January 20th is Soon Enough

Left-leaning talking heads and op-ed writers are banging the drum for Obama to take the reins of government ahead of the constitutionally mandated date for the presidential transition.  On the other side of the political spectrum, there are silly claims of the "Obama recession."  

Neither of the foregoing persons possess much beyond a remedial understanding of the current financial crisis, if fact listening to them opine on these matters is painful.  Talk about being out of their collective depth, most of these folks most readily resemble Sarah Palin's rambling, nonsensical blather when they seek to characterize what's going on.

I argue that it is prudent for President-elect Obama move .cautiously.  This crisis is dynamic.  As the current administration's efforts have evidenced, today's "solution" may be next week's folly.  The US (and the world's) economy is trodding virgin territory.  Some of what will happen is beyond the control of government.  Better to move slowly and prudently, than respond as ifin  campaign mode.  The next administration needs to guard its credibility fiendishly with regard to our present circumstances.  A rapid response methodology is the polar opposite of what current circumstances demand.  Careful, thoughtful and to extent practicable, consistent economic messages are imperative to allow world markets to heal.  

The Gonzales Mess

The crib sheet version of what is going on here is relatively simple - plain and simple incompetence. The fact is that the appointment of US Attorneys is an inherently political process and legally the dismissal of the US Attorneys on 12/7/06 is not problematic. What is abundantly clear however is that Alberto Gonzales is a bumbler and horribly ill-suited to fulfill the highest law enforcement post in the United States. Not only are his explanations of his involvement/non-involvement lamentable his smarmy smugness is intolerable. Hubris is the most abundant trait within this Administration. I watched more than 80 percent of today's hearings and I almost feel bad for the guy. Anyone with any self-respect would have resigned weeks ago.

The Democrats could almost be accused of bullying an obviously over-matched minion were it not for the Republicans joining in. Gonzales performance was atrocious and most Administrations would be shrinking in their collective chairs, horrified and ashamed at Gonzales abysmal performance. How can Josh Bolton allow this to continue, can't he get the President to see the obvious. Like it or not Alberto Gonzales is emblematic of what is wrong about the Bush Presidency. I find it sad really that it has taken so long for the American people to come to grips with the fact that the Emperor has no clothes.

Bill Clinton engaged in shameful personal behavior as President, but no one can reasonably argue that he was an incompetent politician. The same can't be said regarding the current President. His inability to accept reality has diminished the Presidency in this country, seriously hurt his political party and damaged the country's international reputation in a way that will take decades to repair. I honestly feel sorry for the President, I believe he believes in what he is doing, but his inability to see things for what they are is pitiful.

Anybody Smellin' That Texas Al and Armidillo Stew That's Cookin'?

Former AG Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson's testimony appears to place a nail in Texas Al's coffin. Sampson directly contradicted Gonzales' statements regarding his non-involvement in the discussions leading up to the dismissal of 8 US Attorneys. At the White House press briefing later today, the spokeswoman notably did not take the opportunity to lend support to the embattled and incompetent gent from Texas, Alberto Gonzales.

As an aside, unlike Scooter Libby, I doubt that Texas Al has a prosperous future on the rubber chicken circuit, since he lack the conservative street cred. Nor do I expect that there will be a ton of legal work in his future. But, don't shed too many tears, the Bush mafia that bought GWB the Crawford "ranch" won't let 'em starve.

Saudis Dis Bush - Condemning "Occupation" and Cancel State Dinner

In a relatively shocking blast to a President deeply wounded by the American public renunciation of his Iraq policy in polls and in the 2006 elections, he was hit with a devastating one-two combination from long-time Bush backers in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi King Abdullah first withdrew from his planned State dinner scheduled for April 17. That rebuke was stiffened by the King's harsh comments about the US "occupation" of Iraq. While it is well documented that the Saudi's (Prince Bandar, specifically) strongly cautioned Bush against its intention to invade Iraq (if for no small reason that the Iranians were likely to be the unintended beneficiaries by Bob Woodward and others, the Saudis criticism of the Bush administration has been publically muted. At least until now.

