McCain, a Dual Role, Center Stage
Senator John McCain with Senator James E. Risch during a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week.
Senator John McCain is rewriting the part of presidential loser.
Unwilling to vanish into retirement like Bob Dole, or retreat into academia like Al Gore, or even quietly convalesce like John Kerry, Mr. McCain has quickly reclaimed a place on center stage in Washington, some days skewering President Obama and the Democratic Party, and on other days standing by their side.
“I’m the, as I said, loyal opposition,” Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, proclaimed this week. “And both words, I think, are operative.
I do give him that: he can be infuriating, but he is a loyal opponent.
Some historians say the two men could yet forge the strongest alliance between a president and his election rival since Wendell L. Willkie helped Franklin D. Roosevelt oppose isolationism in the 1940s.
Willkie did help FDR, being an internationalist.
In the debate over the stimulus bill, he did not mask his fury at the three Republicans who backed the Democrats, particularly Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, once a friend, who won re-election in November in part by distancing herself from Mr. McCain and his campaign tactics.
He does not take being crossed lightly; he can be sanctimonious.
“McCain has decided that he is not going to morph into the role of embittered ex-candidate but to embrace the kind of senior statesman, loyal opponent role,” said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers. Professor Baker added, “His support will come at times and places of his choosing.”
Already, Mr. Obama has reached out for his support on national security matters and on some trade issues. (Out of respect, the requests come in calls from Mr. Obama himself.)
I wonder how many times W. called Senator Kerry.
Senator John McCain is rewriting the part of presidential loser.
Unwilling to vanish into retirement like Bob Dole, or retreat into academia like Al Gore, or even quietly convalesce like John Kerry, Mr. McCain has quickly reclaimed a place on center stage in Washington, some days skewering President Obama and the Democratic Party, and on other days standing by their side.
“I’m the, as I said, loyal opposition,” Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, proclaimed this week. “And both words, I think, are operative.
I do give him that: he can be infuriating, but he is a loyal opponent.
Some historians say the two men could yet forge the strongest alliance between a president and his election rival since Wendell L. Willkie helped Franklin D. Roosevelt oppose isolationism in the 1940s.
Willkie did help FDR, being an internationalist.
In the debate over the stimulus bill, he did not mask his fury at the three Republicans who backed the Democrats, particularly Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, once a friend, who won re-election in November in part by distancing herself from Mr. McCain and his campaign tactics.
He does not take being crossed lightly; he can be sanctimonious.
“McCain has decided that he is not going to morph into the role of embittered ex-candidate but to embrace the kind of senior statesman, loyal opponent role,” said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers. Professor Baker added, “His support will come at times and places of his choosing.”
Already, Mr. Obama has reached out for his support on national security matters and on some trade issues. (Out of respect, the requests come in calls from Mr. Obama himself.)
I wonder how many times W. called Senator Kerry.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
For Young President, Flecks of Gray
Senator Barack Obama in 2007, left, and on Tuesday.
Well, that didn’t take long. Just 44 days into the job, and President Obama is going gray.
It happens to all of them, of course — Bill Clinton still had about half a head of brown hair when he took office but was a silver fox two years later, and George W. Bush went from salt and pepper to just salt in what seemed like a blink of an eye.
At least they have hair.
Mr. Obama’s graying is still of the flecked variety, and appears to wax and wane depending on when he gets his hair cut, which he does about every two weeks. His barber, who goes by only one name, Zariff, takes umbrage with bloggers who alternately claim Mr. Obama, 47, is dyeing his hair gray (to appear more distinguished) or dyeing it black (to appear younger). “I can tell you that his hair is 100 percent natural,” Zariff said. “He wouldn’t get it colored.”
People blog about hair? Some people have too much time on their hands.
And for all of his 16 years giving Mr. Obama his “quo vadis” haircut — black parlance from the 1960s for close-cut locks — Zariff said he is not about to start ribbing Mr. Obama. “We do not tease about the gray at all,” he said.
Being white, I've never heard of a “quo vadis” haircut.
“Presidents age two years for every year that they’re in office,” said Dr. Michael F. Roizen, co-founder of RealAge, a Web site that tells you how much older your body really is because of all that smoking and drinking you have been doing.
I don't know if I want to know.
Well, that didn’t take long. Just 44 days into the job, and President Obama is going gray.
It happens to all of them, of course — Bill Clinton still had about half a head of brown hair when he took office but was a silver fox two years later, and George W. Bush went from salt and pepper to just salt in what seemed like a blink of an eye.
At least they have hair.
Mr. Obama’s graying is still of the flecked variety, and appears to wax and wane depending on when he gets his hair cut, which he does about every two weeks. His barber, who goes by only one name, Zariff, takes umbrage with bloggers who alternately claim Mr. Obama, 47, is dyeing his hair gray (to appear more distinguished) or dyeing it black (to appear younger). “I can tell you that his hair is 100 percent natural,” Zariff said. “He wouldn’t get it colored.”
People blog about hair? Some people have too much time on their hands.
And for all of his 16 years giving Mr. Obama his “quo vadis” haircut — black parlance from the 1960s for close-cut locks — Zariff said he is not about to start ribbing Mr. Obama. “We do not tease about the gray at all,” he said.
