“I’ll Never Fall For Bush Aga-ai-ai-ain”

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

You know we live in strange times when anti-war songs are being penned by . . . Burt Bacharach.  On his new album, in which he writes lyrics (as opposed to just music) for the first time:

the most stridently political number, "Who Are These People?" [is] sung by Elvis Costello.

That song, expressing disillusionment with the war in Iraq, forcefully asks, "Who are these people that keep telling us lies and how did these people get control of our lives and who’ll stop the violence ’cause it’s out of control? Make ’em stop."

"Stuff just kept going more wrong and more wrong here as I was writing," explained Bacharach, still looking youthful in a blue sweat suit accentuating his bright blue eyes.

Brown Dined While People Died

Ken AshfordDisastersLeave a Comment

I thought Katrina-related Michael Brown stories were soooo September 2005, but I was wrong.  The amount of indifference and incompetence is scary:

Later, on Aug. 31, [FEMA regional director] Bahamonde frantically e-mailed Brown to tell him that thousands are evacuees were gathering in the streets with no food or water and that "estimates are many will die within hours."

"Sir, I know that you know the situation is past critical," Bahamonde wrote.

Less than three hours later, however, Brown’s press secretary wrote colleagues to complain that the FEMA director needed more time to eat dinner at a Baton Rouge restaurant that evening. "He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes," wrote Brown aide Sharon Worthy.

"We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you."

Oh my God.

Congress Hearts Guns, Cheeseburgers

Ken AshfordCongress2 Comments

Why do free market conservatives hate the free market?

Look, I understand that consumers have responsibilities.  If you smoke, and get cancer, you really have nobody to blame but yourself.  You knew the risks, and you took them.

The same is true for fast foods.

I think Americans of all political stripes understand that.  So if you want to sue McDonald’s for "making you fat", your case will get thrown out of court, because you are an idiot trying to make money off of your stupidity about basic health care. 

In other words, the legal system will work.

So why does the Republican Congress have to step in and pass laws which shield the fast food industry and the gun manufacturers from lawsuits?  Why not let the free market play itself out?

The answer, of course, is that the lobbyists for those industries donate heavily in political campaigns, whereas there are no deep pockets in fat people and people with bullets in them.  It’s shameful.  Congress is elected by people and is supposed to protect the interests of people.  Not legal fictions like multi-billion dollar corporations.

It’s 1973 All Over Again

Ken AshfordBush & Co., HistoryLeave a Comment

"[I]t is true that, as far as capacity to govern in concerned, that to be under a constant barrage 12 to 15 minutes a night on each of the three major networks for four months tends to raise some questions in the people’s mind with regard to the President and it may raise some questions with regard to the capacity to govern. The point that I make now is that we are proceeding as best we know how to get all those guilty brought to justice in Watergate. But now, we must move on from Watergate to the business of the people. And the business of the people is continuing with the initiatives we began in the first Administration."

– Richard Nixon during press conference, Summer 1973, in response to a question about his ability to govern in the midst of controversy about his administration

"There is some background noise here, a lot of chatter, a lot of speculation and opining, but the American people expect me to do my job and I’m going to."

– George Bush during press conference, today, in response to a question about his ability to govern in the midst of controversy about his administration

Miers Doesn’t Know Shit About Con Law

Ken AshfordConstitution, Supreme CourtLeave a Comment

I browsed through the Harriet Miers questionnaire submitted to Congress yesterday evening, pausing only to read matters that were interesting.

I spotted this question:

17. Constitutional Issues: Please describe in detail any cases or matters you addressed as an attorney or public official which involved constitutional questions. For each case or matter, please describe in detail the constitutional issue you dealt with, the context in which you dealt with it, and the substance of any positions you took related to that issue.

And here was part of her answer:

While I was an at-large member of the Dallas City Council, I dealt with issues that involved constitutional questions. For instance, when addressing a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.

Now, many of you are going to have to trust me on this: there is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause!  Furthermore, no court has ever required a proportional representation requirement pursuant to the EP Clause.

