Bush and Economy Sinking Together

The Fed is expecting slower growth, higher unemployment, and more inflation. The announcement today comes on the heels of two approval polls showing the President with (you pick 'em) 65% or 77% disapproval ratings, driven mainly by extreme displeasure with Bush's handling of the economy.

Well, at least the Repugs have nominated a candidate with strong economic cred . . . oh, wait.


A mere 19% of Americans approve of the way that the Despicable Cretin is handing his job, according to an American Research Group poll released today. (h/t to Spork in the Drawer)

The ARG Poll of 1,100 was conducted by telephone between February 16 and 19. The economy seems to be driving the numbers even lower, as only 14% or respondents approved of Bush's handling of the economy. (And, that was before the Fed said that things are about to get a whole lot worse.)

A Gallup Poll also released today says that 65% of respondents disapproved of the way Bush was handling his job. That poll was conducted by telephone of about 1,000 adults between February 11 and 14.

McCain must be feeling pret-ty good about now . . . .

Summary only...

Lessons From The Past

With nothing better to do, I spent some time yesterday re-reading the convention acceptance speeches of some Presidential nominees. I'll match the snippets to the candidates below the fold . . . .

Candidate One:

"To Americans of every party I pledge that on Jan. 20 next year our government will again have a cabinet of the ablest men and women to be found in America. The members of that Cabinet will expect and will receive full delegation of the powers of their office. They will be capable of administering those powers. They will each be experienced in the task to be done and young enough to do it. This election will bring an end to one-man government in America. . . .

"The present administration in Washington . . . is at war with Congress, and at war with itself. Squabbles between Cabinet members, feuds between rival bureaucrats and bitterness between the President and his own party members, in and out of Congress, have become the order of the day. In ... vital matters ..., we have become familiar with the spectacle of wrangling, bungling and confusion.

"Does anyone suggest that the present national administration is giving either efficient or competent government? We have not heard that claim made, even by its most fanatical supporters. No, all they tell us is that in its young days it did some good things. That we freely grant. But now it has grown old in office. It has become tired and quarrelsome."


Candidate Two:

"Now, we Americans understand freedom. We have earned it, we have lived for it, and we have died for it. This Nation and its people are freedom's model in a searching world. We can be freedom's missionaries in a doubting world. But, ladies and gentlemen, first we must renew freedom's mission in our own hearts and in our own homes.

"[T]he administration which we shall replace has distorted and lost that faith. It has talked and talked and talked and talked the words of freedom. Now, failures . . . . haunt the houses of our once great alliances and undermine the greatest bulwark ever erected by free nations - the NATO community. Failures proclaim lost leadership, obscure purpose, weakening wills, and the risk of inciting our sworn enemies to new aggressions and to new excesses. Because of this administration we are tonight a world divided - we are a Nation becalmed. We have lost the brisk pace of diversity and the genius of individual creativity. We are plodding at a pace set by centralized planning, red tape, rules without responsibility, and regimentation without recourse....

"Rather than moral leadership, [we] have been given bread and circuses, spectacles, and, yes, they have even been given scandals. Tonight there is . . . corruption in our highest offices, aimlessness among our youth, anxiety among our elders and there is a virtual despair among the many who look beyond material success for the inner meaning of their lives. Where examples of morality should be set, the opposite is seen. Small men, seeking great wealth or power, have too often and too long turned even the highest levels of public service into mere personal opportunity.

"Now, certainly, simple honesty is not too much to demand of men in government."


Candidate Three:

"America cries out for the unity that this Administration has destroyed. . . . America is in trouble today not because her people have failed but because her leaders have failed. And what America needs are leaders to match the greatness of her people. . . .

"When the strongest nation in the world can be tied down for four years in a war . . . with no end in sight; When the richest nation in the world can't manage its own economy; When the nation with the greatest tradition of the rule of law is plagued by unprecedented lawlessness; . . .

"And when the President of the United States cannot travel abroad or to any major city at home without fear of a hostile demonstration -- then it's time for new leadership for the United States of America."


As you might have surmised, they are all Republicans.

Candidate One: Thomas Dewey, railing against Roosevelt and his three terms in office, at the Republican Convention in Chicago, on June 28, 1944.

Candidate Two: Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention in San Fransisco (of all places).

Candidate Three: Richard Nixon, accepting the 1968 nomination in Miami.

Summary only...

A Plea for Humanity

Speaking of Hitler,which some would say that the Bush family is well-equipped to do, . . .

"Greed has poisoned men’s souls - has barricaded the world with hate - has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed." -- Charlie Chaplain, "The Great Dictator" (1940)

Summary only...

