Several analyses have come out over the past few days examining the near-failure of the West's strategic approach to Afghanistan. They make for dismal reading but offer a number of recommendations for a course correction, despite recent comments from Defense Secretary Robert Gates that "I would say that the security situation is good," and Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher's comments before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, that "nobody can tell me it’s not going in a positive direction." He argued that "there is progress. It’s going in the right direction," that Afghanistan has "a government that works fairly well."
Perhaps a sign of "the right direction" is one found at the State Department's website which has, in a section called "Afghanistan Investment and Reconstruction Task Force" a notice that "a delegation of 10 Afghan rug businesses will exhibit their products at this winter’s Las Vegas Market at the World Center Market in Las Vegas."
Clearly, we have problems.
As for those analyses, they include: "Saving Afghanistan: An Appeal and Plan for Urgent Action" by The Atlantic Council Of The United States, which grimly observed "make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan." (hereafter ACUS); the National Defense University's report "Winning the Invisible War: An Agricultural Pilot Plan for Afghanistan" (hereafter NDU); the Center for the Study of the Presidency's "Afghanistan Study Group Report: Revitalizing Our Efforts and Rethinking Our Strategy" (hereafter ASGR); and, last November's "The Forgotten Front" by the Center For American Progress (hereafter CAP).
Each of these suggest recommendations for a more cohesive approach to that benighted , war-torn state. In sum, those suggestions amount to emphasizing the need to take Afghanistan's woes seriously in light of the Taliban and al Qaeda resurgences, and put in place a cohesive, comprehensive and comprehensible policy.
Yet these policy suggestions state what should be obvious to the US and its NATO partners.
Apparently not.
Here's Boucher stating the obvious: "Afghanistan is more than just a theater to fight enemies. It is a place of strategic opportunity. Afghanistan offers a rare opportunity to win a close, loyal, democratic ally in the heart of a continent with unmatched political and economic capital and potential. [It] is located at the crossroads of countries that are the focus of our foreign policy efforts and has the potential for becoming the linchpin for regional integration in South and Central Asia."
Okay. Nice summation of the region's importance. But, simply by looking at the lack of seriousness with which the US and NATO have approached the country, as evidenced by ineffective policy, one has to wonder whether the current Administration believes the words of its own officials, that Afghanistan "is ... at the crossroads of countries that are the focus of our foreign policy efforts ...."
ASGR: "The United States and the international community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few military forces, insufficient economic aid, and without a clear and consistent comprehensive strategy to fill the power vacuum outside Kabul and counter the combined challenges of reconstituted Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a runaway opium economy, and the stark poverty faced by most Afghans."
Too few resources. That doesn't sound like a serious policy.
CAP: "The United States must change its current approach. It must fully implement a counterinsurgency framework for all of Afghanistan. All elements of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, including development and reconstruction assistance, support for rule of law, counternarcotics strategy, and military operations should be coordinated within this framework."
Which means we've had, for the past six plus years an uncoordinated policy because, as CAP has it, "although the current administration has portrayed Iraq as the central front of the 'global war on terror,' Afghanistan and the borderlands of Pakistan remain the central battlefield."
Robert Gates: "militarily, NATO has had a very successful year in 2007. The Taliban is occupying no territory in Afghanistan on a continuing basis ... [he admitted to] a rising security issue [in Afghanistan but said] it’s because the Taliban are turning to terrorism, having failed in conventional military conflict with the NATO allies.
And so we are seeing more suicide bombings, more use of (improvised explosive devices), and so on. These are actions of people whose conventional military efforts have failed. The rise in violence and attacks like we saw in Kabul are manifestations of a group that has lost in regular military terms in 2007 and is turning to terrorism as a substitute for that."
Yet even as he said this at a press conference with French Defense Minister Herve Morin, the latter said, "the problem in Afghanistan is not only a military problem. We need a comprehensive solution."
Clearly there's not much unity of view there.
ACUS: "On the security side, a stalemate of sorts has taken hold. NATO and Afghan forces cannot be beaten by the insurgency or by the Taliban. Neither can our forces eliminate the Taliban by military means as long as they have sanctuary in Pakistan. Hence, the future of Afghanistan will be determined by progress or failure in the civil sector."
Gates: "The key, it seems to me, is how do we overcome this turn to terrorism on the part of the Taliban and, at the same time deal, as Minister Morin talked about, with the other aspects of concern in Afghanistan? And that is economic development, governance, counternarcotics and so on. All of these things need to be addressed for us to be successful."
