George W. Bush » Undiplomatic

1 December 2008 Charles J. Brown
03:32 pm

Now He Tells Us

Tonight ABC will run a new Charlie Gibson interview with Dubya (full transcript here). Apparently, our President-in-name-only has finally found the portion of his brain called “regret,” and is ready to admit what the rest of us figured out oh, say, SEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO:

GIBSON: What were you most unprepared for?

BUSH: Well, I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn’t campaign and say, “Please vote for me, I’ll be able to handle an attack.” In other words, I didn’t anticipate war. Presidents — one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen.

GIBSON: You said you were not going to be in the business of nation-building. And so much of what you had to do was nation-building.

BUSH: Well, what I said was, in the course of a debate, I said the military shouldn’t be used to build nations. In this case, it turns out the military, in my judgment, was needed to remove threats to our security, and after that removal, the military, as well as our diplomatic corps, needed to help rebuild after tyrannical situations. . . .

GIBSON: You’ve always said there’s no do-overs as President. If you had one?

BUSH: I don’t know — the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that’s not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

You guess? You guess? Oh. My. God. I don’t even know where to start.

For someone firmly convinced that history will absolve him, Bush certainly seems to have forgotten that history is particularly unforgiving when you admit that you’ve completely screwed up.

Every time I think that Bush can’t sink any lower, he finds a new way to make himself look like an idiot. Too bad Gibson didn’t ask him to explain the Bush Doctrine. Something tells me he would have been more in the dark than Sarah Palin.

Goldsmith’s Tortured Apologia

I’m surprised that I have seen absolutely nothing in the blogosphere about Jack Goldsmith’s piece in today’s WaPo, which argues that the Obama Administration should forgive and forget when it comes to the Bush Administration’s torture policies:

[Both prosecution and a bipartisan commission are] bad ideas. They would bring little benefit, and they would further weaken the Justice Department and the CIA in ways that would compromise our security. . . .

Second-guessing lawyers’ wartime decisions under threat of criminal and ethical sanctions may sound like a good idea to those who believe those lawyers went too far in the fearful days after Sept. 11, 2001. But the greater danger now is that lawyers will become excessively cautious in giving advice and will substitute predictions of political palatability for careful legal judgment. . . .

When the CIA was asked to engage in aggressive tactics early in the Bush administration, it knew from bitter experience that the political winds would change and that it might be subject to “retroactive discipline.” And so it sought approval from the president and his Cabinet, informed congressional leadership many times about what it was doing and got what it thought were airtight legal opinions from the Justice Department.

But these safeguards failed, and the CIA is once again mired in investigation and controversy. The lesson learned by many at the agency is that politically sensitive counterterrorism actions should be avoided, even if they are deemed legal and even if they have the express approval of political officials. We are going to be living with this skittishness for a long time, to the detriment of our security.

Yet another round of investigations during the Obama administration, even by a bipartisan commission, would exacerbate this problem. It would also bring little benefit. The people in government who made mistakes or who acted in ways that seemed reasonable at the time but now seem inappropriate have been held publicly accountable by severe criticism, suffering enormous reputational and, in some instances, financial losses. Little will be achieved by further retribution.

Jack Goldsmith emerged as a hero among critics of the current Administration’s torture policies, largely as a result of his tenure as head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. During his brief time there, Goldsmith stood up to David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, and Dick Cheney by withdrawing John Yoo’s infamous 2002 memo, which had redefined torture as physical suffering “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury” or mental suffering that had to “result in signifcant psychological harm. . .lasting for months and years.” Goldsmith deserves significant credit for his courage, and for writing The Terror Presidency, which described in detail his efforts to rein in Addington, Gonzales, and, ultimately, Cheney and Bush.

But he’s dead wrong to suggest that an Obama Administration should forget the past.

The first thing that struck me about Goldsmith’s piece is that, other than the headline (which most likely was written by someone at WaPo, not Goldsmith himself), he bends over backwards not to use the word “torture”: Instead, he uses a number of increasingly ridiculous euphemisms: “what many view as the Bush administration’s harsh, abusive and illegal interrogation program,” “interrogation and related programs,” “wartime decisions,” “aggressive tactics,” “politically sensitive counterterrorism actions,” “mistakes” and “ways that seemed reasonable at the time but now seem inappropriate.”

Goldsmith apparently can’t bring himself to admit that the Bush Administration actually tortured people. It’s not hard to recognize the reason for his reluctance: prior to becoming Assistant Attorney General, Goldsmith held other posts, including in the Office of the General Counsel in the Pentagon. Despite his decision to withdraw the Yoo memo, he could face legal jeopardy should any future investigation recommend prosecution. So, as he himself acknowledges, it is in his interest to argue against any investigation.