68% of Republicans

68% of Republicans APPROVE of the job President Bush is doing.

68% of Republicans DO NOT BELIEVE in evolution.

68% of Republicans are _____________________ (use your crayon).

Summary only...

While You Were Sleeping

Thought that Commodus and his Grey Eminence had shot the wad on no-bids? Think again. No-bid contract awards have tripled since 2000, with an increase of $60 Billion in the last year alone.

Summary only...

Less Income, Again

With but one exception, American income has grown each year since WW II. Commodus, and his band of cronies, criminals, and incompetents, have managed the economy with skill enough to ensure that everyone but the rich suffer. For the fifth year running, American average income has declined over the previous year. The destruction of America's economic engine is seen in some quarters as the lurking true legacy of our era's Commodus. There's a shit storm looming, more powerful than any of your umbrellas.

Summary only...

Tu Quoque? Too Cute.

Unable to defend the Despicable Cretin's pardon of His Grey Eminence's henchman, the Sliver -- repugs still supporting the crime family in the White House -- opt instead for (here's a surprise) misdirection. Within hours of the act, the repugs had crafted their non-response to the expected outrage -- Bill Clinton.

O. Them repugs is a clever gang. But maybe a mite too clever -- they want to force the Dems to defend the Clinton pardons as a quid pro quo for looking into the Libby pardon.

But there are serious problems with the Sliver's Defend-by-Deflection strategy: 1. In 2001, many Dems (like Henry Waxman, Chuck Schumer, and Barney Frank) were vocal in their disapproval of Clinton's last-minute pardon spree (and Democrats defending the former President were difficult to locate); 2. The repug strategy reminds us that, unlike the Despicable Cretin, Clinton waived executive privilege and encouraged his advisers to testify candidly; and 3. Whether Bush acted properly is unaffected by whether Clinton did.

The pardon power is Constitutional and Congress has no role in the process (a matter specifically debated in 1787). But, it is entirely appropriate that Congress look at whether there was improper motivation at work in the pardon issuance. Did, as it appears to many, the Despicable Cretin save Scooter from parking his ass in jail for a single day in order to prevent Libby from offering the Prosecution a last-minute recollection as a bargaining chip? Today, Adam Liptak, lawyer cum reporter for the New York Times, offers a front-page examination of the Bush pardon history which provides some objective indication of the answer which seems mighty obvious from this corner.

Divining motive is not something done by looking into the eyes to read a soul -- as our Despicable Cretin should have learned by now. Absent a confession, it needs to be inferred from the circumstances. Beyond those most obvious here -- that our D.C. ignored existing policy and procedure in making the decision to protect Libby, that Libby didn't qualify for the save, that Libby was literally on the eve of moving into a new home, that the pardon was granted without the usual consultation with the Department of Justice, that a Libby change of heart, or improved memory, would have been embarrassing, at least, or dangerous, at more, for the Grey Eminence -- the relevant evidence would be a review of how the D.C.'s actions might have departed from the D.C.'s prior conduct and statements on the issue -- when he wasn't involved in what some see as an attempt to obstruct justice by protecting an underling potentially capable of implicating the D.C. himself.

And that's just what Liptak undertook. His report offers a careful review of Bush's pardon (and, okay, commutation) record from his years as Governor of Texas, as well as Bush's own writings and statements on the subject. As President, we learn that Bush has granted only 1 out of every 1,000 commutation requests made through the Office of the Pardon Attorney.

We learn that, until the Scooter problem, the D.C. refused to consider such applications absent affirmative answers to two questions: 1. Is there considerable doubt about the guilt of the applicant? and 2. Has the applicant exhausted all legal appeals? We know this because the D.C. hisself wrote in his 1999 memoir, "A Charge to Keep":

“In every case . . . . I would ask: Is there any doubt about this individual’s guilt or innocence? And, have the courts had ample opportunity to review all the legal issues in this case?”

The 2008 edition will no doubt have an asterisk. Bush, and just about everyone else, harbor's no delusion about Libby's guilt and the D.C. hisself pretermitted the first appeal on the commuted sentence. Liptak spoke with a Texas lawyer and professor familiar with Bush's gubernatorial record on such things. The prevailing view, we learn, is that the Libby decision represented not only a change, but a radical departure in Bush's documented, long-standing approach to the clemency power:

"As governor, Bush essentially viewed the clemency power as limited to cases of demonstrable actual innocence," said Jordan M. Steiker, a law professor at the University of Texas . . . ., "The exercise of the commutation power in Libby . . . represents a dramatic shift from his attitude toward clemency in Texas, and it is entirely inconsistent with his longstanding, very limited approach."

