Category Archives: Politics: US

Just One More Step Away From Accountability

Daily Kos flags a Washington Post article on a new Bush administration tactic to avoid pesky questions from Congressional Democrats — simply announce that you will no longer answer them. Henceforth, the White House wll only aswer questions approved by (Republican) committee chairs. This ensures that nothing troubling will be asked, solving the problem of both volume and content in a single stroke.

Abstractly, you can imagine a world in which the flood of informational requests from the Congress begins to overwhelm the White House, although there is no evidence that we had reached that point. If the White House's response had been some sort of quota system, eg. N questions per representative per month get priority attention, the rest go to the bottom of the pile, I might understand that. In fact, however, the policy seems to be a response to questions about the provenance of the shipboard “Mission Accomplished” banner that Bush has been trying so hard to disown recently.

This is just dirty. And so is this White House statement, “It was not the intent to suggest minority members should not ask questions without the consent of the majority.” Right. In which case Director of the White House Office of Administration, Timothy A. Campen, should be fired quick, since he sent an email with a policy which can only be understood to do exactly that.

Given the unending stream of humiliations and provocations being visted on them, it would take saintly virtue for Congressional Democrats to refuse to retaliate in kind when, in due course, they become the majority party again. And while I tend to support Democrats more than other parties, I would not generally call them saintly.

Posted in Politics: US | Comments Off on Just One More Step Away From Accountability

Presidential Candidates Can Turn Feral

Presidential candidates in decline can turn feral (actually, the same is true of any politician who feels the ground sinking beneath him or her). Dean is beginning to build an inevitability meme — or at least to grow his campaign to the point where (1) even smart analysts are afraid to bet against him (I heard an analyst on NPR today refuse to say that Dean couldn't win votes in the South, noting that Dean keeps beating his expectations), and (2) the campaign dynamic begins to be 'is there anyone other than Clark to become the ABD candidate'.

As the air gets sucked out of other campaigns, we'll see their real test of character begin. Will the candidates do the decent thing for the party and stick to the high road, even though it means likely defeat for their own candidacy? Or will they do the expedient thing, and do George Bush's work for him by going nasty, mean and negative?

Continue reading

Posted in Politics: US | 1 Comment

We’re Hosting the First Presidential Debate!

“The first debate will take place Sept. 30, 2004 at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla.” says this article.

Now, how do I get a ticket?

Actually, this isn't as great news as it could be, since rumor has it that U.M. will have to fork out serious cash as host institution….

More about the debate organizers.

Posted in Politics: US, U.Miami | Comments Off on We’re Hosting the First Presidential Debate!

Today’s Political Vocabularly Lesson


Politicized Memo Incites Row
: Gather ’round children. For today’s vocabularly lesson is brought to you by the letter “P”. We have three “P” words today, Patriotic, Plot and Partisan.

If the administration lies to the nation about an imminent threat and drags us into a pre-emptive war that has nothing to pre-empt, then engages in denial and a cover-up, and tries to stonewall a Senatorial committee, all that is Patriotic. It is most certainly not Partisan and never, never, never even think that it might be a Plot. Oh my, no.

But suppose that Senators become concerned that the administration might be hiding something important to our national security like, maybe “misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war”. And suppose those Senators decide that the administration has no intention of ever releasing key documents, and certainly not before the next election, so they start discussing contingency plans to force the documents' release.

Well, that is not Patriotic because George Bush might not like it. No, that is a Plot by those awful Partisan, nay maybe treasonous people.

PS. Don't tell Osama, but according to the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee — who ought to know — the Global War on Terror™ is going so badly that it can be compromised by publication of a single memo. And who was it who went through the garbage to steal this document with this terrible possible effect on national security, and than ran to the media with it? It was Republicans? Oh. (Think that maybe heading off an independent inquiry is becoming an an important priority for the Republicans, who of course Have Nothing To Hide?)

Well, don't worry, children, it's still the Democrats' fault if you don't think about it too hard.

Accountability is Treason!
Stonewalling is Patriotic!
Fighting Terror Requires Unquestioning Obedience!