But there are greater problems with Goldsmith’s arguments than merely self-interest. The first is his suggestion that “Second-guessing lawyers’ wartime decisions under threat of criminal and ethical sanctions may sound like a good idea to those who believe those lawyers went too far in the fearful days after Sept. 11, 2001.” The irony, of course, is that it was Goldsmith himself who was one of the first to second-guess Addington and Yoo. His June 14, 2004 decision to withdraw Yoo’s memo was the beginning of the end of the Bush Administration’s unfettered license to do as it saw fit with those it detained. For Goldsmith now to suggest that others should not do what he already did is at best inconsistent and at worst, smacks of a cover up of other memos or actions that have not yet seen the light of day.

The second is Goldsmith’s attempt to further muddy the waters by suggesting that current investigations by Congress, Justice, and the CIA should also look at Congress’s role and potential illegalities approved under the Clinton Administration. Although I agree with Goldsmith that Clinton-era officials must be held accountable for approving the rendition of drug offenders, it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that the policies of the Clinton Administration should be put on the same footing as those of its successor. To assign equal weight to Clinton- and Bush-era policies is not unlike suggesting that someone who smokes pot occasionally should be subjected to the same level of accountability as a drug kingpin.

The third and by far most significant problem with Goldsmith’s piece is his suggestion that any investigation and/or prosecution would lead “many government lawyers to be more risk averse and politically sensitive than ever. . . .The lesson learned by many at the [CIA] is that politically sensitive counterterrorism actions should be avoided, even if they are deemed legal and even if they have the express approval of political officials. We are going to be living with this skittishness for a long time, to the detriment of our security.”

To begin with, Goldsmith’s argument that government lawyers might be more “risk averse” and “politically sensitive” in the future ignores the fact that Bush-era lawyers (with the exception of Alberto Mora and Goldsmith himself) did what they did because they didn’t want the wrath of Cheney, Addington, and Gonzales brought down on their heads. They understood that challenging the Administration’s stated determination to shred existing laws prohibiting torture and war crimes would quickly end their careers as government lawyers.

Such fears weren’t unfounded. In some cases, such as that of Jesselyn Radack, who challenged the some of Administration’s actions during the detention of “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh, the Administration not only pushed people out of government, but tried to blackball them with potential future employers. In Radack’s case, they even put her on the no-fly list.

To put it another way, part of the problem with what happened over the past eight years is that so many lawyers were exactly what Goldsmith suggests they shouldn’t be: utterly risk averse and politically sensitive. They didn’t speak out because they feared the consequences. It’s not like Goldsmith didn’t understand this — he submitted his letter of resignation two days after he decided to withdraw Yoo’s memo and, in all likelihood, before he could be fired.

Goldsmith’s concern about limiting the ability of the CIA to conduct “politically sensitive counterterrorism operations” is equally supect. Since Nuremberg, “legality” has never been a sufficent defense for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The reality is that senior CIA officials were just as unwilling to stand up to the Administration’s desire to torture those in its custody. In fact, some in the Agency, including Cofer Black, were eager to “take the gloves off” long before Yoo started drafting memoranda.

And as the recent controversy over the possible appointment of John Brennan to serve as CIA Director demonstrates, even those not directly involved in policy decisions are now viewed as accountable merely for being in the room when some of these decisions were discussed.

In the end, Goldsmith’s arguments simply don’t stand up to closer scrutiny. They represent little more than a weak apologia for policies that he may slowed but nonetheless did not stop. In fact, had Goldsmith stayed (and, in fairness, had he not been fired), he would have had to draft a replacement for the memo he withdrew. Chances are that he would have drafted something not unlike that put forward by Dan Levin, his successor, which stated that the CIA could not be held criminally responsible for actions authorized by the Yoo memo.

It really is a shame that Goldsmith has chosen to tarnish his reputation by trying to protect the very people whom he once so courageously opposed.

Note: As is usually the case when it comes to questions of the Bush Administration’s torture policies, Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side was indespensible in helping me reconstruct time lines and roles.

Headline of the Day

From Think Progress:

What’s on tap today: Obama to address economy, Bush to pardon Turkey

That about captures it.

Deciding Not to Shake Hands

So a video clip from the G-20 meeting last weeking is making the rounds on the progosphere this morning:

Some are suggesting that world leaders were unwilling to shake Bush’s hand. I don’t think that’s true: it is Bush who is refusing to shake others’ hands. Watch it again — he makes no effort at all. Contrast that with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who follows him.