Congress has justifiably asked the D.C. to explain this "dramatic shift" and decisions which is "entirely inconsistent with his longstanding, very limited approach." Those factors examined by the Liptak report, together with the departure from precedent, combined with the D.C.'s failure to follow Bill Clinton's example and to, instead, take the Presidential equivalent of the fifth (as he most certainly will do), should tell us all we need to know about whether the motive was legitimate or dishonorable.

Update: John Conyers later this am, from The Hill-- "House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) urged President Bush Sunday to waive executive privilege and let his lawyers testify in Congress on the commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence.

“We’re asking him to waive executive privilege and allow his pardon lawyers or other experts, whom it appears he did not consult, explain this in a little more detail,” Conyers said. The lawmaker has scheduled a committee hearing for Wednesday to look into presidential powers with regard to pardons and commuting sentences.

With regard to Libby, Conyers said on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” that “the suspicion was that if Mr. Libby went to prison, he might further implicate other people in the White House.

“This is why we’ve written the president, inviting him to do what President Clinton did, and namely to bring forward any of his pardon lawyers or anyone that can put a clear light on this and put this kind of feeling, that is fairly general, to rest,” he added."

Summary only...

Arrogance

Late yesterday afternoon, together with a handful of other mostly out of shape middle-aged men (and one very young, very much in shape, woman), I went off to the local park for my weekly humiliation ritual. Denying my groaning body, I spent two hours in the sun and shade waiving at ground balls three feet beyond my range (meaning four feet from my position), and wondering why I can't make my limbs do what I command.

On the way home, the re-mastered "Compliments" CD (with bonus material) helped me recall a time when a softball game didn't mean soothing angry body parts for the next few days. I noticed that my Treo flashed arriving emails, including yet more "action alerts". I ignored them. Home. I put in the recently-purchased "Freedom Writers" ($5 @ Wegman's) and eased into bed. Next thing I knew, it was time to get up and survey the damage done to these old bones and whatever muscle lay beneath the layers. Waiting for the water to boil for the French press, I called up the Times on the Treo and learned what all the action alert beeps were about.

This is what I would have said on the Libby pardon if I could have put it as well. Indignant, angry, befuddled and not surprised. The rules don't apply to this crew, as your sore and bruised correspondent babbled on about in these pages last month.

This Despicable Cretin selected the 231st anniversary of the day on which this Nation declared itself free from the bonds of a tyrant (distantly related to this Despicable Cretin) with no regard for the law, to free Scooter Libby.

Fittingly, he could do so only by ignoring the rule of law, by shucking the carefully-arranged procedures and policies governing the exercise of executive clemency.

Over time, the Department of Justice has carefully put together workable guidelines for considering requests for commutation. They strongly discourage even accepting applications from people who dispute their conviction or who are appealing their case: "Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding."

Commutation is very rare, and the guidelines recognize that: "Generally, commutation of sentence is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted."

The Department of Justice guidelines point out that the rationale for granting a commutation of a sentence is usually pretty limited, and the only one arguably applicable to Scooter would appear to be "undue severity" of the sentence. But, under the guidelines, one doesn't even reach that point until Scooter admits his offense, shows remorse, and has served a portion of the sentence.

The guidelines, keep in mind, are just that -- they collect the well established principles followed over much of the last couple of hundred years. Having somewhat more force are the regulations governing clemency.

And they provide, among other things, that Scooter should have been forced to drop his appeals before applying for executive clemency: "No petition for commutation of sentence, including remission of fine, should be filed if other forms of judicial or administrative relief are available, except upon a showing of exceptional circumstances."

But, this is a White House which has acted from the start as if the rules don't apply to them.

Summary only...

Scooter Doesn't Meet the Criteria

There are well-established criteria for the consideration of executive clemency, and Scooter Libby doesn't meet them. (But then again, there were well-established standards for the use of force against a foreign sovereign, and Iraq didn't meet those.) The established rules appear to take Scooter out of the running for various reasons.

One of the first things which the guidelines say to take into consideration are the opinions of the United States Attorney who prosecuted the case, and the judge who sentenced the applicant. The rules say thatthose opinions should be weighted heavily. From the Department of Justice guidelines for the consideration of clemency petitions:

"The Pardon Attorney routinely requests the United States Attorney in the district of conviction to provide comments and recommendations on clemency cases . . . .The views of the United States Attorney are given considerable weight in determining what recommendations the Department should make to the President. . . . The Pardon Attorney also routinely requests the United States Attorney to solicit the views and recommendation of the sentencing judge."

