A Man, A Dog, And Religious Faith

She's right, you know. She was, and is.

Slate religion editor Ruth Graham outlined the outpouring of gushy romanticism at the photograph of George HW Bush's service dog, Sully, lying in front of the casket of the 41st President. She concluded that the image

is not proof that Sully is a particularly “good boy” or that “we don’t deserve dogs,” as countless swooning tweets put it on Monday. On its own, it says almost nothing other than the fact that Sully was, at one point in the same room as the casket of his former boss. This is simply a photograph of a dog doing something dogs love to do: Lie down. The frenzy around it captures something humans love to do, too: Project our own emotional needs onto animals.

Her point that the romanticized gushing of Sully has been aided by his "savvy public relations team" was validated by the torrent of critical tweets, strikingly few with any fact-based complaints, rained down upon Graham.

Graham is among the few who at least seem to sense the significance of Wednesday's gesture by President Trump upon recitation of attendees at the Bush funeral of the Apostles' Creed. A Washington Post reporter explains

Video from the funeral of George H.W. Bush showed a front row of presidents at Washington National Cathedral, standing and reciting it along with the program, as the voice of Episcopal Bishop Michael Curry boomed through the speakers to the thousands of mourners. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and their wives glanced up and down from the programs they held in front of them and spoke the prayer, along with everyone else visible in the video. The program, as is typical, calls for the Creed to be said in unison

President Trump stood, with his hands folded in front of him, waist-high, the program in his left hand, his lips not moving. Melania Trump also did not speak, nor did she hold a program.

Snarky tweets noted by Huffington Post included "The man wouldn’t know the Apostles Creed from Apollo Creed" and "he thought it was something about Apollo Creed and wanted nothing to do with it;" There were even "Are you telling me the so-called "Muslim" president knew all the words to the  Apostles’ Creed, but the 'Christian Conservative' President, did not?" and "Nor did the current evangelical savior (or nude model gold digger) feel it was necessary to recite the Apostles Creed...how very Christian of them."

But we don't know that President Trump doesn't know the words. The words were written on the program which the other mourners held in front of them.  And Trump did find something necessary- not to recite the Creed but to be seen refusing to do so.

The President (and the First Lady) could have held the programs in front of them, making it difficult to determine whether they were joining the others. They could have enjoyed lip-synching the words or in another manner made it appear they were doing as were the others. The man now called "President" in large measure because he was a spectacular actor on "The Apprentice"could easily have made it appear that he was doing as most of the mourners.

He might have done so but preferred to make a statement. Graham commented

This is a strange moment. It's not about Trump not having memorized the creed, which is printed in the program. He's opting not to participate in the service. https://t.co/SHPj9I01TD

— Ruth Graham (@publicroad) December 5, 2018

He did it when he referred to "my little wine (and) my little cracker," when he tried to put an offering into a communion plate, and when he remarked "I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't."

Yesterday, the President was making a point. He did not neglect to pray. He chose not to, instead "opting not to participate in the service."

Just as he did when he made the bizarre statement that he and Kim Jong-un "fell in love," he'll keep testing the limits, pushing the envelope   Although Trump believes white, Christian evangelicals may eventually hold him to account, he maintains their support while advocating forced birth, the right to invoke religious faith to discriminate, and arch conservatives for the Supreme Court.  Moreover, if so many people have projected their emotional needs upon a dog assigned to help an elderly former President, perhaps Donald Trump's evangelical supporters have found their own Sully.

Share |

Republicans Know How To Win

Through tapes of President Lyndon Johnson's phone calls, declassifed in 2013, we learned of Lyndon Johnson's chicanery, Richard Nixon's utter disregard for his country, and Hubert Humphrey's extraordinary integrity.  More significantly- at this moment- the 2013 article from BBC News throws some light onto the upcoming presidential election. David Taylor wrote

It begins in the summer of 1968. Nixon feared a breakthrough at the Paris Peace talks designed to find a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam war, and he knew this would derail his campaign.

He therefore set up a clandestine back-channel involving Anna Chennault, a senior campaign adviser.

At a July meeting in Nixon's New York apartment, the South Vietnamese ambassador was told Chennault represented Nixon and spoke for the campaign. If any message needed to be passed to the South Vietnamese president, Nguyen Van Thieu, it would come via Chennault.

In late October 1968 there were major concessions from Hanoi which promised to allow meaningful talks to get underway in Paris - concessions that would justify Johnson calling for a complete bombing halt of North Vietnam. This was exactly what Nixon feared.