Contrary to what the CNN anchor suggests, Bush doesn’t look like the most unpopular kid in his class but rather an angry loner unwilling to engage with others. I expect such antisocial behavior from a World of Warcraft-playing, thrash metal-listening 16-year-old, but not from the putative leader of the free world.

One other thing: I find CNN mocking Bush a bit disingenous. They are, after all, the same network that spent the past eight years uncritically repeating Bush Administration’s lies line on everything from Iraq to torture.

It’s times like this that I start thinking that CNN is worse than Fox New: no matter what you might think of them, you can’t accuse Fox of inconsistency: they adhere to a conservative line no matter who is in power. CNN, in contrast, sucks up to whichever party is in power. That’s self-censorship, not journalism.

UPDATE: Thanks to Undip reader Ross, who points out that somehow I managed to mistake President Lula of Brazil for Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. I have no idea why — it’s not like they even remotely resemble one another.

Cuba Si? Not on Dubya’s Watch

With only a couple of months left before the Bush Administration gets indicted leaves office, I was wondering whether Dubya would launch any last-minute foreign policy initiatives. Doing so would not be unprecedented — eight years ago, Clinton spent a lot of his time trying to secure Middle East peace.

According to Jim Hoagland in this morning’s WaPo, Bush isn’t interested in similar efforts, shooting down a proposal by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to reach out to Cuba and Iran.

Unlike Hoagland, I think that is a mistake, particularly in the case of Cuba.

Someone (sorry — I can’t find the reference) once said that the best time to open the door to Cuba would be during the second term of a Republican president. The current transition to a new President makes even more sense. Given the fact that every President since Kennedy has been captive to the electoral influence of Florida’s Cuban exile community, the best way to break the cycle is to take action when there’s little or no impact on politics. And it’s not like the move would hurt Republican prospects — Cuban-American Members of Congress (and the 2012 Republican nominee) could condemn Bush’s decision.

I have no illusions about the Castros — in the early 1990s, I spent a year documenting the Castro regime’s use of psychiatric techniques (such as electro-convulsive therapy) to torture dissidents. But I share President-elect Obama’s view that the best way to secure change in rogue regimes is through engagement. The decades-old U.S. policy of isolating Cuba has failed to bring down the Castro regime and has done little to encourage domestic Cuban opposition. In fact, the current embargo only gives the Castros greater legitimacy in the eyes of average Cubans.

It’s been nearly twenty years since the Berlin Wall fell. Most Americans — and even most policymakers — no longer think that isolating Cuba makes any sense. It’s no longer a “Soviet aircraft carrier off the shores of Florida,” and it isn’t even the greatest challenge to American influence in Latin America (that dubious honor now belongs to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela).

Rice’s mistake may have been attempting to move directly to the idea of formally recognizing the Castro regime. According to Hoagland, Rice sent a team of senior diplomats to explore the that possibility a year ago. I agree with Hoagland that doing so would have represented moving too quickly and would have severely limited President-elect Obama’s options.

But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t steps that Bush could take to improve U.S.-Cuban relations. The first, and least politically costly, would be to end the current rule preventing Cuban-Americans from sending remittances to their Cuban relatives. Even the Cuban American National Foundation, the most vocal (and politically powerful) advocate of sustaining the embargo, has said it would support the change.

The second would be to seek an agreement with the Castros to permit more extensive cultural exchanges (including journalists). One of the most effective components of American public diplomacy during the Cold War was a series of exchanges that brought Soviet artists to the United States and sent American artists to tour the Soviet Union. The program helped give Soviet citizens an entirely different view of life in the United States than what they were seeing in Soviet propaganda. (The Soviets also recognized the value of such exchanges, and used them for the same purpose.)

The third would be to end the embargo and permit U.S.-Cuban trade. Allowing the flow of American goods into the country would do much to increase Cuban citizens’ opinion of the United States and end one of the Castro brothers’ most effective arguments against improved relations.

These measures would go a long way toward ending the freeze in Cuban-American relations without undermining the underlying policy — that the Cuban people deserve the opportunity to choose their own government. It also would do harm to Chavez and others who like to argue that the United States is only interested in advancing its neocolonialist policies.

So why would Bush oppose such efforts, even when they involve no apparent cost? The answer has nothing to do with Hoagland’s view that any reassessment of Cuban policy should be left to the next Administration and everything to do with politics: Jeb Bush may still think he can run for President in four years. Given Dubya’s current unpopularity, that certainly looks like the longest of long shots. But President Bush is unlikely to do anything now that would undermine his brother’s popularity in a key Republican constituency.

