Doubling Down On Stupid

Well the 112th Congress is history and the 113th Congress is busy.  What was the first bill offered up? If you guessed repeal of Obama Care you would be right.

The 112th Congress gaveled to a close on Thursday afternoon without passing a relief package for victims of Hurricane Sandy or reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, but Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) isn’t too concerned about finishing what Republicans had left undone. Instead, at 12:00 PM she introduced the very first piece of legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which states are now busily implementing.
House Republicans have unsuccessfully voted 33 times in the last two years to eliminate health care reform and wasted at least 88 hours and $50 million, while failing to pass a single piece of job creation legislation in the last session of Congress.

New Congress just like the old Congress.

2008 - The year of the independent?

In ever so blue Massachusetts a poor Democratic candidate barely beat a good Republican candidate in a special election for the House. This should be a warning shot for the Democratic establishment. Nikki Tsongas, wife of the late Massachusetts senator and presidential candidate Paul Tsongas was the choice of the Democratic political machine but not popular with the progressive base.

The latest Zogby poll indicates that
Voters unhappy with Bush and Congress
Bush has reached an all time low:

Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last month's record low for a Zogby poll of 29 percent.

But congress fared even worse:

A paltry 11 percent gave Congress a positive grade, tying last month's record low.

The vast majority of Americans don't like George W. Bush or anything he is doing but they are disgusted with the Democratic Congress because they continue to let him do everything he wants.

"There is a real question among Americans now about how relevant this government is to them," pollster John Zogby said. "They tell us they want action on health care, education, the war and immigration, but they don't believe they are going to get it."

The dismal assessment of the Republican president and the Democratic-controlled Congress follows another month of inconclusive political battles over a future path in Iraq and the recent Bush veto of an expansion of the program providing insurance for poor children.

The bleak mood could present problems for both parties heading into the November 2008 election campaign, Zogby said.

"Voter turnout could still be high next year, but the mood has turned against incumbents and into a 'throw the bums out' mindset," Zogby said.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both shown that they are not leadership material. Harry Reid has made a strategic mistake when he hasn't forced the Republicans to actually filibuster and show the country who is preventing the congress from reigning in an out of control President and Vice President. And then there is Nancy Pelosi - her dangerous resolution condemning the massacre of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago is just the latest example of her inability to prioritize.

In 2008 voters will be looking for alternatives. Neither the Democratic Party or the Republican party represent the people.

Harry, is it time to take of the gloves yet?

OK Harry, your Republican colleagues are such gentlemen they put you in a no win situation once again. Isn't it time to make them pay the price for their obstructionism and actually stand up there and talk for hours, days or weeks when they "filibuster" so the entire country can see them for what they are. Yes Harry, it's time to take off the gloves. The American people are on your side.

PS
And Harry, General Petraeus really is nothing more than a political hack with ribbons who betrayed the brave troops in Iraq, betrayed the US military and betrayed the country when he spun the truth to push George W. Bush's non-policy in Iraq.

Update
Rick Perlstein on Petraeus:

On September 11, General David Petraeus betrayed his office and abdicated his duty when he let himself be ventriloquist's dummy for a disingenuous propaganda campaign designed to hold American troops hostage in Iraq and keep up the useless carnage indefinitely, exploiting cherry-picked or even invented statistics, under cover of the stars on his shoulder.

I don't know how you can disagree with that at this point. But don't take my work for it. Take theirs:

• Chuck Hagel called his performance "a dirty trick on the American people... It's not only a dirty trick, but it's dishonest, it's hypocritical, it's dangerous and irresponsible."
• The chief of CentCom, Admiral William Fallon thinks Petraus is "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" for the way he sucks up to politicians.
• This army wife points out: "General Petraeus is using normal circumstances and turning them into some big idea.... I don't understand how this can be called a troop reduction since Andy was already scheduled to to come home in November and was not scheduled to return to Iraq."
• This retired colonel says: "To pretend that this plan is a product of some real-decision making by General Petraeus is appalling, and I'm sure the Marines in this is appalling, and I'm sure the Marines in this unit and their families are not happy about being used... It's deceitful and ultimately destructive to the credibility of the military and the Bush administration."

Rick has more.

Update II
One member of the DC punditry gets it right. Michael Kinsley on the "outrage" over the MoveOn ad:

It's all phony, of course. The war's backers are obviously delighted to have this ad from which they can make an issue. They wouldn't trade it for a week in Anbar province (a formerly troubled area of Iraq that is now, thanks to us, an Eden of peace and tranquillity where barely a car bomb disturbs the perfumed silence — or so they say). These days, mock outrage is used by every side of every dispute. It's fair enough to criticize something your opponent said while secretly thanking your lucky stars that he said it. The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material. When so many people are clamoring for a chance to swoon that they each have to take a number and when the landscape is so littered with folks lying prostrate and pretending to be dead that it starts to look like the end of a Civil War battle re-enactment, this isn't spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography.