Chennault was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.

So on the eve of his planned announcement of a halt to the bombing, Johnson learned the South Vietnamese were pulling out.

He was also told why. The FBI had bugged the ambassador's phone and a transcripts of Anna Chennault's calls were sent to the White House. In one conversation she tells the ambassador to "just hang on through election."

(President Johnson found out but divulged the information only to Democratic nominee Humphrey because the information had been gleaned solely from the FBI wiretap of the South Vietnamese ambassador. Humphrey, having been told he would win the election, withheld the information because it would disrupt the country. Nixon won by less than 1% and as President expanded the war.)

Fast-forward 12 years to the events of 1980, which investigator Robert Parry wrote about five days ago under the headline "The Modern History of 'Rigged' US Elections."  He explained

President Jimmy Carter was seeking reelection and trying to negotiate release of 52 American hostages then held in revolutionary Iran. Ronald Reagan’s campaign feared that Carter might pull off an “October Surprise” by bringing home the hostages just before the election. So, this historical mystery has been: Did Reagan’s team take action to block Carter’s October Surprise?

The testimonial and documentary evidence that Reagan’s team did engage in a secret operation to prevent Carter’s October Surprise is now almost as overwhelming as the proof of the 1968 affair regarding Nixon’s Paris peace talk maneuver.

That evidence indicates that Reagan’s campaign director William Casey organized a clandestine effort to prevent the hostages’ release before Election Day, after apparently consulting with Nixon and Kissinger and aided by former CIA Director George H.W. Bush, who was Reagan’s vice presidential running mate.

By early November 1980, the public’s obsession with Iran’s humiliation of the United States and Carter’s inability to free the hostages helped turn a narrow race into a Reagan landslide. When the hostages were finally let go immediately after Reagan’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981, his supporters cited the timing to claim that the Iranians had finally relented out of fear of Reagan.

Bolstered by his image as a tough guy, Reagan enacted much of his right-wing agenda, including passing massive tax cuts benefiting the wealthy, weakening unions and creating the circumstances for the rapid erosion of the Great American Middle Class.

Behind the scenes, the Reagan administration signed off on secret arms shipments to Iran, mostly through Israel, what a variety of witnesses described as the payoff for Iran’s cooperation in getting Reagan elected and then giving him the extra benefit of timing the hostage release to immediately follow his inauguration.

We know that Trump operative and career dirty trickster Roger Stone contended on August 8, 2016 that he has "actually communicated" with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who has leaked DNC e-mails which the intelligence community has strongly suggested were hacked by force(s) associated witht the Russian government.  But even five days ago Parry himself did not make the connection that, according to Michael Crowley, Senator Harry

Reid himself has led the charge since late August, when he sent Comey an open letter imploring the FBI to investigate what he called “evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.” That letter cited a Trump campaign adviser who traveled to Moscow in July and who, according to Reid, “met with high-ranking sanctioned individuals” there. That was almost surely a reference to Carter Page, an investment banker who has worked in Moscow and whom Trump has publicly named as a foreign adviser. Page has denied meeting with sanctioned Kremlin officials in Moscow, where he delivered economic remarks at a think tank. The Trump campaign says Carter plays a minimal advisory role.

History, it is claimed, repeats itself. Still, neither Taylor, Parry, or Politico's Crowley even mentioned the Brooks Brothers' riot which stopped vote counting in Miami-Dade County, Florida in 2000 nor in 2004 vote switching, pre-punched ballots, voter suppression, and hacking of the touchscreen voting machines in Ohio by controllers of the SmarTech computers.

Donald Trump whines about the election being "rigged" and diverts attention from GOP voter suppression. But through the decades, the Republican Party has practiced in close elections a a subtler, more sophisticated, and more realistic effort to subvert the election process than he imagines.

Share |

Another President, Another Plan

Last night, President Obama gave his long-awaited- or awaited for 16 days- speech about illegal immigrants.

Of course, the President did not speak of "illegal immigrants," not even once, but four times of "undocumented immigrants" and once each of "undocumented immigrant," "undocumented worker," and "undocumented" (student). Under the U.S. Code, immigrants unfortunately are referred to as "aliens,"  as if they've arrived from Mars on a spaceship.

