ja, mein fuhrer

[ndebord]

Shades of Russian commissars and German Gestapo agents

This from the NY Times

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries.

[Judy G. Russell]

Shades of Russian commissars and German Gestapo agents

This from the NY Times

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries.As much as I hate to say it (because I don't like this President having an executive oversight role), this isn't as bad as it sounds. The fact of the matter is that all of the administrative agencies, with very few exceptions, are created as arms of the Executive Branch. They don't call the various presidencies the "Bush Administration" or "Clinton Administration" for nothin'! And if the President is supposed to be the head of the Executive branch, then having some input and/or control over the law-making (rules and regulations) of the administrative agencies within the Executive branch makes sense.

To the extent that Congress doesn't want executive oversight of a specific agency, it can take it out of the Executive branch and make it independent.

[ndebord]

As much as I hate to say it (because I don't like this President having an executive oversight role), this isn't as bad as it sounds. The fact of the matter is that all of the administrative agencies, with very few exceptions, are created as arms of the Executive Branch. They don't call the various presidencies the "Bush Administration" or "Clinton Administration" for nothin'! And if the President is supposed to be the head of the Executive branch, then having some input and/or control over the law-making (rules and regulations) of the administrative agencies within the Executive branch makes sense.

To the extent that Congress doesn't want executive oversight of a specific agency, it can take it out of the Executive branch and make it independent.

Judy,

I thought of this because of the hearings which are now taking place today on global warming and the headlines which say that many scientists were pressured to change scientific facts.

[Judy G. Russell]

I thought of this because of the hearings which are now taking place today on global warming and the headlines which say that many scientists were pressured to change scientific facts.I agree that various administrative agencies have been grossly politicized. The terrible long delay on the "morning after" pill. The issues on global warming. The total destruction of FEMA by turning it over to lackeys. But, again, it's not the fact that these agencies are being run by the Executive Branch (they are part of the Executive Branch) -- it's who's running the Executive Branch!

[ndebord]

I agree that various administrative agencies have been grossly politicized. The terrible long delay on the "morning after" pill. The issues on global warming. The total destruction of FEMA by turning it over to lackeys. But, again, it's not the fact that these agencies are being run by the Executive Branch (they are part of the Executive Branch) -- it's who's running the Executive Branch!

Judy,

Yup. The 64,000 dollar question: Cheney or Rove, I would think.

<sigh>

Rich says in his new book that the invasion was one part Rove: concern about the 2002 midterm elections and his obsession with a 40-year one party rule (not exactly a 1000 year Reich, but who knows...give them time!) and Cheney with multiple motives, not the least of which was oil.

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/09/21/rich/index1.html

[Lindsey]

But, again, it's not the fact that these agencies are being run by the Executive Branch (they are part of the Executive Branch) -- it's who's running the Executive Branch!
It's not just that; it's that the executive branch is attempting an end run around the legislative branch. It is saying to Congress, "I don't care what you write into the law; I'm not going to let you do anything that I (and most importantly, my corporate supporters) don't like."

The Constitution says that it is the duty of the Executive to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." It does not say that the Executive gets to re-write the law, or to decide which laws, or which portions of them, get faithfully executed and which get ignored.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

It's not just that; it's that the executive branch is attempting an end run around the legislative branch. It is saying to Congress, "I don't care what you write into the law; I'm not going to let you do anything that I (and most importantly, my corporate supporters) don't like."

The Constitution says that it is the duty of the Executive to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." It does not say that the Executive gets to re-write the law, or to decide which laws, or which portions of them, get faithfully executed and which get ignored.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

The problem with those of us who believe in the Constitution is that we are too polite to call a putsch a putsch. Unitary Presidental power is a polite way of saying Dictator, or if you prefer, "I am the Decider." Not that his "Decidership" or his alter ego (Cheney) or they (Bush, Cheney Rove) have gotten away with it (yet), but that they are trying and the Congress is struggling to reassert itself, not yet realizing that if it doesn't, the Rubicon will definitely have been crossed even if only until 2008.