Since the sentencing judge followed the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney on the sentence, I'm guessing that neither of them will make a favorable recommendation on any clemency petition.

The rules generally do not anticipate that clemency would be granted immediately after conviction. Instead, they favor waiting to see evidence of rehabilitation, among other things.

Again, from the DOJ guidelines: "In general, a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence. . . . The Department's regulations require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application (28 C.F.R. § 1.2)."

Perhaps a word about terminology is here appropriate. "Executive Clemency" refers to the President's power to, among other things, commute a sentence or to pardon (and thus restore all legal privileges) someone for a crime for which they have already been punished. Until Scooter actually finishes serving his sentence, he would be looking for commutation, not a pardon. The language in the immediately prior paragraph about waiting five years comes from the section of the guidelines dealing with pardons.

In that section (on pardons), Scooter's application would be fried -- pardons are not granted unless there is an acceptance of guilt (that was Gerald Ford's argument on the Nixon pardon, remember?): "The extent to which a petitioner has accepted responsibility for his or her criminal conduct and made restitution to its victims are important considerations. A petitioner should be genuinely desirous of forgiveness rather than vindication."

Similar considerations are at play in considering requests for commutation. Indeed, the guidelines strongly discourage even accepting applications from people who dispute their conviction or who are appealing their case: "Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding."

Commutation is very rare, and the guidelines recognize that: "Generally, commutation of sentence is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted."

The Department of Justice guidelines point out that the rationale for granting a commutation of a sentence is usually pretty limited, and the only one arguably applicable to Scooter would appear to be "undue severity" of the sentence. But, under the guidelines, one doesn't even reach that point until Scooter admits, shows remorse, and has served a portion of the sentence.

The guidelines, keep in mind, are just that -- they are, in effect, a collection of the well established principles followed over much of the last couple of hundred years. Having more force are the regulations governing the submission of clemency petitions.

And they provide, among other things, that before Scooter could even make application and thus put the White House in the position of having to decide, he'd have to drop all of his appeals: "No petition for commutation of sentence, including remission of fine, should be filed if other forms of judicial or administrative relief are available, except upon a showing of exceptional circumstances."

But, as I suggested above, this is a White House which has acted from the start as if the rules don't apply to them . . . . indeed, they acted that way before the start (Florida) . . . . and it is entirely consistent with the assumed privilege and lack of accountability which characterize everything this cabal of criminals has done since stealing the office, that they will exit on a similarly ungraceful note, once again shoving their privilege up the ass of law, propriety, and civil expectation.

Summary only...

Oh, I Hope He Does

Bush is just stupid and arrogant enough to throw Scooter a pardon . . . . and if he does he'll suffer a shit storm that will make the Abu Gonzales debacle look like a slam dunk. Kind of neat how the sentence will end at about the same time that BushCo is relegated to the trash heap, ain't it?

Summary only...

Row, Jimmy, Row

Last February, Jimmy Carter took body blows from the right-wing media (I know, it's redundant), for saying that there never was an exit plan for Iraq because the neocon game plan called for a permanent occupation in Iraq serving as our base of power in the middle east.

The bases we are building there are the largest we would have anywhere in the world. Airstrips a mile long to accommodate the largest military craft. The largest embassy compound of any nation any where.

What Jimmy Carter was saying was that every time President Bush said that American troops would be in Iraq as long as it took to get the job done and not a moment longer, Bush was lying.

Bush lied?

Imagine that.

On May 26, the New York Times reported that Bush was looking to the Korean example as a way to keep a military presence in Iraq for a moment or too longer than it takes to get the job done: "[T]he proposals being developed envision a far smaller but long-term American presence, centering on three or four large bases around Iraq. Mr. Bush has told recent visitors to the White House that he was seeking a model similar to the American presence in South Korea."

A few days ago, more of the truth began to dribble out. Tony Snow, answering Helen Thomas's inquiry at the gaggle, confirmed that the cabal was planning on a continuing American military presence in Iraq on the so-called "Korean Model".

A few days later, on June 1, General Gates confirmed that President Bush favored a "Korean Model" for the future of Iraq -- one in which the American military will "have a long and enduring presence" in Iraq.

One might recall here the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group on this topic:

RECOMMENDATION 22: The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. If the Iraqi government were to request a temporary base or bases, then the U.S. government could consider that request as it would in the case of any other government.

The establishment of a permanent US presence in Iraq is not something that just happened to occur to these neocon incompetents over the last couple of weeks. It is a policy long in the planning. It is a policy which can do no good to our already decomposing reputation in the region and in the sane world. It is a plan long and stealthily carried on, obscured by the incessant promises to stand down when they stand up.