Transition Watch: Iraq

So we now have a Status of Forces Agreeement, and the Bush Administration already is arguing — as if anyone cares anymore — that the 2011 withdrawal date is nothing more than an aspirational timetable. Here’s Dana Perino during yesterday’s press briefing (h/t Think Progress):

QUESTION: The President has said for months that he opposes any timetable and that any decision should be based on the conditions on the ground. How much is the latest agreement a departure, if not a repudiation?

PERINO: [W]hen you work with a partner on a negotiation, you have to concede some points. One of the points that we conceded was that we would establish these aspirational dates.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. . . Oh Dana, you’re such a joker. Really, stop it.

Please.

Given the fact that events in Iraq are not exactly standing still, the Bush Administration’s continued delusional thinking does point to the need for the Obama team to start making clear its positions. That, in turn, means they must already have started to think not just about who’s going into the top jobs, but also who will fill the key jobs related to Iraq:

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq

Yes, it will matter who gets the top jobs at State and Defense (and yes, several of the State jobs may go to career foreign service officers), but I find it odd that nobody in the MSM media seems to be paying any attention to such questions.

Given the fact that Hillary get the top post at State and Robert Gates be asked to stay on at Defense, this is an especially pertinent question. Last I checked, Gates still favors aggressively prosecuting the war and Hillary hasn’t ever apologized for her vote on the authorization resolution.

I mean if you’re going to put a pair of hawks in charge, it might be useful to make sure that someone like Ken Pollack doesn’t end up as A/S for NEA or U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.

Thought of the Day

All those “1.20.09″ bumper stickers have taken on a whole new meaning since Tuesday.

Powell, Obama, and Torture

There’s word today from numerous sources that Colin Powell will go on Meet the Press this Sunday and endorse Barack Obama. The Obama campaign certainly isn’t doing anything to discourage the speculation:

Today Obama spokesperson Linda Douglas said she has no news on the Powell front, but the campaign would obviously love an endorsement. ”We would welcome the support of somebody with such a distinguished and honorable career as General Powell,” she told me this morning, as Obama’s plane flew to Virginia for a rally. Obama has previously cited Powell as a potential member of his administration, and the two have been in touch before. “I know they talk from time to time about foreign policy matters,” Douglas said, though she did not know the last time they spoke. Powell is widely viewed as a thoughtful public servant who carries credibility (and experience) in both parties.

Quite a few folks in the progosphere think Powell endorsing Obama would be a great thing. I’m not so sure.

Like many others, I had a great deal of respect for Powell before he joined the Bush Administration. His story was a compelling one and his service was largely distinguished. In 1996, Powell chose, for a variety of reasons, not to run for President. Had he done so, he very well might have defeated Clinton. Instead, he remained on the sidelines until Dubya asked him to serve as Secretary of State.

These days, Powell is often viewed as a tragic figure, largely because of his 2003 presentation at the UN Security Council during the Administration’s push for war with Iraq. According to Powell, he was duped by the CIA, who convinced Powell that the intelligence behind his presentation was unimpeachable. Powell then went out and made the case for war.

Thirty months later, Powell told Tim Russert that the CIA had misled him, using intelligence based on discredited sources. Since then, conventional wisdom has given Powell the benefit of the doubt. Many commentators regard his statement that he had been misled as the same thing as an apology:

Private warnings cannot cancel out Powell’s hawkish presentation to the U.N., but unlike so many war cheerleaders in politics and the media, he owned up to his mistakes. On national television, Powell called the U.N. address a “blot” on his record.

Fair enough — everyone makes mistakes, and to his credit, Powell has acknowledged (or at least gave the appearance of acknowledging) that he was wrong. Second chances are the American way, and certainly a Powell endorsement of Obama would represent an open repudiation not only of his friend John McCain, but also of the Administration for whom he worked.

There’s just one small problem. Powell’s testimony before the UNSC was only the second biggest “blot” on his record.

The biggest was, and is, his tacit support for torture. If, as the Nuremberg tribunals established, knowledge is complicity, then Colin Powell is guilty of war crimes. And unlike Iraq, he’s never apologized for his role in helping to shred the Constitution, ignore the Convention against Torture, and trash the Geneva Conventions.

Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s what Jane Mayer has to say in The Dark Side:

Bush also knew about, and approved of, White House meetings in which his top cabinet members were briefed by the CIA on its plan to use specific “enhanced” interrogation techniques on various high-value detainees. The meetings were chaired by Rice. . . . The participants were members of the Principals Committee, the five Bush cabinet members who handled national security matters: Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, CIA Director Tenet, and Attorney General Ashcroft.