It is astonishing beyond belief that the Defense Secretary talks of this in 2008--one would think these questions would have been asked and answered and policies designed and implemented at the beginning of 2002. Sec. Gates ought to be speaking of success at this point, not merely that "these things need to be addressed."
NDU: "When this paper was undertaken in the summer of 2007, one of its purposes was to sound the alarm over Afghanistan and the critical need for comprehensive action across all sectors of society to prevent that country from becoming a failed state. The second purpose was to lay out the major areas that needed immediate attention, largely within the civil side of reconstruction and development. The third was to propose specific pilot plans for rejuvenating the agricultural sector."
Doesn't this sound like something that should have been addressed by the Administration's vast stable of experts in 2002?
The NDU report adds: "it appears that the Bush administration and NATO are taking [our] warning seriously. At least three studies are underway: one at Central Command; a second at the State Department; and a third at NATO. Those studies need not take much time to finish. The issues are clear."
Three studies are underway! Even though "the issues are clear." They're certainly clear to Sen. Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
As I see it, here’s the situation in Afghanistan: Security is probably at its lowest ebb since 2001. Much of the country is only nominally under the control of Kabul. U.S. and coalition forces win every pitched battle, but the Taliban still grows stronger day by day.
Drug-trafficking dominates the national economy, and narco-barons operate with impunity. Reconstruction efforts have failed to bring substantial improvement to the lives of most Afghan citizens, and the slow pace is causing widespread resentment at both the Karzai government and the West.
And Bin Laden and the top Al Qaeda leaders enjoy safe haven somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
In fact, this summer, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Terror Threat found that Al Qaeda 'has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability.'
The Administration firmly believes that we are about to turn a corner and that we just need to give our policy a chance to work. I am curious as to what that policy is, because it’s not clear to me.
But that’s exactly what we’ve been hearing for the past five years: the tide is always about to turn.
I sure hope so. But I wouldn’t bet on it. If we’re not going to hold another hearing on Afghanistan next year, and have another retelling of the same story, we need a significant change in policy now."
So here we are, in the waning months of a presidency-gone-bad in so very many ways. And yet, this president's claim to "legacy" is his "war on terror." He will be compared, he seems to believe, to President Harry Truman: "By the actions he took, the institutions he built, the alliances he forged and the doctrines he set down, President Truman laid the foundations for America's victory in the cold war." (2006 commencement address to the United States Military Academy)
Now, if President Bush had only built institutions, forged alliances and established doctrines, he might have such a claim.
He didn't and he doesn't.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Caution! Constitution-Shredding in Progress!
It's either ironic or simply hypocritical that President Bush continues to employ signing statements to trump Congressional statutes even as he rhetorically argues on behalf of the original intention of the Constitution's authors.
In his State of the Union speech on Monday, Bush said "on matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says. I've submitted judicial nominees who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel."
Yet on the same day he uttered those words, he continued, as the Guardian put it, "his practice of disregarding portions of new laws, quietly reserving the right to build permanent military bases in Iraq, keep Congress in the dark on spying activity and block two accountability measures aimed at private security firms accused of wartime abuses."
In a Harvard Law Review article, David Barron and Martin Lederman argue that the Bush Administration's position is predicated on the argument that "the Commander in Chief Clause prevents Congress from interfering with the President’s operational discretion in wartime by 'direct[ing] the conduct of campaigns.' Or, as it is sometimes more broadly put, the idea is that Congress may not regulate the President’s judgments about how best to defeat the enemy — that the Commander in Chief’s discretion on such matters is not only constitutionally prescribed but is preclusive of the exercise of Congress’s Article I powers." (citations omitted)
Preclusive in that it precedes and therefore trumps Congress's Article I powers to enact legislative statutes that seek to exert Congressional authority, thereby explicitly reigning in an overreach of Presidential authority. Or, as it's described in a "Memorandum from Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Att’y Gen., Office of Legal Counsel, to Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President (Aug. 1, 2002)," Congress isn't permitted to "dictate strategic or tactical decisions on the battlefield."
**
The most recent Bush signing statement followed his signature on H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. As the official White House statement puts it, "provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President," or, simply ignore "such provisions."