And, despite that I always knew better, I still get annoyed, disappointed, and mad as hell each time it is confirmed that the President has been lying to me all along.

That's the way it's been in town ever since they tore the juke box down . . . . Seems a common way to go . . . .

So, Jimmy was right -- he didn't lie to us.

Summary only...

Conservative Maven: Military Lacks Confidence in Bush Adminstration

Although we disagree on much, I sometimes find myself nodding to Media Lizzy's words. Crooning over her latest fantasy lover's decision to enter the fray, M.L. lets drop this little nugget: "it is the Knights (our military) whose judgment and confidence we must restore."

"Restore" -- 1.to bring back into existence, use, or the like; reestablish: to restore order; 2.to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting; 3.to bring back to a state of health, soundness, or vigor.

Restore being the perfectly apt word because the confidence of the military in their civilian command is neither healthy nor sound. Nor should it be after all that this administration has put the military through for their own perverse goals.

From the start of this regime's tenure, Rumsfeld and Wolfy began a piecemeal destruction of the military. The wrongheaded, fantasy-inspired creation of a "lean, mean" fighting force meant nothing less, and nothing more, than serious cutbacks in the expense of the modern army.

Sending a too-small and too-stripped down force into two fronts (does anyone pay attention to Afghanistan anymore?), created the the maelstrom which our fighting men and commanders will still be struggling to navigate even after this cadre of incompetents are relegated to History's trash heap.

So it is hardly surprising that today's Knights question the Administration's judgment and lack confidence in the Commander-in-Chief. It still surprises me, however, each time a bona fide conservative pundit like M.L. blurts it out.

But, Lizzy has this much right -- one of the tasks facing the next administration will be to restore the military and to restore the confidence of the military in civilian command. Which is why is is so vital to put someone in the White House who refuses to be an apologist for the failures and blunders of this cabal of criminals; someone who thinks that the failed policies of the Bush boyz needs to be jettisoned -- not fixed.

Summary only...

The Failure No One is Talking About

As the Democratic candidates elbow and claw to be "the most" against the war, and the Repug contenders tumble over one another to grab the monger chieftain cap, no one is talking about the fundamental failure which lead us into the Iraq morass.

And I am not talking about the "failure of intelligence" canard.

After the 2001 attack, the Bush administration had an opportunity to propose a new doctrine for American foreign policy for the 21st Century -- one that would have capitalized on the goodwill pouring America's way, would have tapped into the worldwide anger and sadness, could have had generations of impact on the crisis centers of the world, and could have galvanized into a worldwide effort to conduct a real war on terrorism. How inspiring would it have been for the American president to respond to the attacks by dedicating the resources of the most powerful and influential nation in the world to the fight against tyranny and oppression?

That America could have led the fight against terrorism and the rogue states supporting them by first setting the example -- by rejecting the friendship of governments that exploit, abuse, and terrify their own subjects, promising never to install brutal dictators, never to again prop up puppet despots, to gain strategic geopolitical advantage. That first principle could have been one which promised to bring the world together to use statecraft, moral suasion, and economic benefits to move nations towards the protection of basic human rights. It could have wove together a complex cloth integrating every aspect of our civil and private interaction with the rest of the world. Inspiring the developed states to join in, we could have simultaneously provided hope to the billions living under oppression and deflated the recruitment efforts of terrorist groups.

But it would have taken leadership, which, as is now patent, this cabal is incapable of providing. It would have taken vision, a "thing" foreign to the entire Bush family.

Instead, we got from this criminal cabal of neocon failures a different new doctrine -- but one which promises the same multi-generational impact. Unfortunately, the impact of the Bush Doctrine, endorsing the use of preventive aggression, leaves no salutary remnants for tomorrow's world order.

We are in Iraq, we have created quite a mess and have a responsibility to figure out the least harmful way to extricate ourselves from it. That is an issue which needs to be a focus of the '08 campaign. And, to a degree, there is some discussion going on about that.

But no one is talking about the fundamental turning point which was designed to lead us to the war -- when Hillary and Biden and Edwards and McCain and the rest of them did what none of them have apologized for or evaluated, much less recognized as the fundamental error, the failure, which permitted all of this to rain down. Even if they believed every word of the idiotic, convoluted, thin public relations spun together by the lying criminals in charge of the White House, their support of the invasion of Iraq required the endorsement of a preventive war -- a war of aggression absent any semblance of an imminent threat.

American foreign policy has never been so blatantly perverted as it has been by the neocons in this case. Unquestioningly the Democrats lined up nodding like bobbleheads with almost no one questioning the morality of this war of aggression.