[Judy G. Russell]

Yup. The 64,000 dollar question: Cheney or Rove, I would think.

<sigh>

Rich says in his new book that the invasion was one part Rove: concern about the 2002 midterm elections and his obsession with a 40-year one party rule (not exactly a 1000 year Reich, but who knows...give them time!) and Cheney with multiple motives, not the least of which was oil.Any combination of Cheney and Rove, with any combination of motives, is scary.

[Judy G. Russell]

It's not just that; it's that the executive branch is attempting an end run around the legislative branch. It is saying to Congress, "I don't care what you write into the law; I'm not going to let you do anything that I (and most importantly, my corporate supporters) don't like."The only end-run is around a Congress that hasn't yet taken its oversight responsibilities seriously. At any time, the Congress can do a great deal to yank the rug out from under any President. For six years, both houses have been under the control of lapdogs -- GOP and Democrat both. We'll see if the new Democratic majority does any better. So again I say: it's not that the Executive wants control of the Executive Branch, it's who the Executive is.

[Lindsey]

The problem with those of us who believe in the Constitution is that we are too polite to call a putsch a putsch.
Yes; and the anti-constitutionalists (because that's exactly what they are) count on that polite reluctance in order to push their radical agenda through.

There's an interesting (if frightening and disturbing) series of posts by Chalmers Johnson on the subject of his latest book (actually, his series of three on the subject) at TPMCafe Coffee House. The first of them is entitled "Empire v. Democracy (http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jan/31/empire_v_democracy) ":

As a form of government, imperialism does not seek or require the consent of the governed. It is a pure form of tyranny. The American attempt to combine domestic democracy with such tyrannical control over foreigners is hopelessly contradictory and hypocritical. A country can be democratic or it can be imperialistic, but it cannot be both.

The American political system failed to prevent this combination from developing -- and may now be incapable of correcting it. The evidence strongly suggests that the legislative and judicial branches of our government have become so servile in the presence of the imperial Presidency that they have largely lost the ability to respond in a principled and independent manner. . . .

<snip>

Whatever future developments may prove to be, my best guess is that the U.S. will continue to maintain a façade of Constitutional government and drift along until financial bankruptcy overtakes it. Of course, bankruptcy will not mean the literal end of the U.S. any more than it did for Germany in 1923, China in 1948, or Argentina in 2001-2002. It might, in fact, open the way for an unexpected restoration of the American system -- or for military rule, revolution, or simply some new development we cannot yet imagine.
Sobering thoughts.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

The only end-run is around a Congress that hasn't yet taken its oversight responsibilities seriously.
Well, no; they're trying to do an end-run around the judiciary, too.

I agree that Congressmen from both parties have been guilty of being too deferential to the executive. It remains to be seen whether that institutional habit has grown too strong to be broken.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Yes; and the anti-constitutionalists (because that's exactly what they are) count on that polite reluctance in order to push their radical agenda through.

There's an interesting (if frightening and disturbing) series of posts by Chalmers Johnson on the subject of his latest book (actually, his series of three on the subject) at TPMCafe Coffee House. The first of them is entitled "Empire v. Democracy (http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jan/31/empire_v_democracy) ":


Sobering thoughts.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

My great Aunt who was a mucky muck with Marymount (Maryknoll) once said that when the sons of the proconsuls in the Banana Republics came home to rule domestically, we would lose our democracy.

[ndebord]

The only end-run is around a Congress that hasn't yet taken its oversight responsibilities seriously. At any time, the Congress can do a great deal to yank the rug out from under any President. For six years, both houses have been under the control of lapdogs -- GOP and Democrat both. We'll see if the new Democratic majority does any better. So again I say: it's not that the Executive wants control of the Executive Branch, it's who the Executive is.

Judy,

Yes, the committes can do things, even with the problem of 60 votes in the Senate.

