I Think, Therefore I Blog » 2008 » January

Signing statements

fsherman — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:31:15 +0000

So much for leaving Iraq.
As you probably already know, Bush is currently negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq’s president for long-term basing of our troops in that country. And he’s stated he doesn’t consider this a treaty, so he doesn’t need to have the Senate ratify it.
Then, in a Monday signing statement, he asserted that he wasn’t bound by a provision in the latest defense spending bill that forbids spending taxpayers’ money to establish a permanent base in Iraq or to exercise US control of Iraq’s oil resources.
Bush also signing-statemented away a provision that strengthened protection for whisteblowers and a section of the bill that established an independent, bipartisan commission investigating allegations of waste, mismanagement and excessive force by contractors.
Since his statements avoid any use of logic or Constitutional argument beyond asserting that these sections of the bill infringe on his presidential authority, that may be all there is to it: In his view of the Constitution, Congress is supposed to rubber stamp whatever the Glorious Supreme Leader decrees, and anything else exceeds their authority.
Or it could mean that Bush wants permanent bases, and doesn’t want anyone actually investigating the millions that have been embezzled or wasted by contractors during the Iraq War.
My guess: Both.
For a lame-duck president, it’s impressive how much damage Bush can continue to do to our system of government (helped by Congress’ reluctance to challenge him in any way). It makes it funny how many writers (Ron Hart in his recent column, for instance) blast Senator Clinton for being “ruthless” while giving the guy who advocates torture, imprisonment without trial or charges and claims his office has absolute power isn’t tagged the same.

Stupid analogy.

fsherman — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:26:29 +0000

“In fact, with his constant inspirational calls for national unity, Obama is eerily reminiscent of the Fascists. If he spoke German he might well be inclined to adopt as his slogan Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer — as Hitler did (”One nation, one government, one leader”). After all, right to the end most Germans saw Hitler as a warm and kindly father-figure. And if the ruthless power-seeker that is Hillary reminds you of Joe Stalin, don’t blame me!— John Ray, Australian conservative.

For those who miss the point, fascists are solidly in favor of national unity. Not everyone who favors national unity is a fascist. Nor is everyone who wants power (which would, let me point out, include EVERYONE running for president), a Stalinist.

Good news from Florida

fsherman — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:45:47 +0000

It looks like Huckabee’s candidacy is dead.

Good.

Anyone who wants to rewrite the Constitution to confirm his view of the Bible has no business anywhere near the Oval Office.

Wrong on prediction, right on principle

fsherman — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:36:59 +0000

Yesterday, I wrote that it appeared Bush would allow the supposedly vital FISA-expansion warrantless eavesdropping bill to expire rather than allow Congress a month to debate it.

Today, I read that the White House and Congress have agreed to a 15-day extension. My bad. And if Bush genuinely believes that these powers are vital to America’s defense (much as I might disagree), then he made the right decision to support an extension.

Me, I think the power to spy on anyone the administration chooses, without warrants is a bad, bad thing. Sure, we’re assured the power will only be used to investigate terrorists—people who blow up school buses, to use Bush’s memorable phrase from a few years back—but the old FISA system worked perfectly well for that (even to the point the government can, if necessary, start spying, then get a retroactive warrant up to three days later, which covers most emergency situations). If anything, the FISA courts were a little more than a rubber stamp for whatever surveillance government wanted to undertake.

That used to be a problem for conservatives, back when they claimed government was our enemy, government power threatened our freedom, government was the problem not the solution. Now we’re being assured that of course Glorious Supreme Leader Bush won’t use this power to spy on political enemies or law-abiding Muslims or left-wing groups, so there’s no need to require warrants or a paper trail: Bush’s judgment of who the bad guys are won’t let us down, we can trust him. To which I respond with two quotes:

“‘Trust me’ government is government that asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The trust is where it belongs—in the people.”—Ronald Reagan

“We do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? … The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value … This is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records or translate our international communications”—John Ashcroft, on President Clinton’s 1997 Internet surveillance proposals.

(hat tip to blogger Glenn Greenwald for dredging up both quotes).

Encouraging statistics

fsherman — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:38:18 +0000

269 hits on the Destin City Council candidates finance reports.
1400-plus hits on the online interviews with the candidates.
That’s way more hits than we usually get for anything we put online, which means people out in Destin are actually thinking about who should sit in the four open seats.
Good for you, readers!

