While Republicans Applaud, an Administration Remains in Disarray

No one should be fooled by the Republicans in the Senate. By voting down cloture, they have voted for continued war by an incompetent president and they have nothing to offer by way of getting Bush to stop digging a hole. Congress is a co-equal branch of the government and the Republicans want to do nothing more than rubber stamp the president.

Bush is doing harm to our nation. No one should doubt that. If we had not gone to Iraq and had properly finished the war in Afghanistan, our foreign policy in the hands of a competent president would have considerably more leverage than it does today. If Colin Powell—not Cheney and Rumsfeld—had dominated our foreign policy, it's possible even Bush might have come off as having a competent administration even if he still didn't have a clue what he was doing.

Remember the axis of evil image that Bush used to describe Iran, Iraq and North Korea? In recent days, there was an article suggesting that North Korea and Iran were included as afterthoughts in Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address so that the mention of Iraq alone would not make it so obvious that Iraq was going to be the focus of Bush's foreign policy. I'm not going to pretend to sort that one out but it would be consistent with what we now know is an administration so obsessed with domestic public relations that it can't even clearly state its foreign policy messages to the world (think of Karen Hughes, a political mouthpiece for the administration, going to Islamic countries and explaining that Americans have mommys and daddys too).

Truthout has an article by Jay Bookman from the Atlanta Journal Constitution that summarizes what passes for Bush's Iran policy:

Trying to make sense of the Bush administration's strategy toward Iran may be a fool's game, because it assumes a strategy exists in the first place.

That doesn't seem the case. Statements and policies issued one day are contradicted the next, perhaps the result of internal White House struggles between hardline and more moderate factions who can't agree on a single approach.

(snip)

For now, the administration seems paralyzed. It has heeded the warnings of our military professionals that with our forces already overstretched it would be foolish to seek another war. But its hardliners retain the power to block any effort to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

The result is an administration perfectly willing to accept war, but unwilling to prevent it.

I have no idea if we're going to war with Iran or not. But there's evidence that the Bush Administration might have been able to negotiate with Iran back in late 2001 when indeed Bush had enormous leverage. And again, in 2003, there may have been another diplomatic effort that the Bush Administration botched. Steve Clemons of The Washington Note has some details:

Gareth Porter has an important article out today, "Rove Said to Have Received 2003 Iranian Proposal."

Porter writes:

Karl Rove, then White House deputy chief of staff for President George W. Bush, received a copy of the secret Iranian proposal for negotiations with the United States from former Republican Congressman Bob Ney in early May 2003, according to an Iranian-American scholar who was then on his Congressional staff.

The revelation that Rove is involved is huge -- because it further raises the stakes for exactly why then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that she never "saw the fax" of the Guldimann-couriered Iran offer.

Foreign policy officials confirm to this writer that the fax did make it to National Security Council official Elliot Abrams, who has not admitted seeing the memos sent by Guldimann.

But if Rove also received the proposal through the separate channel of Congressman Bob Ney, it is hard to believe that Rove would have just hidden the matter in a pile of other faxes and not passed the material on to Rice directly -- or at least to White House Chief-of-Staff Andy Card.

Do Republicans in the Senate really want to put all their faith into the gang that can't shoot straight? Do they really want to keep defending these guys and risk a third war? Iraq is broken. The White House is broken. Isn't it time for Republicans in Washington to join Democrats in cleaning up the mess?

House Passes Iraq Resolution and Other News

Seventeen Republicans joined the Democrats in a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's troop surge (which can't be a troop surge since our allies are still pulling out troops—hmm, maybe our allies see something Bush doesn't). The vote was 246-186 in favor of the resolution. That means 57% of the House voted for the resolution. It is likely the pressure on Bush and the Republicans will be increasing in the coming months.

Kevin Drum of The Washington Monthly links to a story that Iraqis are already using machine shops to make Explosively Formed Penetrators of the kind the administration says the Iranians are making. If Iraqi insurgents are making them, why would they have to get them from the Iranians? It sounds more like a black market item that other groups are acquiring. It is a fact that Bush's credibility isn't worth much these days and any attempt on the part of his administration to try and justify war with Iran must be viewed with extreme skepticism. Bush is a right wing Republican authoritarian and authoritarians are notorious for trying to blame others when their schemes don't turn out the way they thought they would.

As we all know, President Bush plays political games and one of those games is to pretend that Democrats don't support the troops. This is an odd claim on Bush's part since the single biggest blunder in Iraq was not sending enough troops to get the job done in the first place thus exposing our soldiers to four years of war. That's not protecting the troops—that's reckless incompetence. Mary of The Left Coaster says John Murtha will soon have a bill to hold Bush accountable and to make sure the president really does support the troops:

Murtha's bill will end the stopgap procedures, end the extensions of deployments, and end the deployment of troops without sufficient training, equipment or time between deployments. Furthermore the bill will close Abu Ghraib, reduce the number of contractors that can be used, change the rules so the contractors who are used have to be more accountable to the American public, defund permanent bases in Iraq, etc. It addresses all those policies that Bush has fostered that has created such a mess in Iraq.

It's irresponsible that a president would send troops to Iraq without the proper training and equipment but that is what Bush has been doing. These days, the American people, the Iraqis and the world don't have much faith in George W. Bush. Bush compounds his own problems (and inevitably our problems) by not being straight with the American people and by continuing to play dangerous political games instead of engaging in diplomacy or using common sense.

It's also irresponsible for right wing Republicans to keep defending a war that isn't doing much for the United States and that was sold under false pretenses. It's shameful that right wing Republicans in Congress have voted for tax cuts for the wealthy while underfunding our troops and not holding Bush accounting for fraud, corruption and waste in the money that was used for reconstruction in Iraq. The Republicans will peddle their story in the coming months and years as they did with Vietnam but Americans are catching on and they no longer see today's Republicans offering much to the American people except war, fear and grief.

Veterans Group Says Iraq Debate Important

As many of us know, right wing Republicans don't have much integrity these days. The United States is the most powerful country in the world and we are the one who launched a war against Iraq, a war we did not need, but Bush and Cheney are still engaging in fear mongering. Then, there the right wing nonsense that debate on Iraq hurts our troops. This too is nonsense. We have a war that should never have been pursued in the first place and we have a president who is oblivious to the damage he is doing to our foreign policy or even the opportunities to undo the damage he has done.

