Now I know why Bush went to Iraq today!

I saw on the news tonight that President Bush made an unexpected trip to Iraq. This is the trip where the guy threw the shoes at him.

This evening I was reading the NY Times regarding the cuts at the American auto makers who are desperately waiting for bailout money from Washington.

They didn't get it from Congress, and now they are waiting on the White House.

But, they'll have to wait a few more days.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana M. Perino, said Sunday that any action on the auto bailout would have to wait until the president returns from a trip to Iraq.

Ah - ha. Don't be surprised if Bush suddenly decides to visit a few more out of the way places. I think there is still a problem in Kashmir, and he could always go to Somalia and find out what's going on with those gawl durn (southern for gosh dang) pirates.

Doing the Census

The impacts of the Bush incompetency isn't going to go away January 20.

As with any huge undertaking, the census requires years of planning, but preparations have been systematically sidetracked during the Bush years. The most plausible explanation, beyond incompetence, is that the administration aimed to make it even more difficult than usual to count hard-to-count groups, like minorities, immigrants and the poor, who tilt Democratic. Their numbers, if accurately gauged, could reshape electoral maps.

The White House, with the early support of a Republican-led Congress, shortchanged and delayed financing for the Census Bureau. The administration left top bureau positions unfilled for long stretches and allowed political judgment to dominate bureau management, which damaged morale and impaired performance.

I really think they're just incompetent, I don't think it's intentional.

Christmas at the White House

These guys just amaze me.

The invitation sent to American Jewish leaders on behalf of the President and First Lady, requesting "the pleasure of your company at a Hanukkah reception," bore an image of a Clydesdale horse-drawn cart, carrying the White House Christmas tree, with a Christmas wreath-adorned White House in the background.

A lot of Christians, and the Bush White House seems to have more than it's share of such Christians, think Hanukkah is just the Jewish word for Christmas.

Don't Know Nothin About History

George Bush Should Take a Lesson From President Grant Before Interfering With the Markets (by Tracy Dove, the Naked Historian)

Bush and his Saudi friends

What good does it do to have friends when they won't help you out when you really, really need it?

Bush misses the point again

The news reports of the Bush speech in Israel all seem to focus on his backhanded way of being critical of Obama while ignoring the actual lack of substance in what Bush is saying.

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Mr. Bush said.

Well, no, that's not why we should be willing to talk with our enemies. We should talk with them because the act of listening to them can go a long way to defuse anger and resentment.
The purpose of talking is so that we can listen, not so that we can proselytize.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Bush is probably right that talking with Hitler would have not done much good. But if Europe had listened to Germany in the 1920's and early 1930's it's very likely that Hitler would have never risen to power in Germany.

UPDATE:
Some bloggers seem to miss the point also.

Ron Paul is pretty much the only choice we have left

Read these two posts about the rule of law in the United States and think about it.

When Diane Feinstein decided to vote to support torture and the use of secret prisons it left US voters without much of a choice. Hillary shows no signs at all of changing the direction of the Bush presidency and Rudy certainly won't make any changes.

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race that seems to actually care about freedom in America more than he does about personal power.

This is exactly what we need more of

More secret prisons and secret prosecutions.

Hat tip to How Appealing for this one.

Petraeus and Truth

Are you unsure whether you can believe anything Gen. Petraeus says? Check him out this morning as he makes the circuit of the Sunday morning talk shows. He's going to be on Fox, and then he'll be on ... Oh. Just Fox.

Always be selling.

I never understood why

At his Senate confirmation hearing in January, he was widely regarded as the quintessential military professional, a credible, independent voice who stood above the political fray.

Just the fact that Bush is willing to appoint anybody for anything means they are a team player and the team they play on is Bush's team, not America's team. That's a given by now. Come on, it's been 7 years, we should have figured that out by now.

The part I like is when they pump up the medals on his chest.

Update:
An example of the Patraeus lack of candor. He's just a political hack.

Update:
Another example of his lack of candor.

Checking for weapons

The modern version of a security weapons check

In a section entitled "Preventing Demonstrators," the document says: "All Presidential events must be ticketed or accessed by a name list. This is the best method for preventing demonstrators. People who are obviously going to try to disrupt the event can be denied entrance at least to the VIP area between the stage and the main camera platform. ... It is important to have your volunteers at a checkpoint before the Magnetometers in order to stop a demonstrator from getting into the event. Look for signs they may be carrying, and if need be, have volunteers check for folded cloth signs that demonstrators may be bringing."

Is America safer?

Live Blogging a Bush press conference

In a press conference Bush is saying

I think America is safer without Saddam Hussein in power

He's insane.

The problem isn't whether Saddam is in power or not, the problem is that without Saddam there is no one running the show in Iraq and it leaves open opportunties for Al Quada and other nutcases to recruit. Opportunities they did not have with Saddam in power. That does not make us safer. Nothing that has replaced Saddam has made us safer.