[Lindsey]

My great Aunt who was a mucky muck with Marymount (Maryknoll) once said that when the sons of the proconsuls in the Banana Republics came home to rule domestically, we would lose our democracy.
I think your great aunt was absolutely right.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Well, no; they're trying to do an end-run around the judiciary, too.In large measure, with Congressional acquiescence, if not approval. Every member of the Congress for the past six years has a very great deal to answer for.

[Judy G. Russell]

Yes, the committes can do things, even with the problem of 60 votes in the Senate.Sixty votes is only required for the so-called supermajority items. Most things can be passed by simple majority vote.

[ndebord]

Sixty votes is only required for the so-called supermajority items. Most things can be passed by simple majority vote.

Judy,

Yes, and as easily vetoed, if "The Decider" is so inclined.

[Lindsey]

In large measure, with Congressional acquiescence, if not approval. Every member of the Congress for the past six years has a very great deal to answer for.
Not just the last six years. It's been building up for a very long time. If it hadn't been for Watergate, Congress would never have managed to oppose what Nixon was doing, and he was up to many of the very same things this administration has been up to.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Sixty votes is only required for the so-called supermajority items. Most things can be passed by simple majority vote.
Not if the minority doesn't want to allow it. You don't need 60 votes to pass most things, but you do need 60 votes in favor of ending debate and taking a vote. That's why there was a compromise on the anti-surge resolution. Democrats could have passed their version, but they needed additional support from Republicans to avoid a threatened filibuster by the hawks.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Yes, and as easily vetoed, if "The Decider" is so inclined.
Well, if it's the veto you're worried about and not a filibuster, that requires 66 votes (or is it 67?), not 60.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Not just the last six years. It's been building up for a very long time. If it hadn't been for Watergate, Congress would never have managed to oppose what Nixon was doing, and he was up to many of the very same things this administration has been up to.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Ah, this IS the Nixon Administration...albeit in a "reborn" guise.

[Judy G. Russell]

Not just the last six years. It's been building up for a very long time. If it hadn't been for Watergate, Congress would never have managed to oppose what Nixon was doing, and he was up to many of the very same things this administration has been up to.Actually, I think it really IS the last six years. The folks in the post-Watergate era really did do careful oversight and passed a lot of wonderful legislation, like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It's been mostly this Administration, post-9/11, that has ignored that legislation, and this Congress has let them get away with it.

[Judy G. Russell]

Yes, and as easily vetoed, if "The Decider" is so inclined.To override a veto you need more than merely 60 votes. But in some cases, the point is to force Congresscritters to take a stand -- to stop waffling around and vote yea or nay. And let them face the electorate for having done so.

[Judy G. Russell]

Not if the minority doesn't want to allow it. You don't need 60 votes to pass most things, but you do need 60 votes in favor of ending debate and taking a vote. That's why there was a compromise on the anti-surge resolution. Democrats could have passed their version, but they needed additional support from Republicans to avoid a threatened filibuster by the hawks.The minority can always do just that, which is why the Democrats as a minority struck me as such wimps -- they almost never used the power of the filibuster. And if the Republicans filibuster things like the anti-surge resolution, or the minimum wage without billions of dollars in tax cuts (at a time of record deficits), then let them face the electorate on that record.

[Lindsey]

Actually, I think it really IS the last six years. The folks in the post-Watergate era really did do careful oversight and passed a lot of wonderful legislation, like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
But my point is that without the Watergate scandal, I don't think that legislation would ever have been passed, even though it addressed abuses that were not really part of Watergate itself.

And even after it passed, there was a conservative group that deeply resented what they considered the unwarranted fetters that had been put on the executive branch. (Hi, Wayne!) And they took advantage of 9/11 to try to do away with it. I don't know that they would have been so successful had there not been a 9/11.