I remain unimpressed by Edwards' overly-lauded early "apology". He merely apologized for believing the lies, but has neither explained nor apologized for his endorsement of an invasion absent the kind of instant, overwhelming threat which has always been the underlying requirement for defensive aggression. And Hillary, oh forget that . . . .

What nearly every candidate on both side accepts is that, if the lies were truths, the invasion of Iraq was justified. This sub silencio endorsement of the preventive war doctrine of the Bush Administration holds gasping repercussions.

Not debating this perversion of foreign policy permits it to seep into legitimacy and opens the door to its use again. It also signals to the rest of the world -- especially those who see the United States as an imperial force -- that the United States intends to live up to its reputation in some quarters as the world's bully. By allowing this perversion of policy to stand unquestioned as the basis for the American invasion of Iraq, the Democrats and the Bush Administration have also managed to let loose the dogs -- they tell the world they, also, can enjoy the freedom of attack which the new policy of aggression offers to them. (We can only hope that India or China aren't listening.)

While the 2008 campaign should have been a debate on the future of this Bush Doctrine, the candidates are for the most part acting like the debate is done. Candidates like Biden, Hillary and Edwards face a real personal risk in opening up this debate -- they are guilty of endorsing this shift in war-making policy.

But how much greater the risk of not debating it?

So, excuse me while I don't get excited over Edwards, Hillary, or Biden, or any of these other war enablers. On one of the most important set of issues facing us right now, they got it wrong then and they are still wrong.

Summary only...

Cracks in the Levees

This time he can anticipate the breach -- it is scheduled for September.

Today's news, anticipated yesterday.

Summary only...

Weasel Words

Thanks to Think Progress:

George W. Bush, 4/9/99, Houston Chronicle:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99, Scripps Howard/Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

(Image Credit: davidstuff.com via Truthdig)

Summary only...

Bush Disapproval Over 50% for Two Years

{UPDATE: This post mysteriously awarded 2nd Place in the Weekly PGN Tuesday's Top Picks}

According to the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, 62% of Americans disapprove of the job that the Bush regime is doing. The poll was taken March 23 through 25; when the same survey was taken March 21-23, 2005, the disapproval rating was "only" 49%. Since then, over half of Americans have pretty consistently said that "Bush sucks".

Yet, this regime continues to operate like it had a mandate (which it NEVER had). It is the arrogance of power; nearly everyone in the country opposes nearly everything that Bush and Cheney and Gonzales and Rice and the rest of the cabal does. Yet, they smirk and say, "Just try and stop us".

The Bush regime likes to compare themselves to Harry Truman, who also had below 50% approval ratings in his last two years in office. Truman, they remind us, is now a highly regarded President. The implication that the Bush toadies would like us to draw is that history vindicated Truman in the same way that history will vindicate this gang of criminals and incompetents.

What the Bush apologists ignore -- and depend on everyone else ignoring -- is that history did not vindicate Truman. At least not in the manner that Bush would like us to assume.

Truman's low marks at the end of his term, and subsequent withdrawal from his reelection campaign, resulted from the morass of the Korean War and his sacking of MacArthur. Ike was elected on the promise that HE'D go to Korea and clean up the mess left by Truman. Scandal and corruption at high levels in his administration, and his failure to deal with Congress to get his legislation passed, also contributed to his low scores on the national approval polls.

Today, Truman's standing is not based on Korea, his domestic agenda, nor on any revisionist vindication of the corrupt elements of his administration. Truman is today honored (and we'll leave it to the reader to decide if justly) for the successful conclusion of the wars against Germany and Japan, for the Marshall Plan, for the United Nations, the Truman Doctrine, Israel, and NATO. It is the perceived good done by Truman before those horrid last two years and apart from his outrageously incompetent and wrong-headed domestic policies (such as loyalty oaths), which serve as the base for his honored status today.

Truman's handling of Korea is still viewed as pretty much the disaster that it was seen as back in the day. But Truman's presidency had other successes, which history has judged outweighed the failures.

What are the successes on which Bush expects history to weigh him more successful than 6362% of his fellow citizens view him today? That's not rhetorical -- there are none. Not one. Much less any that would overcome the rank incompetence, the heavy hands, the corruption and criminality, the complete, miserable failure which is, and has been from first to last, the hallmark of this presidency.

(Image Credit: Bush, sitting in a classroom on 9/11, waiting for someone to tell him what to do (Lions Gate Films/Michael Moore)

Summary only...