The real problem with the MoveOn ad was not that infamous last sentence. The real problem was that the material before it was true and everyone knew it. That includes those who are the most "outraged".

Make Them Walk The Walk

It's becoming apparent that it will be necessary to increase the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in 2008 but also get some new leadership - or should I just say leadership, it seems to be lacking. It used to be that when you filibustered you had to well, filibuster. Stand up there and talk for hours or days bringing the Senate to a screeching halt. Now apparently all you have to do is shout "filibuster", kind of like yelling "olly olly oxen free" during a game of hide and seek. Kevin Drum reports on the result:

As you can see, Republicans aren't just obstructing legislation at normal rates. They're obstructing legislation at three times the usual rate. They're absolutely desperate to keep this stuff off the president's desk, where the only choice is to either sign it or else take the blame for a high-profile veto.

As things stand, though, Republicans will largely avoid blame for their tactics. After all, the first story linked above says only that the DC bill "came up short in the Senate" and the second one that the habeas bill "fell short in the Senate." You have to read with a gimlet eye to figure out how the vote actually broke down, and casual readers will come away thinking that the bills failed because of some kind of generic Washington gridlock, not GOP obstructionism.

So why not make them actually filibuster - stand up there and say a lot of things the majority of the American people disagree with. In other words make them take the hit and get some bad press. I'm sorry Mr Reid but I just don't understand. But I do understand that you are not showing me in leadership.

Iraq - What the Democrats should do....

....but probably won't.
Paul Krugman didn't hold out much hope that the Democrats will do anything about the war in Iraq. But there are people telling them what they should do anyway. Fred Kaplan has some advice.

Stephen Biddle, a military analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, is a key proponent of the patchwork-quilt strategy. But even he emphasizes that the idea would be a political nonstarter if it resulted in a lot more American deaths. The American public, he said in a phone interview, will support overseas deployments of troops—even for many years—as long as not many get killed. For instance, 64,000 U.S. troops are still in Germany, 60 years after the end of World War II and 16 years after the end of the Cold War. American soldiers have been keeping the peace in Bosnia now for more than a decade since the defeat of Slobodan Milosevic. In both operations, virtually no American soldiers have died as a result of hostile fire. (Biddle is a member of Petraeus' advisory panel, but he emphasized that his views here are entirely his own.)

Biddle also said (again, expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years—and that, even so, it would be a "long-shot gamble."

Do Petraeus and Crocker agree with this assessment? Do they agree with each other? Petraeus is a military strategist; Crocker is an Arabist diplomat; they might calculate the risks and prospects differently.

These are some of the questions Congress should ask them next week. If we're going to stay in Iraq for months and years to come—at a cost of hundreds of billions of additional dollars and hundreds, if not thousands, of additional lives—we at least ought to know why.

Steve Soto thinks it's time for Karl Levin to grow a pair and has some advice.

But we also find out this morning that Petraeus now won't be presenting an actual report next week. ThinkProgress and the Washington Times note that Petraeus plans an opening statement and some charts and graphs of his discredited statistics, but that's it. This is consistent with the legislation passed by Congress and signed by Bush, which actually requires Bush to make a second report to Congress by September 15th. Carl Levin needs to find out immediately from Petraeus at the outset of the testimony if the president will be meeting the deadline for a report to Congress by the 15th. If there is no report, after being told for months to wait for the report, then Levin needs to:

1. Cut Petraeus off and demand to know why the testimony should continue;

2. Ask Petraeus why the White House isn't complying with what it committed to and what Congress expected;

3. Ask Petraeus why the White House isn't coming forward at this late date with a comprehensive plan as Cordesman recommended, (and Levin should look directly at McCain as he is asking this question);

4. Ask Petraeus why he approved statistical analyses that knowingly undercount Iraqi violence;

5. Tell Petraeus that there is no way Congress can be expected to shovel another $50 billion in supplemental funds to Iraq if the White House can't back it up with a comprehensive plan and strategy; and

6. If there is no report, tell General Petraeus that he and the president have misled Congress since the surge began, while Americans have died under false pretenses and while Osama Bin Laden gets to make new videos.

This is not a time for weak-kneed committee chairmen. If Levin cannot confront Petraeus next week, then he should go. It's that simple.

Wouldn't it be nice if any of this happened? I'm not going to hold my breath!

Update

John Cole explains what will really happen.

It's the least they can do!

The mainstream media is in part responsible for getting the US into the cluster fuck in Mesopotamia but as I noted yesterday they are no longer playing stenographer and have started calling the lies and spin from the Bush administration what they are - lies and spin. The New York Times has a blistering editorial taking not only George W. Bush to task but also the lawmakers in the House and the Senate.
Another Iraq Photo Op

Iraq is a long way to go for a photo op, but not for President Bush, who is pulling out all the stops to divert public attention from his failed Iraq policies and to keep Congress from demanding that he bring the troops home. As Americans and Iraqis continue to die — and Iraqi politicians refuse to reconcile — Mr. Bush stubbornly refuses to recognize that what both countries need is a responsible exit strategy for the United States, not more photo ops and disingenuous claims of success.