Raw Story has a post on a veterans groups that reminds us of what it is our soldiers fight for:

Paul Rieckhoff, the president of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), appeared as a guest on MSNBC's Countdown program on Wednesday, Feb. 14. The former infantry platoon leader in Iraq from 2003 to 2004 explained that debate about the war doesn't hurt the troops. Such arguments, claimed Rieckhoff, are simply "political shields."

"The reason guys like me join the military is to preserve that free right to have a real dissent and a real debate about the most important issue facing our country," said Reickhoff. "That is why we joined the military. It‘s why we take up arms, to defend exactly that type of right. So I think [saying criticism of the war demoralizes the troops] is a really dangerous road to go down when it comes to the political dialogue."

It's time to bring President Bush's foreign policy under control before he does more harm. The issue is as simple and fundamental as just that. Let the debate in Congress begin in earnest and in seriousness with the usual games and obstructionism from Republicans.

President Bush at Democratic Meeting

The Republicans in Congress are still reluctant to hold George W. Bush accountable on his failing foreign policy. There is unlikely to be much change if Republicans keep rubber stamping the president and obstructing action in the Senate. Bush claims he's reaching out to the Democrats, and indeed Democrats are willing to listen. But President Bush has made it clear after six dismal years that we can only judge him by his actions, not his words. So far, he's failing in Iraq, he's ignoring his obligations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, he has no energy or environmental policies that are realistic, he's ignoring healthcare, he's damaging the middle class and is indifferent to the needs and aspirations of the overwhelming majority of Americans. But make no mistake, many wealthy conservatives love George W. Bush and are indifferent to the damage he is doing to our democracy.

Richard Wolf and David Jackson of USA Today wrote an odd story about Bush's efforts to 'woo' the Democrats:

His speech Saturday at a House Democratic retreat was the latest effort to reach out to opposing party members, who felt widely ignored during six years of GOP dominance. It was his first visit to the annual retreat since 2001.

(snip)

Bush's immediate predecessors reached deals across the aisle. President Clinton worked with Republicans to overhaul welfare. The first President Bush raised taxes to get a major deficit reduction agreement with Democrats. President Reagan worked with Democrats to revamp the tax code.

None of them had so little time to get accustomed to a Congress run by the other party. To fix the long-term financing of Medicare and Social Security, Bush will have to get along with Democrats like he did as Texas governor in the 1990s.

Presidential historian Fred Greenstein of Princeton University said Bush can do it by reverting to "the Texas persona." He sees more of the affable Reagan than the obstinate Woodrow Wilson in Bush, who began his presidency socializing with the Democrats such as Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Others doubt Bush's ability to get major policies through a Democratic Congress. Republican John Kasich, who as House Budget Committee chairman helped craft a 1997 deficit reduction package with Clinton, said Bush lacks leverage. "People are not afraid of George Bush," he said.

Democrat Leon Panetta, a former Clinton chief of staff, said there's more bad blood to overcome now. "There has to be a degree of trust that you can work with the other side without getting a knife in your back," Panetta said.

(snip)

Democrats on the receiving end of the outreach give the administration better grades for style than substance. Still, Maloney said there is only one alternative: "Stalemate. No one wants that."

(snip)

While the meetings have been cordial, Democrats say, little progress has been made. "With all of the progress in terms of discussion," Rangel said, "we haven't agreed on a darn thing so far."

We have deficits as far as the eye can see. We have a tax policy ridiculously tilted to the very wealthy. We have a profoundly dysfunctional foreign policy. Despite record corporate profits, the economy as far as most Americans are concerned is stagnant. Where does one begin if the Bush is unwilling to admit he has made blunders of historic proportion? What does one do when his Republicans allies enable his nonsense?

Deeds, not words, are going to have to be the proof of any change on the part of Bush. President Bush's wooing is a bit like the kid who has stolen cookies from the cookie jar who turns to the Democrats and says he'll give them some cookie crumbs if they'll forget the whole thing and not notice the smoke coming from the kitchen. Of course, the situation is far more serious than that.

In the end, how does a failed president and a failed Republican Party woo the American people in any sense that is real without changing course? We all know it's likely to be a long two years.

Bush and Iran

It's time for Karl Rove and the neoconservatives to turn off the spigot on the talk about war with Iran. It's time for Congress to deal with a president and vice president who cannot be trusted with America's foreign policy. It's time for safeguards to be put in place so that Bush doesn't drag us into a broader war by attacking Iran. After all, we're talking about a president whose stubbornness and incompetence has weakened America over the last six years.

Bush has no authority to take us into war with Iran; but it may take Congress to remind Bush's hand-picked joint chiefs of staff that if the president doesn't have the authority, the military has no authority to go either no matter how many times Cheney jumps up and down and makes demands. I support the military and appreciate what the generals did last spring when a number of generals balked behind the scenes and a number of retired generals covered their backs by taking the prudent step of demanding Rumsfeld's resignation as a way of getting the message across, but clear guidelines need to be put in place.

I've been writing about Iran for over a year and I talked about the possibilities last spring and pointed out that we cannot expect the rational from people like Bush and Cheney who think a double or nothing bet is a worthwhile wager when they are dealing with other people's lives, reputations and fortune. Remember, the civilians in the White House and Pentagon are the gang that can't shoot straight. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has a post on the Bush Administration and it's possible drift towards war with Iran:

Through plan or imbecility (and most likely, given who were talking about, both) they're drifting toward war with Iran.

As I wrote last night, I think the new campaign of anonymous leaks suggesting Iranian involvement in the Najaf raid has rather less than no credibility. But even if you assumed, for the sake of discussion, that it were tied to, say, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and that (as the narrative goes) the attack was retaliation for the Erbil raid on the Iranian consulate, that still would not change the question we face: is it in our national interest to go to war with Iran or not?