Bush Backs Richardson Trip to North Korea

New Mexico Governor, former Energy Secretary, former UN Ambassador, former Congressman, and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson will head a bi-partisan delegation to North Korea to retrieve the remains of U.S. troops lost during the Korean War. Unlike the whimpering and moaning coming from the Rose Garden over Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria, the private foray put Richardson organized is endorsed by the Bush regime.

Talk about burying the lead, from the very last gaf of today's Washington Post:

Richardson's office quoted the governor as saying that he hopes the trip "will advance the progress made by the Bush administration during the six-party talks to dismantle nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula."

One would hope.

Two years ago, the Bush administration discontinued cooperative field trips to Korea which had, at that point, identified over 200 remains of American soldiers. Estimates are that several thousand (over 8,000 are still listed as MIA) are still to be located. Unable, or unwilling, to put together its own team, the Bush administration seemed to eagerly embrace Richardson's initiative. Causing wingnut toadies like Ed Rogers to wet their pants:

"Talk about retreating to a Clinton policy," said Republican political consultant Ed Rogers. "Next they will want Hillary to sponsor heath-care legislation," he said . . . .

Nice, Ed. Bush can create tons of dead American bodies in Iraq and you applaud him, but his incompetent diplomacy is unable to bring back 50-year old remains from a country willing to give them up, and you want to make a political attack out of it.

If Bill Richardson isn't on the Democratic ticket in '08, the Democrats will have missed the boat.

In the media:

US State Department: Private U.S. Delegation Traveling to North Korea
Press TV (Iran): U.S. delegation to visit N. Korea
Guardian (UK): U.S. to Recover GI Remains in N. Korea
USA Today: Gov. Richardson will go on mission to N. Korea
CCTV (China): U.S. delegation to visit DPRK next week
Seattle Times: White House backs mission to North Korea
Korea Times: Gov. Richardson to Visit NK for Recovery of MIA Remains
Military.com: U.S. to Recover GI Remains in N. Korea
Santa Fe New Mexican: With Bush's blessing, Richardson heads to North Korea
Reuters(NY Times): Gov. Richardson to visit North Korea in April
Yonhap (S.Korea): Gov. Richardson to go to N.K. for recovery of MIA remains from Korean War


(Photo Credit: US Department of State)

Summary only...

Supreme Smackdown

In an opinion released yesterday, the United States Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration's arguments that that the US Environmental Protection Agency did not have the authority to regulate carbon-dioxide in automobile emissions. The Court also ruled that the EPA did not have the "discretion" to refuse to regulate greenhouse gas emissions unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

The 5-to-4 decision was a complete smackdown of the Bush anti-environmental policies. Bush's EPA argued that it did not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it didn't have to if it didn't want to. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so.

A little background . . . . the Clean Air Act requires that the EPA“shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class . . . of new motor vehicles . . . which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution . . . reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1). The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent . . . , including any physical, chemical . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air.” §7602(g).

The plaintiffs in this case petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under the Clean Air Act. The EPA refused, arguing that (1) the Act does not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, and (2) even if it had the authority, it wouldn't regulate the emissions because a causal link between greenhouse gases and the increase in global surface air temperatures was not unequivocally established.

The EPA was forced to modify its position when the case got to Court -- facts have a funny way of doing that to talking points. As the Supreme Court explained the position taken by the agency, it's not that greenhouse gasses don't cause global warming, it's that the problem is bigger than auto emissions:

EPA does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. . . . EPA nevertheless maintains that its decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles contributes so insignificantly to petitioners’ injuries that the agency cannot be haled into federal court to answer for them.

The argument was spurious, and the Court gave it the back of its hand:

But EPA overstates its case. Its argument rests on the erroneous assumption that a small incremental step, because it is incremental, can never be attacked in a federal judicial forum. Yet accepting that premise would doom most challenges to regulatory action. Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop.

Going nowhere with that one, the EPA then argued -- get this -- that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions were not "air pollutants". The Court's response to the Bush Administration's claim that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant is the judicial equivalent of "you gots to be kiddin me":

The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading. The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air . . . .” §7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.”25 Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical . . . substance[s] which [are] emitted into . . . the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.

The Bush government's other arguments were even weaker and, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court basically told Bush and the EPA: "do your damn job" --

Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. Ibid. To the extent that this constrains agency discretion to pursue other priorities of the Administrator or the President, this is the congressional design. . . . [The President's] authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws.

"[The President's] authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws." -- about time someone told him that.

Guess who dissented? Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas.