With Congress launching a series of pivotal hearings this week, Mr. Bush’s eight-hour stopover in Iraq on Sunday won him major play in the news media, including photos of smiling American military forces with their commander in chief. But the facts of the visit undermined his claims that his troop escalation is working and deserves more time and more lives to bear fruit.

Mr. Bush’s only destination was an isolated, well-fortified air base in Anbar Province, not Baghdad where his so-called surge was supposed to bring stability and persuade Iraqi politicians that they had more to gain from reconciliation than score-settling. We suppose Mr. Bush could claim one success for his visit: he did manage to get Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to visit the Sunni-dominated province.

I have already documented that the surge is a failure:

• Boy - that surge sure is working!


• And About That Successful Surge


• Say it slowly: This. Is. A. Lie


• The Mesopotamia News Wire

The GAO confirmed that today.

The report by the Government Accountability Office said that Iraq’s government has failed to eliminate militia control of local security forces, failed to increase the number of army units capable of operating independently, failed to enact long-promised legislation essential for political reconciliation and even raised doubts whether the government is capable of spending $10 billion in reconstruction funds.

And that was the buffed-up version. An earlier draft of the G.A.O. report had the Iraqis failing on 15 of the 18 goals, until the Pentagon protested that the grading was too harsh.

And there is still no plan after four and a half years.

Mr. Bush clearly has no strategy to end this conflict, which has no end in sight. The American people deserve considered judgments not come-ons from their leaders. Congress needs to insist on a prudent formula that will withdraw American forces and limit the hemorrhaging.

Perhaps the editorial board of the Times can get congress to do what it needs to do.

King George and the Law

The DOJ is a part of the Executive branch and can be ordered about by George W. He asserts that "the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege," according to the WaPo . This is rather sticky for Congress, the law states that a House or Senate statutory contempt citation must be submitted to the DC US Attorney "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

"A senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

So apparently being President means Congress can just go take a hike and is what you might call - inconsequential. Fit for doing the bidding of the Supreme Executive, and you may have noticed that they will do just that rather than be accused of being soft on terror - so they'll be soft on spying. So, the Supremes are very nearly a BushCo creation, Congress is his yapping lap dog, and what's left? I suppose it's the ballot box or the Second Amendment, it's a pretty sad state of affairs when there is actually reason to wonder which is most utilitarian.

Theater of the absurd - hubris edition

Bush, Democrats struggle for spy deal

Congress and the White House struggled Friday over expanding authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists in a high-stakes showdown over national security.

"We're still hopeful that something can be worked out," said Ellen Cioccio, a spokeswoman for Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, after a day of fitful negotiations. "They're still talking."

Democratic leaders cleared the way for votes on different measures — at least two in the Senate and one in the House.

That left the outcome in doubt hours after Bush implored Congress to send him a bill before leaving this weekend on a monthlong vacation.

In the House, Democrats claimed they had acceded to White House requests, but Bush's aides disputed that.

So Bush insists they the House and the Senate Stay in session until they give him the bill he wants. That worked pretty well in Iraq didn't it? So what does Bush want? This is double hubris.

The president threatened to veto any bill by the Democratic-led Congress that his intelligence director deemed unable "to prevent an attack on the country. . . McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would oversee the eavesdropping process, according to the White House plan. That prompted howls of protest from Democrats who distrust the attorney general to protect privacy rights. "We need a legal framework around this program," Reid said. "No more blank check for this attorney general, no more blank checks for any attorney general."

That's right Alberto Gonzales is going to oversee the program. You know Gonzo, the guy even the most partisan Republicans think is incompetent and everybody else thinks is a pathological liar, political hack and Bush/Cheney sycophant.

But of course security is not what it's all about, as lambert at Corrente explains.

Besides, this isn’t about surveillance at all. It’s about making sure the lawbreaking of the criminal Bush regime is never exposed and retroactively legalized, and about blaming the Dems when a second 9/11 happens on Bush’s watch.

I mean, it’s all too transparent, and right out of the Republican playbook. Why are the Dems even taking it seriously?

So go ahead congress - take that vacation. You don't deserve it but if you stay you might be tempted to do something stupid.

Update
Well they didn't leave before it was too late
Senate passes Bush-backed spy bill
Ralph says it all with just a title - Democrats Cave in Senate

New York Times - Impeach Gonzales

Think Progress reports that FOX News Sunday was unable to get anyone to come on and defend Alberto Gonzales.