Everything flows from the answer to that question. Tits for tats or who started what fade into the background. If the answer's no, we should be calibrating our actions to avoid such an outcome, not taking actions likely to provoke it. We need a regional plan to walk this mess back from the brink rather than simply yanking every thread on this already frayed fabric and watching it disintegrate in front of us.

We've heard a few squawks and warnings from members of Congress. But now is the time for members of the House and the Senate to get serious about asserting some control over this rapid descent.

Americans across the political spectrum need to be very focused for the next few weeks if we are to stall a potentially massive blunder that may take a generation to undo. It's time to write that letter to Congress.

More Reasons to Start Withdrawing

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not honest with the American people in the case they made for war in Iraq. If they intend to launch a military strike against Iran, it is highly unlikely that they will be honest with the American people. Given the chaos of war, in fact, the Bush Administration can literally concoct whatever story it wants. Keep in mind that President Bush still shows no sign that he knows what he's doing. Simply because he has a vice president adept at pushing and pulling levers does not mean we have anything approximating a rational foreign policy that is working in the best interests of the United States. Basically we have the equivalent of two juvenile delinquents playing with a very powerful chemistry set in the middle of an ammunition dump; does anyone still think they know what they're doing?

I've been reading about the deaths at Najaf and can only shake my head. I have no idea what happened. I suspect Bush and Cheney have no idea what happened. Our media, which sometimes cannot get close enough to these events, has no idea what happened.

Juan Cole of Informed Comment pointed out yesterday that there are contradictory versions of the events:

Well, a big battle took place at the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Saturday night into Sunday, but there are several contradictory narratives about its significance. Iraqi authorities, claimed that the Iraqi army killed a lot of the militants (250) but only took 25 casualties itself. The Shiite governor of Najaf implied that the guerrillas were Sunni Arabs and had several foreign Sunni fundamentalist fighters ("Afghans") among them. He said that they based themselves in an orchard recently purchased by Baathists. Other sources said that the militants were Shiites. I'd take the claim of numbers killed with a large grain of salt, though the Iraqi forces did have US close air support. I infer that the guerrillas shot down one US helicopter.

That's one narrative. Here is another. The pan-Arab London daily al-Hayat reported that the militiamen were followers of Mahmud al-Hasani al-Sarkhi. It says one of his followers asserted that the fighting erupted when American and Iraqi troops attempted to arrest al-Hasani al-Sarkhi. The latter tried last summer to take over the shrine of al-Husayn in Karbala. It may have been feared that he would take advantage of the chaos of the Muharram pilgrimage season to make a play for power in Najaf. Al-Hayat says that although As'ad Abu Kalil, governor of Najaf, said the attackers were Sunnis, the director of the information center in Najaf, Ahmad Abdul Husayn Du'aybil, contradicted him. The latter said, "At dawn, today [Sunday], violent clashes took place between security forces and an armed militia calling itself "the Army of Heaven," which claims that the Imam Mahdi will [soon] appear." ...

Confused yet? Remember that it's unlikely our government has people on the ground in that area who understand what happened. Laura Rozen of War and Piece points to another version on Missing Links that is somewhat different from anything above but that has elements we've seen before:

Zeyad at his Healing Iraq website has new information on circumstances surrounding the Najaf fighting, including this:

Another story that is surfacing on several Iraqi message boards goes like this: A mourning procession of 200 pilgrims from the Hawatim tribe, which inhabits the area between Najaf and Diwaniya, arrived at the Zarga area at 6 a.m. Sunday. Hajj Sa’ad Nayif Al-Hatemi and his wife were accompanying the procession in their 1982 Super Toyota sedan because they could not walk. They reached an Iraqi Army checkpoint, which suddenly opened fire against the vehicle, killing Hajj Al-Hatemi, his wife and his driver Jabir Ridha Al-Hatemi. The Hawatim tribesmen in the procession, which was fully armed to protect itself in its journey at night, attacked the checkpoint to avenge their slain chief. Members of the Khaza’il tribe, who live in the area, attempted to interfere to stop the fire exchange. About 20 tribesmen were killed. The checkpoint called the Iraqi army and police command calling for backup, saying it was under fire from Al-Qaeda groups and that they have advanced weapons. Minutes later, reinforcements arrived and the tribesmen were surrounded in the orchards and were sustaining heavy fire from all directions. They tried to shout out to the attacking security forces to cease fire but with no success. Suddenly, American helicopters arrived and they dropped fliers saying, “To the terrorists, Surrender before we bomb the area.”

The story continues with more elements. Is it plausible? At first glance, yes, and maybe at a long second look, it is. Is it true? I have no idea. This is what we're fighting in the Middle East, a land of plausible stories, any of which could be a lie, any of which can kill our soldiers. Two of our soldiers died in that battle and it's not clear that they knew what their mission was. It's doubtful that Robert Gates knew what their mission was. It's doubtful that Bush and Cheney knew what their mission was. And keep in mind that Bush and Cheney also tell 'plausible' stories. And they're thinking about attacking Iran.

Congress needs to wake up and rein these guys in. Republicans like Richard Lugar cannot continue to be thoughtful one moment and then waffle the next. It's time for both Democrats and Republicans to start exercising the full power of Congress to keep us from sliding into a wider war that no one understands and that we quite clearly do not need.

Democrats Need to Check Bush's Iran Authority

I'm a Democrat who believes in a pragmatic progressivism and clearly I have good reason to prefer the Democrats far more than the Republicans, but it's important to understand that in the current era neither American political party is performing at its best. Scott Ritter has an article in Truthout that discusses how Bush and the Republicans own the Iraq fiasco whether they like it or not, but if the Democrats are not careful and simply allow Bush to do what he wants, they're going to co-own whatever policy develops in Iran; this excerpt begins near end:

Only Congress holds the power of the purse. While a President may commit American forces to combat without the consent of Congress (for periods of up to 180 days), he cannot spend money that has not been appropriated. There is, in the passing of any budget, inherent authority given to the President when it comes to national defense. However, Congress can, if it wants to, put specific restrictions on the President's ability to use the people's money. A recent example occurred in 1982, when Congress passed the Boland Amendment to restrict funding for executive-sponsored actions, covert and overt, in Nicaragua. While it is in the process of getting a handle on America's policy vis-à-vis Iran, Congress would do well to pass a resolution that serves as a new Boland Amendment for Iran. Such an amendment could read like this:

An amendment to prohibit offensive military operations, covert or overt, being commenced by the United States of America against the Islamic Republic of Iran, without the expressed consent of the Congress of the United States. This amendment reserves the right of the President, commensurate with the War Powers Act, to carry out actions appropriate for the defense of the United States if attacked by Iran. However, any funds currently appropriated by Congress for use in support of ongoing operations by the United States Armed Forces are hereby prohibited from being allocated for any pre-emptive military action, whether overt or covert in nature, without the expressed prior consent by the Congress of the United States of America.