But the term "undocumented" also is ludicrous, given that either possession or lack of documents results from the means of entry, and no doubt some individuals have immigrated legally to the USA and have lost their documents.  Rather, given that those people are legal immigrants, the other individuals are illegal immigrants.

Turnabout is fair play, however, and given the dishonest propensity of the right to term any immigration reform "amnesty," conservatives may end up being stuck with the word "undocumented," a rather benign way of saying "came here contrary to law."

In his brilliantly crafted statement, President Obama stated also "As my predecessor, President Bush, once put it, they are a part of American life."  That was a mere ten sentences before he would point out "It does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive. Only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you."

A sense of shame would have prevented a president from warmly presenting human beings as "a part of American life," then almost immediately bragging they won't be given a chance to become citizens or have the benefits other people have. They are part of American life; on second thought, they are not. Truthfully, though, most successful politicians have little sense of shame, or they would not be successful; a fact of electoral life.

Notably (though few if any will note it) President Obama chose to mention only one previous president, George W. Bush. Gregory Korte of USA Today maintains "speechwriters dusted off President George W. Bush's 2006 speech on immigration, and built Obama's remarks around it."

Perhaps that was only fair to Obama's immediate predecessor, given that the Spanish-speaking Bush garnered far more Hispanic votes in his election and re-election to the presidency than did the English-speaking John McCain, who at one time actually supported comprehensive immigration reform.   Or perhaps it was an appeal to conservative voters, who recognize (or should recognize) GWB as extremely conservative while at the same time not unsympathetic to illegal immigrants- uh, er, undocumented workers.

Presumably, President Obama would have referred to George W. Bush's father, were the latter not considered a RINO by many Republicans., because the actions of the 44th President on immigration policy bear a stark resemblance to those of the 41st.

In an analysis upon which Politifact relied heavily in finding the two Presidents' actions similar, Dara Lind of Vox (its graph of "rise in unauthorized immigrant population," below) explained 

After the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) passed in 1986, about 2.7 million previously-unauthorized immigrants were able to apply for legal status, which they could ultimately turn into green cards and eventual citizenship. But there were strict requirements about who could get legalized: most importantly, immigrants had to have been in the US since 1982. And that meant some members of families were eligible while others weren't. If an immigrant who was eligible for legalization under IRCA had a spouse or a child who wasn't eligible, the spouse or child was out of luck.

After President Reagan took limited executive action to respond to the problem

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush expanded the program, to allow any child or spouse of someone who was getting legalized through IRCA to apply for extended voluntary departure. That expansion made it much broader than the original program.

Bush gave the program a new name: Family Fairness. That's the action that is most comparable to Obama's actions now.

Not only were the policy and the strategy similar, so too was the scope, insofar as "Bush's executive action protected about 40 percent of America's unauthorized immigrants at the time. That's roughly comparable to the action Obama is expected to take, covering 4 million of the nation's 11 million unauthorized immigrants...."

President Obama did not refer to the immigration policy of his favorite president, Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6), who proudly signed in 1986 the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which did little controlling and reformed policy by allowing illegal immigrants to apply for legal status.

While Reagan, unlike Obama, acted (primarily) legislatively and granted actual amnesty, the approach of the 40th President bore was a little similar to that of the 44th. President Reagan did not convey citizenship and President Obama's executive order does not convey citizenship either, with the President assuring us "it does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive." He added, "millions of us, myself included, go back generations in this country, with ancestors who put in the painstaking work to become citizens. So we don't like the notion anyone might get a free pass to American citizenship."

And no, they won't get a free pass.  Under the terms even of the reform bill the Senate approved, the House ignored, and Obama supports, citizenship for most illegal immigrants would be unavailable for thirteen years.

Ronald Reagan had an idea to fix an immigration system. Yet 28 years later, it is "broken," a term of art cleverly used three times by Obama, who realizes no one would disagree it is broken while people vigorously disagree on the reason and the remedy.

Five presidents (Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama with his DACA initiative) over the course of 28 years have tried to fix the mess by easing up on enforcement. The system  now is even more "broken." This may be a pattern.

Share |

Means To An End



House Speaker John Boehner has called Grover Norquist "some random person" and has stated "Because the American people expect us to find common ground, we are willing to accept some additional revenues, via tax reform."   Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss claims the founder and director of Americans for Tax Reform "has no credibility" and Bush 41 has charged "Circumstances change, and you can't be wedded to some formula by Grover Norquist.   It's- who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?"

