12.18.07
It doesn’t help when you have a press like this
I realize that Democrats haven’t necessarily done a lot to help themselves on this front, but if you have a press which frames things like this, it’s hard to get good press, even if you do something right:
The result would be a…defeat for Democrats, who…had spent months on legislation to add $27 billion to domestic programs, an almost 7 percent increase.
Bush sought a much smaller increase, less than 1 percent, for domestic programs other than military base construction; the Democratic bill provides domestic increases averaging about 4 percent, once “emergency” funding above Bush’s budget is included.
Democrats succeeded in reversing cuts sought by Bush to heating subsidies, local law enforcement, Amtrak and housing as well as Bush’s plan to eliminate the $654 million budget for grants to community action agencies that help the poor.
So, they were able to pass a bill that Bush is willing to sign, that stopped Bush from making cuts into domestic programs that he wanted to make, shifted some money from military spending into those domestic programs, and increased domestic spending by 4 times what Bush wanted.
And this is a “defeat” for Democrats, because they weren’t able to get their 7%. I thought Democrats and Republicans were supposed to compromise. Last time I knew, deciding on 4% when the two parties in the negotiations want 7% and 1% was considered to be a good compromise.
Oh, and Republicans oppose this democratic “defeat” as well.
12.07.07
Congressional Oversight in Name Only
Cross Posted on Daily Kos
This isn’t meant to be a piece critical of how Representative Harman and Senator Rockefeller dealt with the fact that they knew that the CIA tapes of the detainee interrogations existed back in 2003. As Representative Harman said:
Given the nature of the classification, I was not free to mention this subject publicly until Director Hayden disclosed it yesterday.
Now, I’m sure there are many a liberal blogger who is screaming that this is a BS excuse. “It’s their moral duty to disclose this information to the public!” they will or are saying I’m sure.
I have two problems with this, however. First off, we typically like our Congresscritters NOT doing illegal things – especially things which could hypothetically damage national security by leaking classified documents. I’m sure it’s happened in the past, but breaking the law to uncover something isn’t exactly a glorious thing, especially if you’re an elected representative.
There is an even more important reason than this, though, why I think a habitual leaking of classified information by these select Congressmen and Senators would be bad in the long run: it gives the Administration a perfect excuse not to give them any information at all. You could very easily see an argument that if Congress can’t keep secret things secret, then they shouldn’t be given the access to secrets. I think this would be the single most dangerous repercussion to people like Representative Harman “snitching.”
Instead, I think the very system of the “gang of 4″ or the “gang of 8″ is broken on it’s face. Giving 2 members on either the House or Senate intelligence committee access to classified information may technically fulfill the White House’s requirement for Congressional oversight, but it is an oversight in name only.
The reason is because if a House member or a Senator sees something in these classified briefings which alarms them, there is no legal way for Congress to act to investigate and correct the situation. None. The only way they could do it is for the Representative or Senator to break the law and leak the information.
While going after a Senator for leaking information which ends up being damning to an administration may not be a politically viable thing to do, Congress should never be put into a situation where there is no legal way for it to investigate something that’s going wrong.
Classified information like this is only useful for the purposes of Congressional oversight if the entire committee is given that information and is able to hold hearings on that issue – even if those hearings are conducted in secret and are classified themselves.
Also, I think there must be some way for the intelligence committee to be able to declassify information themselves if they deem it necessary – perhaps with a 2/3 vote or something.
But giving a piece of classified information to 4 Congressmen & women, then ignoring any warnings they may raise, but preventing them from doing anything other than writing angry letters (which are themselves classified) if the administration does something dumb or illegal isn’t any sort of meaningful oversight.
12.06.07
Is Joe Klein Moron on the Month?
OK, Joe Klein has written some dumb stuff in the past, and he’s written some stuff which the liberal blogs decry as dumb, but which I don’t really have a problem with. And of course I, myself have been called just about every label that they like throwing at right wing republicans by some left wing blogger or another (not necessarily well known ones, I should note).