Being white, I've never heard of a “quo vadis” haircut.
“Presidents age two years for every year that they’re in office,” said Dr. Michael F. Roizen, co-founder of RealAge, a Web site that tells you how much older your body really is because of all that smoking and drinking you have been doing.
I don't know if I want to know.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Fed Chairman Backs Call for Higher Spending
The chairman of the Federal Reserve on Tuesday tacitly endorsed President Obama’s call for huge increases in spending and trillion-dollar deficits over the next couple of years, saying the economic crisis required aggressive action.
Spending, and not tax cuts, will solve the crisis. To believe otherwise is foolhardy and politically demagogic.
Though the chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, did not endorse any of Mr. Obama’s specific proposals, he echoed the president’s call for bold government action to address the economy’s immediate travails and pointedly refused to criticize his longer-term plans.
He can't be stepping into the middle of politics; how I wish other Fed chairmen had been equally prudent.
Mr. Bernanke, a Republican who was appointed by President George W. Bush, provided Mr. Obama and Democratic lawmakers with crucial backing for the political battles ahead. His comments were reminiscent of the support that his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, gave to Mr. Bush’s call for tax cuts in 2001. Many lawmakers in both parties said Mr. Greenspan’s comments had helped override Democratic objections to Mr. Bush’s tax cuts.
Putz. Another bad decision by Greenspan.
Mr. Bernanke, warning that the economy had yet to show hardly any sign of recovery, brushed aside objections by Republicans that Mr. Obama’s plans would lead to a dangerous growth of government.
Politics, and foolishness.
Republican lawmakers tried to draw the Fed chairman into their corner, to no avail. “There is in this budget a massive movement of the government to the left, in other words a massive expansion of the government,” warned Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the committee’s ranking Republican.
Expansion? Isn't that what Ronald Reagan and George Bush also did?
But Mr. Bernanke simply said that Congress and the White House needed to start thinking now about how to bring the federal budget back to normal.
Recovery first, then, when the signs are clear that the economy is back on track, sure, look to cut spending; but cut too early, and another recession will follow.
Lawmakers in both parties chastised the Fed and the Treasury for providing $30 billion more to the American International Group, the insurance conglomerate that had already received three rounds of government help totaling $152 billion.
As distasteful as it is, the company has to be saved. Once stable, it should be divided up, sold off, and let Hank Greenberg go jump in a lake.
Mr. Bernanke, in an unusually emotional response, criticized the insurance giant as making reckless bets that jeopardized the entire financial system. “If there is a single episode in this entire 18 months that has made me more angry, I can’t think of one,” he said. Saying that A.I.G. had “exploited a huge gap” in the regulatory system, Mr. Bernanke said it became a “hedge fund, basically, that was attached to a large and stable insurance company” and made “huge numbers of irresponsible bets.”
Lack of regulation allowed AIG to become a monster.
Spending, and not tax cuts, will solve the crisis. To believe otherwise is foolhardy and politically demagogic.
Though the chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, did not endorse any of Mr. Obama’s specific proposals, he echoed the president’s call for bold government action to address the economy’s immediate travails and pointedly refused to criticize his longer-term plans.
He can't be stepping into the middle of politics; how I wish other Fed chairmen had been equally prudent.
Mr. Bernanke, a Republican who was appointed by President George W. Bush, provided Mr. Obama and Democratic lawmakers with crucial backing for the political battles ahead. His comments were reminiscent of the support that his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, gave to Mr. Bush’s call for tax cuts in 2001. Many lawmakers in both parties said Mr. Greenspan’s comments had helped override Democratic objections to Mr. Bush’s tax cuts.
Putz. Another bad decision by Greenspan.
Mr. Bernanke, warning that the economy had yet to show hardly any sign of recovery, brushed aside objections by Republicans that Mr. Obama’s plans would lead to a dangerous growth of government.
Politics, and foolishness.
Republican lawmakers tried to draw the Fed chairman into their corner, to no avail. “There is in this budget a massive movement of the government to the left, in other words a massive expansion of the government,” warned Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the committee’s ranking Republican.
Expansion? Isn't that what Ronald Reagan and George Bush also did?
But Mr. Bernanke simply said that Congress and the White House needed to start thinking now about how to bring the federal budget back to normal.
Recovery first, then, when the signs are clear that the economy is back on track, sure, look to cut spending; but cut too early, and another recession will follow.
Lawmakers in both parties chastised the Fed and the Treasury for providing $30 billion more to the American International Group, the insurance conglomerate that had already received three rounds of government help totaling $152 billion.
As distasteful as it is, the company has to be saved. Once stable, it should be divided up, sold off, and let Hank Greenberg go jump in a lake.
Mr. Bernanke, in an unusually emotional response, criticized the insurance giant as making reckless bets that jeopardized the entire financial system. “If there is a single episode in this entire 18 months that has made me more angry, I can’t think of one,” he said. Saying that A.I.G. had “exploited a huge gap” in the regulatory system, Mr. Bernanke said it became a “hedge fund, basically, that was attached to a large and stable insurance company” and made “huge numbers of irresponsible bets.”
Lack of regulation allowed AIG to become a monster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)