The President Draws a Line in the Sand

The president's brief press conference this evening was vintage Bush. While offering support for the embattled Attorney General, the real thrust of the press conference was to appeal the the public and seek to stem the bleeding by making the current crisis as a constitutional issue. The offer from the White House is to have Karl Rove and Harriet Miers (and likely others) testify before the judiciary committee in closed door, unsworn testimony. Prominent democrats have already dismissed this offer as unsatisfactory and will almost certainly issue subpoenas. The result is may be a protracted court fight, one that is unlikely to aid an administration already seriously handicapped push forward any political agenda. The only winners might be Republican political candidates who are better positioned to benefit from a pissing contest between Congress and the White House (remember everybody gets wet in a pissing contest).

What's odd is why the White House has waited until now to get off the defense and attempt to push back against the juggernaut. Irrespective, I still think Texas Al still has to go, the political Gods will demand sacrifice.

WH Looking for Replacement For Texas Al, but Wait Tell Me it's Not So!!!

As the Al Gonzales death watch continues, reports emanate of possible replacements being floated. Without evaluating each of the potential candidates, one is certainly worthy of further discussion, the Crypt-Keeper, Michael Chertoff, current Director of Homeland Security. What Bernie Kerik isn't available? His name certainly comes to mind as one with the resume and Bush administration bona fides to be nominated, but I easily discounted him as unacceptable as a result of his almost criminal ineptitude in the response to Hurricane Katrina. Ah, but I was too hasty. Too willing to overestimate Karl Rove's political ability, too willing to underestimate the President's child-like need to play only with playmates that have already shared play dates with the Brat-in-Chief. My lord, is this the height of folly.


That said, I'm going to guess that the trial balloon related to Chertoff has already floated out into the Chesapeake Bay and sunk. Why anyone within the White House would want to nominate this chucklehead for anything me. The Democrats in the Senate would have a fiesta with him. Pummelling him like a pinata until he burst.

AG On Fire

US AG Alberto Gonzales, appearing extremely uncomfortable, put forward a limited defense to the firestorm surrounding the dismissal of 8 US Attorney's. He began with a general statement that everything that happens within the Dept of Justice is his responsibility, but then went on to say he didn't know the actions taken by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, despite the fact that the recently resigned Mr. Sampson had been charged with performance evaluations of the US Attorneys and ostensibly was vetting those evaluations through the White House. Mr. Gonzales repeatedly stated that 110,000 people work at DOJ and that as such he couldn't possibly know what each of those employees were up to. That comment might be true and acceptable in general, but it strains the bounds of credulity in the present case.

Gonzales focused narrowly on the issue of his recent Congressional testimony. He was forced to accept that his testimony was wrong, but that his misstatements of fact were the result ignorance of the actions of his Chief of Staff as well as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. Mr. Gonzales demeanor was contrite if not terrified. My read at this point is that this may result in his resignation. His demeanor stands in stark contrast to his standard modus operandi - smug in the extreme, irrespective of the sensitivity of the underlying issue (i.e. warrantless surveillance, treatment of detainees etc.). That past behavior virtually ensures that Congressional Democrats are going to come at Gonzales with both guns blazing. The only thing Gonzales has going for him is the stubbornness of the President. The counterpoint is how much political capital is an already damaged White House willing to expend on Mr. Gonzales.

Managing Expectations

Reinforcements, surge, augmentation, escalation (let's call it "Plan Y"). You say potato I say potato. At the risk of sounding a bit callous, I think a lot about where we sit politically vis a vis Iraqis about the failure to properly manage expectations.

That failure began with the oversell of the threat posed by Iraq and the sacrifice necessary to extinguish that threat. The failure continued by premature declarations of success, firstly, in the contrived photo op of GWB landing on a aircraft carrier that was purposefully kept offshore and the display of Mission Accomplished banner.

The overselling of the political progress within Iraq, whether it was the drone about the progress (or as it should have been non-progress) of the Iraqi military or police forces, the development of an unworkable Iraqi constitution, or an election that displayed little more than the fractiousness of the Iraq body politic are all emblematic of poor politics. The reality simply did not comport with sales job. Accordingly, the American people are rightly suspicious when the latest proposal is proffered as the only possible course of action. At the same time, any disagreement with the Administration's is seen as cowardly.

The Administration has lost credibility with the American people and appropriately so. The American people are not unwilling to fight the good fight, but not a fight that is waged ineffectually and with an absence of candor. Even the current proposal is overly vague with respect to identifiable and quantifiable goals. Progress in Iraq is an identifiable goal and a worthy goal at that, but it is not readily quantifiable and the Bush Administration seems intent on keeping it that way.