All that being the case, I’m trying to figure out what reasoning Joe Klein had to execute in his brain to come to this conclusion:
Today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Klein cheered President Bush’s response to the NIE, stating that it was “an amazing moment of candor by the United States”:
The Bush reaction to this — he didn’t try to block it. He didn’t try to postpone it. He didn’t spend weeks, he didn’t ask the intelligence community ‘give me a couple of weeks, let’s see if we can figure out some kind of negotiating initiative or some way to respond to this.’ He didn’t try to spin it to our advantage. This is an amazing moment of candor by the United States.
Um, sure. That’s why the White House is saying nothing has changed and we still need to put pressure on Iran so that they’ll stop their nuclear program which they’re no longer working on?
And yes, Bush and the White House did try to postpone the release of the NIE…for a year. And in the meantime went out and were talking about Iran like the conclusions of the NIE didn’t exist.
This, after famously showing he knows jack about the new FISA bill in Congress, I’m trying to figure out how one could be unintentionally that misinformed, especially when it’s your job TO be informed.
12.05.07
Why Clinton wasn’t wrong on Kyl-Lieberman
Now, note how I didn’t say she was necessarily right, about Kyl-Lieberman, but posts saying that the revelation that Iran apparently halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003 is worse for Hillary than it is for Bush seems a bit absurd to me.
First of all, despite many on the left’s mischaracterization (to put it kindly. I could use “lie” as well) of Kyl-Lieberman, it was nothing like the AUMF (and even that I claim isn’t as bad as the left makes it out o be).
Basically, liberal blogs claim that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is AUMF II, except this time for Iran. There are several reasons why it’s not.
1. The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq was a law. It was binding. The Kyl-Lieberman amendment was a Sense of the Senate resolution.
2. While the AUMF against Iraq did authorize the use of force, it did so by requiring that Bush show to Congress that:
“reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”
Meanwhile, the original text of Kyl-Lieberman didn’t even go as far as the AUMF and said:
to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies
Not necessarily great language, but it’s not AUMF language. However, this text killed the amendment and Kyl and Lieberman ended taking it out. As a result, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that actually passed neither had this text PLUS it had added text stressing that diplomacy was clearly the preferred way to deal with Iran.
How you get a “vote in favor of war with Iran” out of that, I’m not sure. That is unless you just hate Hillary Clinton and everything she does is evil.
3. There is the argument that by stating that it was the sense of the senate that Bush designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization (note, the Senate was merely saying they thought he should. They didn’t actually give the designation, and he could have, and probably would have, granted it even without this), they give Bush free-reign to attack Iran since, of course, if they’re terrorists, then we bomb them.
There are several issues with this. The first one I’ve already pointed out: Bush almost certainly would have designated the Revolutionary Guards as such even without this resolution, so this resolution basically caused nothing. Second, if Bush wanted to use terrorism as an excuse to attack Iran, he already had that justification, being that Iran is on the list of state sponsors of terrorism already.
4. I can vividly recall the days when liberals decried these Sense of the Congress resolutions as “toothless” and “meaningless.” I guess they’re only toothless and meaningless when they vote on a Sense of the Senate resolution that liberals actually support.
Now, granted given the news that Iran may have ended it’s nuclear weapons program in 2003, voting in favor of Kyl-Lieberman may seem, in part, unnecessary (though there were more reasons behind it than just their nuclear program), and I’m not sure whether any members of Congress had access to this NIE report before voting on that resolution. If not, all they had access to would have been the previous NIE, which was much more dire about Iran, and thus one could understand why someone might take a position to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Also the claims that this gives Bush a blank check, in essence, validates his “unitary executive” viewpoint. The Left Coaster explains it well, I think:
Just because Bush might falsely claim that this toothless resolution gives him the legal authority to invade Iran, doesn’t mean that progressives should be claiming that it gives him that authority. What Sen. Obama and Sen. Edwards are doing here – with this line of argument – is unfortunately advancing the destructive right-wing meme that the President of the United States can use stuff that has nothing to do with law as justification to do patently illegal things. According to this theory – which Sen. Clinton obviously disagrees with – if Sen. Obama becomes President and the Senate passes a legally toothless “Sense of the Senate” resolution against Country X, President Obama can bomb Country X freely because such a bombing would be considered Congressionally sanctioned. This is dangerous nonsense that no Democrat should ever be advancing.
