Bush Republican Monopoly Crumbling
I'm a Democrat but I welcome that more and more Republicans are standing up to the recklessness and arrogance of George W. Bush. I'm perfectly aware some of those standing up to Bush's grab for more power may crumble at any moment and I'm aware some may even be standing up to Bush in the hopes it makes headlines in their home papers as they stave off Democratic challenges and that when they do crumble, Bush's victory will somehow be on page A-9; that's the cynical view but even Republicans have to recognize the far-reaching changes that Bush's proposals represent and the threat they pose to the US Constitution. Glenn Greenwald of Unclaimed Territory has been following these issues closely, particularly the NSA side of the issue:
Greenwald points out that the White House isn't likely to accept some of the restrictions the House and Senate are proposing. Now I can't pretend to understand exactly what is going on. The relationship between the White House and Congress is not an open book though I've been following the convoluted torture, rendition, Guantanamo and NSA scandals and arguments from their first days of being in the news. We are not privy to much of the obvious nonsense that is going on; the mere fact that Bush insists on so much secrecy in his dealing with Congress is good evidence that he is rarely acting in good faith.
So here's some points I'd like to make, mostly speculative, but maybe others in weeks to come can start clarifying some of these things.
1. The issue that makes me most uneasy is that if the Democrats win a house, we may be dealing with a lame duck Congress and a lame duck president between the election and the middle of January. There is room for plenty of mischief. On the other hand, there are going to be consequences to such mischief.
2. I still consider a majority of Republicans in Congress to be stuck somewhere between 1831 and 1931 in their political and moral philosophy. Bush has been so overwhelmingly dominant over this Congress that we have forgotten there are a significant number of Republicans who have never liked a situation that is similar to extortion and blackmail rather than presidential persuasion. I wonder if it's possible whether we're seeing something of a reaction to years of bullying and lies.
3. No doubt, there are a number of Republicans, probably in the same group as above, who are honest enough to recognize the disaster that is the Bush presidency, whether they go along with partisan Republican politics or not. One of the consequences of Bush's torture policy is false intelligence. Just one consequence of false intelligence, intelligence that should have been weighed and analyzed by longtime experts that understand these things (but it wasn't), is that National Guardsmen were called up to chase illusions or stand guard at places like the Golden Gate Bridge because our incompetent president and vice president didn't know what they were doing. Even a rational Republican has to ask if this should be a permanent state of affairs.
4. Part of Bush's purpose in asking for some of this legislation is simply to cover his legal behind. But what is Bush doing for Republicans in Congress? If there are investigations into White House activities, how much are Republicans in Congress going to be exposed to the fallout? A number of Republicans are also not anxious to be protecting a lot of the nonsense that has taken place in their own houses, particularly if the Democrats win a house and start investigations, even if they're just the ordinary kind of investigations that were routine for decades. It should be noted that the Republican-controlled House has essentially been functioning without ethics oversight for several years and the House Ethics Committee has essentially become a joke.
5. The conservative instincts of Republicans fear what Bush's laws would be like if Democrats gain control of the White House. It's too bad they couldn't have put the shoe on the other foot and realized the genuine concerns that Democrats have had about the same rules.
6. The military doesn't just talk to Democrats like John Murtha when they are unhappy about Bush's policies. I have no doubt that Republican veterans are getting an earful from the military about Bush's incompetence, etc. Sooner or later, as the political climate changes, a number of Republicans surely have to realize there is much to what military and CIA experts are saying about the sheer craziness of Bush's radical foreign policy agenda.
Again, there's a lot of what's happening in Washington I don't pretend to understand (how much can one understand behind a veil of secrecy, irrationality and lies?) I just hope for the sake of history that some sane Republicans or staffers who are privy to the nonsense from the White House are keeping notes. Just looking at things from the Republican perspective should be evidence enough of the need to slow down the reckless Bush juggernaut and bring it under control before the damage to our country is permanent.
Many people are debating whether the "conflict" among Republicans over the detainee/ interrogation bill is part of some grand Rovian political plan (to make Republicans appear as though they are independent and willing to stand up to the President, to ensure that scary pictures of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed rather than piles and piles of bodies in Iraq dominate the news, etc.). Regardless of one's views on that question, one thing is beyond dispute at this point: the White House's plan to resolve the NSA scandal by obtaining amnesty for past lawbreaking and future legislative blessing for its warrantless eavesdropping program has veered far off course and, at least for now, appears genuinely imperiled.