Now Bush says

We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government, a sovereign nation.

Snicker, snicker. Yep, we were invited. Yep, they're sovereign.

It's better to fight them there than here

If we weren't there they wouldn't have as many people for us to fight. There would be fewer of them. If we weren't there then there would be nobody to fight.

He keeps quoting Gen David Petraeus as if he's actually a meaningful, independent voice. He's not. He's just a voice box for Bush, he's going to say whatever Bush wants him to say because like most Generals his career comes first. Bush picks the General that runs things in Iraq, and like the criteria he uses to pick an Attorney General, he picks the General he can depend on to be loyal and to give the advice that supports the path Bush wants to take.

Now he's saying Al Queda doesn't have a base of operations in Iraq, they are attempting to establish one in Iraq.

??? Which is it? We are fighting them in Iraq? Or they want to move into Iraq so they can fight us there? If they don't have a base of operations in Iraq then who is it that's blowing stuff up? Why aren't we fighting the ones who are blowing stuff up?

Now he's talking about the immigration stuff. It bores me. I think I'll take a nap.

Bush and credibility

“I’m credible because I read the intelligence, David, and make it abundantly clear in plain terms that if we let up, we’ll be attacked. And I firmly believe that.”

That was the Bush response to a question about credibility in the press conference this morning.

Read that closely. He's not talking about actually being credible, he's talking about maintaining an appearance of credibility. He makes it "clear in plain terms". That's not a prescription for honesty that's a rule-of-thumb for writing an effective speech. That's not credibility, that's effective manipulation of an audience.

In his world those are the same thing.

I hate politicians.

The blog, Whatever it is, I'm against it, has good coverage of the press conference, complete with Itube links.

Winning by Leaving

The Iraqis want us to leave. Bush wants to stay. Stay until the world is safe from terrorism.

How we're going to do that when we're running out of soldiers is an unanswered question.

Cowards in congress

The Supreme Irony of Life has a summary of various blogs trying to explain the extreme cowardness of the democrats in Congress.

He has more on the blind caving of democrats here.

We'd be better off if we just impeached every American who's eaten lunch in DC in the last 10 years and replaced them with names picked at random from the mailing list of Publishers Clearing House.

Why did Gonzales fire them?

Terry Frank quotes a comment by the non-candidate, Fred Thompson (the other Thompson) on why he thinks the assistant attorney generals were fired --

There was nothing wrong with firing eight U.S. attorneys. Of course the Department of Justice was inept in the way they did it, trying to conceal things that didn’t need to be concealed but the U.S. attorneys, like innumerable other public officials serve at the pleasure of the president. He fired eight of his own appointees apparently because they we not aggressive enough in pursuing voting fraud cases.

That could be the reason they were fired. That was the original best guess by a lot of people.

But the problem is that we don't know why they were fired, and whatever that reason is, we were lied to about what it was. We were told they were fired for poor performance. That turns out to have been a lie -- Gonzales now says that's not the reason they were fired. But he also seems to be saying he doesn't know why they were fired.

This just isn't making sense. It's actually starting to look like they were fired because they didn't accept the Regent Law School dogma that George was sent to us by God to protect us from the infidels and the queers. There's as much evidence for that explanation as for any other.

How much is it going to cost?

Anatomy of a veto

Bush bristles at the idea that Congress might be able to put some limits on his authority. He's not having any of that he vetoed the Emergency Funding Act for Iraq in resistance to their attempt to apply conditions.

Is this an attempt to gain a political advantage? Is this a serious policy disagreement? Or is it just childish acting out but with serious consequences?

Oklahoma seems to be solidly behind Bushes idea of an indefinite war. Inhofe, Sullivan, and Boren all have spoken out clearly supportive of the veto. I feel very much like a voice in the wilderness writing this.

But all this worry about deadlines begs the question. Why do we even need an “emergency war spending bill” as Bush called it in the TV speech he gave to explain his veto? Did something unanticipated occur that created an emergency? No of course not. There's no new situation. The situation is the same it's always been. Our President simply doesn't want to ask for the resources needed to fight the war. The reason isn't clear, it's either because he doesn't know or he doesn't want the public to know what it's going to cost.

In 2002 the White House estimate of the total cost of the Iraq invasion a that the maximum cost would be less than 200 billion dollar. That's according to Lawrence Lindsey, Director of the White House National Economic Council at the time (September 2002). Even that estimate was four times the original Pentagon estimate of 50 billion dollars.

Last summer the Congressional Budget Office but the estimate in the range of between 500 and 700 billion dollars, 3 to 4 times the previous White House maximum

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes

That's the title of the Iraq fundng bill that Bush vetoed.

He gave a TV speech last night explaining his reasons for the veto. Of course it has nothing to do with irrational stubborness.

I posted yesterday about what I think the Congress should do in response to the veto. I'll talk more about it after breakfast.