Many on the left either hope, or even think, that this vote will come back to bite Clinton. However, they thought the same thing about the AUMF vote, and it didn’t. Remember back in February when everyone who voted for the war couldn’t stumble over each other fast enough to get in front of a camera and apologize for it? Meanwhile, Clinton wouldn’t, and everyone on the left said that this would doom her?
Well, obviously it didn’t. And not only that, but A Washington Post/ABC poll at the time showed that 52% of democrats believed that Clinton’s vote for the AUMF against Iraq was the right decision. This was February of this year. And only 31% of the 47% who thought it was a mistake thought she should apologize for it (that’s 15% of the total).
I think the same would be true for Kyl-Lieberman, and I have a feeling it’s for a rather simple reason: who people place the burden of responsibility on for taking an action.
What I mean by this is that, I think (I don’t have any real evidence to back this up, I’m just hypothesizing), is that most people have a belief that someone is responsible for their own actions, but that people who may have enabled them to take that action may not necessarily be responsible.
It’s kind of the belief that it wasn’t appeasement which started World War II, it was Hitler who started World War II. With Iraq, I think people are smart enough to realize that the ultimate trigger-puller was Bush, not Congress. This is especially the case since Congress told Bush that he shouldn’t start the war unless it was clear diplomacy couldn’t work anymore and that clearly wasn’t the case. Should members of Congress take responsibility for their vote? Yes, and Clinton says she has. However, let’s not forget that if Bush invades Iran using some non-binding Congressional resolution that doesn’t even call for war, that the problem is Bush’s, not Congress’.
And one final note. I hear a lot of reasoning along the lines of “we know Bush will grab onto anything he can get, so you shouldn’t give him anything!” to justify basically doing nothing on anything when it comes to Iran. This even goes as far as some saying that “all options are on the table” – something which is basically known to be understood even when it’s not said - gives Bush justification for an attack.
However, under a situation where Iran could possibly be a threat (and it was believed that this was the case up until only a few days ago), what did Democrats think Bush could do? There was basically a feeling on the left that telling him to negotiate was pointless, and telling him to flex his muscles was dangerous. So what exactly should Congress have done? The answer I seem to get is “sit on their hands until 2009.” That’s not a great policy position to take with a county which allegedly had a nuke program and was unfriendly to us. Luckily for the liberal wing of the party, this report came out, hopefully making Iran, for the most part, a non-issue (or at least not as big of one).
As for Clinton, the test for her is to see how she changes her rhetoric in response to this new NIE report.
11.20.07
Bush Administration issues BS threat over war funding
Now, I’ve hardly been for cutting off funding for the war (actually, I’ve largely been against it for largely being ineffective and a political loser, overall, for democrats). However, that doesn’t excuse the Bush administration from making what amounts to BS threats for cutting funding for bases in the US.
The Army made public a document titled “Running out of OMA [Operations & Maintenance Army]: What the Army will Stop Doing”
This is what it says:
Assumption:
DoD will implement authorities of the Feed and Forage Act providing limited ability to continue some activities
What Stops:
- Army will warm [sic] base operations
- Child care centers, libraries, family and youth activities close [good excuse to screw social services I see]
- Post transportation, and custodial services stop.
- Environmental efforts stop [so this give a good excuse to screw the environment too]
- Training range operations cease [our boys will be unprepared!]