Knowing how the Agency had been blamed for ostensible “rogue” actions in the past, Tenet was eager to spread the political risk of undertaking “enhanced interrogations.” However, some members of the group became irritated with Tenet’s insistence upon airing the grim details. “The CIA already had legal clearance to do these things,” a knowledgable source said, “and so it was pointless for them to keep sharing the details. No one was going to question their decisions. . . . It’s not as if any of the principals were debating the policy — that was already set. They wanted to go to the limit that the law required. . . .”

There is no indication. . .that any Bush cabinet members objected to the policy. [emphasis added]

As Mayer acknowledges, Powell did object quite strongly to Bush’s decision to suspend the Geneva Conventions. But he did not make those concerns public or threaten to resign. He merely accepted the outcome and soldiered on. It is only at the time of Abu Ghraib (and the first media reports of John Yoo’s infamous August 2002 “torture memo”), Mayer notes that Powell (along with Rice) began to express qualms:

After reading the torture memo itself for the first time in the newspapers, Rice and Powell confronted Gonzales together and furiously insisted that there be “no more secret opinions on international and national security law.” Their righteous anger seemed somewhat undercut by reports that Tenet had provided graphic details of specific coercive interrogations during the Principals Committee meetings while both were present. And while they directed their frustration at Gonzales, neither had the temerity to confront Cheney, who clearly was the true source of these policies. [emphasis added]

Colin Powell passively assented to torture. Although he occasionally raised concerns, there is no evidence that he threatened to resign — as Ashcroft and others did over the issue of domestic wiretapping. He sat in meetings and listened as George Tenet offered graphic descriptions of torture committed by U.S. government officials — and never once objected, other than to complain that Tenet’s statements were unnecessary, given the fact that the President already had authorized torture.

As was the case with his presentation at the United Nations, he accepted what he heard and did as he was told. Only later, after the Yoo memo and the Abu Ghraib scandal became public, did he begin to object — and then only to ask if there were any other memos he should know about. At no time did he confront Cheney or Bush, threaten to go public, or quit in protest.

Later on, after he was once again a private citizen, Powell did raise concerns about the Administration’s policies, writing in 2006 to John McCain to express his opposition to proposed rules on Military Commissions:

In his letter to McCain, Powell said the effort to “redefine” the article was “inconsistent” with his previous opposition to the use of torture. “The world,” he wrote, “is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.” . . .

Powell declined yesterday to address Bush’s comments. “To say that we want to modify, clarify or redefine Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions], which has not been modified for the 57 years of its history, I think adds to the doubt” about U.S. morality, he said. “Plus I believe that the legitimate concerns that the administration has can be dealt with in other ways.”

The problem, of course, is that there is no public record during Powell’s tenure as Secretary of State of his “previous opposition to the use of torture.” In his letter to McCain, Powell makes it clear that his objection is not with the underlying policy, but rather the tactics around the military commission. That is not exactly taking a stand in the face of evil or speaking truth to power.

Silence in the face of evil is assent. In the eyes of the law, it’s called conspiracy. At best, Powell’s actions — both in regard to Iraq and to torture — show a lack of critical thinking. At worst, they demonstrate profound moral cowardice.

So pardon me if I’m not thrilled at the notion of Powell endorsing Barack Obama.

Thought of the Morning

Why isn’t John McCain (or Barack Obama or anyone else for that matter) demanding that President Bush fire Henry “Captain Crisismaker” Paulson? Or for the resignation of Ben “Wingman” Bernanke?

Christopher Cox may have been culpable in helping create the conditions for this mess, but given the fact that we’re facing a crisis of confidence in liquidity, not liquidity, most of the blame falls on the Bailout Twins.

B-H-H-B

Not a chemical formula. Merely the first initials of arguably the four worst Presidents in history.

Buchanan

Harding

Hoover

Bush

Light blogging over the balance of the afternoon.

Bush Agonistes

Psst. Don’t tell anybody — Barack Obama is. . .wait for it. . .a liberal. I know, I know. Who’da thunk?

From a post yesterday by Rich “Starburst” Lowry:

If Obama is elected, won’t we have our most left-wing government ever? Obama is to the left of FDR and LBJ, Democrats who existed in a different world, prior to the cultural revolution in the Democratic party. Carter and Clinton both ran as, and had records as, Southern moderates. …on the face of it this would be the most left-wing government ever, no? Am I missing something?

