Debunking a Chestnut

I have a very hard time understanding people who would defend the Bush Administration's clandestine approval of torture and its subsequent cover-up of the same. I suppose, if I wrap my mind around it enough, I can manufacture a scenario where I believe that a government that would lie about an activity it was performing would nonetheless be sincere in assessing the need, application, and efficacy of it. But I think that would take far more alcohol than I've ever consumed, or a frontal lobotomy.

One of the closest things to a cogent argument that I'd heard was the "But Lincoln suspended habeas corpus!" canard. Perhaps on the surface, that argument is on point, but on closer review, it doesn't hold water (no pun intended). To emphasize the point, I would direct you to Jonathan Zasloff's post at The Reality-Based Community. I don't want to take too much of his post here, because it should be read in its entirety, but his summary is crystal:

Had Bush and Cheney really believed that there was an emergency requiring torture, they would have 1) said so publicly; 2) taken responsibility for the decision and defended it; 3) gotten Congressional approval; and 4) limited it as much as possible.

But they couldn't have done that, because torture was never about a national security emergency. It was about proving an Iraq-Al Qaeda link for political purposes. Or establishing precedent for unilateral executive rule. Or about military dropouts and draft dodgers like Bush, Cheney, and Addington showing how tough they were. Or something.

Following Lincoln's 1861 precedent would thus have defeated the entire purpose of the torture program. And that shows us just how much these guys were a bunch of moral cretins.

Unequivocal Statements

Some time ago, all right, about 19 months ago, I made a statement that the War in Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. What I meant by that was pretty basic - there was no connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein/Iraq. Yes, this was one of the primary arguments in favor of the second AUMF for Iraq. Yes, it was wrong - there was no connection.

It turns out, of course, that the administration found this out pretty early on, yet they refused to believe it. We know now that the administration authorized torture, even as it was dismissing what happened at Abu Ghraib as the work of "a few bad apples." But, what did they do? Well, like anyone desperate to show they're right, they resorted to torture, which they derided publicly, yet embraced to prove their lie. I read about this first at Andrew Sullivan's site. It wasn't bad apples, it was top-down policy, complete with scapegoating.

I think the fact that this has happened in our name is deplorable. And I'm not sure how you can trust those who denied that they even tortured (h/t Mark Shea) when they now say that that torture led to useful information - particularly when the examples they provide are temporally impossible. (From the Slate - also first read on Andrew Sullivan)

I am fully in favor of special counsel being appointed. I most certainly believe Jay Bybee and John Yoo need to be disbarred. I think that all of this needs to be brought out in the open and aired publicly, so that the wounds can begin to heal, and we can begin to return to our place atop the moral high ground. Ignoring this, or walking away, helps nobody but those who violated the laws that those below them have already been punished for. (h/t Obsidian Wings)

Inquire Within

When the President "defends" his torture policy by saying "I got legal opinions that said whatever we were going to do was legal," (courtesy Andrew Sullivan) what he's saying is he wanted legal cover to do what he wanted - at least, that's how I interpret the statement.

Torture took place during the previous administration - that much is clear. The Justice Departments OPR looked into whether the legal work of John Yoo and Bybee, as well as Steven Bradbury, "was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys," (also from Andrew Sullivan's blog, citing Isikoff).

There clearly needs to be an impartial investigation into what transpired at the top levels during the previous 8 years. Sign Senator Leahy's petition.

In Search of the Truth

I was at Vim and Vinegar's blog this morning - a great blog that you should read regularly - and I saw that she had a post regarding Senator Leahy's petition for a Truth Commission to inquire into what transpired during the previous administration - who knew what, who authorized what, what was lawful and what wasn't...

There is a difference between a witch hunt and an investigation - Senator Leahy is calling for the latter, which I support.

The petition is available here. I signed this morning, and, regardless of party affiliation, I encourage you to do so, as well. Government transparency is in the interest of all Americans.

There's Already a Way Around It

As I often do, I was reading Americans United this morning. I found a couple articles that I thought interesting, but one stood out. President Bush has made little secret of his pro-life stance. The jurisprudence of the country has made no exception for health care providers, pharmacists, etc., who refused to provide prophylactics because it conflicted with their position against birth control. Now, it should be no secret that for the majority of people in this situation, this conviction against birth control is religious in nature. This is where the problem comes in.

You see, President Bush wants to pass legislation that would "deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions." (quote from the link provided). You see, President Bush wants to force these facilities to allow employees to not fill birth control prescriptions. This is unfortunate, that he wants to legislate according to his religious beliefs.

I don't begrudge the President his religious convictions. But I do take issue with him using his position to influence others to comport with his religious convictions. If these individuals have a problem with providing the legal care requested of their patients, then they have an alternative - they can take another job. It's really that simple. You don't need to hold the hospital or pharmacy hostage by denying them money because of a religious principle. There's no call for that at all.