- Critical force protection, safety and health will continue at minimal operations using military labor – gate guards and fire protection.
- Civilian personnel will be furloughed.
- Up to 150,000 employees
- Furlough notices issued 30 to 60 days in advance (depends on local agreements).
- Family Advocacy Support Closes
- Terminate counselor services for returning Soldiers and their Families [one of the more vile threats, I thought]
- Respite care stops
- Media advertising will stop
- Unable to meet treaty obligations (NATO)
Impact:
- Retention may decline
- 5 to 6 brigades are returning from 15 month deployments to find curtailed services and support – a significant morale issue [like being in Iraq isn't demoralizing enough]
- Recruiting may decline
- Advertising stops and recruiting stations may close
- Delays initial entry training for those who have enlisted
- Depot Output Declines
- Orders decline, reset slows
- Operations to strategic readiness limited
- Civilian and contractor support for EUCOM, SOUTHCOM, and USFK stops. [So they cut down contractor support for Europe, South America, and Korea, but not Iraq]
- Army Command Operations reduced
- Civilian and contractor support for ARCENT, NORTHCOM, USARSO, and FORSCOM stops.
- Training Command operations stop.
- Recovery will be measured in years
Of course, what Bush and the Army doesn’t say is that Congress has already passed it’s 2008 Defense appropriations bill which should have already paid for all of this and, since those appropriation bills virtually always allow a certain amount of funds to be transferred as needed, the military could transfer funds to fund the war through Mid-February.
This ultimately is still a dicey situation for democrats, since historically, whenever something stops getting funded, people blame Congress, even if it’s largely due to presidential vetoes. However, if I were Congressional democrats, I’d basically go out and say “look, we already paid for this in the military appropriations bill. Bush and the Republicans shouldn’t make those working at domestic military bases and soldiers state-side suffer because they keep blocking our Iraq funding bills which are trying to end a war that no one but them supports.”
11.14.07
It’s Gaffe Time!
Well, both Obama and Clinton have had gaffes recently (being on stage with an anti-gay preacher for Obama, the drivers license flub for Clinton) and it appears Edwards decided to join the party:
John Edwards’ campaign against Hillary Clinton is definitely getting nasty. During an Iowa campaign stop, the New York Times reports that Edwards declined to answer whether he would support Hillary if she were the nominee. “I’m not willing to talk about that at this point,” Edwards said, then waiting for the next question.
Edwards came back and made it sound not quite as bad:
Today at a press availability John Edwards was asked by reporters about his refusal to say that he’d back Hillary for President if she wins the Democratic nomination. The Edwards camp has just emailed me his answer:
“I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee, and I fully expect to be the Democratic nominee.”
You’d normally expect something like this to come from a third-tier crazy candidate, not from a supposed 1st-tier one. Since it’s not an absolute statement, I’m wondering what possibly circumstances could come to pass for him to not support the dem nominee?
Ed Kilgore brings up a good point as well:
Any way you look at it, Edwards has guaranteed he’s going to get asked this question again until he specifically says he’ll support the nominee no matter who it is, much as Obama has already done–and perhaps until he gets into the habit of saying that much as he dislikes HRC, she’s far preferable to anyone the opposition can nominate.
I find it ironic how many of the same people who are defending Edward’s saying he “fully expects” to support the nominee are probably the same people who slam on Clinton anytime she makes any qualifications in any of her statements.
Yep, nothing will chance when Mukasey is confirmed
Or so the liberal bloggers told us. Oops:
The Justice Department has reopened a long-dormant inquiry into the government’s warrantless wiretapping program, a major policy shift only days into the tenure of new Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
The investigation by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility was shut down after the previous attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, refused to grant security clearances to investigators.
“We recently received the necessary security clearances and are now able to proceed with our investigation,” H. Marshall Jarrett, counsel for the OPR, wrote to New York Rep. Maurice Hinchey. A copy of the letter, dated Tuesday, was obtained by The Associated Press.