Some Republicans undoubtedly would say, rhetorically and in private:  "Who the hell is George H.W. Bush, anyway?"  (He is the last Republican president and, worse yet, the last president since Jimmy Carter to be rejected for a second term.)   Norquist, creator and keeper of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, still is far more influential that HW Bush.

Still, as The Philadelphia Inquirer's Thomas Fitzgerald writes, some GOP congressmen "are openly defying Norquist."

That's just it- they're openly defying Norquist, all the better to curry favor with media types who yearn for a sign, any sign that Republicans may be doing something that may approximate what can be plausibly called "compromise."  But compromise it's not.

Boehner, who sent a thrill up the legs of many Obamites and media types when he spoke vaguely on November 7 about "additional revenues," now says "we need to repeal Obamacare and enact common-sense, step-by-step reforms that start with lowering the cost of health care."  (You win the election; we set the agenda.  Sounds fair, doesn't it?)
 
While the House Speaker is willing to consider "additional revenues" in order to undermine the Affordable Care Act, Senator Chambliss has his eyes set on Wall Street's favorite targets, Social Security and Medicare. Zaid Jilani notes

For more than a year, Chambliss has been involved with a group of senators who support the Bowles-Simpson plan to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits while lowering the corporate tax rate. This Bowles-Simpson plan closes a few token tax loopholes, and also reduces the popular mortgage interest deduction. Norquist is opposed to closing even the tiny loopholes that the Bowles-Simpson plan closes, so he staunchly opposes the plan altogether — which also means opposing Chambliss.

Chambliss is willing to deal with closing small loopholes in the tax code in order to get to the wider goals of the Bowles-Simpson plan: cutting Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age, cutting Medicare benefits by capping overall spending, and dramatically lowering corporate tax rates.

On Sunday's This Week with George Stephanopolous, Georgia Senator Lindsey Graham conceded "Republicans should put revenue on the table. We're this far in debt. We don't generate enough revenue. Capping deductions will help generate revenue. "   Moments later Graham, one of the congressmen often hailed as independent of Norquist, spun (h/t/ to Susie Madrak) this tale:

I don't think you can look at entitlement reform without adjusting the age for retirement, like Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did. It goes to 66, 67 here pretty soon for Social Security. Let it float up another year or so over the next 30 years, adjust Medicare from 65 to 67 over the next 30 years, means test benefits for people in our income level. I don't expect the Democrats to go for premium support or a voucher plan, but I do expect them to adjust these entitlement programs before they bankrupt the country and run out of money themselves. So age adjustment and means testing for both Social Security, Medicare I think is eminently reasonable. And all those who've looked at this problem have done that over time.

Discussing the fiscal cliff, fiscal curb, or whatever idiotic, inaccurate cliches are in vogue this week, Graham pimps for raising the age for Social Security recipients.   If we pretend, as does the thoroughly dishonest South Carolinian, that Social Security has something to do with the deficit (other than cutting it as politicians use the trust fund to pay for tax cuts), Graham ought to be informed that life expectancy has dipped, however slightly, in recent years. Lyn Parramore responds to the fear mongers by explaining

You will be hearing lots of convincing-sounding rhetoric on this topic in upcoming weeks –often from Democrats – including the notion that we should be means-testing Social Security for longevity among high-income earners. That plan plays into the mythology that the program is somehow broken and needs to be “fixed.” It also plays into the game of fiscal conservatives who know full well that means testing will diminish support, which is why they have been ardently pushing it for 50 years. It’s yet another red herring.

In return for beginning to demolish Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, Republicans hint at a willingness to accept an increase in revenue.   But to many on the right, lowering taxes on the wealthy- the "job creators"- itself magically increases tax revenue (supply-side economics, Laffer Curve, voodoo economics, etc.).   If they can be persuaded to accept caps on deductions, the loopholes simply will return within a few years.  The lobbyists will not get religion, fold up their tents and go home simply because of a minor, temporary setback.   Grover Norquist maintains his grip on the Gas and Oil Party.

In the meantime, the attack on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid- demonized as "entitlements"- would continue apace among neo-liberal centrists and conservative plutocrats.  The Great Recession may have been engineered (intentionally or otherwise) by the financial community, but old people, poor people, and sick people must suffer for their sins.


Share |

Empathy And Activism

It all started when President Obama, commenting on his quest for a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter, explained

I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch summed up the reaction of conservative Republicans when he charged "Those are all code words for an activist judge who is going to . . . be partisan on the bench."