Later in the show, host Chris Wallace revealed that no conservative would willingly defend Gonzales on Fox. “By the way, we invited White House officials and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend Attorney General Gonzales,” said Wallace. “We had no takers.”

Meanwhile in an editorial today the New York Times says that Gonzo should be impeached.

It confirmed what most people long ago concluded: that Mr. Gonzales is more concerned about doing political-damage control for Mr. Bush — in this case insisting that there was never a Justice Department objection to a clearly illegal program — than in doing his duty. But the White House continued to defend him.

As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different” from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.

Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.

If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.

Simply opening impeachment hearings may be enough to get Gonzales to resign. Without such a threat Bush will not fire him or let him resign. There will be no special prosecutor. Impeachment should begin before the summer recess, the country can't wait.

Update
As usual Joe Gandelman has some excellent observations.

More than ever, Gonzales is in his post because one man in the United States wants him there. But in doing so, each day he’s there he hurts his own party, his own President — and to defend him White House Press spokesman Tony Snow has had to morph into a cross between Pinocchio and Nixon’s press secretary Ron Ziegler.

Leahy Says He'll Fight

Is the rumble on? AP reports Patrick Leahy won't take "no" for an answer from the White House when he was asked on Meet the Press if he'd ask for a vote on contempt citations he said, " If they don't cooperate, yes I'd go that far," in the matter of the US Attorney firings. Then there's the White House spokesman Tony Fratto, "...there's simply no merit for this overreach."

Separately Leahy and Rep John Conyers have subpoenaed the White House for documents related to the warrant less wiretapping. BushCo has until 7/9 to explain their claim of executive privilege and Leahy and Conyers seem disinclined to care why. The White House makes the usual claim to need confidential advice. There happens to be a fly in that particular ointment, criminal activity certainly is excluded from any legal counsel shield, an officer of the court -as any lawyer is - is specifically barred from illegal activity or counseling it and loses all shielding.

Legal experts seem to think that this might drag out past January 2009, I'm not so sure; courts tend to take a dim view of official wrong-doing and might actually expedite. One can always hope. Considering some of the ramifications (like handcuffs) BushCo might be well served to get this one over with.

They told you so!

We have all seen or heard about the intelligence estimates that suggested that there was little or no threat of WMD in Iraq. Well that is not all.
The Other Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
by Paul R. Pillar

But the weapons estimate was one of only three classified, community-coordinated assessments about Iraq that the intelligence community produced in the months prior to the war. Don’t feel bad if you missed the other two, which addressed the principal challenges that Iraq likely would present during the first several years after Saddam’s removal, as well as likely repercussions in the surrounding region. After being kept under wraps (except for a few leaks) for over four years, the Senate committee quietly released redacted versions of those assessments on its website May 25, as Americans were beginning their Memorial Day holiday weekend.

[......]

In contrast, the other two assessments spoke directly to the instability, conflict, and black hole for blood and treasure that over the past four years we have come to know as Iraq. The assessments described the main contours of the mess that was to be, including Iraq’s unpromising and undemocratic political culture, the sharp conflicts and prospect for violence among Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian groups, the Marshall Plan-scale of effort needed for economic reconstruction, the major refugee problem, the hostility that would be directed at any occupying force that did not provide adequate security and public services, and the exploitation of the conflict by Al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

That's right, the cluster-fuck that the occupation of Iraq has become was accurately predicted before the invasion. But nobody was listening - yes that includes the Democrats.

Always was a fool’s errand

The story of these pre-war assessments has other implications that are at least important, however, including ones for current debate over Iraq policy. The assessments support the proposition that the expedition in Iraq always was a fool’s errand rather than a good idea spoiled by poor execution, implying that the continued search for a winning strategy is likely to be fruitless. Some support for the poor execution hypothesis can be found in the assessments, such as the observation that Iraq’s regular army could make an important contribution in providing security (thus implicitly questioning in advance the wisdom of ever disbanding the army). But the analysts had no reason to assume poor execution, and their prognosis was dark nonetheless. Moreover, amid the stultifying policy environment that prevailed when the assessments were prepared—in which it was evident that the administration was going to war and that analysis supporting that decision was welcome and contrary analysis was not—it is all the more remarkable that the analysts would produce such a gloomy view.

While the intelligence community has been blamed for the war and the quagmire that followed there were many in that community that got it right but nobody was listening.

To hell with a no-confidence vote......

.....just impeach the lying bastard.
Dems Seek No-Confidence Vote on Gonzales

WASHINGTON (AP) - Two Senate Democrats said Thursday they will seek a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over accusations that he carried out President Bush's political agenda at the expense of the Justice Department's independence.
Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, who have led the investigation into the conduct of White House officials and Gonzales, said the attorney general has been too weakened to run the department.

You are damned right he "has been too weakened to run the department" which is why he needs to go now. The fact that he is an incompetent lying bastard is probably also a good enough reason. So why bother with a no confidence vote? Just make it clear to Gonzo and Bozo in the White House that he resigns or he gets fired by the congress. Is that really all that difficult?