Highlights from Boumediene v. Bush

The PDF of the decision is available here.

It's too simple to say why the Court ruled the way it did in one or two sentences. You need a little more. I'm going to go through some of what I consider the highlights from the majority opinion here.

The issue of the case is whether the petitioners (individuals classified as enemy combatants by our Government who are being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba indefinitely) have the Constitutional privilege of Habeas Corpus. The holding is that the petitioners do have this privilege, and that the Military Commissions Act, Sec. 7, is an insufficient substitute for this privilege.

Habeas Corpus, for those who are unaware, is the right to challenge the validity of one's detention before the court (Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition). This right is guaranteed under the Constitution in Art. I, Section 9, Cl. 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Taken in strict constructionist terms, this may seem to be all the reasoning one might need. However, there is more to what constitutes what is Constitutional than simply reading the plain language of the Constitution. One must also consider stare decisis - previous rulings by the Court interpreting the Constitution, and consider how the law in question compares to the laws previously ruled upon.

After conceding that the State was authorized to detain those captured and classified as Enemy Combatants for the duration of the conflict (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 542 U.S. 507 [2004]), the Court set out to determine how and whether the law applied. First, the Court noted that these individuals were all captured, some on the battlefield, others in such locations as Bosnia and Gambia, and noted that none of the individuals petitioning the Court were citizens of a nation with whom the United States was now at war. The CSRT (the "alternative" to habeas review authorized under the MCA) had reviewed these individuals' petitions (the petitioners were not authorized legal counsel in these - it's not a trial - and they were not able to view much of the evidence presented against them - Democracy in action).

Now to get into the decision - The Court had to first determine whether the MCA served to deny federal court jurisdiction for habeas proceedings - which it did - and then the Court had to determine if this law was valid, thereby requiring the petitioners' cases be dismissed. In otder to determine the validity of the claim, the Court had to consider which of two possible reasons the Petitioners were barred from seeking Habeas relief: their status as "enemy combatants" as they were designated by the U.S., or because they were housed in Guantanamo Bay.

The Government's position was that these were non-citizens who were designated enemy combatants, and they were housed outside the United States, therefore they have no Constitutional Rights. Another way of putting this is "We get to designate what these people are, and we designated them enemy combatants. We did this because we think that Eisentrager [339 U. S. 763 (1950)] will allow us to deny them Constitutional rights." This justification should give Americans pause, because it basically says that the Executive Branch can designate whomever they want "enemy combatants" and deny them right to challenge their classification, to view the evidence that led to that determination, which goes against one of the fundamental tenets of our nation - that we were distrustful of the Government's power of the People.

The Court referred to the Magna Carta in its support for the importance of the Suspension Clause - that No man would be imprisoned contrary to the law of the land (Art. 39). It also cited Blackstone, who stated that the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 (which established the procedures for issuing the writ and served as the model for the Colonies' habeas statutes) was the "stable bulwark of our liberties." The Court tied these, and other concepts together -

This history was known to the Framers. It no doubt confirmed their view that pendular swings to and away from liberty were endemic to undivided, uncontrolled power. The Framers' inherent distrust of governmental power was the driving force behind the constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches. This design serves not only to make Government accountable but also to secure individual liberty.

Justice Kennedy's opinion also points out that the Suspension Clause existed in the original draft of the Constitution - predating the Bill of Rights - providing even more evidence of the importance of the Writ to the Framers.

So the Writ is important to America. How does this apply to foreigners? Well, the Government said that the Writ has no application to individuals classified as enemy combatants and held outside the United States (see Eisentrager). The difference, the Court notes, is that Eisentrager deals with individuals held in German prisons, whereas the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are held on a U.S. government facility in a U.S. territory under complete U.S. control. Generally speaking, citizenship of the individual seeking relief is viewed as more of a non-factor based on American and British precedent, see e.g., Sommersett's Case, 20 How. St. Tr. 1, 80-82 (1772) and generally Khera v. Secretary of State for the Home Dept., A.C. 74, 111 (1984).

The Government argued that the Writ does not apply because, like Scotland and Hanover with respect to England (where the writ did not apply), Cuba has its own court system. This is a false analogy, though, as the detainees, while technically on Cuba, are held in a U.S. Territory and are not authorized access to Cuban courts, whereas prisoners in Scotland and Hanover were. In terms of sovereignty, the Court notes that there are two types - De Jure sovereignty (which is what Cuba holds over Guantanamo Bay), and De Facto sovereignty, such as that held by the United States over the same. The Court held that De Facto sovereignty controls questions regarding habeas standing, which makes sense.

This is one of the reasons supporting a rejection of Eisentrager. Another is that relying solely on Eisentrager would mean that the Court reversed its position from the Insular Cases, where it said that questions regarding extraterritoriality needed to be viewed individually based on the circumstances. Further, the prisoners in Eisentrager had already been tried and convicted (this is important to the Court in distinguishing the cases) and they did not challenge their status, as the detainees are.