Once Judge Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by President Obama, a line from a speech she gave at the law school of the Univeristy of California-Berkeley in 2001 caused an uproar. With a little context added, Judge Sotomayor stated

Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

And a remark Judge Sotomayor made at a panel discussion at Duke University in February of 2005, this about the role of circuit court judges, also elicited controversy. She noted (video below):

The Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know…I know. (some laughs) I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I'm…you know. OK. (more laughs)

Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. It's interpretation. It's application.

The Repub long knives came out. Wendy Long (once a clerk for Clarence Thomas), counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network, contended the Judge's "body of work.... appears to be a view of the courts as engines of soical and political change- in short, wrought out of a devotion to judicial activism." Mitt Romney decried her alleged "expansive view of the role of the judiciary." And Republican Party chief Rush Limbaugh, who accused the nominee of being a "reverse racist," claimed "We have Sonia Sotomayor who thinks that the court is where policy is made." Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer argues "if nothing else, it (i.e., conservatism) stands unequivocally against justice as empathy." And so on.

Now it appears that empathy is a pretty widespread emotion among judges. When promoting Clarence Thomas as his Supreme Court nominee, President George H.W. Bush referred to the judge as "a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor." When he appeared in January, 2005 before the Senate Judiciary Committee after his nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Samuel Alito responded (slightly more than halfway through the transcript) to a question from Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Ok.) by maintaining (video way below):

Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

Greg Sargent has learned that soon after she was appointed to the Supreme Court, in March 1982 Sandra Day O'Connor opined

I think that I bring to the court differences in background that are more germane than my gender.

My experience as a legislator gives me a different perspective. Also, I bring to the court the perspective of a woman primarily in a sense that I am female, just as I am white, a college graduate, etc.

Yes, I will bring the understanding of a woman to the court, but I doubt that that alone will affect my decisions,” she said. “I think the important fact about my appointment is not that I will decide cases as a woman, but that I am a woman who will get to decide cases.

And if the Repub right is only a recent convert to the battle against empathy, it appears to be downright wrong about the role of judges. Mediamatters.org quotes a conservative law professor as commenting that Sotomayor's remark "seems to be nothing more than an observation that, as a practical matter, many policy disputes are resolved in the federal courts of appeals. This is an indisputably true observation." And another law professor maintains "the circuit courts play by far the greatest legal policymaking role in the United States judicial system," greater, apparently, than state courts which, Justice Scalia has written, "possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999)." Further, as Paul Gewirtz and Chad Golder have argued, striking down a law enacted by Congress is arguably the best criterion for determining how "activist" a judge is- and typically, the more conservative, Republican Supreme Court justices have done so more than the liberal, Democratic justices.

Obviously, the GOP is in a bind trying to determine its response to this nomination. Continuing to attack Sotomayor as a "racist" a la Limbaugh and Gingrich risks alienating the Hispanic community and its voters, not only in the short term but for a longer period. But criticizing the nominee as an "activist" judge (an illegitimate argument at that) without bringing into play the issue of "empathy" and, inevitably, ethnicity, may be walking a tightrope too precarious for even the Flying Wallendas.

Just Another Priority

Suppose you have been concerned: over the rise of terrorism in the Gulf as a result of our invasion of Iraq; the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan, with the growing strength of Al Qaeda in northwestern Pakistan; inadequate inspection of shipping containers entering the United States; or with apparent partisan political considerations in hiring practices at the Department of Justice. Suppose, in other words, that the priority placed by the Bush Administration on combatting terrorism has you concerned.

Nevertheless, you are reminded again by Repub politicians that there has been no terrorist attack inside the United States since September 11, 2001. Perhaps you're almost convinced.

But don't be. A posting of 8/8/08 by Jonathan Schwarz on the site thismodernworld.com links to the interview of the previous day on National Public Radio's "Fresh Air" of Ron Suskind, author most recently of "The Way of the World." Here Schwarz's excerpt of the interview, in which President Bush's reaction and response to the British investigation of terrorists in 2006 is described:



NPR: I want to talk just a little about this fascinating episode you describe in the summer of 2006, when President Bush is very anxious about some intelligence briefings that he is getting from the British. What are they telling him?