I’m sure they’ll come up with some reason which explains how this proves that they were right about him.
Of course, it is early in his tenure, and a lot can still happen, but that’s hardly a first step with “DOOM” written all over it.
11.06.07
Pro-Defunders twist their own poll to make it look like people support defunding
Apparently democrats.com ran a poll to show that everyone is for defunding:
The single largest group – 40% – want Bush to bring U.S. troops home within 6 months using funds Congress has already given him for Iraq, which now totals $450 billion.
And then uses that poll to bash Reid over refusing to bring a vote on funding up on the floor of the Senate.
However, there is a problem with this.
Requiring Bush to bring troops home in 6 months with existing funding is an actual action by Congress – i.e., passing a bill telling him to do so. This is assuming that there is existing funding to do this in the first place.
Also, this isn’t truly “defunding” since, theoretically, troops would be home before funding expired. It’s not necessarily surprising that people would support this action since it both brings troops back and clearly doesn’t leave them without funding.
Which is why saying that this poll shows that people support defunding is a misrepresentation of the poll. It doesn’t support defunding the war, it supports telling Bush to get out, which is pretty much nothing new. The only new thing about this poll is asking people whether pulling troops out with already existing funding (assuming it is sufficient) is acceptable, and something like 55% of those who want troops to be out within a year thought so.
Heck, if one could assure that there was sufficient funding and that this pullout would actually occur, I would be for it, and I think defunding would result in a Republican president and congress in 2008 (to stress how much I’m against it).
But as I said, as much as they might try to pretend otherwise, this poll doesn’t ask about defunding, it asks what to do with the funding already allocated, which is an entirely different question. If they wanted to ask people whether they supported Congress refusing to pass for funding for the war, period, they would have asked it. But they didn’t, probably because they knew it would be a loser, especially when people are given other choices.
And given the situation of 50 votes in favor of the war and President Bush’s veto, we’re in a situation where there are two ultimate choices: either Congress passes the funding as Bush wants it, or refuses to pass any more funding at all, but also without any demands on Bush either. If one really wanted to get a look to see what Americans wanted, that is the type of poll question they would ask.
Instead, Democrats.com tried to ask a question which sounded like they were asking about defunding, and which they are trying to claim asked about defunding, but doesn’t really ask about defunding.
On a side note, the second article comes up with this brilliant plan to force Bush’s hand:
Reid could get the result he wants by using his power as Majority Leader to block all funding for Iraq. Then when Bush gets concerned, Reid can persuade Bush to agree to the compromise he describes above.
Of course Bush could refuse to compromise, in which case Bush would have to steal money from other accounts to keep the occupation going on his terms. And then Democrats would have one more reason to impeach him – and they would have the support of 73% of America.
So Harry, if you want to negotiate with Bush, start by blocking all funds – and make Bush compromise to meet your terms.
There are some serious problems with this. First, Bush won’t get concerned because he knows that there are enough democrats in conservative districts who are pretty certain that they will lose their next election if they go with this gambit and will force a vote on funding.
Even if this isn’t the case, the article goes ahead and says one option Bush could do to keep funding the war, and of course brings out the old “then impeach him!” line – and on top of that states that 73% would support said impeachment because 73% in the poll wants out of Iraq in a year (which, of course, are two totally separate and unrelated questions).
And this, of course, completely ignores the fact that people see Congress as the source of funding, and thus if bad things occur to troops because they lack funding, they aren’t going to blame Bush, they’re going to blame Congress and the democrats.
However, defunders are so convinced of their rightness, that they reject the possibility that democrats might get blamed for such a thing as ludicrous, pointing to Bush’s approval ratings, which have nothing to do with whether they support troops getting funding or not.
Senator Schumer Makes Sense
And also thinks that “it’s better to lose than to win” is a dumb idea.