Posted in Politics: US | Comments Off on Today’s Political Vocabularly Lesson

Nicholas Kristof Thinks ‘Bush Lies’ Is the Rosy Scenario

Brad DeLong has made a small industry of noting how the Bush administration lies by reflex (which is not at all the same thing as making it an art form). Sample titles:

Nicholas D. Kristof has just woken up to this reality. But only partly — he blames the evil courtiers and partly exonerates the evil bosses duped by their henchmen. In Death by Optimism he recounts the following story:

Mr. Cheney has cited a Zogby International poll to back his claim that there is “very positive news” in Iraq. But the pollster, John Zogby, told me, “I was floored to see the spin that was put on it; some of the numbers were not my numbers at all.”

Mr. Cheney claimed that Iraqis chose the U.S. as their model for democracy “hands down,” and he and other officials say that a majority want American troops to stay at least another year. In fact, Mr. Zogby said, only 23 percent favor the U.S. democratic model, and 65 percent want the U.S. to leave in a year or less.

“I am not willing to say they lied,” Mr. Zogby said. “But they used a very tight process of selective screening, and when they didn't get what they wanted they were willing to manufacture some results… . There was almost nothing in that poll to give them comfort.”

Mr. Kristof is concerned by this. Not because a fish rots from the head, or because he thinks that this sort of behavior has been the G.W. Bush M.O. since at least his governorship, if not his career as a military deserter. No, Mr. Kristof thinks the Evil Courtiers are misleading that nice Mr. Bush and that clever Mr. Cheney, feeding them bad data and thus leading them down the path of self-delusion:

I wish administration officials were lying, because I would prefer hypocrisy to delusion — at least hypocritical officials make decisions with accurate information.

What evidence we have, however, suggests that the decision to invade Iraq did not depend on any data, true or false, but was a goal of the administration hawks when they took office. Bad data may have influenced the tactics, and the force levels, but there's nothing to suggest reality had much to do with the over-all strategy.

In any case, even if it were the case that the Evil Courtiers were lying to the Emperor, what creates the conditions in which this behavior is a successful strategy for the careerist courtier? Only a climate that punishes the truth.

So the scary thing is, Mr. Bush and his aides may not be lying when they look at Iraq and boast of a cheering population that a Western press sourly refuses to acknowledge. There's a precedent: Saddam Hussein.

Could anyone have imagined a year ago that Kristof or other establishment columnists would be comparing Bush to Saddam Hussein? Or that it wouldn't seem odd?

Posted in Politics: US | 4 Comments

White House Isn’t Handing Over Iraq Intel Documents

It seems that the Senator Paul Roberts now says he spoke too soon about the White House's willingness to cough up the Iraq Intel documents the Senate committee has requested.

Meanwhile relations between Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Intel Committee, traditionally a haven of bi-partisanship, appear to be breaking down badly. Senator Rockefeller, committee Vice-Chair, pretty much accused Republicans of going through his trash or breaking into his computer. And, for the first time that I'm aware of, the Vice-Chair gently threatened to use his subpoena power if necessary. Clearly neither side wants a fight now. But f the administration doesn't give in eventually, they may get fireworks much closer to the election.

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday he spoke too hastily when he said the White House would provide his panel with the documents and interviews it is seeking for its inquiry on prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Roberts and Rockefeller have been at odds about the scope of the inquiry. Under Roberts' direction, the committee is examining whether intelligence about Iraq's weapons programs and ties to terrorists was properly collected and analyzed. Rockefeller and other Democrats also want to examine whether intelligence was manipulated by the administration to make the case for war.

Roberts said Tuesday a leaked strategy memo from Rockefeller's staff “exposes politics in its most raw form.”

The memo discusses strategy for “revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral pre-emptive war.” It discussed how Democrats could press for an independent investigation that has already been rejected by the Republican-led Congress or launch their own investigation.

In a statement, Roberts said that the memo “appears to be a road map for how the Democrats intend to politicize what should be a bipartisan, objective review of prewar intelligence.” The memo was disclosed by syndicated radio show host Sean Hannity.

In his own statement, Rockefeller the draft was not approved or shared with any member of the committee. He said it “was likely taken from a waste basket or through unauthorized computer access.”

He said, however, it “clearly reflects staff frustration with the conduct of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation and the difficulties of obtaining information from the administration.”

Continue reading

Posted in Politics: US | 3 Comments