The meat of the decision, indeed the lines that I've heard the most over the past couple of days, come from this next section. The Government claimed that it has no jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay because of the lease treaty of 1903, and thus the Constitution has no effect there. Because of the importance of the Court's answer to this, I will include the complete text from the opinion here:

The necessary implication of the argument is that by surrendering formal sovereignty over any unincorporated territory to a third party, while at the same time entering into a lease that grants total control over the territory back to the United States, it would be possible for the political branches to govern without legal constraint.
Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not "absolute and unlimited," but are subject "to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution." Murph v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 14, 44 (1885). Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another. The former position reflects this Courts recognition that certain matters requiring political judgments are best left to the political branches. The latter would permit a striking anomaly in our tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress and the President, not this Court, say "what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803).
These concerns have particular bearing upon the Suspension Clause question in the cases now before us, for the writ of habeas corpus is itself an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers. The test for determining the scope of this provision must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain. (emphasis mine)

Basically, Eisentrager does not apply, and the detainees are entitled to habeas relief in U.S. Courts because there are no other courts in which they could challenge the validity of their detention.

The Court did touch on the question regarding suspension of the Writ, and noted that there is no invasion or rebellion, the requisites for which the Writ may be suspended under the Constitution. The case law the Court cited shows incidents where habeas was intended to be streamlined and strengthened, not diluted as the Government sought to do in Boumediene.

Given the length of the majority opinion, I will look at the dissent in a future post. Again - I agree with this decision and find it good for our Nation.

A Victory for Liberty

The Supreme Court ruled today that Guantanamo Bay detainees may challenge the validity of their detention in U.S. Courts. This is a good thing for those who love liberty.

Basing most of what I am about to write on my memory from National Security Law and ConLaw, I will try to explain what I understand as President Bush's (and Congress) intent was in the law that was overruled. In essence, the law that was challenged denied habeas corpus to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

The President was probably relying (as he had in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) on the premise that because the detainees were being held outside the United States - that is, they were in Cuba - that they would not be subject to habeas corpus - that the Constitution and the laws of the United States would not protect them. Since this failed in Hamdan (executive order), he created tribunals that would review the detention process. This review does not meet muster for what is required in a Habeas petition. Justice Kennedy commented on this in the Opinion (quoted from - Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog): "[The Suspension Clause] protects the rights of the detained by a means consistent with the essential design of the Constitution. It ensures that, except during periouds of formal suspension, the Judiciary will have a time-tested devise, the writ, to maintain the 'delicate balance of governance' that is itself the surest safeguard of liberty. [Those who wrote the Constitution] deemed the writ to be an essential mechanism in the separation-of-powers scheme." Justice Kennedy also noted that the political branches of government do not have "the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will."

President Bush stated that he "strongly agree[s] with those who dissented. And their dissent was based upon their serious concerns about US national security."

There are a couple things wrong with this. First off - it betrays the argument that we hear most often in favor of conservative-appointed justices - that they follow the Rule of Law. President Bush seems to argue that the justices he appointed, as well as Thomas and Scalia rule according to how they feel. This is exactly what Conservative refer to as Judicial Activism, and it strikes me as odd that the President would argue in favor of supporting the decision of Justices who let their opinions determine how they rule as opposed to the law and, particularly, the Constitution. Second, this decision should be one that President Bush applauds, because it holds one of his basic tenets on the war on terror undisturbed - that "we will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms (emphasis mine).

Preserving habeas corpus review for those detained by our Government can be viewed as nothing less than ensuring that our freedoms are not restricted. This is a good ruling.

Nelson at the Liberal Journal has also posted on this topic.
Thanks to Just Wondering at Vim and Vinegar for linking to this post.

For more information on this matter, look at Melissa's post at WriteChic.

Shifting Goalposts

After 9/11/2001, President Bush declared war on "terror." Terror, and terrorist and terrorism, is an interesting idea - how does one define "terror?" How does one frame a war on terror? It's not a tangible enemy such as war against "Germany." In a situation such as the war on "terror," what we find ourselves fighting is an idea; a "terrorist" to one person is a "freedom fighter" to another, so it's sticky even to say who we are fighting against.

When one has such difficulty in defining what the enemy is, then it's no doubt going to be difficult determining how to define victory against that enemy. Here's where the concept of shifting goalposts comes to play. One the one hand, "victory" in war has traditionally meant the eradication of the enemy, or its unconditional surrender/capitulation. The latter cannot happen in a war against an idea, and the former is something that is only won when every member of that idea is defeated, which is an impossibility spawned by the definition.

This is the conundrum with the war on terror. You see, when we declared "war" on "terror," the Commander in Chief of our military stated that we would "conquer" the enemy; that we would win. Less than two years later, however, the President stated that the war on terror was not a war we could "win." Then, in 2005, the selfsame head of the Executive Branch stated that we would not settle for anything less than "complete victory."