Having said that, yes, I wish Democrats had done more to oppose the administration, too. It's taken some time, in the Senate, particularly, to adjust to a completely different political climate. The Senate was a body that had always worked pretty much by consensus. That ceased to be the case when the Republicans took it over, but that didn't keep them from continuing to beat Democrats over the head with charges of obstructionism every time they dared to raise any objection whatsoever. That's how they defeated Tom Daschle -- kept painting him as this extreme partisan obstructionist, public enemy #1 to the Bush Administration, etc., etc., even though the guy was so accomodating I wanted to shake him.

But, you know, those of us who were advocating for filibusters of some of the more egregious judicial nominees were accused of "ruining the Democratic party" by our extreme Michael Moore partisan hatred.

Those kinds of charges don't get anywhere any more, thank goodness, but it took time for a lot of people to see that the right wing was engaged in psychological projection.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Those kinds of charges don't get anywhere any more, thank goodness, but it took time for a lot of people to see that the right wing was engaged in psychological projection.No question. I just hope it hasn't been too much time, and that backbones are getting stiffened now.

[Lindsey]

No question. I just hope it hasn't been too much time, and that backbones are getting stiffened now.
Yes; of course, it is not just Congressmen who are to blame, but their constituents as well.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Yes; of course, it is not just Congressmen who are to blame, but their constituents as well.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

It is the constituents that worry me most.

[Judy G. Russell]

of course, it is not just Congressmen who are to blame, but their constituents as well.Absolutely. One of the things I like a lot about one of my ancestors -- a fellow by the name of William Killen who lived in the Mississippi Territory in the early 1800s -- is that he signed a whole bunch of petitions to Congress. These days, most people couldn't be bothered to even read a proposed petition, much less sign one.

[ndebord]

Well, if it's the veto you're worried about and not a filibuster, that requires 66 votes (or is it 67?), not 60.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

I believe it is 67 votes, but in either case, this administration seemingly will get its way for another two years. If they can't get the votes to block things, the administration will just issue another signing statement or executive order. In that vein, this from Salon:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/02/09/united_states_attorneys/

"Alberto Gonzalez's coup d'etat"

[Lindsey]

"Alberto Gonzalez's coup d'etat"
I just read that piece of Conason's on Gonzalez and the USA purge. There's a movement afoot to impeach Gonzalez, rather than going after Bush and Cheney. But in a practical sense, impeachment is going nowhere without a larger Democratic majority in the Senate. But they can hold hearings that should have a salutary effect. You don't need even a 60-vote majority for that.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

I just read that piece of Conason's on Gonzalez and the USA purge. There's a movement afoot to impeach Gonzalez, rather than going after Bush and Cheney. But in a practical sense, impeachment is going nowhere without a larger Democratic majority in the Senate. But they can hold hearings that should have a salutary effect. You don't need even a 60-vote majority for that.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Yes, hearings are the Democrats sole device for getting to the bottom of this "ginned up" war (my opinion) and the desire of this administration to reverse the outcome of history's verdict on Watergate and Presidential power and return this President to his (in their opinion) rightful place as a "unitary executive."

What worries me most is what else this GWB can do to our nation in his last two years in power.

[Lindsey]

the desire of this administration to reverse the outcome of history's verdict on Watergate and Presidential power and return this President to his (in their opinion) rightful place as a "unitary executive."
There, in a nutshell, is what I think is a lot of what is motivating many of those in this administration.

And I agree with you that GWB will be dangerous over the next two years, possibly more dangerous than he has been in the previous six. He has little to lose, and his interests are not the same as the interests of the country as a whole.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

There, in a nutshell, is what I think is a lot of what is motivating many of those in this administration.

And I agree with you that GWB will be dangerous over the next two years, possibly more dangerous than he has been in the previous six. He has little to lose, and his interests are not the same as the interests of the country as a whole.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

War Planning is accelerating...whether that translates into War is the question of the day. If Bush is of a mind to forget about his party's political future, we could be in big trouble.

[Judy G. Russell]

And I agree with you that GWB will be dangerous over the next two years, possibly more dangerous than he has been in the previous six. He has little to lose, and his interests are not the same as the interests of the country as a whole.Can we say "war with Iran," boys and girls?