However it is worded, the impact of such an amendment would be immediate and could forestall any military moves planned by the Bush Administration against Iran until Congress can fully familiarize itself with the true nature of any threat posed to the United States. President Bush seems to be hellbent on making war with Iran. The passage of time is, in effect, the enemy of his Administration's goals and objectives. By buying the time required to fully study the issues pertaining to Iran, and by forestalling the possibility of immediate pre-emptive action through budgetary restrictions, Congress may very well spare America, and the world, another tragedy like Iraq. If a Democrat-controlled Congress fails to take action, and America finds itself embroiled in yet another Middle East military misadventure, there will be a reckoning at the polls in 2008. It will not bode well for the Democrats currently in power, or those seeking power in the future.

In his article, Ritter covers considerable ground and although he suggests he is skeptical, he reminds people that any policy toward Iran has to be aired and studied by both Republicans and Democrats. Actually, I would argue if enough Republicans join Democrats, we can avoid another Iraq-style bamboozlement concerning Iran. If Congress will get moving. And if Republicans can set aside their obstructionism for the sake of our country.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, however, reminds us in strong terms that Bush, whatever we eventually decide about Iran, is the wrong president to be in charge of such a policy:

Think back over this young year. How much have you heard about Iraq and how much have you heard about Iran? From where I'm sitting news of tits for tats with Iran, skirmishes between Iranian and American personnel, Cheney-heralded naval deployments are the order of the day. If you listen to these things closely everything is now turning toward Iran. Iraq, though central to everything, is also becoming old news.

(snip)

You may remember quite a bit earlier in our long national nightmare the White House and its toadies and acolytes were very big on the so-called 'fly-paper' theory of the Iraq War. All the bombings and killings were a sign that the policy was working. Rather than have the terrorists hitting us in America or other spots around the world we had created a terrorist killing field in Iraq where we could wipe them out on our own terms, right where we wanted them. That and create a democracy there too.

I still remember one really clever TPM Reader writing in and telling me: that's brilliant. Sort of like by creating a really dirty hospital, we're going to create a place where we can fight the germs on our own terms!

I don't know about you but sometimes I feel like we're in this eerie afterburn of our four long years of disaster. The public has rendered its verdict. Every thinking person has rendered their verdict. But the administration is still going on more or less as though nothing's happened. ...

Like the line says, first do no harm. And for the United States as a country, right now, that means doing everything constitutionally, legally and politically possible to limit the president's and even more Vice President Cheney's free hand to shape and execute American foreign policy. Sift it all out and it's that simple. Stop them from doing any more damage. All the rest is commentary and elaboration.

Ritter is right about the procedure and he offers some excellent points but instinctively I'm on Marshall's side on this. After six years of a profoundly flawed presidency, I have no faith that Bush and Cheney are capable at the last moment of doing anything other than giving us more of the same or, worse, recklessly rolling the dice.

Bush's War and Iran

Over time, there are ways that Democrats in Congress can start reining in Bush. But it's possible that time is growing short and significant numbers of Republicans will have to join Democrats to put a crimp in Bush's continuing gambles in foreign policy. As the blunders continue, things are getting complicated.

One complication is Israel which seemed to let it be known recently that it might take out Iran's nuclear program on its own. Another complication is Saudi Arabia which has been making noise in recent weeks (Cheney has had a role in this though I'm still not convinced one way or the other whether he is a listener or doing the talking). Raw Story has a post on the possibility that Saudi Arabia may raise its profile in Iraq:

NBC News' Andrea Mitchell reported on MSNBC that Saudi Arabia is mulling whether or not to send troops to Iraq, to "protect their interests" there.

According to Mitchell, Saudi Arabia is "deeply skeptical" that Iraq's government will be able to quell the unrest. Over a hundred Iraqi civilians died today, including at least 15 from a bombing at Baghdad University.

But a leading Saudi Arabia official warns that Saudi Arabia can not be expected to "solve Iraq's problems."

And then there's Iran and the possibililty that Bush will escalate the tensions, if not unilaterally attack Iran without Congressional approval. Steve Soto of The Left Coaster has an update on Iran:

The Arab Times in Kuwait says a source of theirs confirms that the White House will hit Iran between now and the end of April, confirming what Sam Gardiner told us over the weekend. Note that for some reason, the attack planning involved not only suspected nuclear targets, but also attacks against Iran’s oil industry, which would not only cripple the country’s economy but also send worldwide oil prices into the stratosphere and make it certain that Iran would retaliate in kind. (Hat tip to Michael Carmichael at PlanetaryMovement.org)

To this end, the Russians have sold and will sell more anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran in the coming months. Do not be surprised if our forces will be going up against Russian and Chinese equipment and advisors. A senior Russian naval official concludes that the Bush Administration is positioning submarines for an attack. (Hat tip to Raw Story)

The most disturbing new aspect about the story is the possibilitly of an attack against Iran's oil industry. If true (and that's a big if), perhaps Bush wants to cripple the world's oil industry and wants to force the United States turn to dirty sources of fuel like offshore drilling, coal and oil shale with a moratorium on environmental regulations while paying lip service to clean energy. I'm not sure how reliable the Arab Times are but stories about possible action are circulating elsewhere and something to consider is that it's possible that some members of the Bush Administration are circulating the stories in an effort to provoke Iran into a response (Cheney?). Something to keep in mind about Iran is that it is some years from developing a bomb and is not an imminent threat but it is possible that when it comes to Iran another mushroom cloud scam may be underway by the Bush Administration and its neocon allies in the media. Certainly the usual neocon suspects have been making noise about Iran over the last few months.