The diehard talking heads that continue to support the Administration talk about the
necessity of Plan Y say they believe it will result in progress within 6 to 9 months. While I don't doubt the American military's ability to wage successful campaigns, the progress spoken of requires substantial changes in the way the Iraqi government and military operates. Is that even reasonable to expect within 6 to 9 months. Count me as a skeptic. More troubling is that this timeframe has not been signed onto by the Administration. Incremental improvements in Iraq over the next 6 to 9 months aren't likely result in a substantial change in the support for the efforts in Iraq.

Despite a mature economy that continues to grow at historical strong rates despite very large increases to oil, Bush is seen as a failed President. I think the primary reason is not that Iraq is a mess, but that he and his Administration has not told the American people how hard assisting in the formation of a sustainable, secular Iraq would be. It matters little to the voters whether that is the result of deception or ineptitude, it is a distinction that for the time being, without a difference. The lesson here is it is better to under promise and over deliver than it is to do the converse.

Upcoming: Bush's State of the Union 7.0

I'm getting that giddy feeling that can only mean one thing, the President's State of the Union is right around the corner. Safe to say there won't be any talk about Iraqis buying yellowcake uranium from Niger. What I am looking forward to is how GWB is going to work switchgrass into the speech. I have no idea if there is any practical basis for switchgrass being discussed as a alternative energy source. I am fascinated every time I hear the President mention it.

Who's Kidding Who?

The debate raging over the situation of Iraq is more divorced from reality than it was when Paul Wolfowitz testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and claimed that the efforts in Iraq would cost the US far less than $100mm and likely even pay for itself. Let me try to set forward the facts as they stand today: More than 3,000 dead American military personnel; more than 20,000 serious non-lethal American casualties; American public support for American involvement in the Iraqi conflict at its lowest ebb; the Administration and its supporters fervently believe that Iraq must become a sustainable political state; at this point, the Iraqis are incapable of governing and securing a united, inclusive Iraq.

In my view the chances of the Administration regaining the support of the American people for its Iraqi policy - is nil. The dirty little secret is that the Administration is still unable to level with the American people about what it will take to accomplish its goals in Iraq. Irrespective of your position on Iraq, there is no reasonable scenario under which the Administration goals can be accomplished within the next two years. In fact, five years might be the absolute best case scenario. The Iraqis collectively have precious little appetite for the very goals being sold to the American public.

It has been said by a number of political pundits, quite correctly, that the American Administration and the American people can not want this more than the Iraqis. Despite NSC Adviser Hadley's assertions that this plan is the Iraqis plan (and consequently they support it and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary for success), the facts simply do not support that contention. Moreover, the current plan is a single pronged strategy, military without a political component. Thus, even the rosiest conclusion of this initiative is but a beginning.

Given that the administration is not interested in a multi-lateral political solution, what we are left with is a Hobbesian choice, effectively sit back and let the pieces fall where they may or hunker down for what is likely a decade or more or direct involvement in Iraq. The only sustainable argument in support of the later is to operate as a check on the Iranians. In order for that to work it is imperative for the Administration to elevate the perception of the Iranian threat to the US. The President began to lay the groundwork for this political sleight of hand in his speech on Wednesday. The VP, in his remarks on Fox News Sunday fulfilled his role as Administration cudgel by further setting the stage for conflict between the US and Iran by emphasizing its threat to the US.

Note, I stress the threat to the US because I don't believe the Administration can recapture public support if the perceived threat is Israel. The incursion into Iraq on ginned up "intelligence" on the threat posed to the US mainland with its enormous cost in American lives and monies without concomitant success has serious dulled the American public's appetite for war. Thus a casus belli for action against Iran is necessary.

The basis for such action may be found in the upcoming National Intelligence Estimate ("NIE") on Iran that is expected to be completed soon. I expect the Estimate to have much in common with the NIE issued prior to Congress' vote on Iraq, long on descriptions of worst-case scenarios with less ardent views relegated to footnotes or ignored altogether. There has been limited speculation that John Negroponte's reassignment to a less prominent role within the Administration was a precursor to a hawkish Estimate (note, I have a previous post discussing Negroponte's reassignment, interestingly his departure has received precious little attention in the press, overshadowed by the President's revised Iraq strategy).

Finally, I am of the opinion that irrespective of the success new military policy nothing much will change because the Iraqis are not invested in fundamental political change. The Sunnis want to be back in charge, the Shia, even those not interested in direct retribution against the Sunnis, want the spoils of political power and the Kurds want no more than the oil around Kirkuk, relative political autonomy and US protection from the Turks. Until that political landscape changes our efforts in Iraq are a fool's endeavor.