Update
Steve Soto agrees and has more:

The problem for Gonzales is that he and Bush already have a credibility problem with Congress on the federal attorney sackings, where Hagel, Pat Roberts and other GOP senators now want Gonzales gone or predict he will resign for misleading them on the scope of the sackings originally planned, many of course in political battleground states. Beyond that though, as Jonathan Turley noted, the revelations from Comey confirm that the president condoned an unauthorized and illegal domestic spying program, which is an impeachable offense. The White House knows they are on very shaky ground now, as evidenced by Bush’s tap dance today. Glenn Greenwald states clearly that what we have here is a president who condoned an illegal domestic spying program for over two years that was so egregious that his own Justice Department hierarchy and FBI director threatened to resign over it. Yet Bush went ahead with it anyway, and then dumped Ashcroft after the election and solved his problem by appointing Gonzales to bury any threats of such illegality seeing the light of day while Bush was in office in the hope that they could ride it out for 4 years.

And then came the unforeseen 2006 midterm result. The Bush Administration may have finally hit the rocks this week, especially when both the Bush-enabling Post and the NYT now want to know what illegal activity Bush authorized for those 2 ½ years that we are just now finding out about.

Hey! It's not our system of Government that's Broken

Former Justice Department official Arnold I. Burns has an Op Ed in today's New York Times, Two Parties, One Law, where he suggests that the Justice Department should be depoliticized.

Whatever happens to Mr. Gonzales, the taint will remain. That’s why the only real solution is to depoliticize the Justice Department, to do away with the appearance of anyone playing politics there.

I suggest we begin by making the attorney general job no longer a cabinet position. When the nation was established, the president needed a lawyer at his side. But today the president has a White House staff full of them — a veritable law firm in his own home.

The solution is to have the attorney general appointed to a fixed term — say, 15 years — that wouldn’t be coterminous with the tenure of the president who appoints him. As with the director of the F.B.I. (a 10-year term) and the chairman of the Federal Reserve (a four-year, renewable term), the appointment would be made by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress’s oversight would ensure that no political hack or crony of the president could be handed the job.

Likewise, the 93 United States attorneys should not be political apparatchiks, but talented lawyers selected half from Republican ranks and half from Democratic, following the system used for regulatory bodies like the Federal Communications Commission. These men and women should also be subject to Senate confirmation.

Changes in the occupant of the White House should not affect the way justice is administered. If the Gonzales mess ends up giving us an apolitical Department of Justice, the American people will be well served.

I would suggest that the current system is not broken, it's the Rovian Bush administration is broken. The more the Bush administration abuses power the more cries there are to limit the power of the executive. This is the wrong approach. For starters George W. Bush and Richard Cheney should be impeached for the impeachable offenses they have committed. If for no other reason than to warn future potential tyrants that they will be held accountable. Now we get down to the real thing that needs fixing. No it's not the government or the constitution - it's the media, yes that so called liberal media both print and television. We have discussed here and here how the media is as responsible for the fact we are in the debacle of an occupation in Iraq. They are responsible for much more. When they refused to investigate or refused to publish the results of their investigations of the 2000 election the enabled the Bush administration to steal yet another election in 2004. When they refused to investigate or report on the lies and deceptions of the Bush administration they made it possible for the election to be close enough to make a fix possible. The list of instances where the main stream media failed the American people would be a long list indeed. That includes establishment pundits like David Broder and Tom Friedman. The press is called the fourth estate for a reason, when it doesn't do the job it was intended to do our form of government will fail. Al-Qaeda need do nothing, the New York Times and the Washington Post are doing it for them. Unless some way can be found to restore an independent press changing the mechanics of government will accomplish nothing.

There is a timetable

All the talk of timetables is silly.
Republicans Soften Stance on Pullout Language
GOP Senators Willing To Let Bush Confront Iraq Timetable Issue

Unwilling to do the White House's heavy lifting on Iraq, Senate Republicans are prepared to step aside to allow language requiring troop withdrawals to reach President Bush, forcing him to face down Democratic adversaries with his veto pen.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) announced the shift in strategy yesterday, as the chamber took up a $122 billion war spending package that includes a target date of March 31, 2008, for ending most U.S. combat operations in Iraq. The provision, along with a similar House effort, represents the Democrats' boldest challenge on the war, setting the stage for a dramatic showdown with Bush over an otherwise popular bill to keep vital military funds flowing.

As E.J.Dionne explains Bush's my way or the highway approach is forcing Republicans to support an unpopular war with elections approaching.

Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to the bill is also "hurting the political standing of his Republican colleagues" in Congress by forcing them to back an open-ended commitment in Iraq at a time when their constituents are demanding a different approach.