[Lindsey]

War Planning is accelerating
That it is. And not just the planning -- the marketing campaign is in full swing, too. Hardly a day goes by that there is not some release from the administration concerning Iran, and much of it of dubious merit, just like with Iraq. Will we allow ourselves to be fooled again? And even if we are not fooled, will we be able to stop it?

Josh Marshall has a good brief discussion here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012393.php). And TPM Muckraker has a post about the anonymous press briefing here (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002532.php) (the comments -- most of them, anyway -- are the best part of it) and a link to the text of the briefing that was handed out to reporters here (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002534.php).

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Can we say "war with Iran," boys and girls?
Not hard to see that train coming down the track, is it? The question is, will there be a Dudley Doright who can stop it in time? Or will Snidely Whiplash win this round?

Paul Krugman had a good (if scary) column today (http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0212-26.htm).

So the administration has always had it in for the Iranian regime. Now, let’s do an O. J. Simpson: if you were determined to start a war with Iran, how would you do it?

First, you’d set up a special intelligence unit to cook up rationales for war. A good model would be the Pentagon’s now-infamous Office of Special Plans, led by Abram Shulsky, that helped sell the Iraq war with false claims about links to Al Qaeda.

Sure enough, last year Donald Rumsfeld set up a new "Iranian directorate" inside the Pentagon’s policy shop. . . . headed by Abram Shulsky.

The scariest thing of all is that it doesn't look like anything is going to stop him short of an actual coup d'etat. He is obviously not concerned that the vast majority of the American people are not with him on this. He has pretty much indicated that he doesn't intend to listen to Congress. Impeachment would be the obvious Constitutional remedy, but that's a slow process, and it couldn't be ginned up in time to prevent a predicted assault this spring. And the 25th Amendment requires the consent of the Vice President to declare the president unfit to perform the duties of his office.

We're screwed.

As Paul Krugman said in the concluding paragraph of the column I referred to:

It’s still hard to believe that they’re really planning to attack Iran, when it’s so obvious that another war would be a recipe for even bigger disaster. But remember who’s calling the shots: Dick Cheney thinks we’ve had "enormous successes" in Iraq.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Lindsey,

One step at a time. First find a way to get rid of Cheney. Hallburton profits perhaps. Then impeach Bush.

Doable? Who the hell knows.

:-)

[Dan in Saint Louis]

Can we say "war with Iran," boys and girls?Not yet known, publically at least, is whether these munitions said to have come from Iran came form government sources or non-governmental sects; and if the latter with or without government support or knowledge. Or even which part of the government. Or whether they even HAVE one.

So maybe Congress can say "George, we'd be more than happy to support eliminating the source of those devices if you would tell tell us who sent them."

[Lindsey]

One step at a time. First find a way to get rid of Cheney. Hallburton profits perhaps. Then impeach Bush.
Hey, I'd be perfectly happy to get rid of Bush AND Cheney AND Gonzalez. But the problem is that impeachment takes time, and even if we had the votes, by the time the process worked itself out, it would be way to late to prevent these cowboys form launching YET ANOTHER UNNECESSARY WAR, this time in Iran.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

So maybe Congress can say "George, we'd be more than happy to support eliminating the source of those devices if you would tell tell us who sent them."
Exactly. The question is not, as Tony Snow would have us believe, who manufactured the weapons, but how they got into Iraq. Does anybody doubt that the insurgents are probably using weapons of American manufacture? And if they are, does that mean that the Bush administration is making war on American soldiers? And does that mean we should attack ourselves?

Does anyone doubt that weapons of Russian and Chinese origin were used in the Vietnamese War? But we didn't send bombers into Moscow or Beijing as a result. For that matter, does anybody doubt that the Saudis are sending money to support the Sunni insurgency? Or that Pakistan is supporting al-Qaeda under the table? But we are not talking about invading either of those countries.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Exactly. The question is not, as Tony Snow would have us believe, who manufactured the weapons, but how they got into Iraq. Does anybody doubt that the insurgents are probably using weapons of American manufacture? And if they are, does that mean that the Bush administration is making war on American soldiers? And does that mean we should attack ourselves?