I want some of what he’s smoking. Looks like it makes you paranoid, though. Fortunately, Andrew Sullivan is on the case:

Only the last eight years. Have you seen the deficit? Have you seen the nationalization of the financial sector? The occupation of foreign lands in order to democratize them? The Medicare prescription drug entitlement? Have you checked government spending? Have you seen the growth of earmarks? Yes: Obama is prepared to tolerate legal abortion and doesn’t want to strip gay couples of all rights - as in every other developed country in the West. But under Bush, the abortion regime remained in place and gay couples got legally married in Massachusetts and California - and in several countries around the world.

The reality is that George W. Bush has exceeded even the wingnuts’ fever dreams of what a Democratic administration would bring: he’s destroyed the military, nationalized the economy, stolen civil liberties, isolated America in the world, and amassed the worst deficits ever.

Oh. My. God. I get it now.

George Bush is the nightmare liberal leftist Democrat that the conservatives have been warning us about for the past fifty years. I wonder why we haven’t seen any emails describing him as the Anti-Christ?

Well thank God we got that out of the way. Now maybe we can elect a President who can fix all those disastrous policies. Unfortunately, at least for the conservanauts, it’s Barack Obama. But shhhhh. Don’t tell Lowry and company. They are, as Hilzoy noted, too busy frolicking in their own cognitive dissonance to care.

This is delusional. It would be interesting to ask, for instance, why so few of Obama’s law students have come forward to talk about his attempt to transform them into Maoist cadres, or why the lawyers in his firm have not mentioned his commitment to cultural revolution, or how he has managed to conceal his desire to nationalize the means of production from, well, everyone. Was he secretly plotting to get asked, unexpectedly, to speak at the Democratic Convention, take a chance on running for President, and succeed, back when he was on the Harvard Law Review? That, plus absolutely iron self-control, might explain why no one caught a glimpse of Obama’s secret radicalism: he has been concealing it for decades, the better to bore away at our bourgeois institutions.

There’s only one problem with that hypothesis: if Obama were as stealthy as that, if he had lived a secret life for decades, completely concealing his inner Maoist, he would never, ever have blown his cover by getting on a board with William Ayers.

Maybe The Corner should be renamed The Cargo Cult Corner.

Quote of the Day

David Weigel, reviewing David Zucker’s An American Carol, explains why “conservative comedy” doesn’t work:

David Zucker['s] goals here are as partisan, zealous, and transparent as Warren Beatty’s when he made Reds, or John Travolta’s when he made Battlefield Earth. . . .

Political comedy mocks authority. Conservative comedy in the Age of Bush venerates authority. . . . If you transported Zucker back to 1978 and pitched him Animal House, he’d direct Niedermeyer: Man of Iron.

Morning Haikus

Nancy partisan?
Republicans are angry!
Those whiny dillweeds.

;

Boehner or McCain. . .
Who is the bigger dillweed?
Best to pick them both.

;

Could Bush be any
More inconsequential? No!
Worst prez ever? Yes!

;

Bernanke, Paulson
Believe the sky is falling.
Confidence plummets.

Prosecuting Those Responsible for War Crimes

Over at TPM Cafe, Jane Mayer, author of The Dark Side, asks the same question that I’ve been asking:

While both McCain and Obama have spoken out against torture, neither has spelled out what he plans to do about holding Bush Administration officials accountable who may have committed or authorized crimes. Understandably, this is a toxic subject, reeking of political payback. But I have personally interviewed CIA officers who have said they refused to partake in the “enhanced interrogation” program because they feared that eventually it would lead to criminal charges. They had seen this happen before, and wanted nothing to do with it, even if it meant in some instances, leaving the CIA. The threat of prosecution clearly acted as a deterrent.

My question is what happens if there is no accountability for America’s first program of state-authorized torture? Does it send a green light to torture again when the next attack takes place? Is it an invitation to other forms of lawlessness by the U.S. Government? But, if top officials of the Bush Administration who were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the country’s security, are now prosecuted, is that just? Will the public support it? Particularly if Obama is elected, wont this become exhibit A that the Democrats are soft on terrorism, and members of the “Blame-America-First” Club?

. . . [O]n a morning when accountability seems to have evaporated in the financial world - I’d like to know what we do about accountability at the top of our government for authorizing the abuse- and in some cases the killing of U.S.-held prisoners, all of which were criminal until the day before 9/11.

My answer is that we need to prosecute everyone responsible, from Bush down to the CIA agents, military interrogators, and even translators and medical personnel who participated. It is not political payback, but justice — let us not forget the fundamental principle that came out of Nuremberg: “I was just following orders” is no excuse for participation in heinous acts.