The bill's sections involve "Commission on Wartime Contracting" (sec. 841); "Protection For Contractor Employees From Reprisal For Disclosure Of Certain Information" (sec. 846); "Communications With The Committees On Armed Services Of The Senate And The House Of Representatives" (sec. 1079); and "Limitation On Availability Of Funds For Certain Purposes Relating To Iraq" (sec. 1222)
**
Section 841 relate to Congress's duty to assess, among other things, "the extent of waste, fraud, and abuse under such contracts; the extent to which those responsible for such waste, fraud, and abuse have been held financially or legally accountable; [and] the extent to which contractors under such contracts have engaged in the misuse of force or have used force in a manner inconsistent with the objectives of the operational field commander; and the extent of potential violations of the laws of war, Federal law, or other applicable legal standards by contractors under such."
It's pretty clear why this merited a signing statement, given the behavior of Blackwater in Iraq and the several no-bid contracts that have been awarded to various companies.
Section 846 involves whistleblower protection ("increased protection from reprisal") for contractor employees. Again, given the objection to the previous section, the last thing the Administration wants is legal protection for those willing to testify to wrongdoing.
Section 1079 addresses the authority of Congress to receive testimony from intelligence officials: "The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Director of a national intelligence center, or the head of any element of the intelligence community shall, not later than 45 days after receiving a written request from the Chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate or the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives for any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion relating to matters within the jurisdiction of such Committee, make available to such committee such assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion, as the case may be."
This section even includes the provision "unless the President determines that such document or information shall not be provided because the President is asserting a privilege pursuant to the Constitution of the United States."
But, recalling the Administration's assertion of preclusion, Congress lacks the authority to require this testimony at all. Apparently, a presidential assertion of privilege is beside the point.
Section 1222 is the kicker, since it relates to the prohibition of using appropriated funds for building permanent bases in Iraq:
"No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
The permanent base issue is particularly contentious (actually, they all are) since Defense Secretary Robert Gates said as recently as last week that "we have no interest in permanent bases."
Yet as Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA) said in the Senate yesterday, "every time a senior Administration official is asked about permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, they contend that it is not their intention to construct such facilities. Yet this signing statement issued by the President yesterday is the clearest signal yet that the Administration wants to hold this option in reserve. Mr. President, that is exactly the wrong signal to send, both to the Iraqi government and its neighbors in the region."
Dawn Johnsen, a law professor at the University of Indiana (and a former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration) said, "Congress clearly has the authority to enact this limitation of the expenditure of funds for permanent bases in Iraq."
American Bar Association President Karen Mathis told members of the House Judiciary Committee today that "the potential for misuse in the issuance of presidential signing statements has reached the point where it poses a real threat to our system of checks and balances and the rule of law."
But absent the critical involvement of the Judiciary branch, George Bush will continue to ignore legislation he doesn't like even as he heaps contempt on the other two branches of government. If that doesn't define a Constitutional crisis, what does?
In his State of the Union speech on Monday, Bush said "on matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says. I've submitted judicial nominees who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel."
Yet on the same day he uttered those words, he continued, as the Guardian put it, "his practice of disregarding portions of new laws, quietly reserving the right to build permanent military bases in Iraq, keep Congress in the dark on spying activity and block two accountability measures aimed at private security firms accused of wartime abuses."
In a Harvard Law Review article, David Barron and Martin Lederman argue that the Bush Administration's position is predicated on the argument that "the Commander in Chief Clause prevents Congress from interfering with the President’s operational discretion in wartime by 'direct[ing] the conduct of campaigns.' Or, as it is sometimes more broadly put, the idea is that Congress may not regulate the President’s judgments about how best to defeat the enemy — that the Commander in Chief’s discretion on such matters is not only constitutionally prescribed but is preclusive of the exercise of Congress’s Article I powers." (citations omitted)
Preclusive in that it precedes and therefore trumps Congress's Article I powers to enact legislative statutes that seek to exert Congressional authority, thereby explicitly reigning in an overreach of Presidential authority. Or, as it's described in a "Memorandum from Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Att’y Gen., Office of Legal Counsel, to Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President (Aug. 1, 2002)," Congress isn't permitted to "dictate strategic or tactical decisions on the battlefield."
**
The most recent Bush signing statement followed his signature on H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. As the official White House statement puts it, "provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President," or, simply ignore "such provisions."