Laura Rozen has an article in American Prospect Online concerning Bush's possible intentions towards Iran:

President Bush's Wednesday address to the nation on his new Iraq strategy delved heavily into an alleged uptick in Iranian support for terrorism and attacks on coalition forces in Iraq, and his plans for confronting it. The speech was followed the next day by the dramatic U.S. raid on an Iranian office in the Iraqi city of Irbil. Speculation is now intensifying: Has Bush signed a finding authorizing covert action on Iran? If so, what specifically does it say? Alternatively, has he authorized a more aggressive Iran strategy through a presidential directive that doesn't explicitly require informing Congress -- or the public -- of action?

(snip)

U.S. officials interviewed by the Prospect would not reveal whether they had been briefed on such a finding, or if one even exists. But there is evidence that, while Bush probably has not signed such a finding regarding Iran, he has recently done so regarding Iranian-supported Hezbollah in Lebanon; further, there is evidence that he may have signed an executive order or national security presidential directive regarding a new, more aggressive policy on Iran. Such directives are not required to be reported to Congress -- they are more in the realm of the president communicating to authorized people inside the administration his expectations for a policy.

Whatever Bush has put in writing or not about Iran, he is required to consult with Congress on such a important issue. I'm not sure what it takes these days to convince Americans that we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. I'm convinced we're already in one but I doubt a majority of Americans see it that way yet. But if Bush launches a war against Iran without Congressional approval, how will Americans react? And will it be too late? Now would be a good time to write your representatives in Washington.

Dealing with George W. Bush

One of the greatest features of a democracy with a well-crafted constitution is that it offers various legal tools for dealing with incompetents and bullies like George W. Bush. Unfortunately, one of the disadvantages is that democracy takes time. George W. Bush should never have been reelected. All the problems that the American people are now seeing with some degree of clarity were evident before the 2004 presidential election, though it should be pointed out that 59 million people saw the problem—it's unfortunate that 62 million saw something that wasn't there.

These days, we are in something of a constitutional crisis; the paramount issue is keeping Bush from dragging the United States into a deeper war and completely destroying the vision of foreign policy, flawed as it is, that has existed since Franklin Roosevelt. It is evident that Bush and Cheney wish to replace the old foreign policy with something far worse or so crippled that reformers will takes years to repair it.

Glenn Greenwald of Unclaimed Territory has some thoughtful insights into the Bush and Cheney regime:

The reason Bush violated the law when eavesdropping is the same reason Lithwick cites to explain his other lawless and extremist measures -- because he wanted purposely not to comply with the law in order to establish the general "principle" that he was not bound by the law, to show that he has the power to break the law, that he is more powerful than the law. This is a President and an administration that are obsessed first and foremost with their own power and with constant demonstrations of their own strength. Conversely, what they fear and hate the most is their own weakness and submission to limitations.

For that reason, the weaker and more besieged the administration feels, the more compelled they will feel to make a showing of their power. Lashing out in response to feelings of weakness is a temptation most human beings have, but it is more than a mere temptation for George Bush. It is one of the predominant dynamics that drives his behavior.

His party suffered historic losses in the 2006 midterm elections as a result of profound dissatisfaction with his presidency and with his war, and his reaction was to escalate the war, despite (really, because of) the extreme unpopularity of that option. And as Iraq rapidly unraveled, he issued orders that pose a high risk of the conflict engulfing Iran. When he feels weak and restrained, that is when he acts most extremely.

Bush officials and their followers talk incessantly about things like power, weakness, domination, humiliation. Their objectives -- both foreign and domestic -- are always to show their enemies that they are stronger and more powerful and the enemies are weaker and thus must submit ("shock and awe"). It is a twisted world view but it dominates their thinking (and that is how our country has been governed for the last six years, which is what accounts for our current predicament). As John Dean demonstrated, a perception of one's weakness and the resulting fears it inspires are almost always what drive people to seek out empowering authoritarian movements and the group-based comforts of moral certitude.

When talking about Bush and his abuses of power, Richard Nixon is a good comparison and John Dean has been very helpful with illustrating a number of issues including the tendency of conservatives to give in too easily to authoritarianism, but I think the last character to specifically behave like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was Senator Joseph McCarthy (and by extension, J. Edgar Hoover who quickly changed course after McCarthy's fall (...or appeared to)). What made McCarthy so dangerous was that he specialized in fear, the use of fear for bullying and increasing his power. But eventually McCarthy was reined in without using some of the powerful legal tools available. Keep in mind that McCarthy was never convicted of anything. No serious effort was made to arrest or impeach him. But he was exposed for what he was and he was censured—and power inexorably slipped from his hands. Of course, it helped that even President Eisenhower finally turned on him.

Hurricane Katrina still remains one of the keys to the Bush presidency. Katrina absolutely left no doubt of Bush's incompetence. When his political team doesn't have days or weeks to carefully craft a phony message, Bush is helpless. His first real reaction when the American people made known their displeasure with his performance was to behave like a bully and demand the right to call out the military the next time such a disaster hit; bullies always want more power when their incompetence is profoundly exposed.

The way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. When bullies behave like Tom DeLay (I am the government, he reportedly once said) or like the current crew in the White House, the pressure must be maintained. It might help, though, to make sure Bush begins to think about a pleasant retreat to Crawford, Texas, or if investigations begin to turn up too much material, his huge family ranch in Paraguay.

In the winter of 2007, after six years of profound recklessness and incompetence, a certain degree of urgency exists. Bush keeps talking about his historical destiny which is nonsense, of course. But Congress does have an historical obligation to check Bush's abuses of power. It's in the Constitution, a document written by people very familiar with abuses of power.

Senator Webb Shows How It's Done

One of the problems with Congress in the last six years has been the tendency by Republicans to rubber stamp the president's position. Neither Republicans nor Democrats should ever merely rubber stamp a president. Congress is a coequal branch of government and has a responsibility to the American people to discuss the issues and hold the administration accountable when the answers aren't acceptable. Hearings under Republicans became friendly games of soft ball rather than serious examinations of our nation's issues and needs. Take a look at Jim Webb's statements courtesy of Barbin Md on Daily Kos. Senator Webb isn't putting up with public relations kind of statements on serious issues.