I suspect that the American people are going to want the Bushies held accountable for everything they’ve done, and that Republicans, who have spent so much time and effort lately running away from their President, will not be in a position to defend him or any of those responsible.

But let’s start from the top, not at the bottom as was done in Abu Ghraib. We need to take down the twelve individuals who designed and implemented America’s first-ever Presidentially sanctioned torture regime: Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Addington, Yoo, Flanigan, Haynes, Chertoff, Tenet, and Rice. All of them knew what was happening. All of them signed off on these policies. All of them should go to jail.

As Mayer notes, accountability has evaporated under this disastrous regime. We must do everything we can to ensure that it returns, not merely in financial matters, but across the board.

Image via Wikipedia, in the public domain.

McCain: Bound to the Mast of a Sinking Ship

Best independent ad so far:

Great framing — it uses McCain’s own words to bind him to the mast of the sinking ship that is the Bush Administration. These are the same guys who brought us this one — another great frame:

McWeaksauce: The Prequel

Apparently this isn’t the first time McWeaksauce has tried to weasel out of a debate.

With new polls showing his campaign dead in the water among California Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain has pulled out of a long-scheduled debate with Texas Gov. George Bush, set for Thursday in Los Angeles. . . . Top campaign officials attributed McCain’s decision to Bush’s earlier reluctance to appear at the debate. “We had agreed to do this debate a long time ago, and Gov. Bush said he wasn’t going to do it,” McCain spokesman Howard Opinsky said yesterday. “We aren’t going to hold our schedule together forever.”

. . .Still, just last week, the McCain campaign was openly derisive of Bush’s reluctance to commit to a California debate — and promised its own candidate would be there. “John McCain believes it’s important for the people of California to see and hear the candidates talk about the issues,” McCain communications director Dan Schnur told The Chronicle last week. “Thirty- three million Californians are worth that attention . . . and we’ll be there, either way.”

“Clearly, this is more double-talk from the McCain campaign,” said Alixe Mattingly, a spokeswoman for Bush. “Pulling out of this debate at the last minute is an indication that they’re pulling out of California, where McCain’s antagonistic message clearly isn’t working.”. . . “From a distance, it seems like the ‘Straight Talk Express’ is careening off the exit ramp in California,” said Leslie Goodman, a Republican communications consultant and Bush backer, in a reference to McCain’s campaign bus. “They claimed they’d make California a priority because it was win or die, and now they don’t care enough to debate.”

The irony here, of course, is that eight years later, Bush is an unindicted co-conspirator in McCain’s lame maneuver to get out of tonight’s debate.

Hat tip: Slog

A Suggestion for McWeaksauce

Given the total mess you’ve made of things lately, why don’t you do us all a favor: go back to Arizona, stop running your commercials, and suspend your train wreck of a campaign for a few weeks while grownups try to figure out how to keep everything from crashing down.

Maybe you can take President Bush along too. It’s not like he’s doing anything. He probably could use the vacation.

Bailout: Mashup of the Day

Will make more sense if you’ve seen “The Dark Knight,” but pretty good even if you haven’t:

Heh.

Hat tip: Andrew Hearst

Music for Bailing

Who knew Henry Paulson had a band?

And the reviews are pretty good:

“Paulson is doing some crazy neo-prog-dance-indie[-bailout]-punk stuff that no one else is even close to [understanding]. Four [trillion] stars!” - Alternative Press

“Unforgettably melodious…[Bail Them Out] All At Once is one of those [bailouts] that’s so good it’ll make you want to keep [the money] all to yourself. But you’ll crack. And before you know what you’re doing you’ll be [giving money to anyone who asks].” - [Ben Bernanke]

“The songs the band creates are too good to be limited to the [pockets] of thousands [of bankers]–they seek the company of [tr]illions [of dollars]. There aren’t many times where I’ll sing the praises of [a bailout] and declare that it is readily consumable by [all my fat cat buddies on Wall Street], so take note: Paulson is the real deal.” - [George W. Bush]

“A beautiful blend of wonderfully dark melodies and [massive amounts of cash]… Do yourself a favor and pick up the first (and probably last) undiscovered [economic hit job] of this year. 8/10″ - [Goldman Sachs]

“Whiny indie crap, [but I'm still gonna vote for it.]” - [John McCain]

Okay, I might have, um, enhanced the reviews a bit.

It’s amazing ol’ Hank finds time to tour between all the panicking testifying he’s been doing lately. Come to think about it, if you squint, he kinda sorta almost looks like former Midnight Oil lead singer (and current Australian Environment Minister) Peter Garrett.

With profound apologies to the real band — they’re actually pretty great. Go buy their albums.