The bill's sections involve "Commission on Wartime Contracting" (sec. 841); "Protection For Contractor Employees From Reprisal For Disclosure Of Certain Information" (sec. 846); "Communications With The Committees On Armed Services Of The Senate And The House Of Representatives" (sec. 1079); and "Limitation On Availability Of Funds For Certain Purposes Relating To Iraq" (sec. 1222)
**
Section 841 relate to Congress's duty to assess, among other things, "the extent of waste, fraud, and abuse under such contracts; the extent to which those responsible for such waste, fraud, and abuse have been held financially or legally accountable; [and] the extent to which contractors under such contracts have engaged in the misuse of force or have used force in a manner inconsistent with the objectives of the operational field commander; and the extent of potential violations of the laws of war, Federal law, or other applicable legal standards by contractors under such."
It's pretty clear why this merited a signing statement, given the behavior of Blackwater in Iraq and the several no-bid contracts that have been awarded to various companies.
Section 846 involves whistleblower protection ("increased protection from reprisal") for contractor employees. Again, given the objection to the previous section, the last thing the Administration wants is legal protection for those willing to testify to wrongdoing.
Section 1079 addresses the authority of Congress to receive testimony from intelligence officials: "The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Director of a national intelligence center, or the head of any element of the intelligence community shall, not later than 45 days after receiving a written request from the Chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate or the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives for any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion relating to matters within the jurisdiction of such Committee, make available to such committee such assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion, as the case may be."
This section even includes the provision "unless the President determines that such document or information shall not be provided because the President is asserting a privilege pursuant to the Constitution of the United States."
But, recalling the Administration's assertion of preclusion, Congress lacks the authority to require this testimony at all. Apparently, a presidential assertion of privilege is beside the point.
Section 1222 is the kicker, since it relates to the prohibition of using appropriated funds for building permanent bases in Iraq:
"No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
The permanent base issue is particularly contentious (actually, they all are) since Defense Secretary Robert Gates said as recently as last week that "we have no interest in permanent bases."
Yet as Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA) said in the Senate yesterday, "every time a senior Administration official is asked about permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, they contend that it is not their intention to construct such facilities. Yet this signing statement issued by the President yesterday is the clearest signal yet that the Administration wants to hold this option in reserve. Mr. President, that is exactly the wrong signal to send, both to the Iraqi government and its neighbors in the region."
Dawn Johnsen, a law professor at the University of Indiana (and a former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration) said, "Congress clearly has the authority to enact this limitation of the expenditure of funds for permanent bases in Iraq."
American Bar Association President Karen Mathis told members of the House Judiciary Committee today that "the potential for misuse in the issuance of presidential signing statements has reached the point where it poses a real threat to our system of checks and balances and the rule of law."
But absent the critical involvement of the Judiciary branch, George Bush will continue to ignore legislation he doesn't like even as he heaps contempt on the other two branches of government. If that doesn't define a Constitutional crisis, what does?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
SOTU, Or A Rhetorical Exercise in Doublespeak
Last night's State of the Union speech by President Bush, his last, was a not unexpected exercise in political duplicity. Here are some lowlights:
--"As we meet tonight, our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. America has added jobs for a record 52 straight months, but jobs are now growing at a slower pace. Wages are up, but so are prices for food and gas ... At kitchen tables across our country, there is a concern about our economic future." No kidding.
**Census Bureau: "While median household income in 2006 rose by 0.7 percent, the real median earnings of both men and women who worked full-time, year-round declined between 2005 and 2006. The median earnings of men declined 1.1 percent to $42,261. The median earnings of women declined 1.2 percent to $32,515.20 This is the third consecutive year that men and women experienced a decline in earnings."
**New York Times: "National health spending soared above $2 trillion for the first time in 2006 and has nearly doubled in the last decade, amounting to an average of $7,000 a person," according to the government. And, "national health spending first exceeded $1 trillion in 1995. Since then, even when adjusted for inflation, health spending has grown at a rapid clip, increasing 64 percent in 11 years."
--"Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil."
**From Open Secrets (links courtesy of ThinkProgress): Oil and gas industry campaign contributions by year:
2000: $34 million + (21% Democrats 78% Republicans)
2002: $24 million + (20% Dems. 80% Reps.)
2004: $25 million + (19% Dems. 80% Reps.)
2006: $20 million + (18% Dems. 82% Reps.)
--"Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions."