Republicans Balking on Bush's Iraq Plans, But....

Terrell of Alone on a Limb notes that at least 12 Republicans have concerns about Bush's 'new' Iraq plan. Paul Kiel of Talking Points Memo says 7 Republicans oppose the surge and 9 express reservations but haven't made a decision.

U.S. News has more on the uneasiness of many Republicans (ellipses outside paragraphs mine):

... On Capitol Hill, the President's plan was the object of strong attacks yesterday -- from both sides of the aisle. Some reports suggest the President's support among Republicans may be quickly collapsing. The Financial Times reports Bush yesterday "cut an increasingly lonely and embattled figure as opposition Democrats and fellow Republicans greeted his 'new way forward' in Iraq with a barrage of denunciation. ... This show of Republican opposition prompted comparisons with Richard Nixon during the Vietnam era." The Times quotes an unnamed GOP "strategist" saying, "Republican support for the president is draining rapidly ... It is almost unheard of for Republicans to criticise a Republican president at war so soon after he has made an appeal for support.'" The Washington Times says that while "Republican leaders on Capitol Hill staunchly back" Bush's proposal, "support among the party's rank and file may be crumbling."

Reports in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, USA Today and New York Times reach similar conclusions this morning. Nonetheless, the White House still holds out some hope that it will be able to ride out the crisis. ...

There are two issues and they are not always stated explicitly. First is the issue of the troop escalation in Iraq. Second is the issue of a possible war with Iran and even possibly Syria. The two issues are difficult to separate since a troop surge without a regional political settlement makes a wider conflict possible.

On the one hand, it's good that a number of Republicans, particularly in the Senate, are coming around to recognizing the recklessness of the Bush Administration; on the other hand there is a record of Republicans not coming through after making public statements that they would oppose some of Bush's more irresponsible moves. Hang on to your seats. We may be in for a ride.

Democrats Pass 9/11 Legislation

By a large majority, including many Republicans, Congress passed some overdue 9/11 legislation. Here's the details from Raw Story:

A House bill (H. Res. 1) to implement recommendations suggested by the September 11th Commission passed by a vote of 299 to 128, with eight members of Congress not voting.

Just after 7:15 PM Eastern, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the bill had passed, and gaveled the end of the vote. Joining 231 Democrats were 68 Republican members of Congress.

I can't say that I know exactly who those 68 Republicans are but they are beginning the process of repairing the Republican Party; and they are taking the necessary steps to move away from the GOP's ultraconservative tilt. Their bipartisan support is welcome.

Why Nancy Pelosi Is Effective

Leaders don't just happen. Nancy Pelosi has combined years of experience, skills and good sense to become Speaker of the House. She doesn't hide behind anyone (Dennis Hastert preferred Tom DeLay in the spotlight; when DeLay left, Hastert looked slow and oafish. Republicans argue that Hastert was a Republican loyalist; true, but he became a rubber stamper to an incompetent president). Obviously, Bush and his fellow Republicans will do everything they can to throw a money wrench into the Democratic Congress. But I think we have a good crew.

Here's Harold Meyeyrson of American Prospect who has a long article on Pelosi and her recent rise in Congress:

Brilliant rhetoric isn't part of Pelosi's repertoire (few legislative leaders have been notable public speakers); neither is anger. In her speeches, she regularly precedes her recitals of Republican outrages with words like "sadly" and "tragically." The tone is one of almost motherly disappointment, and that's hardly the only aspect of Pelosi's leadership that seems shaped by a maternal sensibility. As is clear from the morning's two press conferences, Pelosi more regularly showcases her members -- including freshmen utterly unknown to the media -- than any party leader in modern memory.

"More than anyone else I know, she involves many members of the caucus on bills," says one congressional staff director. "Everybody has a role to play." Pelosi also has a crucial instinct for striking a political balance. Perhaps the most liberal Democrat ever to lead the caucus, she has cultivated a very close relationship with the more moderate party whip, Steny Hoyer of Maryland (her onetime rival in the three-year contest for the whip's position that she won in 2001), and appointed centrist budget and military-affairs expert Spratt to the newly created post of assistant to the leader.

"She is willing to lead in a way that is comfortable to me," says Stenholm. "The [fiscally conservative] Blue Dogs are listened to." On the alternative budget that the Democrats present each year, he adds, "Nancy said ... we'll find a middle ground. ... Had it been a moderate Democrat who said that, [the caucus] would have blown up. But because she had the respect of the liberals, we produced a consensus budget."

Has Pelosi moved to the right to hold the Democrats together? In fact, Pelosi has evolved much as Democratic voters evolved during the presidential primaries: toward a politics that combines populist economics with deficit hawkishness and a heavily armed multilateralism. Nearly a year before Democratic voters figured it out, Pelosi decided that the party needed unity and electability above all else.

It's probably true that Pelosi doesn't ordinarily give the best speeches but I thought she did an excellent job yesterday.

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, of course, still have to deal with the other side of the aisle and a Republican president. Republicans and their wealthy campaign donors have little to offer average Americans since veering to the right in recent years but they're good at bamboozlement. For example, after allowing unchecked six years of reckless deficit spending for Republican earmarks and even his own campaign contributors, Bush is now, suddenly, a deficit hawk. One could call Bush a hypocrite. Democrats are serious about bringing change to Washington. We'll see if the unseriousness of the Republican Party continues or whether they're ready to confront the growing problems of our nation.

More on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

No one person can turn this country around after six years of incompetence and of course Bush still has his veto power, but Nancy Pelosi is definitely a step in the right direction. Since there's nothing like the in-depth coverage of a home town newspaper, here's Edward Epstein of the San Francisco Chronicle with the story on Nancy Pelosi:

Pelosi, upon her election about this morning, became the first Californian and the first San Franciscan to head the 435-member lower house of Congress.

Quoting St. Francis of Assisi, San Francisco's patron saint, Pelosi said, "Lord, make me a channel of thy peace; where there is darkness may we bring light, where there is hatred, may we bring love, and where there is despair, may we bring hope."