Sunday News Shows 1/14

What gives, Chris Wallace and Fox News Sunday gets Mr. Happy aka VP Cheney and Russert and Meet the Press only gets Steve Hadley. Don't get me wrong, Hadley's very bright and an engaging interviewee, but for pure star appeal it's no contest. Regardless, Fox News Sunday is a formidable competitor to Meet the Press, while Wallace can't carry Russert's groceries,the Fox All Stars are must watch. Watching Bill Kristol begrudgingly offering support for the President, while holding his nose is priceless. I'm convinced that no one believes Bush is a bigger moron than Mr. Kristol. Thank god for TiVo.

Negroponte Ousted?

Last week amongst the barrage of personnel moves within the Bush admin perhaps the most vexing was the move to John Negroponte from National Director of Intelligence to Assistant Secretary of State. The Administration spin was that Negroponte is first and foremost a diplomat, true indeed. But upon reflection why does someone voluntarily give up a position that reports directly to President, in fact, regularly and often daily, for a position, under Sec of State Rice. Odd to say the least.

Reports are now emerging that Mr. Negroponte might have run afoul of VP Cheney and Darth Vader (David Addington). Two specific areas are mentioned - the soon to be issued National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq and domestic surveillance activities. Both make some sense. Negroponte two months back angered Administration zealots (the usual suspects) regarding Iran's current nuclear capabilities. With regard to domestic intelligence activities, longtime CIA, NSA and FBI professionals have frequently (yet carefully) expressed strong reservations with the broad scope the Administration advocates.

The objection is more about how such activities are conducted. The Administration remains steadfast in its intention to broaden presidential authority. What perplexes me is why such power is required for the "War on Terror" (an entanglement that is definitionally interminable) yet we as a republic did not see the need to provide clear legal basis for the executive with regard to these matters. One is sort of forced to conclude that the real reason is a pure and simple power play. I, for one, am a strenuous believer in the balance of powers between the federal branches of government, although considering the dottering dickheads that fill the House and Senate worthy of such a heay position is frightening.

President to Speak Wed. Evening

The President will speak to the nation (at least those willing to listen) Wednesday night regarding yet another change of direction in Iraq. This time the Pres. will announce his intention to increase troops in Iraq by 20,000 combined with new economic incentives theoretically conditioned upon political benchmarks for the pitifully ineffectual Iraqi government. reshuffled the military deck to come up with soldiers that believe (?) the new strategy can work.

Republican support for this strategy is weak within the Administration itself let alone in Congress. Irrespective, I think the President will ultimately get his way - this time at least - but with an extremely short leash. I think this sets up a really ugly late '07 going into '08 for this Administration. This is a tactical and political mess of enormous proportions. I do not believe this "new" stategy has a snowball's chance in hell of working.

The Enemy - Redefined

Based upon the President's news conference this morning it appears that GWOT, The Global War on Terror, has gone the way of "Stay the Course" and least for the moment.

The terminology was imprecise and not particularly additive to discussion or debate. Moreover, definitionally, the "war" was interminable and thus, unwinable. The enemy (at least in Iraq) are now described as "extremists." Is this change in nomenclature a positive sign? Perhaps.

Uh oh, btw switchgrass is back (GWB mentioned it again today). I for one can't wait to go cruisin' in my switchgrass powered Hundai.

I'm Gonna Listen to My Generals . . .except . . .

when they have the audacity to speak their mind. The well-worn claim by the President that he was following the advice of his generals as it relates to Iraq has been exposed for what it is/was - horse shit.

According to multiple reports, including today's lead in the WaPo, the Joint Chiefs is unanimous in its opposition to President Bush's apparent intent to increase forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more. The Joint Chiefs, seemingly buoyed by the sacking of Donald Rumsfeld, apparently are strenuously opposing the plan to increase US forces in Iraq. Note that Tony Snow deftly attempted to dismiss the story, but he did not go as far as to say the underpinnings of the story were untrue.

The Joint Chiefs' failure to stand up to the authoritarian rule of Rumsfeld has been well documented in books like, State of Denial, Hubris, Chaos and Cobra II. They seem, at least momentarily, empowered by Rummy's sacking. Bush is desperate to prove that despite all data to the contrary, Iraq isn't a lost cause in the short term.