(snip)
Although the focus for stopping the Specter/FISA bill has been on the Senate, the White House has a substantial problem in the House as well, where Wilson -- a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chair of a key Intelligence Subcommittee -- has been touting (with the support of the House Leadership) her own bill that is more restrictive than the Specter bill (though still far more permissive of warrantless eavesdropping than is tolerable). In sum, Wilson's bill would legalize warrantless eavesdropping but still keep the program within the FISA framework and require far greater Congressional oversight than the White House wants.
Wilson discovered this newfound resistance to the White House agenda only because she is in a very close re-election battle in her evenly divided District where the President is unpopular, which makes it unlikely that she will capitulate completely to the President after opposing his FISA plan in such a public way. But the AP article reports that Wilson "is swapping her original bill giving legal status to Bush's domestic surveillance program with one that would grant a key administration request . . . ." The article also claims that in exchange for this concession, she has added much more stringent oversight and Congressional notification requirements now included in her bill.
(snip)
These developments are all rather murky, but for precisely that reason, one clear fact appears to be emerging: the odds are rather low that there will be a legislative solution at all to the NSA scandal before Congress adjourns in nine days, and the odds of the dreaded Specter bill being enacted by both houses are even lower.
Greenwald points out that the White House isn't likely to accept some of the restrictions the House and Senate are proposing. Now I can't pretend to understand exactly what is going on. The relationship between the White House and Congress is not an open book though I've been following the convoluted torture, rendition, Guantanamo and NSA scandals and arguments from their first days of being in the news. We are not privy to much of the obvious nonsense that is going on; the mere fact that Bush insists on so much secrecy in his dealing with Congress is good evidence that he is rarely acting in good faith.
So here's some points I'd like to make, mostly speculative, but maybe others in weeks to come can start clarifying some of these things.
1. The issue that makes me most uneasy is that if the Democrats win a house, we may be dealing with a lame duck Congress and a lame duck president between the election and the middle of January. There is room for plenty of mischief. On the other hand, there are going to be consequences to such mischief.
2. I still consider a majority of Republicans in Congress to be stuck somewhere between 1831 and 1931 in their political and moral philosophy. Bush has been so overwhelmingly dominant over this Congress that we have forgotten there are a significant number of Republicans who have never liked a situation that is similar to extortion and blackmail rather than presidential persuasion. I wonder if it's possible whether we're seeing something of a reaction to years of bullying and lies.
3. No doubt, there are a number of Republicans, probably in the same group as above, who are honest enough to recognize the disaster that is the Bush presidency, whether they go along with partisan Republican politics or not. One of the consequences of Bush's torture policy is false intelligence. Just one consequence of false intelligence, intelligence that should have been weighed and analyzed by longtime experts that understand these things (but it wasn't), is that National Guardsmen were called up to chase illusions or stand guard at places like the Golden Gate Bridge because our incompetent president and vice president didn't know what they were doing. Even a rational Republican has to ask if this should be a permanent state of affairs.
4. Part of Bush's purpose in asking for some of this legislation is simply to cover his legal behind. But what is Bush doing for Republicans in Congress? If there are investigations into White House activities, how much are Republicans in Congress going to be exposed to the fallout? A number of Republicans are also not anxious to be protecting a lot of the nonsense that has taken place in their own houses, particularly if the Democrats win a house and start investigations, even if they're just the ordinary kind of investigations that were routine for decades. It should be noted that the Republican-controlled House has essentially been functioning without ethics oversight for several years and the House Ethics Committee has essentially become a joke.
5. The conservative instincts of Republicans fear what Bush's laws would be like if Democrats gain control of the White House. It's too bad they couldn't have put the shoe on the other foot and realized the genuine concerns that Democrats have had about the same rules.
6. The military doesn't just talk to Democrats like John Murtha when they are unhappy about Bush's policies. I have no doubt that Republican veterans are getting an earful from the military about Bush's incompetence, etc. Sooner or later, as the political climate changes, a number of Republicans surely have to realize there is much to what military and CIA experts are saying about the sheer craziness of Bush's radical foreign policy agenda.
Again, there's a lot of what's happening in Washington I don't pretend to understand (how much can one understand behind a veil of secrecy, irrationality and lies?) I just hope for the sake of history that some sane Republicans or staffers who are privy to the nonsense from the White House are keeping notes. Just looking at things from the Republican perspective should be evidence enough of the need to slow down the reckless Bush juggernaut and bring it under control before the damage to our country is permanent.
posted by Craig at 2:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home