Bush leaves America vulnerable to terrorist threat!

fsherman — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:36:22 +0000

Shocking, but true.
Last year, Congress passed a Bush-backed bill that expanded the government’s ability to eavesdrop without warrants (of course, the White House has been doing that illegally and unconstitutionally since 2001, but this would have made it legal), but only for six months. Congress members admitted they’d voted because Bush terrorism officials warned that the threat level was rising and that the CIA and NSA needed every ounce of eavesdropping authority in order to stop whatever bad stuff al Qaida was sending our way.
The bill expires Saturday (regular intelligence eavesdropping authority—which include being able to apply for a warrant in intelligence cases three days after starting surveillaince—will be unaffected). Because the White House refused to supply documents about past surveillance activity, Congress has refused to vote on renewing the bill. When Bush finally provided the information a couple of weeks back, Congress proposed extending the old bill for an extra month so they’d have time to review the material.
Bush’s response was to threaten a veto—because, according to one anonymous administration official, the pressure of the law expiring would, Bush thought, push Congress to vote the way he wanted.
Only Congress hasn’t passed the bill and—if I’m following the analysis correctly—can’t do so before Saturday. But Bush says he’ll still block any extension bill, which would mean the surveillance powers he claimed were essential to the war on terror will expire.
So either Bush is willing to make us all vulnerable to a terrorist attack if Congress tries to do anything but rubber-stamp his agenda, or he’s lying about how vital that power is. You be the judge.

Don’t forget to vote

fsherman — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:50:32 +0000

Even if you’re making the terrible, foolish mistake of voting for someone I don’t support, that’s better than you not voting at all.

I must admit, there are times I wish we had more of the oddball humor parties some nations do, like Canada’s Rhinoceros Party (they propose switching the side of the road vehicles drive on—the first year, only trucks change), Britain’s Apathy Party (”We encourage you not to vote for the candidates we’re not running.”) and Britain’s Monster Raving Loonie Party, which a few years back called for voters to elect zucchinis to office (”No zucchini ever started a war!”). Though I must say, groups like Billionaires for Bush (”We paid for eight years!”) have been in there trying to raise the absurdity level.

Quotes for Monday

fsherman — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:59:48 +0000

And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.”—Friedrich Nietzsche

“Each of us lives with a sword over his head. There are those who can ignore it and those who cannot.”—Murray Kempton.

“If we are not totally blind, what we are seeking is already here. This is it.”—Alan Watts

“Each one of you is perfect, just as you are. And you all could use a little bit of improvement.”—Shunryu Suzuki

“Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” - Helen Keller

Ron Paul on Martin Luther King

fsherman — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:53:02 +0000

Yesterday:
“It is especially fitting that we take the time to reflect on one man’s struggles to defend our Constitutional freedoms during this primary election season. January 15 was the birthday of the great freedom fighter, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and on Monday, we honor him nationwide for his sacrifice and love of liberty for all people.

In a 1990 newsletter: “Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day!”

Paul has stated he didn’t actually write anything in his newsletter, which is the standard political cop-out for paper trails; Pat Robertson supporters made the same argument about his book “New World Order” in which he discusses how international Jewish bankers are leading a conspiracy to take over the world (a long-time anti-Semitic bogeyman). As far as I’m concerned, if you stick your name on someone else’s writing, it’s yours, just as presidents who lie in their speeches can’t fall back on “Well, it was my speechwriter who really said it!”

For a lot more on this topic (in multiple posts), visit David Neiwert at Orcinus.

John McCain gets it wrong

fsherman — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:27:21 +0000

According to the Daily News this morning, Sen. McCain, during his Okaloosa Island appearance stated the following:
•As president, he would continue to back the surge tactics now being used by Gen. Petraeus.
•Democrats are wrong to set a date for withdrawl because “the only one who can decide that date is Gen. Petraeus.”
As to the first point, how does McCain imagine we can continue the surge in 2009? Our military is already stretched to the breaking point and it’s been generally acknowledged that we can’t keep troops in Iraq at this level.
As to the second, tommyrot. Deciding whether we should pull out or stay isn’t a tactical military decision, it’s a policy.
Remember, the surge was supposed to buy time for the Iraqi government to get its act together and pass the benchmarks that Bush and Congress agreed to a year ago. It has failed almost completely. Regardless of how well Petraeus thinks we’re doing in the field, shouldn’t that be a factor? If not, why bother with benchmarks at all?
And Bush’s frequent assertions that he’s going to be guided by what the military tells him is best are untrue: Remember when Gen. Shinseki said we didn’t have enough troops to maintain a peaceful occupation? Did Bush listen then? Did McCain raise a huge hue and cry?
Saying it’s all out of Congress hands and up to Petraeus is nothing more than passing the buck.