Another Data Point

Leaving aside the fact that I reflexively distrust anything George W. Bush says, refusing to assume either his perspicacity or veracity, let’s stipulate that the President ought to have extraordinary powers to spy during wartime. But let’s also stipulate that Congress gets to say when we’re at war. This, of course, is what the Constitution says.

In other words, short of a declaration of war, the wartime powers Bush is claiming aren’t his.

Unless, of course, we want to completely ignore the Constitution and let the president unilaterally declare war. This is something I don’t want; I don’t know who does. [Maybe Sam Alito — comment added 9 Jan 06.]

I think it’s time we take pains to point out that when the President says we’re at war, that expression has no legal standing.

Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly has put this better than I have.
(more…)

Bush really doesn’t know what he’s doing. At best, he’s a dupe for people who believe that we can create Middle Eastern allies by force. At worst, he believes that himself.

The Iraq war was originally advertised as a way to protect our nation from imminent threats from Saddam Hussein. Now we’re being told that it’s a good idea because there will be constitutional democracy in the Middle East.

Let’s take a deep breath and recognize that a) such a thing may not actually develop in a meaningful sense, and that b) an Iraqi constitutional democracy may not behave in ways that Bush, or Americans generally, approve of.

Furthermore, it’s probably the case that a lot of Iraqis voted in large part out of the hope that it would get U.S. troops out of their country.

It remains astonishing and worrisome to me that people believe any utterance issuing from George W. Bush’s mouth.

So, let’s suppose A breaks B’s arm. Let’s further suppose that A doesn’t let B see your doctor, but A does send A’s son, who has no medical training, to see to B’s medical needs. In desperation, B splints his own arm, and when it proves to be healing reasonably — or at all, for that matter — A takes all the credit.

Substitute, Bush for A, Iraqis for B, and Iraq itself for the arm, and you’ll have a neat summary of how the Administration is going to play the elections in the coming days.

Let’s see.

Donald Rumsfeld: “Well, the Office of Management and Budget [run by Bush appointees] , has come up come up with a number that’s something under $50 billion for the cost [of the war in Iraq].” Congress has already approved four spending bills for Iraq with funds totaling $204.4 billion. Some total cost estimates top $1 trillion.

Dick Cheney: “The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that. ” More than 2,000 American military personnel have been killed since President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech.

George Bush 2000: “I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.” George Bush 2005:”Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more.”

George Bush 2000: “Morale in today’s military is too low. We’re having trouble meeting recruiting goals.” In the 2005 fiscal year that ended in September, the army fell 8 per cent shy of its recruiting mission for 80,000 active-duty enlistments, a shortfall of 6,627 bodies. Recruiting for the army reserve was 12.5 per cent, or 2,775 enlistees, below target. (More)

I know there are people who will never, repeat never, admit any failings in George Bush, but this is a form of delusion happily confined to a dwindling few.

The rest of us are coming to see Iraq as an indication of the utter fecklessness and foolishness of George W. Bush and his political allies. The carelessness and wishful thinking of the Iraq misadventure can be found in fiscal policy, health policy, educational policy, environmental policy, trade policy, and foreign affairs.

History will harshly judge this Administration.

Here in Wisconsin, some folks are proposing to amend the constitution to prevent the marriage of same sex couples. I don’t get it.

This was originally couched in “Defense of Marriage” language. How in the world this defends my marriage is beyond me.

How is marriage under attack in this country? How about the failure of the economy to provide family supporting jobs, or decent health care to millions of families?

(And by the way, it seems to me that the people who have accused gays and lesbians of being promiscuous or otherwise sexually irresponsible would want to encourage, not deny, stable relationships among gays and lesbians.)

There are so many issues that affect so many lives in important ways — war, pollution, crime, poverty, runaway healthcare costs — that even if gay marriage were a problem, it’d be the last problem to solve before utopia were achieved, as far as I can tell. It’s a shame to have our legislators waste their time — or ours — with a discussion about something that is simply not that important to the common good.

Although in truth, I welcome the discussion, because if it really gets serious consideration from the public, perhaps we can finally put it to rest as a ploy by bigoted, fear-mongering politicians to distract us from the real injustices and follies being perpetrated by “hope based” politicians — i.e, politicians who hope Americans won’t see the bankruptcy of their policies, and the evidence of their corruption and incompetence.

If you think your marriage is threatened by someone else’s marriage, you’re having problems no amendment will solve.