Now, I'm not entirely sure how one can achieve "complete victory" in a war that we cannot win, but I would assume that it has something to do with shifting goalposts. These days, it's not about whether or not you "conquer" the enemy, especially if the "enemy" is whoever you say he is. Instead, the key is to redefine the parameters of the operation in such a manner that you can claim "victory" under the new rules (such as some are suggesting the NBA has done with referees in instances in the 2002 playoffs with the Lakers against the Kings and in 2005 with the Rockets against the Mavericks), or at least delay acknowledgement of the impossibility of reconciling the goal from the statement until such time as you can shift the blame for the inevitable failure on to someone else.

And people wonder why the President is being predicted to be remembered as a failure. When the defining piece of your legacy can be viewed as nothing less than a failure (and the absence of victory, however impossible to achieve, makes it exceedingly difficult to view it as otherwise), then that title is a difficult one to shake.

True Colors

So President Bush made headlines a short time ago by threatening to veto any legislation that would not grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that assisted the Government in conducting wiretaps against American people without warrants. The administration asserted that the law which had been in effect had to be renewed "as is" to allow America to be secure, and that not extending the law would weaken America.

What the law did was provide an end-around of FISA and the Fourth Amendment. For the uninitiated, the Fourth Amendment requires that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (emphasis mine)." This requirement has extended to telephone conversations based upon (inter alia) Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967) and Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967).

In the early 1970s, The Court issued its ruling in what is known as the Keith case. In this case, the defendants were a domestic dissident group. This means that their activities did not touch upon the foreign affairs powers of the President. They were nonetheless subjected to electronic surveillance. The Government wanted to use this surveillance in prosecuting the case, claiming that Probable Cause was not a one size fits all requirement, despite the plain language of the Fourth Amendment, and the President is vested with inherent powers to disregard the requirement (This was Nixon's argument, and is not unlike much of what President Bush has argued). It argued that the situation was "complex," and therefore a warrant would be too burdensome. The Court, however, said that they dealt with Complex issues all the time, and therefore this would not suffice as an excuse to violate the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court did concede that Probable Cause may not be the proper standard in all situations (which sounds a lot like Judicial Activism, to me), and that Congress should consider different standards (which sounds an awful lot like an advisory opinion to me, which is another Court no-no). Congress did, and gave us FISA.

Real quickly, FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and it allows the collection of information before securing a warrant, provided a warrant is secured within 3 days after surveillance begins. It also puts the standard of review for the Court at little more than a rubber stamp. The Court may not rule on sufficiency of the request, rather, it can only rule on whether the request was filled out properly. In other words, the courts essentially cannot refuse a FISA warrant if the agent requesting the Warrant crossed the "t"s and dotted the "i"s.

Somehow, this was insufficient for the President, who saw fit under his authority as President to order surveillance of Americans without securing a warrant, and now wants to protect those who assisted him in violating the civil rights of untold numbers of Americans. But, he's changed his tune. Now, we're no longer as worried about weakening America (because really, we're no weaker), no, now we need to stop the bloodsucking lawyers: "When Congress reconvenes on Monday, members of the House have a choice to make: They can empower the trial bar, or they can empower the intelligence community.... They can help class-action trial lawyers sue for billions of dollars, or they can help our intelligence officials protect millions of lives."

This is too bold. The President is essentially saying "don't make people answer for their transgressions - grant them ex-post facto protections," (while the Constitution forbids the passage of ex-post facto laws, the Court has ruled on more than one occasion that this only applies to making illegal what was once legal, and not vice-versa). He conveniently ignores that any damages paid would be to compensate for injury caused by real or potential harm to individuals' civil liberties by the telecommunications firms' assistance in the government's violation of the 4th Amendment and ignores the all-too-real situation that the law he seeks to have re-enacted is unnecessary. He does so in a most disingenuous fashion, and I find that more offensive than his original argument that Congress was making America weaker.

Subsidizing Religious Education

It's the last year of the presidency, and President Bush gave his last State of the Union address, as mandated by the Constitution.

In it, President Bush alluded to the Surge, implying that it's successful because violence is down. I still believe it's going to be years before one can determine if the Surge was successful, because what it was intended to do was allow the Iraqi government room to function as a government, which it has yet to do, and until that happens, the Surge cannot be considered a success.

But more to the topic at hand, President Bush urged Congress to work more on No Child Left Behind, and particularly to fund a voucher program for religious schools, as reported on Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

I have no issue with private schooling. I'm a product of public schools, and I think I turned out all right, but I know that there are private schools out there that offer exceptional educations and exceptional opportunities for college and college success, and if I could get my children into one of those, I would. But there are problems when it comes to funding parochial education with public funds. First off, when the church receives government funds, then the government can have a say in what the church does. The government gets to use the carrot to compel the church to teach in a particular manner, or to not teach in a particular matter. While the schools would have the opportunity to say no and turn down the money, it's not a stretch to imagine that these same schools would yield to the state due to a dependence on these funds (look at the highway earmarks and drinking ages as an example). I don't want my government telling my church what to do, and support programs that would keep this from happening.