Pelosi, 66, married for 43 years with five grown children and six grandchildren, thanked her family for giving her "the confidence they gave me to go from the kitchen to the Congress."

(snip)

"I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship," a beaming Pelosi told her colleagues. "In this House, we may belong to different parties, but we serve one country."

(snip)

Singer and fellow Italian American Tony Bennett, who once left his heart in San Francisco, joined the opening of Congress in the visitor's gallery...

(snip)

"People have lost their career underestimating Nancy Pelosi,'' said Michael Yaki, a former Pelosi aide and San Francisco supervisor. "They mistake her patience for complacency, kindness for competitive instinct and a willingness to share credit with not holding the reins tightly."

Pelosi grew up in politics. Her father was a first-term member of the House, and a dedicated New Deal Democrat, when she was born on March 26, 1940, in Baltimore. When she was 7, her father, Thomas D'Alesandro Jr., won the first of three terms as mayor of Baltimore.

Let's hope Nancy Pelosi does well. After the do-nothing years of Dennis Hastert, she's sure to be an improvement as Speaker of the House.

Democrats Take Control; Bush Games Continue

Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker today with the swing towards the Democrats as a result of the November election. Difficult times are still ahead because of Bush's radical right wing agenda has not abated despite the call by voters for change. Bush still has the veto and an itch for the spotlight despite his long series of blunders.

But let's hope the Democrats can get some real work done after six years of Republican do-nothingism. For an outside perspective, here's the story from the British newspaper, The Guardian:

A new era was proclaimed in Washington today as the Democratic party recaptured control of both houses of Congress after 12 years on the sidelines of power.

"The Democrats are back," exulted Nancy Pelosi, who went on to make history this afternoon when she was sworn in as the first woman to become speaker of the House of Representatives.

(snip)

Amid the celebratory mood among Democrats today, the official message from Ms Pelosi as well as the new Democratic Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, was about cooperation with their Republican opponents. But the limits of bipartisanship were made starkly apparent when Ms Pelosi signalled that George Bush, who had a Republican House and Senate in his first six years in the White House, would face new and energised opposition.

"Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in Iraq. The American people rejected an open-ended obligation to a war without end," Ms Pelosi said.

When it makes sense, the Democrats will work with Bush in a bipartisan manner but he has little interest in listening to the Democrats despite the will of the voters. In the current environment therefore, it is the job of the opposition to oppose. More important, it's the job of Congress to take its place as a co-equal branch of government, fulfilling its role in the checks and balances that a true democracy must have if it is to remain healthy and strong. Republicans in the last six years were too anxious to give Bush a free pass and they often neglected their responsibilities to the American people.

Bush's reckless incompetence remains intact and his love of politics continues to do harm to our nation. Instead of dealing with the reality of Iraq, Bush today is firing the generals he so lavishly praised not long ago; Raw Story has the details:

In what appears to be a military shakeup surrounding Iraq, President Bush has replaced both the top US general in the Middle East and the top General in Iraq, ABC NEWS is reporting on air.

Admiral William J. Fallon will replace Gen. John Abizaid, US commander in the Middle East... ...

(snip)

According to a Kansas City Star article published Dec. 24, "Commanders have been skeptical of the value of increasing troops. The decision represents a reversal for Casey, the highest-ranking officer in Iraq. Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East, have long resisted adding troops in Iraq,

David Petraeus will replace General George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq. Casey originally opposed the President's plan to add troops in Iraq, arguing it could delay "the development of Iraqi security forces and increase anger at the United States in the Arab world."

Apparently, George W. Bush still thinks he knows what he's doing despite the judgment of the report released by the Iraq Study Group. Except when it comes to playing political games, there is no evidence to date that Bush knows what he's doing. For now, the fiasco continues.

The new Congress should do everything it can to get the president to explain himself. Near the end of the month, Bush will be giving his State of the Union address to Congress; it will also be the job of Congress to make sure the president isn't simply handing them a work of fiction.

Bush 'Stays the Course': More Talk, No Plan

President George W. Bush held another press conference on Wednesday and left little doubt he's in need of adult supervision. Not only has he been less than truthful about the cookies he's taken from the cookie jar, he's at risk of burning the house down.

The voters have voted and Bush still thinks he has some sort of mandate. After the election, Bush talked briefly about bipartisanship but has spent most of the time being petulant and combative and well, somewhat delusional. James Baker's report has everiscerated Bush's rosy picture of Iraq and Bush still thinks if he can have one more deal of the cards he can get it right this time. While refusing to even consider major diplomatic efforts which are usually required in situations like this, Bush wants to increase the troops in Iraq by playing musical chairs one more time with our over-stretched military.

While most rubber stampers of the famous 109th do-nothing Republican Congress squirm uncomfortably about what to do in Iraq, an increasing number of Republicans are looking the facts square in the eye along with the Democrats and saying it's time to wind down our affairs in Iraq before too much more damage is done. We need to take care of our military more than we need to nurse the Iraqis to do want they need to do themselves; there's no use pretending that Bush knows how to cure a civil war he caused in the first place with more military intervention. At this point, we need diplomacy, redeployment and a political solution.

Senator Harry Reid is growing impatient with Bush's games as we read in The Raw Story:

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a statement after the president's last press confence of the year, which blasted Bush for not understanding the need for "urgent change" in Iraq.

"It is heartening to see that President Bush has reversed his position, rejected the failed Rumsfeld doctrine, and heeded Democratic calls to increase the size of the military," Reid stated. "Unfortunately, it is troubling to see that he still does not understand the need for urgent change in Iraq."

"The President seems lost within his own rhetoric," Reid's statement continued. ...

Lost within his own rhetoric. That describes the Decider-in-Chief quite well. It's time for Bush to get a grip on reality.

Steve Soto of The Left Coaster has more to say:

I had previously argued that the Democratic leadership should work to create a bipartisan congressional foreign policy agenda as a counterpoint to the White House. As Bush publicly blows off the generals on whether he will escalate Iraq by another 20,000-40,000 troops, does this issue have the potential to be the Democrats’ blunt instrument against the Bush Administration at the start of the new Congress? I think it does.