Bush continued his effort to polarize the debate in his weekly radio address Saturday, condemning the House vote as a "political statement" and urging Congress "to put our troops first, not politics" by sending him "a clean bill, without conditions, without restrictions and without pork."

Bush's threat to veto the House bill might be seen as either safe or empty, because the final compromise that emerges from the House and Senate will be different from the measure passed by Pelosi's majority. But the president's uncompromising language and his effective imposition of an April 15 deadline for the funding bill -- after that date, he said, "our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions" -- may solidify Democratic ranks without rallying new Republican support.

With 20 Republican senate seats on the line in 2008 and Bush's mis-adventure in Iraq becoming more unpopular everyday the Republicans realize they must break with Bush on Iraq and soon. That's called a timetable. The flap over the firings of US Attorneys will further erode Bush approval and erode his support among congressional supporters. Yes, there is a timetable and everyone knows it. It's sometime before November 2008.

Subpoenas, executive privilege and the courts

Josh Marshall suggests why the Bush administration is playing hardball over the testimony of Karl Rove and company.

Quite a few people have speculated over whether Tony Snow really meant to say that Congress had no right or ability to conduct oversight of the executive branch. The claim is belied by the US constitution and all US history down to the present day. But I strongly suspect that it was no accident, slip of the tongue or loosely general statement the White House won't stand behind.

The simple truth, I think, is that there's too much criminality waiting to be uncovered.

In the US Attorney purge, yes. But that's only the start of it.

The only and perhaps the best approach for the White House is to fight what in military terms you might call a forward engagement, gumming up the very concept and premise of oversight itself in the courts for long enough to wait out the clock. That's what this is about.

That makes sense but are they playing a game of chicken they might lose? I heard an interesting take on that on of all places FOX. The FOX legal analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, first explained the SC decided in the case of Richard Nixon that while there was indeed executive privilege is was not unlimited. Bottom line, Napolitano said the law was not on Bush's side and he will probably lose. He then reminded us that less than three weeks after Nixon refused to give up the tapes the Supreme Court had made it's decision. So maybe the Bush administration won't be able to stretch it out for two years as Josh suggested. Does the administration realize this? Time will tell.

Update
The Carpetbagger Report has a good piece on the Administration's or should we say Tony Snow's take on Congressional Oversight.
Oversight over the White House

Tony Snow on ABC: “The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn’t have oversight ability.”

Snow on CBS: “The legislative branch has no oversight responsibility over the White House.”

Snow during press briefing: “[T]he Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we’re doing something that we’re not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we’re doing.”

Look, I know these guys are into all kinds of strange ideas about a unitary executive, but this is ridiculous. If the legislative branch doesn’t have oversight responsibilities over the White House, does Snow think the White House has to answer to anyone?

[.....]

Keep in mind, based on Snow’s comments today, this isn’t the executive privilege argument, this is the executive privilege argument on crack. The principle of executive privilege, while fluid, addresses a president’s need for candor from advisors. As the president said the other day, “[I]f the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.”

But today’s argument goes much further and suggests Congress lacks the authority to ask the White House questions at all. And given the frequency with which Snow used the argument today, we can expect to hear quite a bit more about this in the coming days.

Now do they really believe this stuff? They might, they are that delusional. Or as Josh suggested this is just part of a stalling tactic?

Is it or isn't it

As head of the House Republican Conference, the 32-year-old redhead is leading his caucus into a public-opinion meat grinder: supporting President Bush's increase of U.S. troops in Iraq, against the wishes of more than 60 percent of Americans. Worse, he is leading them with a pair of somewhat contradictory arguments: (a) that the Democrats' resolution opposing Bush's Iraq buildup is a meaningless gesture, and (b) that the Democrats' resolution will cause the end of civilization as we know it.

The above is from Dana Milbank's piece on the Republican attempts to derail an anti-surge resolution,
For the GOP, Taking the War Out of the War Debate
Now many of us had noted the schizophrenic arguments by the administration and the ever decreasing number of Republicans who support them. Milbank gives us some examples:

"This is a rather toothless 97 words," Putnam began in his floor speech, calling the proposal "a narrow nonbinding resolution that misses the bigger picture." Minutes later, he changed his view. "The majority would have us consider a resolution that puts us one day closer to handing militant Islamists a safe haven the size of California."

So which one is it: toothless or catastrophic?

Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) wasn't sure. In his floor speech, he called the resolution "nonbinding" six times, labeling the resolution "a political charade lacking both the seriousness and the gravity of the issue that it's meant to represent." And yet, he also thought the resolution "is the first step toward abandoning Iraq by cutting off funding for our troops that are in harm's way."

Neither had Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) found harmony between the competing talking points. "This resolution just says enough not to say anything at all," he judged. In another breath, however, he called it a "first step to cutting off funding for the dangerous mission our troops face" and a debate that "bolsters those radical terrorists whose sole goal is to destroy America."