Veto

Bush says he's going to veto any bill for war funding that has even a hint of a timetable for a withdrawal of our troops. And he points out that Congress doesn't have enough votes to override a veto.

Okay. So what?

He's the one who wants to continue the war. He can't do that without funding approval from Congress. They don't need to override a veto in order to deny him funds for the war. His veto already does that; if he doesn't want the money with the conditions then the withdrawal becomes a done deal -- ahead of schedule as far as the majority of Congress goes.

Bush -- and it appears, most of the press -- seems to assume that a veto will automatically get him the funding bill he wants, without any demands that he make a plan to end the war eventually. But it doesn't do that at all. There's no reason for Congress to give Bush the unrestricted funding bill he seems to think they have an obligation to give him. They have no such obligation. Not a legal obligation, not a moral one, no obligation at all.

No, I think it's likely that the Democratic leadership of Congress will cave and give Bush what he wants, but they might not. I don't think they have the balls to do the right thing, but they might fool me, and fool Bush.

Bush is counting on these legislators to be afraid of being accused of being unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops if they don't give him a funding bill he wants. And I'm sure that if they just send the bill right back to him after he vetoes it that he will accuse them of just that, and so will the entire Republican Smear Machine. But so what?

Recently Nancy Pelosi got wide criticism for her trip to Syria; from Cheney, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, even generally liberal Matt Lauer jumped on the bandwagon to trash Pelosi. But how did the public react?

Comparing public approval ratings between January, and right after Pelosi's trip, one poll found that although Pelosi's approval took a dip from the high point right after her swearing in as speaker, the public's attitude about Bush's foreign policy performance was flat, and the public's attitude about the foreign policy performance of Congress improved.

Not exactly strong evidence that the public will turn against Congress just because Bush calls them names.

It's really time for the U.S. Congress to stand up. If Bush vetoes the Iraq funding bill, just re-vote and send it right back to him. Let him veto it again, and again if he wants to.

Bush wants to be the decider. Well, Congress needs to let him decide. He can fund the current activities in Iraq or not. But what he can't do is have an indefinite war.

Congress has no balls

Really. No one in Congress has any balls. They're just mealy-mouthed cowards.

Vermont, apparently a state full of weirdos, has passed a resolution in the State Congress, urging the one congressman from Vermont to introduce a bill of impeachment for Bush and, and they even added Dick Cheney. Impeach him too.

Declaring that the Bush administration's actions in foreign and domestic affairs raise "serious questions of constitutionality," Vermont state senators voted yesterday to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in what officials say was the first such vote by state lawmakers in the country.

But the one congressman (it's a really small state) and two senators all reject the idea.

Vermont's congressional delegation, which includes Welch and Senators Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders, promptly rejected the call.

They issued a statement saying that the three shared the anger of many Vermonters with the Bush administration, "one of the worst and most destructive in American history."

But, they said that, for the first time since Bush took office, Congress is investigating several of the administration's key actions, ranging from the decision to invade Iraq to the recent firings of eight US attorneys.

"Before we talk about impeachment, it is imperative that these investigations be allowed to run their course, and we should then follow wherever the facts lead," the delegation said.

That's just such bullshit.

The truth is that they are afraid they won't get any Republican support for impeachment because the result will be Nancy Pelosi as President. But they don't have the balls to just say that, they have to come up with some kind of mealy-mouthed, "We're investigating it".

That's why we got in the mess we're in. We don't have anybody in Washington with any interest in just talking truthfully. Nobody is, Democrats or Republicans. Until that happens we're just screwed.

Muhammad Ali

An UPDATE Jan 21

After I made this post I realized that there's a lot of people who don't actually realize the place Ali has in our history and culture. Not everybody is as old as I am and some things just don't get passed down in the cable news shows. So, I thought I'd start making some updates to this post, talking about who Mahammad Ali is.

He started life as Cassius Clay. The name Mohammad Ali came later. He became a professional boxer in 1961 (or late 1960) after 2 years as a Golden Gloves champ and winning a gold medal in the 1960 Olympics. For those of you who weren't around at the time, a black man winning a gold medal for the USA in 1960 was pretty much a big deal.

More updates later.

A Brit pays tribute

He's always put his money where his mouth is.

Sportswriters pay tribute.

His birthday will pass with calls from his nine children and other relatives. Ali's only request to mark the occasion is a trip to one of his favorite magic shops so he can pick up a new trick or two to show visitors.

Many of our children really don't have any concept of how much Ali impacted our society.

As I don't believe hype, all I really see in Muhammad Ali is some old dude with a neurological disease and a daughter following in his footsteps who has no tits to speak of.

Or maybe he just thinks if he says something really stupid he'll impress some girl.

More comments here.

He might have been a draft dodger, but he's still an American Hero.

At least when he dodged the draft he did it on his own, without running to daddy's friends for protection, and stood up about it.