"Proportional representation" is a concept that says that elected officials must be comprised of the same features as their constituents.  For example, a 10-member city council with proportional representation — in a city which is 20% Hispanic — would have 2 Hispanic seats.   Virtuous as that my or may not be, the Constitution simply does not require this.

So what the hell was Miers talking about?

UPDATE:  This explains it, I guess:

Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers’s response to the committee’s request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to "the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.

"There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation — which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies — with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.

Still, confusing these two concepts is the type of mistake that a law student might make, and not a very good law student at that.  It speaks volumes about Miers’ lack of qualifications.

UPDATE: Conservative top-tier groupblogger Leon H of RedState enters the fray with an "Aaaaaaarrrrrgh!":

I know that I’ve promised to stay out of this fray, but this is really a bit much. Leaving aside the question of whether mandatory representation by ethnicity (read: quotas) is a good idea, or a conservative idea, or the hallmark of a conservative judge – to claim in a written response that it is mandated by the Equal Protection Clause is just… just… well, as [constitutional law professor] Patterico says, it’s stunningly wrong.

Manipulated Intelligence

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Color me unsurprised:

The lengthy account by New York Times reporter Judy Miller about her grand jury testimony in the CIA  leak case inadvertently provides a revealing window into how the Bush administration manipulated  journalists about intelligence on Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

Whatever the implications for special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s probe, Miller describes a conversation with Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff,  Lewis (Scooter) Libby, on July 8, 2003, where he appears to significantly misrepresent the contents of still-classified material from a crucial prewar intelligence-community document about Iraq. 

With no weapons of mass destruction having been found in Iraq and new questions being raised about the case for war, Libby assured Miller that day that the still-classified document, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), contained even stronger evidence that would support the White House’s conclusions about Iraq’s weapons programs, according to Miller’s account. 

In fact, a declassified version of the NIE was publicly released just 10 days later, and it showed almost precisely the opposite. The NIE, it turned out, contained caveats and qualifiers that had never been publicly acknowledged by the administration prior to the invasion of Iraq.  It also included key dissents by State Department intelligence analysts, Energy Department scientists and Air Force technical experts about some important aspects of the administration’s case. 

RELATED:  A speech by ex-Powell aide Larry Wilkinson is the talk of the leftosphere.  He spoke at the New America Foundation, delivering a speech excoriating the WH’s pre-war decision-making: "What I saw was a cabal between" Cheney and Defense Sec. Don Rumsfeld, "on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made." As the Financial Times reports, Wilkerson "said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out" with Powell, though Wilkerson still said: "I admire this in him, he is the world’s most loyal soldier."   Tim Dunlop, at The Road to Surfdom says:

"As much as I’m happy to see these high-level people coming out and calling a spade a spade in regard to the Bush administration, it would’ve been nice if they’d had the decency to spill the beans a couple of years back, back when it really mattered."

How true.

Democratic Ideas – No. 10 (Last in a Series)

Ken AshfordDemocratsLeave a Comment

Putting Prevention First.  Democrats are committed to reducing unintended pregnancies by increasing access to family planning services and improving contraceptive coverage.  We will increase funding for family planning and empower states to enable more women to take responsibility for their health.  We will also improve contraceptive coverage by assuring equity in prescription drug insurance.

Previous:

Democratic Idea No. 1: Standing With Our Troops

Democratic Idea No. 2: Targeting The Terrorists More Effectively

Democratic Idea No. 3: Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans

Democratic Idea No. 4: Expanding Economic Opportunity

Democratic Idea No. 5: Quality Education For All

Democratic Idea No. 6: Making Health Care More Affordable

Democratic Idea No. 7: Democracy Begins At Home

Democratic Idea No. 8: Meeting Our Responsibility To Medicare Beneficiaries

Democratic Idea No. 9: Fiscal Responsibility For A Sound Future

Connecting The Dots

Ken AshfordBush & Co., PlamegateLeave a Comment

Let’s take two pieces of information, as reported by different people at different times.  Even if you haven’t followed the Plamegate story closely, you can follow this logic:

(1)  Murray Waas in his October 7 article: "In his own interview with prosecutors on June 24, 2004, Bush testified that Rove assured him he had not disclosed Plame as a CIA employee and had said nothing to the press to discredit Wilson, according to sources familiar with the president’s interview."