The Republican complaints brought to mind the Woody Allen joke about two old ladies at a Catskills resort. "One of 'em says, 'Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.' The other one says, 'Yeah, I know, and such small portions.' "

A hand they can't win.

Republicans knew they had a weak hand to play as the House began its three-day debate on Iraq and whether to support Bush's 20,000-troop "surge." "The debate should not be about the surge or its details," Republican Reps. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.) and John Shadegg (Ariz.) wrote to colleagues in a letter intercepted by Democrats. "This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."

Talk about any war but Iraq.

Those who did brave the hostile climate to come to the House floor preferred to talk of wars other than the one underway in Iraq.

Blunt (67 percent of the vote in November) chose Vietnam. "President Johnson was criticized a generation ago, and still today, for choosing bombing sites in Vietnam," he argued. "But his actions made infinitely more sense than this."

Boehner (64 percent) opted for the Civil War. "Surrounded by personal and political rivals, Lincoln could have given up," the minority leader said. "He could have recalled the Union forces and sent them home. But he didn't."

Like many speakers, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida (62 percent) saw echoes of the Second World War. "The threat of Hitler did not appear suddenly out of a vacuum," she said, in front of a poster of a pilot in uniform.

Putnam (69 percent) opted for the war in the Pacific. "It's easy enough to go back and list all the disappointments we've had in Iraq," he said. "But it's like focusing on one jungle, on one atoll on the march to Tokyo over 60 years ago."

And the schizophrenia continued.

But Putnam, host of the war room, had only begun to fight. He called a news conference in the Capitol basement with Boehner and distributed orange juice made with fruit his family had grown in Florida. Sipping the juice, he repeated his dueling points: (a) "This is just the first step to defunding troops in harm's way," and (b) "This week's resolution is really just a stunt."

The Post's Jonathan Weisman asked for a clarification. "Is this resolution a meaningless stunt or is it very consequential?"

Boehner struggled through an answer about "two levels and two different points." Putnam frowned but said nothing.

Yes even the MSM stenographers like Millbank recognize the absurd when they see it. No wonder John Boehner is crying.

Street Fights

Harriet Miers may have been an ideal candidate for the Supreme Court but Bush must feel she's no up to any real lawyer work when it come to the upcoming street fights with the Democratic controlled congress. Mike Allen of Time tells us he has chosen Fred F. Fielding to replace Ms Miers. Now I almost quit reading Mr Allen's piece after the first sentence.

In a signal that he could be open to working more closely with congressional Democrats rather than stonewalling, President Bush plans to name the widely respected Republican lawyer Fred F. Fielding as White House counsel this week, party sources tell TIME. Fielding, who held the same position under President Ronald Reagan, will succeed the President's friend Harriet Miers, who last week announced her resignation, effective Jan. 31.

Now all you have to do is look at Mr Fielding's resume to understand that is doesn't "signal that he could be open to working more closely with congressional Democrats rather than stonewalling".

Fielding was Counsel to President Reagan from 1981 to 1986, deputy White House counsel from 1972 to 1974 and associate White House counsel from 1970 to 1972. He was Clearance Counsel for the Bush-Cheney Presidential Transition in 2000 and 2001, and has degrees from Gettysburg College and University of Virginia School of Law.

That's right, Mr Fielding cut his professional teeth as part of the criminally combative Nixon administration. He was Reagan's WH council during Iran Contra. Now I don't know if he is a member of the Federalist Society but I would guess he is a strong supporter of the imperial presidency. Now this sounds a lot like "stonewalling" to me.

"The key for the Administration is going to be drawing the lines on these boundaries of executive privilege and access to documents and congressional oversight — drawing the lines around the really important issues and trying to be a little more flexible on the others," said a former colleague of Fielding. "They're not going to fold, because Fielding is a very serious, hard-nosed person, and he's a tough negotiator. But they're also going not to take a totally stonewall position. That doesn't mean they're going to cave in. What it means is they're going to negotiate and focus on the things that they're truly protecting and that are truly important."

Let the battles begin, it's going to be an interesting two years.

Maybe the Democrats do get it!

The November elections were about a lot of things but if anyone thinks the results were mostly about Iraq is wrong. A little belatedly but not too late the new Democratic majority realizes this.
Democrats Revise Agenda To Deal With War in Iraq

Democratic leaders who had hoped to emphasize their domestic agenda in the opening weeks of Congress have concluded that Iraq will share top billing, and they plan on aggressively confronting administration officials this week in a series of hearings.

Pushed by House members who want a quick, tough response to the Iraq strategy President Bush is expected to announce this week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has backed off from her initial assertion that nothing should detract attention from the legislation she hopes to pass in the first 100 hours of House debate.

Late last week, she summoned the chairmen of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, intelligence, Homeland Security, and Oversight and Government Reform committees to plot a series of hearings. On Thursday, Democrats will call Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to defend the war-strategy shift Bush will outline in a nationally televised speech.