In the media:

Portland (ME) Press Herald: Justices side with Maine in two air pollution cases
Time: High Court Rebukes Bush on Pollution
Modesto Bee: Court: Clear the Air
Slate: Sin of Emission
San Francisco Chronicle: Ruling helps California battle global warming
Chicago Tribune: EPA must regulate greenhouse gases
WaPo: High Court Faults EPA Inaction on Emissions
NYTimes: Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases

Summary only...

Presidential Foot Stomping -- Bush Reacts to House Dem Smackdown

Bush, unwilling to stand up for his policies by himself, appears from the White House with veterans, soldiers, and children and wives. Calls the Democrats' bill "an act of political theater". Promises to veto the bill, which he calls an "abdication of responsibility".

He accused the "Democratic majority" [NB: he got spanked the last time he called them 'the Democrat majority'] of delaying "vital" aide to the military in order to score "political points".

In the media:

AP: Bush slams Democrats over Iraq timetable
Reuters: Bush vows veto of House Iraq deadline bill

NOTE:Please update to the NEW URL NOW:

www.abigfatslob.com

Summary only...

Hillary's Problem and the Problem with Hillary

Some thoughts which have been rattling around in my aged head for several weeks and probably not ready for prime time . . . .

If History is any indication, 2008 should be a banner year for the Democrats on the National level. Granting that History may be as irrelevant to the outcome of Presidential elections as to Baseball's All-Star game, the same History which bodes well for the Democrats might have an asterisk named Hillary.

When public opinion of a sitting President falls to the miserable failure level, one often sees a switch of the political Party in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania. Some examples include when FDR (D) wasted Hoover (R), in the early 30s; twenty years later when Ike (R) spanked Stevenson following Truman's second term (when, as the Dubya gang likes to point out, Truman's job-approval were Bushian low-20s); in the 70s it happened twice, first when Carter (D) took over from Ford/Nixon and then four years later, when Reagan sent Carter to early retirement.

But, looking at the men who occupied the White House on Election Day and the men who replaced them on Inauguration Day suggests that the electorate might have been looking for more than a change of Party.

By '32, Hoover was seen as weak-minded and incompetent, FDR as strong, capable, dependable. Truman was perceived as stubborn and irascible, hard to get along with -- taking over the steel mills, recalling MacArthur. Ike, well, EVERYone Liked Ike. Carter was the nuclear-engineer-smart, calm, trustworthy gentleman from the South, taking over from the decidedly untrustworthy, ungentlemently, Nixon regime, with his unelected Veep, Ford, viewed as less than smart and perhaps a little untrustworthy himself. And, finally, the in-control, clear-eyed Reagan taking over for a Carter Administration adept at fumbling domestic policy and international relations.

These caricatures of the day suggest that, in response to what is largely perceived as a "failure presidency", the voters may have been looking as much for someone perceived as offering an opposite set of characteristics, as for an opposite party.

There need be little breath spent on arguing that the Bush Administration is widely-perceived as a decidedly failed Presidency. While the ultimate historical judgment might, as it did with Truman, change given time and distance (yeah, right), today Bush struggles to avoid setting new lows in approval and performance.

So, looking to 2008, what are the popular-perceptions about why Bush is such a miserable failure?

Seems too easy, but a list of some of the problems that most would probably say contribute to the failure of this Administration would have to include the Iraq Invasion, Bush's seemingly endless ability to create divisions and generate impassioned detractors, and his, if not dishonesty, then at least the lack of candor, or political posturing, informing all he does or says.

Recognizing that the deck becomes stacked by which elements one lists, but the Hillary Problem, and the problem WITH Hillary, is that she might not be stacking up very well on the electorate's unconscious lists of the "problems with George" -- she might not offer the great unwashed enough of a change in character to lead to a change in Party in the White House. She was a supporter of the war then, and is insufficiently repentant. Is she divisive? If you have to ask, you haven't been paying attention. Is she perceived to lack candor, as being political and calculating? Did you see her in Selma? Does she root for the Mets or the Yankees?

Just looking at it this way, if it is even close to something real, doesn't it help explain Obama's popularity? Hillary may not be enough the un-Bush to give the Democrats what History suggests may be theirs in 2008 as long as they don't screw it up.

Obama's big negative in all of this -- experience. Another biggie on the unconscious list of Bush problems is the lack of relevant experience the guy had coming into the job. (And, that is Hillary's big, very big, plus.) But, and this is at a just wondering stage right now, but what would a Democratic ticket with Obama and Bill Richarson be able to do?




NOTE:

WE ARE MOVING!!! For now, the old Blogger address will bring you to the new location -- but that can change at any time. Please update your Blogroll, Links, and Bookmarks NOW:

www.abigfatslob.com

Click Here to Blogroll A Big Fat Slob!

Summary only...