The fact is not only is GWB intellectually lazy, he's intellectually dishonest.

Delay in Bush Iraq Policy Speech - My Take

Official and unofficial sources have squelched the notion that Pres. Bush will issue a major speech prior to Christmas to signal changes to policy in Iraq. The aforementioned speech is now expected early in the new year. My read is that the speech is being delayed for practical political and policy reasons. I expect Bush to accede to the McCain approach, ignored by the Iraqi Strategy Group (because they were told that such an approach was practically a non-starter), and call for a significant increase in troop levels in Iraq. I expect that he may also propose a significant increase in the number of active military personnel.

The President will cite Iraq, Afghanistan and the worldwide threat of terror, but perhaps he could just skip that and offer more succinctly "and you know, yada, yada, yada." Expect to hear the catchphrase of the moment "surrender is not an option," sandwiched with nonsensical claims that leaving Iraq dishonors those soldiers that have died in Iraq, a none to subtle, and well-worn attack on the patriotism of those that may disagree.

Arguments certainly exist as to why out troops should continue to operate in harm's way, but the President is either unwilling or incapable putting forward a compelling and/or honest argument to the American electorate. Instead he continues to petulantly offer the intellectual equivalent of "I fuckin' know better than you - don't you realize I'm the President."

Anyone expecting a more dramatic change in direction are either deluded or simply not paying attention.

Cheney "Summoned" to Saudi Arabia to Talk with the King?

Reports apparently have it that VP Cheney's recent trip to Saudi Arabia was at the behest of the Saudi's. I'll try to ferret out some more details, but such a request is at the very least humbling. It's worth noting that in State of Denial, Bob Woodward's recent book on the Administration's mishandling of Iraq, it is readily apparent that Prince Bandar, the long-time Saudi ambassitor to the US, was a significant source of Woodward's. Bandar's relationship with the Bush family and GWB in particular is said to be extremely close. Moreover, Bandar made it clear that the Saudi's had serious misgivings about invading Iraq - GWB, despite not understanding the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, knew better. OUCH.

Rummy - The Unrepentant Warrior

Rummy fell on his sword for the Bush administration. Even in leaving the stage, he was the same arrogant, self-consumed SOB. In his last words , he protested that we the public and the leaders (other than GWB) we have chosen simply are incapable of understanding what he, the warrior Christ, has seen. What a crock of horseshit. He is incapable of contrition or humility. Leadership is not simply knowing the right path, it is more about successfully conveying the nature of the challenge.

The most interesting thing about Rumsfeld's departure is that someone within the president's inner circle contemporaneous to this announcement leaked that the VP didn't agree with this decision. Not only did the VP supposedly oppose the sacking of Rummy, but once he accepted the reality of Rummy's departure, he suggested ideologically similar replacements. The president rejected both suggestions according to the detailed leak and named a GHWB acolyte, Robert Gates. A significant departure from what has been standard operating procedure

Webb Ahead - A FNC Lead Team Signs Off . . .

Webb takes the lead by 3,000 votes with approximately 98% counted. A certain recount situation, but a big practical difference between being the declared count winner versus a challenger (that is if it isn't the state of Washington). Flipping over to Matthews MSNBC - is he paying attention - Webb somehow surged, after correcting Todd, now the Senate is back in play. WHy has no one called TN - please someone give me analysis in the midst of this blah blah.

This is almost sad . . .

if it wasn't so insidious. Reasonable people gave up the WMD issue long ago. David Kay, former UN weapon inspector who went to Iraq at the behest of the US gov't has made best efforts to put this issue to bed. He has stated for various Congressional committees and was interviewed extensively for Woodward's, State of Denial and Isikoff & Corn's, Hubris that Saddam's Iraq; (a) did not have chemical or biological weapons, (b)had no nuclear weapons program, (c) found no evidence to support the existence of mobile chemical/biological weapons labs, and (d) found it did not possess unmanned airborne drones to deliver any such non-existent weapons. These findings were arrived at despite his sincere belief that such weapons existed prior to the invasion of Iraq. Mr. Kay's testimony is not equivocal and his bona fides are beyond reproach. Yet the tinfoil hat crew ain't ready to give up the fight. What is far more disturbing than that is that the Administration has the audacity to try and revive this fantasy, despite the fact that the president has been explicit that no WMDs existed in Iraq at the time of the US invasion.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Blitzer_shuts_down_Hoekstras_Iraq_WMD_1106.html