A House Armed Services Committee hearing with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, planned for Jan. 19 was abruptly moved to this Thursday after consultations with Pelosi. And leadership aides went to work on a response to Bush's speech that they hope will be delivered on national television after the president's appearance.

In the Senate, the Foreign Relations Committee will hold hearings Wednesday on the current situation in Iraq, then grill Rice on the president's plan Thursday. Pace and Gates will go before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday.

The American people want this President held accountable especially for the quagmire he has created in Mesopotamia. As Paul Krugman reminded us this morning Bush is unwilling and/or unable to admit he made a mistake. It is up to the congress to make it clear to the American people that a major mistake that threatens the well being of this country was made and that Bush's "stay the course" is a path to disaster. Iraq is what the voters are concerned about.

A CBS News poll released Thursday found that 45 percent of voters want the Democratic Congress to focus on Iraq, a figure that far outstripped the percentages for the economy and jobs, at 7 percent; health care, at 7 percent; and immigration, at 6 percent. "Americans couldn't be clearer," the poll report concluded.

Investigation and oversight is what the voters expect the Democrats to do - that's why they put them in the majority.

"I'm not whining," he whined.

Dana Milbank reminds us how soon they forget - the Republicans that is.
In the House, Suddenly Righteous Republicans

Thirty-one-year-old Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) is not a large man, standing perhaps 5 feet 3 inches tall in thick soles. But he packed a whole lot of chutzpah when he walked into the House TV gallery yesterday to demand that the new Democratic majority give the new Republican minority all the rights that Republicans had denied Democrats for years.

"The bill we offer today, the minority bill of rights, is crafted based on the exact text that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi submitted in 2004 to then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert," declared McHenry, with 10 Republican colleagues arrayed around him. "We're submitting this minority bill of rights, which will ensure that all sides are protected, that fairness and openness is in fact granted by the new majority."

Omitted from McHenry's plea for fairness was the fact that the GOP had ignored Pelosi's 2004 request -- while routinely engaging in the procedural maneuvers that her plan would have corrected. Was the gentleman from North Carolina asking Democrats to do as he says, not as he did?

"Look, I'm a junior member," young McHenry protested. "I'm not beholden to what former congresses did."

Anne Kornblut of the New York Times asked McHenry if his complaint might come across as whining.

"I'm not whining," he whined.

Not whining my ass. Oh the irony; the party of the "nuclear option" - the party that bent, stretched and violated house rules for years suddenly wants to play on a neutral playing field. The party that did everything they could to prevent the Democrats from throwing a monkey wrench into their agenda wants a chance to throw a monkey wrench at will. Well screw them. Give them an opportunity to participate when they indicate that they are indeed willing to come to the table in the spirit of bipartisan compromise. But make them earn it.

The day began when House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.) led fellow House GOP leaders to a news conference in a Capitol basement hall. At 32, he is a year older than McHenry, and several inches taller, but no less outraged by Democrats' refusal to bestow on Republicans the rights that Republicans refused to bestow on Democrats.

"We are disappointed," protested Putnam, whose fair skin was covered with a layer of makeup.

"We're clearly disappointed," seconded Roy Blunt (Mo.).

I'm disappointed, as are some others," added Kay Granger (Tex.).

"I am very disappointed," concurred David Dreier (Calif.).

It fell to CNN's Dana Bash to point out the awkward truth. "You can play back, almost verbatim, Democrats . . . saying almost exactly what you all just said," she said. "So is there a little bit of hypocrisy in you saying that you want minority rights?"

I wonder if they realize how stupid and hypocritical the look and sound? I doubt it, they are after all politicians.

Locked Out

For the last 10 years the Republicans in the House have locked the Democrats out. The people spoke in November but what did they say? The DC punditry seems to think the people long for a return to bipartisan government but maybe they just didn't like what the Republicans had done to this country. So, is this wrong?
Democrats To Start Without GOP Input
Quick Passage of First Bills Sought

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Republican John Cole's reaction reflects my feelings:

And I agree 100% with this decision. While this will give the cheerleaders on the right some early cannon fodder (“See- the Democrats are no different!”), this can be completely countered with the simple statement- “Hey- we are just using your rules.” Politically, it might be damaging to the Democrats in the short run, but the alternative is to let the Republicans participate early on, defeat or screw up all the initiatives the Democrats plan to pass, and have the Republicans then claim the Democrats didn’t change anything.

So shut ‘em out. Let them sit on the sidelines, pass your bills and fulfill your promises, and then, after the dust has settled, let the Republicans play ball. Maybe, by then, they will appreciate the fact that the Democratic practices for debate are the better alternative to the past 6 years of one party rule, and will not use the Democratic willingness to work with the opposition as a weapon.

It took 6 years to destroy bipartisanship, don't expect it to reappear overnight.