That's not the only problem with voucher programs, though. In my children's elementary school, there are about 800 students. In the high school they would go to if we were to stay in the same area, there are approximately 5000 students. There are 4 high schools and about 30 elementary schools in the district. In this area, there are 8 private schools. I don't know what the total enrollment of those private schools are, but I would highly doubt there would be room for all the students from our district, let alone all the schoolchildren from all the Houston area districts to attend. What does that mean? It means that the private schools would get to choose who got to use the vouchers, and who didn't. And what criteria would the private school use to select who got to go? A lottery? An essay contest? No. They would choose the students who would best be able to maintain the esteem, image, and prestige of the private school, and reject those who are problem children, or who are not as academically successful, or who look dirty, or whatever. In other words, they would choose the children from the "failing" (to use the President's word) public schools who least need the boost into private schools, and leave the public schools with the rejects.

Consider that for a moment. The Government tells you that your school is failing. Then the Government gives these golden tickets to let you go to a school that it says is not failing. Then that school does not choose the student because he's not good enough. Now what do you have? You have a rejected student in a failing school being told that he's getting a lesser education and there's nothing he can do about it. Well, I can see the happy ending there, can't you?

Yet, that's not even the end of the problems. While many private parochial schools do provide outstanding educations for their students, there are scores more that do not. One of the problems with simplifying the education problem as the President has done is that it presumes that "private" or "parochial" necessarily means "better." So not only do we run the risk of alienating students by telling them that they must be left behind in a failing school whose funds have been stripped by No Child Left Behind to help the select few students get a private education, but many of those dollars will go to private schools who provide an even worse education than the school that is allegedly failing the students. Sign me up!

Finally, the President's plan ignores one of the biggest issues of all. The No Child Left Behind Act presumes that the academic problems of this country all stem from teachers in a failed system failing their students. It does not consider the problems with parents, bad parents, poor parents, drunk parents, hooker parents, absentee parents, abusive parents, crime infested neighborhoods, drug infested neighborhoods, children who have to work at night to help pay the rent, children who have to watch their siblings because their parents have to work nights, children with emotional issues that need assistance (one of the casualties of the current charter school concept that takes monies for public education and sets it aside for the select few who get chosen to "succeed" is the guidance counselor, whose budget is not a "necessary" expenditure, because none of these students have problems outside of school), etc.

Throwing money at the educational system won't fix public education. But creating a system where monies are taken from all the students and reserved for only a few is quite possibly even worse. And doing so while undermining the concept of church-state separation, that should not be allowed to happen.

Executive Irony

Would you disagree with the following statements?

When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they had a clear understanding of tyranny. They also had a clear idea about how to prevent it from ever taking root in America. Their solution was to separate the government's powers into three co-equal branches: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Each of these branches plays a vital role in our free society. Each serves as a check on the others. And to preserve our liberty, each must meet its responsibilities -- and resist the temptation to encroach on the powers the Constitution accords to others.

or,

The President's oath of office commits him to do his best to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." I take these words seriously. I believe these words mean what they say.... Others take a different view.... they forgot that our Constitution lives because we respect it enough to adhere to its words. Ours is the oldest written Constitution in the world. It is the foundation of America's experiment in self-government. And it will continue to live only so long as we continue to recognize its wisdom and division of authority.

Those are pretty good, no? I think they do a pretty good job of explaining the concept of separation of powers in this country. But I have a hard time taking it seriously when it's said by the current executive, who I think has done as much to disrespect this Separation as any President in recent memory (recess appointments as an end around to Congressional approval, while technically legal, is not exactly in keeping with respecting the Separation of Powers; nor is ordering Congress to grant federal courts the jurisdiction to readdress the judicial decision in the Teri Schiavo case because he disagreed with the courts' findings, and warrantless wiretapping, there are those of us who still think is a violation of the Fourth Amendment). I'm not alone in finding this somewhat incredible. Glenn Greenwald commented on this, as well as other statements offered by this administration, such as the President accusing Congress of "acting like a teenager with a new credit card" for their budget actions. Unless I remember incorrectly, President Bush has spent more than any other president since LBJ (indeed the link I provided above says the same). It's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think, for this President to call Congress names with regard to budget? I understand the desire to get back to fiscal conservatism, but statements like these are just irresponsible.

Trade = Good

I don't like President Bush.

And I REALLY don't like agreeing with him.