Images: Band: Their MySpace page. Their, ahem, lead singer: via Wikipedia, using a GNU Free Documentation License. Peter Garrett: Official Midnight Oil website.

Bailout Blues

It looks like there will be a bailout.

[L]awmakers in both parties said that few substantive differences and no major obstacles remained. They said the bill would authorize the full $700 billion requested by President Bush, but that Congress was intent on disbursing the money in installments.

One plan under consideration would release $250 billion immediately, with another $100 billion available at the discretion of the president.

They also said that there would be limits on pay packages for executives whose firms seek assistance from the government and a mechanism for the government to be given an equity stake in some firms so that taxpayers have a chance to profit if the companies prosper in the months and years ahead.

I still think this is a bad idea. The deal they reached is far better than the Paulson plan, but why authorize all $700 billion? Yes, it’s good that they put it in installments, but given that even Paulson said he saw a disbursement of no more than $50 billion a month, why not authorize $150 billion through the end of the year, with maybe another $50 billion contingency fund?

Sigh.

In the end, no one — not Bush, not McCain, not Obama, not Congress, not Paulson or Bernanke — had the political courage to stand up and say “Slow down, we don’t need to panic. We only need to have contingencies in place by Monday. Let’s wait for the new guy to come in before we give away the store.”

So much for leadership.

A Crisis in Confidence, Not Liquidity

Three observations about the current mess.

1. Last night, Bush looked scared, lost, and out of place. As my wife Molly put it, he was reading words put into his mouth rather than expressing his own thought. For all our mocking of Al Gore as Mr. Roboto eight years ago, no President has ever looked as wooden as Bush did last night.

But it was not merely a question of performance. Bush looked small — a sad little man out of his depth, more Willy Loman than Atticus Finch. It was a pathetic exercise in ass-covering and special pleading. Where others have risen to an occasion, Bush sank into the depths of his own failure.

2. It is easy to regard our current mess as a question of insufficient liquidity. Although the past two weeks’ event are clearly the product of the current Administration’s disastrous economic policies, what we’re really facing is a crisis in confidence. That’s why the Paulson-Bernanke decision to turn this into one of the biggest crises in American history was so devastating: it created the conditions for a collapse of confidence in the American economy.

If bankers continued to believe the economy was sound, they would lend. If foreign investors still thought the United States as a good place to put their money, the failure of a few large firms would do no more harm to our economic prospects than the Chrysler bailout, the collapse of the savings and loan industry, or the Enron meltdown did.

Credit isn’t drying up because there’s no money; it’s disappearing because people are afraid — scared to lend, scared to buy, scared to do much of anything at all. In the end, the Paulson plan (or the Dodd plan or any other proposal for that matter) will succeed or fail not because it pumps money into the system, but because it restores confidence.

What is required of leaders in times like this is not merely policy prescriptions, but also reassurance. Think about 9/11. For all we may despise him now, Rudy Giuliani — not Bush, I would note — demonstrated that kind of leadership. For about a week, Giuliani became almost a second President, offering Americans the comforting words they so longed to hear — words that Bush, whether unwilling or unable, never himself got around to saying.

In the current crisis, we have yet to see anyone play a similar role. Bush has been a disaster. McCain’s abrupt decision to “suspend” his campaign looked more like political panic than economic stewardship. Obama has been so cool, calm and collected that he looks detached. Paulson and Bernanke have turned into the Panic Twins, and no one in Congress has stepped to the plate.

3. I could not help contrasting Bush’s speech last night with one delivered during an even greater crisis. On March 4, 1932 (the official date of Inauguration Day had not yet been moved to January), Franklin D. Roosevelt gave his First Inaugural Address, three years after the Great Crash of 1929 had plunged the United States into the Great Depression. It was a desperate time, far worse than what we face now (at least as of now), the country teetering on the edge of chaos, despair, and the collapse of democratic government.

In response, Roosevelt gave what is one of the greatest inaugural speeches in American history (surpassed, perhaps, only by Lincoln’s Second), helping to calm American fears and start the long hard road back to prosperity — a process that lasted until the end of the Second World War, nearly sixteen years after the Great Crash.

Despite the fact that it would take over a decade for the United States to recover fully, Roosevelt’s speech that day was a turning point, if not in terms of economic growth, then in terms of Americans’ willingness to bear down and try to fix what was ailing the country — and in terms of saving our democratic form of government.

In this environment of fear and political posturing, I think it would be useful to recall what real leadership looks like. The following are excerpts; you can read the entire speech here.

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. . . . Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it.

Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. . . .The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effor

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts