Category: US politics

Hoagie mentions possible Cheney resignation

I just Delicious-ed this piece in today’s WaPo from erstwhile Iraq war uber-hawk Jim Hoagland… But I clicked the Delicious before I read to the end of the piece, where Jimbo raises the intriguing possibility that Cheney might resign…. not because the Prez hasn’t been taking his advice much recently, but because,

    Bush… desperately now needs a vice president in stable physical, emotional and political health. That is the equation you want to be watching.

Hoagland is a very well-connected guy. This is getting interesting.

Senator Webb’s Leash for the Dog of War

“We have already given… one effectual check to the dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.”

–Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789

If our new Virginia Senator, Jim Webb, didn’t impress enough yet with his memorable response to the President’s State of the Union address, he’s leading the political troops again with a bold measure to rein in the Imperial Presidency.
While the new Congress muddles gingerly in efforts to restrain the President’s hand in the war already in progress in Iraq, Senator Webb has introduced new legislation intended precisely to prohibit the Bush-Cheney Administration from launching a new war on Iran – without formal Congressional authorization.
Jefferson would approve.
Below I provide the full text of Webb’s floor speech from earlier today (March 5th) introducing his legislation and a few excerpts from his afternoon press conference. It appears the main stream media has barely touched Webb’s bill — so far, even though I anticipate it may yet garner wide, even bipartisan support. (I’ll add more details on the Bill # and actual text, when I get it.) Let’s note reports we see on the bill in the discussion.
Here’s Webb’s Senate speech, with comments inserted:

“Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without congressional authorization. The purpose of this legislation is to restore a proper balance between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to the commencement of military activities.
“I have taken great care in the preparation of this bill to ensure that it will not in any way prevent our military forces from carrying out their tactical responsibilities in places such as Iraq and in the international waters off Iran’s coast. The legislation allows American forces to directly respond to attacks or possible attacks that might be initiated from Iran, as well as those that might be begun elsewhere and then carry over into Iranian territory. I have also excluded operations related to intelligence gathering.
“The major function of this legislation is to prevent this Administration from commencing unprovoked military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress. The legislation accomplishes this goal through the proper constitutional process of prohibiting all funding for such an endeavor. Unlike the current situation in Iraq, where cutting off funds might impede or interrupt ongoing operations, this legislation denies funding that would be necessary to begin such operations against Iran in the first place.

Webb then approvingly notes what may be the Bush Administration’s efforts to head off widespread concerns that it was deliberately seeking a pretext to start a war with Iran:

Continue reading “Senator Webb’s Leash for the Dog of War”

Virgil Goode: “In Mohammed We Trust?”

Heee’s baaaack. No, not “Chuckie,” that ” sneering, mean-hearted, movie doll,” nor “Q” from Star Trek fame. But our “Q-ran” fearing Congressman Virgil Goode.
Goode has been the subject of several extended entries here at jwn. He’s the “gift” that keeps on giving – if you like satire. Goode is the Congressman who infamously made a name for himself by portraying incoming Congressman Larry Ellison’s use of {Jefferson’s} Koran for his swearing-in ceremony as a threat to America’s traditional “values and beliefs.”
Hat tip to Eric H. for the alert: our “goode-ole-boy” who represents some of Virginia’s 5th District citizenry is at it again, this time rationalizing his vote for Bush’s “surge” by spreading fear of a mean-green Islamic machine marching on Washington.
Only Virgil Goode could transform his allotted five-minute speech yesterday on whether or not to support President Bush’s “surge” plan for Iraq into another dark warning against a “sea of illegal immigrants” in which more terrorists will swim. That is, if we don’t support the President, a “calamity” will surely befall us in which more Muslim “jihadis” invade our shores.
Below, I provide the transcript, from the Congressional Record, with my annotations inserted between paragraphs. Phonetic transliterations from the video version are kept to a minimum this time. Readers should view the “youtube” version themselves here. Goode’s “stie-ul” is rather unique. Render your own opinions in the discussion.

“We are in the middle of a 4-day marathon here. While I cannot say that I agree with all of the actions of the President in dealing with Iraq, I will not be supporting H. Con. Res. 63. The eyes of the world are upon this House, and there will be commentary from the Middle East to the streets of small-town America about what we do here over this 4-day period, even though this resolution does not carry the weight of law.”

“Eyes of the world?” Since when did Virgil care about what the world thought of “the Vuhgil Goode” position on anything? Instead, he’s with those who would characterize a resolution critical of Bush as giving “aide and comfort to the enemy.” (It occurs to me that for many neocons, the “eyes of the world” and “the enemy” are flip sides of the same coin.)

“When the commentary begins in the Middle East, in no way do I want to comfort and encourage the radical Muslims who want to destroy our country and who want to wipe the so-called infidels like myself and many of you from the face of the Earth. In no way do I want to aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the green flag of the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country. I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see “In God We Trust” stricken from our money and replaced with “In Mohammed {“mooo-hahmat”} We Trust.” (emphasis added)

So much ripe material in this paragraph; where to begin?

Continue reading “Virgil Goode: “In Mohammed We Trust?””

Questions about US democracy

Several times over the past three months– that is, ever since our state’s election of Jim Webb to the Senate!– I’ve had some real regrets that the US doesn’t have a parliamentary system.
If we had a parliamentary system, the groundswell of political change that made itself shown on November 7th would have resulted in a change of government and a significant change in national policy.
Instead of which, we got– what?!?!? A surge in exactly the same kinds of ‘dead-ender’ policies the administration has been pursuing in Iraq since 2003????
Where in all this is the idea of responsiveness to the will of the people? For the absolutely crucial job of president, in the absence of the kind of gross personal misconduct that would activate the clunky machinery of impeachment, we only ever have one chance to change the person there every four years– whatever else might be happening in the world outside the White House… In what sense can we say that preservation of these totally inflexible election schedules is “democratic”?
Back in 1988 or so, when I became a citizen, I do recall learning all kinds of little factoids about the US political system. But I don’t recall ever learning the justification for the inflexible nature of these election schedules. Was it something to do with the problems of trans-continental communication back in the 1780s, or something about the need to keep these three branches of government all marching along according to their own rigid schedules so they could continue to play the much-hallowed “checks and balances” role against each other?
If anyone (briefly) could enlighten me on that, I’d be grateful.
I’d also love to know if there’s ever been any movement in US history that sought to to shift the country towards a more responsive, perhaps more parliamentary kind of system. The rigidity of this one we have now just seems terribly dysfunctional….

Ellison on Islam & Democracy

You have to have some sympathy for the US Information Agency staff. Especially now that they are under Condi Rice’s State Department, it’s been mighty hard, if one has a shred of decency left, to package the United States in a positive light for Arab audiences. Have you heard the one about the US “continuing” its active Middle East peacemaking?
The world doesn’t overwhelmingly resent or fear the US because of “misunderstanding” caused by poor efforts to gets America’s “message “out.” It has not been the record player that’s the problem – but the music being played.
It’s like asking the world to buy another “pig in a poke.” That is, the US has been caught too often with the “cat in the bag” (in Romanian, that’d be a fi prins cu mâṭa în sac) – or, if you will, caught “scamming” the truth.
Ok, enough bad metaphors! You get my drift.
Enter Keith Ellison…
the newly elected Congressman from Minnesota – who happens also to be a Muslim. USINFO’s web site this week features a “feel good” story about the new Congressman and his faith – no doubt as a positive for Muslim readers around the world.

Continue reading “Ellison on Islam & Democracy”

Webb 4 President (?)

My neighbor sent me a note last night chiding me for finally taking down my Webb for Senate sign at the end of my driveway, on the eve of Webb pulling his coup within the Democratic Party to deliver its response to the President’s State of his Mind speech.
I lamely replied that oh contraire, I’m just trying to figure out how to recast it as a “Webb for President” poster.
Never mind the media spinmeisters focusing on how well (or not) the President did. And never mind the surreal Anderson Cooper having on two neocon Brigadier Generals who one-upped each other in proclaiming the President’s plan will work, “if only the American people stand behind it.” “Spider” Marks is “certifiable” in my book. He’s been wrong on Iraq for years – so who is pulling the strings at CNN to keep him as their featured military anal-yst?
Ah, but never mind the talking trolls.
In my book, Webb hit another home run tonight. I’d still like to know how the Democrats picked Webb over, say, Obama or Hillary, to give the Democrat’s response to the President. My guess: Nancy Pelosi. Shrewd move. In case you missed it, here’s the transcript.
Ok, so Webb may be the accidental, semi-uncomfortable junior “Democratic” Senator from Virginia. (and a former Reagan era Navy Secretary) I like his refreshing non-style. He beat incredibly long odds last November, when he de-throned Senator George “Macaca” Allen here in Virginia. Not just because Allen couldn’t get his foot out of his mouth, Webb won the ole’ fashioned way…. he held his ground. The neocon chickenhawks couldn’t touch him either – as he wore a pair of his son’s Marine combat boots, every day of his campaign.
Soon after being elected, I admired the way Webb refused to banter with President Bush and his unseemly inquiry into “his boy’s” condition in Iraq. I was so impressed that I kept my Webb sign up – in defiance of Virginia “tradition” to take down political signs the “day after.”
I’m still with the Dixie Chicks; I’m not ready to make nice.
Ok, maybe “J.W.” is a greenhorn to national politics – compared to such “veteran” national political figures like Hillary, Al, John, or Obama…. Imagine how Obama must feel being upstaged by “J.W.” Webb’s 9 minute speech tonight packed in more key zingers than I’ve heard from any of the other Presidential contenders yet, including from my best hope for the Republicans – Chuck Hagel. Maybe I haven’t been listening either.
In Webb’s world, America is in deep trouble, at home and aborad. On the economy, the glittering oil laden Dow Index belies a hidden problem:

When one looks at the health of our economy, it’s almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it’s nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Continue reading “Webb 4 President (?)”

Another “mission” ahead for Team Bush?

Tuesday, so we have Froomkin again.
Scroll down through the account of the Scooter Libby starting up in DC today, to Froomkin’s presentation of highlights from the interview Bush gave to Scott Pelley of CBS t.v. last weekend. He says we should,

    give the CBS correspondent some credit for addressing the elephant in the room: Bush’s lack of credibility.
    “PELLEY: You know better than I do that many Americans feel that your administration has not been straight with the country, has not been honest. To those people you say what?
    “BUSH: On what issue?
    “PELLEY: Well, sir . . . .
    “BUSH: Like the weapons of mass destruction?
    “PELLEY: No weapons of mass destruction.
    “BUSH: Yeah.
    “PELLEY: No credible connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
    “BUSH: Yeah.
    “PELLEY: The Office of Management and Budget said this war would cost somewhere between $50 billion and $60 billion and now we’re over 400.
    “BUSH: I gotcha. I gotcha. I gotcha.
    “PELLEY: The perception, sir, more than any one of those points, is that the administration has not been straight with . . . .
    “BUSH: Well, I strongly disagree with that, of course. There were a lot of people, both Republicans and Democrats, who felt there were weapons of mass destruction. Many of the leaders in the Congress spoke strongly about the fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons prior to my arrival in Washington, DC. And we’re all looking at the same intelligence. So I strongly reject that this administration hasn’t been straight with the American people. The minute we found out they didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so. Scott, all I can do is just tell the truth, tell people exactly what’s on my mind, which is what I do.
    “PELLEY: You seem to be saying that you may have been wrong but you weren’t dishonest.
    “BUSH: Oh, absolutely.”
    Pelley let his tough questions drop too soon, and didn’t do the requisite debunking. For instance, Bush had access to a lot of intelligence that Congress hadn’t seen, some of which raised serious doubts about WMD claims — and the president was among the last to acknowledge there were no WMD, not the first.

Froomkin packs a lot into today’s offering. Further down yet he directs us to a story by Susan Page in (today’s) USA Today:

    Page writes… : “President Bush’s address to the nation last week failed to move public opinion in support of his plan to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq and left Americans more pessimistic about the likely outcome of the war. . . .
    “Approval of Bush’s handling of Iraq moved up a tick, from a low point of 26% before the speech to 28% now. His overall job-approval rating dipped 3 points, to 34%.”

    Here are the poll results.
    Asked to choose between four options, an all-time high of 56 percent of Americans said they support either an immediate withdrawal (17 percent) or a withdrawal in 12 months (39 percent), compared to 29 percent who favor keeping troops in Iraq as long as needed, and 13 percent who want to send more troops.

I’ve been waiting to see the results in the opinion polls that the Prez got from his long-awaited “address to the nation” last week. If he won from it only two percentage points on Iraq, while losing three on overall job-approval rating, then that confirms that the guy is in deep, deep political trouble.
Maybe he, Dick, and Karl will conclude– in light of all the above, including the Libby trial– that they need to rev up the plane engines for an dog-wagger attack on Iran very soon. Another sad, sick, tragic “mission” to “accomplish”?

About that Jefferson Koran

Yes, “Virgil,” it’s true: There is a Jefferson Koran.
When and why?
In the University of Virginia’s Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library rests the original Virginia Gazette Daybook – a fascinating account book of that bookseller’s customers in the Virginia Colony capital town of Williamsburg.
For October 5th, 1765, the Gazette Daybook clearly records a purchase by the second customer of the day: a 22-year-old law student named Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson made a single purchase: George Sale’s two-volume translation and introduction to “The Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mohammed.”
In a recent article in Early American Literature, Kevin Hayes suggests that Jefferson had multiple reasons for buying a Koran, ranging from preparations for the bar exam, to his broader interests in natural law to the history of religion.
(As may pleasantly surprise some), the most frequently cited source in Jefferson’s legal writings was Pufendorf’s 1672 classic, Of the Law of Nature and Nations.
As Pufendorf cites multiple precedents from the Koran on various civil and international legal issues, It was quite “natural” for Jefferson as an advanced student of laws, not just of one nation but of the world, to study the Koran, especially one which included detailed comparative comment by a distinguished British lawyer, George Sale.
The following introductory passage from Sale no doubt was a selling point to Jefferson:

If the religious and civil Institutions of foreign nations are worth our knowledge, those of Mohammed, the lawgiver of the Arabians, and founder of an empire which in less than a century spread itself over a greater part of the world than the Romans were ever masters…. Since students of law study legal precedent from ancient Rome, they should also study precedent from a society with an even greater reach than Rome.

Flash Forward:
241 years and 3 months later from the day Jefferson first purchased it, Jefferson’s Koran was delivered from its current home at the Library of Congress to the House of Representatives. There, it served as the holy book upon which America’s first Congressperson of the Muslim faith, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, took his ceremonial oath of office.
I already wrote here about the controversy over Ellison’s desire to use a Koran for his ceremonial oath, and specifically about Virgil Goode’s bizarre letter and contentious press conference about Ellison’s wishes.
Among the press conference lowlights, Virgil Goode declared that he wouldn’t use the “Q-Ran” for his oath taking; denied he was a racist, characterized all Muslims as inherent threats to American values; ducked the core question of whether Ellison has the right to take an oath on whatever book he wishes, and refused to apologize to Ellison or anyone else.
In my annotated transcription of Virgil’s “bad” performance, I suggested that Congressman Goode might benefit from re-studying his basic Virginia civics, particularly the most famous person ever from his district – Thomas Jefferson.
On Jefferson’s tombstone at his Monticello home, Jefferson’s requested epitath cites three great accomplishments in his life:

Author of the Declartion of Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom and Father of the University of Virginia.

That Jefferson was America’s third President is not mentioned.

Continue reading “About that Jefferson Koran”

Virgil Goode vs. Thomas Jefferson

Our local Virginia Republican Congressman, Virgil Goode thinks he’s a good(e) American. We’ve written about him here before. He also wears the “good(e) book” on his sleeve.
He’s also likely unfamiliar with Thomas Jefferson, author of, among other things, the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom. Never mind that Monticello, Jefferson’s home, is in Goode’s district.
JWN devotees may have seen Helena’s quick “tag” of a Charlottesville weekly paper’s revelation of an astonishing Goode letter, via the new del.icio.us “Things I’ve Tagged” feature on the right side of this blog.
Goode’s Islamophobic letter is lighting up the blogosphere and even the mainstream media. His press conference late yesterday deserves even greater scrutiny. What he says is an affront not just to Muslim Americans, but to any American who “gives a hoot” about our founding values. Below, I provide my own transcript of Goode’s appalling comments – with my own annotations and a Jeffersonian test inserted.
Goode has deluded himself into thinking that his critics are not reading his letter. Let’s get that out of the way first. Here again is the original letter. (Unbalanced, run-on sentences in the original; emphasis added.):

Dear Mr. Cruickshank:
Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.
The Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, “As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.” Thank you again for your email and thoughts.
Sincerely yours,
Virgil H. Goode, Jr.
70 East Court Street
Suite 215
Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151

Unlike our outgoing Senator George “Macaca” Allen, Goode has been anything but apologetic. In his press conference late yesterday, Goode was as defiant as George W. Bush has been in defending his “cause” – with one difference: Goode is the only politician I know who makes our current President seem “brilliant” – relatively speaking.
At least for now, you can watch Goode’s press conference via the WVIR TV29 web site, under “featured videos.” Goode, speaking in his standard “goode-ole-boy drawl,” shows no signs of backing down. Here’s my own transcription (with annotation) of nearly all of the “event.”
Preface Note: Rather than insert the “sic” emphasis repeatedly, please keep in mind that the following transcription is phonetic, that is, literally “as heard.” Some “suthun” politicos still speak this way. Watch the video yourself if you think I’ve got the “Goode-‘ole-boy” twang wrong. Grammar gaffes are in the original, including those by our local reporters.

Goode: Thaynk ya fuh bein’ he-uhr… I uhpreciate you’all being here at one time. I know several of, uh, press asked about meeting, and we thought it would be best to do it all at one time.
This is, ah, just to me not an open press conference…

Continue reading “Virgil Goode vs. Thomas Jefferson”

Bush and buddies battling the ISG

Politics in the US of A operates at a number of different levels. At the frothiest, most visible “top” of it are the instant spinmeisters, people who are handsomely paid by various corporate and/or ideological interests not to inform people about the world (for honestly, they often do not know much about it) but rather, to tell us what to think. One of the silliest– but also most dangerous– of these people is Charles Krauthammer, a hawkishly pro-Israeli ideologue who often seems to be providing the “talking points” for the administration itself.
If you thought Krauthammer was writing about anything connected with “the truth”, you’d have to conclude that the ISG report– which came out precisely nine days ago– was long ago discredited. Here’s what he wrote in today’s WaPo:

    [T]he long-anticipated report turned out to be, as is widely agreed, a farce. From its wildly hyped, multiple magazine-cover rollout… to its mishmash of 79 (no less) recommendations, the report has fallen so flat that the field is now clear for the president to recommend to a war-weary country something new and bold.
    The study group has not just been attacked by left and right, Democrat and Republican. It has invited ridicule…

He sure isn’t telling us who “widely agreed” that the report was a farce, or who heaped “ridicule” on it. Apart from himself, that is, since the column mentions the name of no-one whose views he is citing, apart from his own. It is qute possible, however, that in the Cheney-esque and neocon circles in which he moves, many people have heaped ridicule on the report, and that is what he’s been hearing.
Certainly, Condi Rice, Tony Snow, the Prez himself, and everyone else from his inner circle who has spoken about the ISG report has tried to wave it away as “irrelevant”, or worse. That, while the Prez has been running around trying to look as though he knows what he’s doing as he tries to come up with an alternative “new approach in Iraq”, all of his very own.
Luckily, though, there’s another United States, made up of the 99.8% of the citizens who live outside Washington’s infamous Capital Beltway, far away from the Krauthammers and their ilk… And these people have their own views of things.
As we can see from the Dec. 8-11 L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll that’s at the top of the Polling Report website right now. The pollsters there asked respondents whether they thought the Prez should adopt three of the ISG’s key recommendations, and the answers for these were:

    “talking directly with Iran and Syria about the future of Iraq”: Should– 64%; Should not– 28%.
    “that the US should consider cutting its military and economic support for Iraq unless the Iraqi government shows significant progress on political reforms and national reconciliation”: Should– 70%; Should not– 22%.
    “reducing American troops by early 2008 and replacing them with a smaller number of troops embedded in the Iraqi military, as well as helping to train Iraqi forces”: Should– 56%; Should not– 30%.

Well, longtime JWN readers should know my views that the pullback of US troops forces from Iraq should be total, speedy, and generous. So I might well have answered “Should not” for both those latter questions… But still, I think Charles Krauthammer and those to whom he talks inside the Beltway should recognize that out here in “the country as a whole” the report has certainly not “invited ridicule.” By and large, people have taken it very seriously… And I think these conversations are continuing. I hope all our members of congress get an earful of our views while they’re home for the holidays right now!
Certainly, the ISG’s analysis and recommendations have been taken a lot more seriously than the President’s robotic insistence on “staying the course”, “continuing until victory”, etc. You can see how little trust people now have in him– especially on Iraq— from all the recent polls.
… Meanwhile, the administration itself seems to be falling into a situation of ever greater disarray. Many reports from good, well-informed journalists say that Bush is edging toward deciding on the deployment of an additional “surge” of forces to Iraq. For example,Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay wrote yesterday that,

    senior officials said the emerging strategy includes… a possible short-term surge of as many as 40,000 more American troops to try to secure Baghdad, along with a permanent increase in the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, which are badly strained by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, immediately after that, they note that: “Military commanders look warily at a surge, saying that even 20,000 more soldiers and Marines may not be available and wouldn’t necessarily help reduce Iraq’s violence.”
You can say that again! Yes, these commanders are covering their rear ends. But they’re also speaking the truth. If Bush thinks that, with Iraq where it is today, an additional 40,000 US troops could “solve” the problem, then truly he must have been smoking something strange!
So why would Bush even think of doing this? Or more to the point, why would Unca Dick let him “think” of doing it?
At one level, it might be tempting for us to surmise that Bush and Cheney both really understand that the time for the US troop deployment in Iraq is running out– very fast!– and that this last-minute “surge” might be just a way for them to be able to cover their own rear ends when they order the start of the now- inevitable substantial drawdown (or complete pullout), come March or April of next year… At which point, they would of course lay all the blame for the debacle on the Iraqis. “We gave them our very best shot!” “But those people know nothing but ancient tribal hatreds!” Etc., etc.
But the cynicism and bloodthirstiness of a scenario like this is almost beyond belief. Just remember that:

    (1) Sending more US troops in now will not calm things down inside Iraq; it will exacerbate and prolong the carnage and the severe social breakdown there.
    (2) During this delay, more American troops will also be killed.
    (3) Sending more US troops in will complicate the task of getting them all out later.

And all this, because of W’s bullheaded refusal to face the realities and start the pullout now.