But when I think he's right, I think he's right. And when it comes to free trade, the President is right. Protectionism will cost us jobs. I think one of the fundamental problems with Free Trade agreements is that most people don't really understand what they are about. NAFTA did not result in job loss to India. NAFTA resulted in the removing of tariffs among Canada, Mexico and the U.S. Removing tariffs opens up new countries for our industry to sell in. More sales equals more jobs. True, there have been some losses of jobs, particularly in the low end, and this is what alarms so many. But the losses were not are pronounced as feared (usually, they aren't), and the economy has actually grown significantly in the years since President Clinton first signed NAFTA. Opening plants in Mexico and Canada have shown those nations that we value them, also increasing sales in those countries.

Killing free trade agreements without understanding the complex nature of such agreements is dangerous. It hinders the ability to sell our products elsewhere. The purpose of tariffs is to eliminate foreign competition, but it also eliminates us from competing in foreign markets. This is counterproductive to the goals of the GATT and the WTO, and damaging to our economy and jobs - if there's a smaller market, there's a smaller demand, and when there's a smaller demand, that results in a smaller workforce and lower salaries, which is what Congress is trying to keep from having.

The President is right.

Please don't make me say that again.

The Buck Stops There

There were so many reasons to like and respect Harry Truman. For one, he had a sign on his desk that read "The buck stops here." And you knew he meant it.

President Bush has tried over the past few years to equate himself with President Truman, invoking not just his name but his legacy with respect to wars and paraphrasing the phrase noted above.

The problem is, whereas President Truman's actions demonstrated he, in fact, did mean what he said, President Bush's actions suggest otherwise. For example, Congress has recently been working on an expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Plan (CHIP). The current plan has holes in it that deny health insurance to children who make too much money for medicaid, yet are unable to afford private health insurance. The President, who seems to believe that not only are these people able to afford health insurance on top of their other bills and obligations (really, you can save $100 a month by moving into a crack neighborhood apartment complex!), but all the American people who WOULD qualify for the expanded CHIP would choose it over private health insurance that they could afford, thus costing too much money. Thus, he says he intends to veto the bill. The President, in debating the issue refers to Congress as "irresponsible" and announces that they are leaving children uncovered to make a political point.

You see, here's the spin. Congress, by working together to create a program not only with public, but with BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, is playing politics with children. By vetoing the bill (the current law expires on September 30), the President is saying that Congress is harming children. The alternative? This should not come as a surprise President Bush suggests that Congress should have done what He told them to do. Then he would have passed it, and everyone would be happy, because the President got His way.

Therein lies the difference. Truman accepted responsibility not just for what he said, but what he did. Bush, on the other hand, wants just one thing - everything done his way. When it isn't what He wants, then it's somebody else's fault. Here, it's not His fault he's going to veto this bipartisan-supported bill; it's Congress'. What a great way to run a country.

Progress!

The President, as predicted, has announced that due to the progress we've seen under the Surge, he has chosen to listened to General Petraeus's advice and will start to draw down troops. He hopes to bring home some 7000 by the end of the year and reduce strength by about 30,000 by next summer. What he didn't say, though, was that the troop reduction he approved is the same amount of troops that were involved in the Surge originally. He also didn't mention that this reduction was part of the Surge strategy (indeed, by definition, a surge is a short-term concept). Another thing he didn't mention was how the Iraqi army led the surge, as was sold to us in January, though he did note that the Iraqi army training was going well, and noted some difficulty with the Iraqi police force.

As for progress, he failed to mention his own definition of the Surge's goal from January - the Iraqi government working together - as one of the signs of progress. This, of course, is because the Iraqi government hasn't progressed. He also mentioned the number of troops that will be allowed to re-enter the military, without mentioning that it was under his permission that they were disbanded originally (though he did try to discredit Bremer for that, who, learning from the mistakes of others, kept a paper trail) - though that might have been because he "can't remember."

In other news, the President apparently used this speech to try to tie in as many references to past and potential future events as possible. Of course he invoked 9-11, despite the fact that the war in Iraq has NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11!!!!!!! He also mentioned Iran. He repeatedly referred to "terrorists and insurgents" as though they are one and the same - again failing to note that the terrorist presence in Iraq is the direct result of our meddling (as is the current threat to our security from any Iraqi instability). He also made a fleeting comment to the "Taliban-like control of al-Qaeda in Anbar Province." Again, the goal was to try to subtly connect the war in Iraq with the war on Terror. And of course, some people will buy it, because some people are stupid.

But one thing I noticed was how well his speech echoed the same progress report given by General Westmoreland that I commented on just yesterday, and which Just Wondering so kindly cross-posted on her blog today.

All in all, I was not impressed with the speech. I'm sure that it will keep his base happy ("But there's progress!") and probably keep a couple Republicans in check, but he didn't really say anything other than "I'm bringing home the troops that I said would only be there a limited time after a limited time because I've decided that the parameters we set for success in January were met close enough, so long as you ignore the overarching goal of the whole thing." And with the President's credibility, even that is suspect.