SUSKIND: In late July of 2006, the British are moving forward on a mission they’ve been–an investigation they’ve been at for a year at that point, where they’ve got a group of “plotters,” so-called, in the London area that they’ve been tracking…Bush gets this briefing at the end of July of 2006, and he’s very agitated. When Blair comes at the end of the month, they talk about it and he says, “Look, I want this thing, this trap snapped shut immediately.” Blair’s like, “Well, look, be patient here. What we do in Britain”–Blair describes, and this is something well known to Bush–”is we try to be more patient so they move a bit forward. These guys are not going to breathe without us knowing it. We’ve got them all mapped out so that we can get actual hard evidence, and then prosecute them in public courts of law and get real prosecutions and long prison terms”…

Well, Bush doesn’t get the answer he wants, which is “snap the trap shut.” And the reason he wants that is because he’s getting all sorts of pressure from Republicans in Congress that his ratings are down. These are the worst ratings for a sitting president at this point in his second term, and they’re just wild-eyed about the coming midterm elections. Well, Bush expresses his dissatisfaction to Cheney as to the Blair meeting, and Cheney moves forward.

NPR: So you got the British saying, “Let’s carefully build our case. Let’s get more intelligence.” Bush wants an arrest and a political win. What does he do?

SUSKIND: Absolutely. What happens is that then, oh, a few days later, the CIA operations chief–which is really a senior guy. He’s up there in the one, two, three spots at CIA, guy named Jose Rodriguez ends up slipping quietly into Islamabad, Pakistan, and he meets secretly with the ISI, which is the Pakistani intelligence service. And suddenly a guy in Pakistan named Rashid Rauf, who’s kind of the contact of the British plotters in Pakistan, gets arrested. This, of course, as anyone could expect, triggers a reaction in London, a lot of scurrying. And the Brits have to run through the night wild-eyed and basically round up 25 or 30 people. It’s quite a frenzy. The British are livid about this. They talk to the Americans. The Americans kind of shrug, “Who knows? You know, ISI picked up Rashid Rauf.”

NPR: So the British did not even get a heads-up from the United States that this arrest was going to happen?

SUSKIND: Did not get a heads-up. In fact, the whole point was to mislead the British…The British did not know about it, frankly, until I reported it in the book…
What’s interesting is that the White House already had its media plan already laid out before all of this occurred so that the president and vice president immediately–even, in Cheney’s case, before the arrest, the day before–started to capitalize on the war on terror rhetoric and political harvest, which of course they used for weeks to come, right into the fall, about, “The worst plot since 9/11, that has been foiled, and this is why you want us in power.”


To summarize: by July of 2006 the White House has developed a scheme to maximize political advantage for the GOP in the upcoming fall elections, by exploiting arrest of plotters across the ocean to convince voters to keep his party in power. That month, Prime Minister Blair visits President Bush and advises the American president that the British are methodically moving on this group of plotters in the London area so as to gather sufficient evidence and prosecute the individuals most effectively. Mr. Bush is not pleased and voila!: a few days later a CIA agent meets secretly with the Pakistani intelligence service, which then arrests the guy who is the contact in Pakistan for the British plotters. Angry, the British are left with with no option than suddenly one night to zip around and arrest, prematurely, 25-30 individuals.

Yes, President Bush is concerned with terrorism. It has been one of his highest priorities, after overthrowing the dictator in Iraq who bedeviled his father; expanding the power of the Executive Branch over American citizens; establishing corporate control of the country; producing electoral gains for the Repub party; and a few other things. We can be thankful we haven't been hit in this country in almost seven years- but it is in spite of, rather than because of, GWB.

It's Big Oil- part 2

The New York Times reported on 6/18/08 that White House Press Secretary Dana Perino stated that her boss would urge Congress to “pass legislation lifting the Congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling.... the president believes Congress shouldn’t waste any more time.”

The Times explains that a congressional moratorium was enacted in 1982 and renewed annually. In 1990 it was suppplemented by an executive order signed by President George Herbert Walker Bush and in 1998 extended to 2012 by President Clinton. The executive order could be lifted by President George W. Bush, whose "top aides" have recommended the action.

But the President has instead called on the legislative branch to lift the moratorium. This is a clever move by a president whose shrewdness always has exceeded his courage. Calling for Congressional action serves these political purposes in that it:

- allows a state to act as it sees fit, thus putting the onus of action on its chief executive (rather than the President);

- enables the President to blame Congress, if convenient, thus focusing the ire of environmentalists on the legislative branceh;

-demonstrates Bush's commitment to "change," to doing something, even if ineffectual;

-gives GWB license to blame Congressional Democrats for standing in the way of energy independence- and for pursuing a "partisan" agenda which, in part due to the (mostly early) rhetoric of the Obama campaign, is nothing public officials want to be associated with.