**From EarthJustice: "During the 2000 presidential elections, the Bush-Cheney campaign received a total of $2,872,473 from energy and extractive interests. Of this amount, $422,739 was contributed by electric utilities, including several of those well-known for running some of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest coal-burning power plants: Southern Company, First Energy, and Reliant Energy."
**According to the League of Conservation Voters, in the Bush budget proposal for FY 2008, "90% of the Department of Energy’s funding increase is directed toward research in fossil fuels and nuclear power, rather than towards developing new renewable and efficient technologies"
--"We are engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century. The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear. Yet in this war on terror, there is one thing we and our enemies agree on: In the long run, men and women who are free to determine their own destinies will reject terror and refuse to live in tyranny." [emphasis added]
**The late Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan said: "The government is manipulating all this [terrorist attacks] in order to force people stay away from the election rallies. The ongoing wave of terrorist activities in the country is part of a conspiracy to terrorize people from attending political meetings."
**The New York Times on the Iraqi Parliament's recent Baathist law (a "benchmark") passage: "The measure, known as the Justice and Accountability Law, is meant to open government jobs to former members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein — the bureaucrats, engineers, city workers, teachers, soldiers and police officers who made the government work until they were barred from office after the American invasion in 2003. But the legislation is at once confusing and controversial, a document riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in, particularly in the crucial security ministries ... [in response] there has been mostly silence from American officials ... But interpretations of the measure’s actual effects varied widely among Iraqi officials ... The most extreme interpretations of the measure’s effects actually came from Shiite officials. Some of them hailed it because it would ban members of even the lowest party levels from the most important ministries: justice, interior, defense, finance and foreign."
--"We're adding 3,200 Marines to our forces in Afghanistan, where they will fight the terrorists and train the Afghan Army and police. Defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda is critical to our security ...."
**Defense Secretary Robert Gates said: "Al Qaeda right now seems to have turned its face toward Pakistan and attacks on the Pakistani government and Pakistani people."
**Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen said: "I think certainly if there is a desire on the part of the Pakistani armed forces and the Pakistani government to have us assist, we would certainly try to do that. They're a strong ally with respect to this [al Qaeda in Pakistan] challenge that we have, the security challenge ...."
**Yet Pakistani "President" Pervez Musharraf on an American troop presence in Pakistan: "Musharraf has made it clear that a U.S. military mission to capture Osama bin Laden or other top al Qaeda leaders on Pakistani soil would be unwelcome and 'against the sovereignty of Pakistan.'" And, "Nobody will come here until we ask them to come and we haven't asked them," and, in response to the question of whether he would treat uninvited Americans as invaders, Musharraf said, "certainly."
--On wiretapping and FISA: "If you don't act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. We've had ample time for debate. The time to act is now."
**The Protect America Act was passed in August, 2007 and is set to expire on February 1, 2008. FISA will not expire. Kenneth L. Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national security, acknowledged to the New York Times that if the PAA expires "intelligence officials would still be able to continue eavesdropping on already approved targets for another year under the law."
**Sen. Dodd (D-CT) rightly notes that the "liability protection" demanded by Bush "for companies believed to have assisted" (a peculiar sentence construction apparently designed to admit nothing) in wiretapping Americans "favor[s] the rights of his corporate friends over citizens’ rights to privacy when it comes to their phone records. I stand adamantly opposed to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that may have illegally aided the federal government in warrantless wiretapping, and will do what I can to deny the President the unprecedented and unwarranted expansion of power he seeks."
The parsing of the speech could continue, of course, but my time and your patience prohibits it. Now, a SOTU is not intended to be a comprehensive policy statement, but it's not too much to ask that it be written to reflect at least some approximation of reality, despite political, partisan, differences. It is, after all a speech on the State of the Union, not a defense of a presidency gone bad. Unless, of course, it is.
--"As we meet tonight, our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. America has added jobs for a record 52 straight months, but jobs are now growing at a slower pace. Wages are up, but so are prices for food and gas ... At kitchen tables across our country, there is a concern about our economic future." No kidding.
**Census Bureau: "While median household income in 2006 rose by 0.7 percent, the real median earnings of both men and women who worked full-time, year-round declined between 2005 and 2006. The median earnings of men declined 1.1 percent to $42,261. The median earnings of women declined 1.2 percent to $32,515.20 This is the third consecutive year that men and women experienced a decline in earnings."