UPDATE

One thing I'd forgotten to mention was the President's tossing in of a new concept - a long term (open-ended) commitment or "security arrangement" that the Iraqis apparently want. I don't know where the government found the time to ask us to provide them with a security arrangement, but I guess when you're busy not meeting benchmarks or passing laws, you are able to squeeze that in... The problem, as someone else (I've been to many sites tonight and can't remember where I first read this, though I'm willing to bet it was from a link on the Moderate Voice) pointed out, in the other nations where we've kept forces under a security arrangement (the "tripwire troops" such as the famous "Berlin Brigade" necessary to invoke the presidents inherent rescue powers under the Constitution), in Iraq, our forces would be there to protect Iraqis from Iraqis, instead of some outside threat (such as communism). This seems to run contrary to the concept of a security arrangement, but I'm sure we're supposed to ignore that and listen to what the President wants us to hear.

At Last! Troop Reductions!

President Bush is expected to say that he plans to reduce the US troop presence in Iraq by about 30,000 starting next spring, according to this article.

My guess is that he will make some statements to the effect that because of the successes of the Surge, we now have the flexibility to begin to bring home troops. Of course, the troops we're bringing home will be about the same number as we sent over for the Surge, which, by definition, and by the President's design, was to be a short-term operation. So what the President will be doing, essentially, is what he said he'd be doing when he started this whole thing, but he'll be adding a PR twist.

The problem with the twist is that the surge, according to both the President and General Petraeus standards at the beginning, is not working. It did not accomplish what the President claimed to be its goal. Read this article by Real Clear Politics writer George Will. Here are a couple of snippets:

The purpose of the surge, they said, is to by time -- "breathing space," the president says -- for Iraqi political reconciliation. Because progress toward that has been negligible, there is no satisfactory answer to this question: What is the U.S. military mission in Iraq?"

Of course, there has been some Iraqi political progress - they took August off. Some more from the article:

The progress that Petraeus reports in improving security in portions of Iraq is real. It might, however, have two sinister aspects. First, measuring sectarian violence is problematic: The Washington Post reports that a body with a bullet hole in the front of the skull is considered a victim of criminality; a hole in the back of the skull is evidence of sectarian violence. But even if violence is declining, that might be partly because violent sectarian cleansing has separated Sunni and Shiite communities. This homogenization of hostile factions -- trained and armed by U.S. forces -- may bear poisonous fruit in a full-blown civil war. Second, brutalities by al-Qaeda in Iraq have indeed provoked some Sunni leaders to collaborate with U.S. forces. But these alliances of convenience might be inconvenient when Shiites again become the Sunnis' principal enemy.

In other words, the surge might not have been as effective as advertised (then again, it might be - we don't know). Perhaps the more important question, as Mr. Will suggested, is "If the surge indeed is working, why didn't the President go to Baghdad during his surprise visit?" And the question to be asked regarding the return of the troops is "Why are you selling us a car you sold a year ago and telling us it's new?"

All Apologies

I blogged a few days ago about President Bush snubbing the widow of Sgt Patrick Stewart, the Wiccan soldier killed in Afghanistan. In the post, I said that President Bush should issue a public apology to Ms. Stewart.

It turns out, he did apologize the next day (Thursday). This was the good and right thing to do. President Bush even went so far as to say that the Wiccan religion should not be discriminated against. I'm not sure how much he believes that statement, but at least he said it, and he deserves credit for that, as well.

Kudos, President Bush.

I agree with Bush

It's not often that I think President Bush made a good move, but I think his statements and proposal today regarding the mortgage crisis (how long until someone dubs it "mortgagegate?") were necessary and right.


President Bush proposed a plan to assist those homebuyers who were enticed into buying homes at variable rates by mortgage companies that were more interested in selling a house than helping a family achieve the American Dream. You remember these companies - the folks trying to sell you on variable rates because "the rate could go down and if you're in a fixed-rate mortgage, you'll lose money," when the rate was at 6%. The rate COULD have gone down, yes, but it could also have gone up a whole lot more (i.e. up to 14%), and of course, they went up (go figure). Then there were the mortgages that started low, then popped up after a few years (introductory rate ended).

President Bush suggested that the Government should assist these people, so they don't lose their houses. He also said that this bailout should not be used to help speculators, or those who knowingly got into mortgages they couldn't afford. This latter one creates a bit of a loophole/wiggle room, because legally, "knowingly" doesn't mean you actually know; rather, it means that you SHOULD HAVE known, which could make it more difficult for struggling families to get the help they really need.

Some Democrats think the program is too late; others think it's too little. I think it's a good first step, and we should applaud the President for taking an important move toward helping American victims.