(2)  Today’s New York Daily News story:  "Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak."

Now, either or both assertions (in bold above) could be true . . . or false. 

But here’s the thing.  If they are BOTH TRUE  — that is:

(1) if Rove told Bush "I did it"

AND

(2) if Bush testified that Rove denied doing it…

…then Bush deceived the prosecutors and Grand Jury. 

And that’s what we call "obstruction of justice", my friends.

Granted, there is a lot of wiggle room in both these admittedly threadbare accounts, and both are based on unnamed "inside" sources.  But, nevertheless, it should give the White House pause. 

So if I were Bush — even if I believed I was innocent — I would be talking to my personal lawyer right about now.

Too bad she’s busy cramming for her confirmation hearings.  Heh.

Ingenious Solution Is Pretty Stupid

Ken AshfordRandom MusingsLeave a Comment

As you all know, one of the difficulties in traveling to the moon is cargo weight.  There is only so much a spacecraft can handle.  You have to pack fuel, oxygen, and so on.

And if you are planning to explore the moon in a vehicle, like the Apollo Moon Rover, that’s even more weight to consider.

What if we were able to combine resources?  What do you get?

Yup, an edible moon vehicle:

"Overall, going to the moon is a daunting project because of the amount of fuel it takes to send a payload from Earth," said Walter Smith, a Ball State biology professor overseeing the class project.

"If you build a vehicle made of food, you can cut down on the amount of materials and fuel needed to go to the moon. We are telling the students to consider the viability of having a vehicle that can be eaten as you travel across the moon.

"The working model will probably be made from fruit or a breakfast cereal, while the wheels will be made from lollipops," he said.

Mmmmm.  Lollipops covered with moon dust argararaagah!

Plamegate: Bush Knew All Along

Ken AshfordBush & Co., PlamegateLeave a Comment

Remember when the Plame leak scandal broke and Bush reassured the nation that he was going to get to the bottom of it?  Here’s what he said on September 30, 2002:

"I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action."

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan explained that "appropriate action" meant "[i]f anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration," adding that Karl Rove had specifically assured McClellan that he was not involved, and that "the President expects his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct and the highest ethics."

So Bush didn’t know?  Well, that looks like bullshit.  Bush knew as far back as two years ago about Rove’s involvement, the NY Daily News reveals:

An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

Bush has nevertheless remained doggedly loyal to Rove, who friends and even political adversaries acknowledge is the architect of the President’s rise from baseball owner to leader of the free world.

So here’s the political math:

"I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information" = "I did not have sex with that woman".

But here’s the REAL lede.  The President wasn’t angry about the leak; he was angry because they got caught.

Bush has always known that Rove often talks with reporters anonymously and he generally approved of such contacts, one source said.

But the President felt Rove and other members of the White House damage-control team did a clumsy job in their campaign to discredit Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, the ex-diplomat who criticized Bush’s claim that Saddam Hussen tried to buy weapons-grade uranium in Niger.

A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

But here’s the REAL heavy-duty implication, from Josh Marshall:

Patrick Fitzgerald interviewed President Bush (at least, he was interviewed by his team; I don’t remember whether it was Fitzgerald specifically who conducted it, though I would assume it was. …Still, though, an interview took place and at the top of the list of questions must have been just what happened and what the president knew.

Did President Bush say that he knew Rove was involved? Did he deny it?

Obviously, we have many more questions than answers here. But if President Bush knew about Rove’s role from the beginning, then all of these interviews and grand jury appearances and the almost inevitable contradictions between them become real trouble for the White House.

So could Bush be facing perjury?  Sadly, no.  When Bush was interviewed as part of Fitzgerald’s probe, he was not under oath.  But that does not mean he will avoid legal troubles.  Here’s an arguably relevant statute:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

UPDATE:  Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) writes a letter to Bush, asking him for an explanation.