**New York Times: "National health spending soared above $2 trillion for the first time in 2006 and has nearly doubled in the last decade, amounting to an average of $7,000 a person," according to the government. And, "national health spending first exceeded $1 trillion in 1995. Since then, even when adjusted for inflation, health spending has grown at a rapid clip, increasing 64 percent in 11 years."
--"Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil."
**From Open Secrets (links courtesy of ThinkProgress): Oil and gas industry campaign contributions by year:
2000: $34 million + (21% Democrats 78% Republicans)
2002: $24 million + (20% Dems. 80% Reps.)
2004: $25 million + (19% Dems. 80% Reps.)
2006: $20 million + (18% Dems. 82% Reps.)
--"Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions."
**From EarthJustice: "During the 2000 presidential elections, the Bush-Cheney campaign received a total of $2,872,473 from energy and extractive interests. Of this amount, $422,739 was contributed by electric utilities, including several of those well-known for running some of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest coal-burning power plants: Southern Company, First Energy, and Reliant Energy."
**According to the League of Conservation Voters, in the Bush budget proposal for FY 2008, "90% of the Department of Energy’s funding increase is directed toward research in fossil fuels and nuclear power, rather than towards developing new renewable and efficient technologies"
--"We are engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century. The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear. Yet in this war on terror, there is one thing we and our enemies agree on: In the long run, men and women who are free to determine their own destinies will reject terror and refuse to live in tyranny." [emphasis added]
**The late Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan said: "The government is manipulating all this [terrorist attacks] in order to force people stay away from the election rallies. The ongoing wave of terrorist activities in the country is part of a conspiracy to terrorize people from attending political meetings."
**The New York Times on the Iraqi Parliament's recent Baathist law (a "benchmark") passage: "The measure, known as the Justice and Accountability Law, is meant to open government jobs to former members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein — the bureaucrats, engineers, city workers, teachers, soldiers and police officers who made the government work until they were barred from office after the American invasion in 2003. But the legislation is at once confusing and controversial, a document riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in, particularly in the crucial security ministries ... [in response] there has been mostly silence from American officials ... But interpretations of the measure’s actual effects varied widely among Iraqi officials ... The most extreme interpretations of the measure’s effects actually came from Shiite officials. Some of them hailed it because it would ban members of even the lowest party levels from the most important ministries: justice, interior, defense, finance and foreign."
--"We're adding 3,200 Marines to our forces in Afghanistan, where they will fight the terrorists and train the Afghan Army and police. Defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda is critical to our security ...."
**Defense Secretary Robert Gates said: "Al Qaeda right now seems to have turned its face toward Pakistan and attacks on the Pakistani government and Pakistani people."
**Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen said: "I think certainly if there is a desire on the part of the Pakistani armed forces and the Pakistani government to have us assist, we would certainly try to do that. They're a strong ally with respect to this [al Qaeda in Pakistan] challenge that we have, the security challenge ...."
**Yet Pakistani "President" Pervez Musharraf on an American troop presence in Pakistan: "Musharraf has made it clear that a U.S. military mission to capture Osama bin Laden or other top al Qaeda leaders on Pakistani soil would be unwelcome and 'against the sovereignty of Pakistan.'" And, "Nobody will come here until we ask them to come and we haven't asked them," and, in response to the question of whether he would treat uninvited Americans as invaders, Musharraf said, "certainly."
--On wiretapping and FISA: "If you don't act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. We've had ample time for debate. The time to act is now."
**The Protect America Act was passed in August, 2007 and is set to expire on February 1, 2008. FISA will not expire. Kenneth L. Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national security, acknowledged to the New York Times that if the PAA expires "intelligence officials would still be able to continue eavesdropping on already approved targets for another year under the law."
**Sen. Dodd (D-CT) rightly notes that the "liability protection" demanded by Bush "for companies believed to have assisted" (a peculiar sentence construction apparently designed to admit nothing) in wiretapping Americans "favor[s] the rights of his corporate friends over citizens’ rights to privacy when it comes to their phone records. I stand adamantly opposed to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that may have illegally aided the federal government in warrantless wiretapping, and will do what I can to deny the President the unprecedented and unwarranted expansion of power he seeks."
The parsing of the speech could continue, of course, but my time and your patience prohibits it. Now, a SOTU is not intended to be a comprehensive policy statement, but it's not too much to ask that it be written to reflect at least some approximation of reality, despite political, partisan, differences. It is, after all a speech on the State of the Union, not a defense of a presidency gone bad. Unless, of course, it is.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)