And, of course, it diverts attention from the oil industry with which this failed president is so cozy.

Irrelevant

Finally, former President George Herbert Walker Bush has endorsed for President Arizona Senator John McCain, contending he has the "right values and experience to guide our nation forward" and "no one is better prepared to lead our nation at these trying times....." Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report (generally a worthwhile read) commented "this is just another sign that the race for the Republican nomination is effectively over and that the party establishment is wrapping their arms around McCain."

What gave you your first clue, Charlie? Might it have be the 846 delegates won by McCain (with only 1191 needed for nomination) compared to the 268 by Romney (who has urged his delegates to vote for McCain), 243 for Huckabee (who makes the Repub establishment at least as queasy as does McCain), and the 14 for Ron Paul? Could it be that it's almost statistically impossible for McCain to blow the nomination?

Much of the Repub "party establishment" already supports the Arizona Senator, although his endorsements from GOP Representatives and Senators have been underwhelming. The Repub establishment is not McCain's problem. The right wing is McCain's problem, the likes of Thad Cochran, Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay, George F. Will, and Laura Ingraham. Instead, today's was an endorsement of the president who famously uttered "read my lips- no new taxes," then raised them when necessary, thereby incurring the disappointment of most of the GOP and the wrath of much of it. If George H.W. Bush was revered- or even respected- by the Republicans McCain has been courting (actually, pandering to), the Repub debates wouldn't have been consumed by each candidate (save Paul) trying to out-Reagan Reagan. And the presumptive nominee himself might have missed at least one opportunity to proclaim himself "a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution."

If former President Bush had endorsed John McCain six weeks ago, that might have had an effect on the Republican race. We now would be anticipating the nomination of Mitt Romney.

After much debate among members of his staff, former Michigan Mitt Romney has finally given the speech many people thought he would never make, and which he fervently hoped he wouldn't have to make. Such is the power of polls that show another candidate, especially a believing Christian, nipping at his heels in Iowa.

Romney's comments drew many raves and some criticism. I think on balance that it was the speech he had to give, taking Mike Huckabee's surge off the front page for at least awhile and giving Romney the opportunity, when asked by the media henceforth about his religious views, to blow them off, referring questioners to his remarks of today. All in all, a good day for a faltering, if leading, campaign.

Flanked by several flags at the George Bush Presidential library and introduced by the former President, Romney appeared "Presidential," though in that venue, Pee Wee Herman, or even Rudolph Giuliani, would appear Presidential. This impression was enhanced with soaring rhetoric, including "as I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings." That's a great line- everyone figures he or she is going to heaven and who hasn't been moved by America's finest architecture, churches with their steeples?

Romney effectively, if disingenuously, set up a favorite Republican straw man. He claimed "they seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

Not surprisingly, the candidate never explained who "they" are, other than to refer to "some." There is a Republican, or conservative, myth that this threat comes from the public sector, as if the federal government has been taken over by some rogue element of radical secularists. But no one has banished religion, or even Christianity, from the public domain or from public life. No law, no statute, no governmental regulation requires Sears, JC Penney, or even your local bakery to turn Christmas- or rather the "holiday"- into an orgy of commercialism. It is the private, not the public, sector, chasing the holy grail of profit, which has turned this season into a faith-less void which Romney, and so many Republicans, decry. But government, ever the rhetorical enemy of the GOP, is a far more convenient target than private interests, source of campaign largesse and object of Republican idolatry.

I could go on criticizing Romney's remarks, such as: the assurance that "any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me," suggesting that he cannot abide a non-believer; the astonishing claim that "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," by someone otherwise noting of western Europe, "the churches themselves seem to be withering away"; and of the nation's founders, "for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator," though our nation's founders probably had more in common with today's agnostics than with the Christian right.

But Romney's speechwriters cleverly, and seamlessly, wove a patriotic speech into what was billed as an explanation of how the candidate's faith would inform his Presidency. One mention of the word "Mormon," a fleeting reference to his religious beliefs ("I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind"), but an emphasis on what Americans like to believe are shared values. How effectively ironic: a speech pretending to be about religion, flattering the American people as peculiarly religious and faith-driven, and virtually devoid of religious content.