We hear that the generals and the Joint Chiefs are against the escalation. We are seeing signs that Republicans up for reelection in 2008 are at best hesitant and at worst opposed to the escalation. Just today, Minnesota GOP Senator Norm Coleman has come out against the escalation, and supposedly Maine’s Susan Collins is questioning it as well. How many GOP senators and House members who are up for reelection in 2008 will support an escalation? ...

Read the rest of Steve Soto's post and his suggestions on how Congress should handle Bush; it makes sense to me, particularly if, in the next two weeks, Bush doesn't do a great deal more to acknowledge the need for significant changes. He's dithered enough. Think back to Hurricane Katrina and think of how out of touch Bush was and how slow to react. Multiply that by ten. That's where we are. We have a president who thinks he can blow off the voters, the Democrats, the generals and reality.

The Secretary of State: Competence, Incompetence and a Dose of Hypocrisy

It's interesting to watch the various figures of the Bush Administration continue to talk as if anyone still talks their nonsense seriously. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group (5 Republicans, 5 Democrats) led by Republican James Baker has shattered any remaining illusions that we're winning in Iraq or that 'staying the course' is somehow going to work. 'Staying the course' has been repackaged so many times by the Bush team that everyone now recognizes it as the clunker it so obviously is. And every time Bush comes up with a new reason why we're in Iraq, after the latest reason has fallen apart, it just makes everybody's eyes roll.

It was ludicrous to hear Dick Cheney describe Donald Rumsfeld as the greatest Secretary of Defense ever and I intended to write about that until I came across a few things Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had to say. Here's the story by Reuters on Yahoo News:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has rejected a bipartisan panel's recommendation that the Bush administration engage Syria and Iran in efforts to stabilize Iraq, The Washington Post reported on Friday.

The "compensation" required for any such deal might be too high, Rice told the paper in an interview.

Rice said she did not want to trade away Lebanese sovereignty to Syria or allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon as a price for peace in Iraq, the Post reported.

She also argued that neither Syria nor Iran should need incentives to help achieve stability in Iraq, the Post reported.

"If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they will do it anyway," Rice said.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group included talks with Iran and Syria among its key recommendations it presented to the White House last week for dealing with the worsening chaos in Iraq.

Oh, where to begin! When Rice talks about the notions that Syria and Iran 'should not need incentives to help achieve stability in Iraq,' she omits that both countries sought to improve relations early in the Bush's first term and were actually helpful in dealing with al Qaida. But they were rebuffed by President Bush on more than one occassion early on.

In addition, Bush has vaguely threatened military action against Syria and Iran and Bush's friends on the far right have been even more vocal, even going so far as to call for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran; much of Bush's attitude seems based on an idea of Syria and Iran that goes back ten to thirty years instead of dealing in the terms of this era.

If Bush or Condi Rice are serious about real negotiations, they have to back off one or two steps from a threat posture and then knock off the phony preconditions for talks. In addition, Bush has yet to declare to the Iraqis that we do intend to leave, and sooner than later.

By sending more troops, Bush is likely to increase the tensions in the Middle East; he has sent more troops in the past without result and there is nothing to suggest that this time he has some answers to his fiasco. Just to be clear, let me be blunt for a moment: our military could kill 2 million Iraqis in the next year and it would not change the outcome; if anything, it would potentially lead to a broad regional war. Too many blunders have been made. At this point, we don't need a military solution so much as we need a political solution. Political solutions require talks. Political talks require the full use of all our foreign policy tools. Those tools have been neglected or poorly used in the past six years. There are dozens of qualified people, even qualified Republicans, who are waiting for their talents to be used. It's time for Bush and Condi Rice to utilize them.

The main problem I have with Condi Rice is her arrogant incompetence. As the national security adviser to Bush, she missed the terrorist threat from al Qaida and the broader stateless terrorism problem. And even before she became Secretary of State, she was personally doing a poor job of improving relations with Russia, an area she's supposed to be an expert on. Then, this last summer, instead of working hard and long to defuse the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, she went to the Middle East to give, of all things, a piano recital! Her blather about not giving away some of Lebanon's sovereignty is a ridiculous straw man as an objection to serious negotiations with Syria, and it's unhelpful that she even talks like that; but it's important to note that Bush's unwilling to defuse this summer's mini-war did far more serious damage to Lebanon than any concession regarding Lebanon that might conceivably be given to Syria, and the Lebanese are not happy about it.

I'm a Democrat with certain principles and I won't pretend that James Baker was perfect but he was a successful Secretary of State and was far more competent than Dr. Rice; for her to dismiss the analysis and advice of the Iraq Study Group suggests she's just as delusional as the president. When you're in trouble, when you have almost no accomplishments to your name, it's time to lose the arrogance. Rumsfeld may be gone but Republicans in Congress should think long and hard about continuing to support Bush, Cheney and Rice. The members of the Bush inner circle are in danger of going from reckless incompetence to a sullen ideological stubbornness that will continue to do enormous damage to our nation in the continued pursuit of a war that we all know was optional. The excuses, the posturing and the blame need to come to an end.

The voters sent a powerful message to Bush in November and it's not clear that he's gotten the message. As long as Bush has the veto, there is a limit to what Democrats can do in the next two years. Two years is a long time. Not many Americans fully understand it yet, but our nation is in crisis. Unless Bush changes course in a serious way instead of pursuing the same failed foreign policy, we're heading for a deeper crisis; instead of admitting their blunders, some neocons and right wingers are insisting on a broader war despite the fact they haven't been right about very much.

If you're up to your waist in quicksand, it's time to stop digging. Bush's foreign policy experiment is a failure. It's time to return to the more successful policies of the last sixty years, the policies in fact that made us the leader of the free world and therefore strong.

Condi Rice's loyalty to the president would be admirable if Bush were running a small company somewhere, but her loyalty is hurting the nation. If she can't face Bush's failures, she needs to resign. Or she needs to face the facts and talk to the president. Simply put, it's time for Bush to pull back from the abyss. If he won't do it, Congress must exert its constitutional responsibilities.