Honoring Those Who Served

There are at least three distinct differences between President Bush and Sgt. Patrick Stewart (deceased). First, Patrick Stewart actually went overseas and fought in a war. Second, Patrick Stewart was killed in action, and third, Patrick Stewart was a Wiccan.

It's the last part of that situation that President Bush apparently has issue with, as did the Veteran's Administration. You see, the VA apparently did not want to put the inverted pentagram on Stewart's headstone in the VA cemetary in Reno, because they did not consider Wicca to be a "real" religion. President Bush has spoken out against Wicca in the past. That's ok. President Bush is entitled to his thoughts on the Wiccan religion. But when he acts on that prejudice, that's where I have a problem:

On Tuesday, following an address to the American Legion's national convention in Reno, [President] Bush met with norhtern Nevada family members of soldiers who have perished in combat. Roberta Stewart, whose husband, Sgt. Patrick Stewart was killed in combat in Afghanistan, was not invited, even though other relatives of Sgt. Stewart were.

The article notes that Sgt. Stewart's parents and brother were invited to meet with the President, but not his widow. As if to rub salt in the wound, the President did invite the widow of a fellow servicemember who perished in the same Chinook Helicopter as Sgt. Stewart.

All I can say is shame on the President. It was bad enough when the VA attempted to deny this veteran's religious choice the same respect it does others, but when the leader of the nation acts as though a woman who stood up for the rights of ALL servicemen and women on her soldier husband's behalf is somehow deserving of a one-finger salute, then that shows a fundamental flaw in how he approaches religion and religious freedom. This was wrong, and President Bush owes her a very public and very personal apology.

Clutching at Straws - Another Historical Rewrite

I watched part of the President's speech today, but I was not really surprised by what I heard.

The President's foreign policy for the past six years has been one of "if I repeat it enough, it will become true." This policy has been applied to his attempts to label his legacy, as well. President Bush invoked Korea and the difficulties Truman faced in 1950, noting that history has been kind to the ex-haberdasher, implying that he is the Truman of the 21st Century.

This is a nice idea, but it's intentionally incomplete. President Truman is remembered fondly in relation to Korea because history proved his claims accurate. North Korea invaded the South with the approval of China and the Soviet Union (indeed there were Soviet pilots in the air over Korea during the war). The U.S. intervened with the approval of the United Nations. The attack was part of a larger plan to spread Communism.

History has not been so kind to the President's rationales for invading Iraq. First off, we were the aggressors in Iraq; we were not defending an attacked state. There were no WMDs being produced, and none found of the vintage claimed. The Saddam-Al Qaeda link was refuted. There were no plans to invade the United States. The Iraqi people did not view us as liberators (at least, not in the long run), and the country was not ready for democracy. In short, the similarities are skin-deep.

The President also made comments referring to the need to fight the terrorists in Iraq, lest we fight them here. This is a rather disingenuous statement, in my opinion. As noted in the preceding paragraph, the ISG and CIA found no link between 9-11 and Saddam Hussein and no terror threat from Iraq, at least, not until we liberated the country and provided what terrorists we now face there. The President also (during the part I watched), while referring to the terrorists, made no mention of the insurgents or the Iraqi military who have been fighting us - just a coincidence, I'm sure. I recognize that it would be ludicrous to think that our President would actually come out and say "I'm responsible for a complete mess in Iraq, but unless we stick to it, it's going to be even worse. I need your help to try to fix what I've broken," but that's exactly what he needs to do. Trying to paint a picture that glosses over his errors in judgment (such as not listening to his Generals, such as Shinseki who stated the need for 5-600,000 troops to secure victory in Iraq) only shows his contempt for the sensibilities of the American People, including the families of the soldiers fighting the insurgency he created.

Like I said, I didn't see the whole speech, so maybe he did throw in a mea culpa, but I somehow doubt it. Instead, he wants to pretend he is what he isn't - a Great Leader, a man with the statement "The buck stops here" on his desk, Harry S Truman. Instead, history is more likely to view him as a different Democrat from the 20th Century - Lyndon Johnson.

No Child Left Behind*

One of the problems with being an unpopular president, is that anytime anything connected to the executive branch looks hinky, you take the blame. Much like the popular president who gets to take credit for the good things coming out of executive branch agencies.

The current issue lies with the President's threats to veto the State Child's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Coincidentally, shortly after his threat to veto, four regional directors of the Department of Health and Human Services (where I once had to show my military ID in order to use the restroom) issued copycat letters spreading apparent misinformation about the program (link is from the Huffington Post). The letters misstate the effect of the law and spout similar concerns expressed by President Bush. The idea seems to be to frighten people into criticizing this bill that would provide health insurance for children who can't otherwise afford it.

I prefer to operate under the ounce of prevention concept, that providing insurance for children will result in better treatment for those children, which will make for healthier adults who will be able to work more, have fewer ailments, contribute more to the economy, and ultimately save money. That's not a big price to pay, IMO, for the potential future payoff.