Does anyone doubt that weapons of Russian and Chinese origin were used in the Vietnamese War? But we didn't send bombers into Moscow or Beijing as a result. For that matter, does anybody doubt that the Saudis are sending money to support the Sunni insurgency? Or that Pakistan is supporting al-Qaeda under the table? But we are not talking about invading either of those countries.

--Lindsey


Lindsey,

Even more telling is the fact that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Government is a hodgepodge of interest groups. The Revolutionary Guard is not entirely under control of the official government and the boundary between the Mullahs and civilian or military leadership is complex.

[Lindsey]

Even more telling is the fact that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Government is a hodgepodge of interest groups. The Revolutionary Guard is not entirely under control of the official government and the boundary between the Mullahs and civilian or military leadership is complex.
And as someone pointed out, we would do much better to be courting the moderate elements in Iran than threatening all of them with annihilation.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

The scariest thing of all is that it doesn't look like anything is going to stop him short of an actual coup d'etat. He is obviously not concerned that the vast majority of the American people are not with him on this. He has pretty much indicated that he doesn't intend to listen to Congress.The really scary part is that there's really nothing Congress can do, realistically, if he sends troops into harm's way. A hell-bent-for-leather-war-mongering President is hard to rein in.

[Judy G. Russell]

And as someone pointed out, we would do much better to be courting the moderate elements in Iran than threatening all of them with annihilation.For us to be seen as courting anyone in the Middle East would be the mark of death...

[ndebord]

And as someone pointed out, we would do much better to be courting the moderate elements in Iran than threatening all of them with annihilation.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

We've poisoned the well. We can't say squat to Iran. Perhaps back channel talks. Best we can do is leave well enough alone, but that will definitely not happen with this President. Saw his impromptu press conference today and to me he sounded like he was seriously off the rails.

This from Raw Story and CIA sources:


http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/ExCIA_officials_see_outbreak_of_conflict_0214.html

Frank Anderson, who served three tours for the CIA in Middle East, offered a third explanation for why we are "'locked and loaded' for an attack" on Iran. He warned that "a significant minority of officials who are determined to take on Iran," combined "with an abundant supply of provocations from an Iranian President whose political core is radically and almost recklessly anti-American," created a scenario ripe for battle.

However, he added that there were constraints to determined action being taken by either side to actually start a war, so he would "bet against it, but the spread isn't big."

[Lindsey]

The really scary part is that there's really nothing Congress can do, realistically, if he sends troops into harm's way. A hell-bent-for-leather-war-mongering President is hard to rein in.
Unfortunately, you are quite right about that. It would take the entire senior command refusing to follow orders, and that would be nothing short of astonishing.

Although -- I remember reading recently that someone in the Nixon White House (and doggone it, I cannot remember who it was -- maybe Gerald Ford, because I think when Ford died was about the time that I remember seeing this) sent the word out to the senior military officers that if an order for any kind of out-of-the-ordinary aggressive action came from the President, not to follow through on it without an independent confirmation from someone else in the Executive Office. There was concern that Nixon had become seriously unbalanced and that he might do something rash to try to distract from his Watergate problems.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Unfortunately, you are quite right about that. It would take the entire senior command refusing to follow orders, and that would be nothing short of astonishing.

Although -- I remember reading recently that someone in the Nixon White House (and doggone it, I cannot remember who it was -- maybe Gerald Ford, because I think when Ford died was about the time that I remember seeing this) sent the word out to the senior military officers that if an order for any kind of out-of-the-ordinary aggressive action came from the President, not to follow through on it without an independent confirmation from someone else in the Executive Office. There was concern that Nixon had become seriously unbalanced and that he might do something rash to try to distract from his Watergate problems.

--Lindsey


Lindsey,

Oh Goodie. A historical precedent that "could" enable Dick Cheney to decide Bush is not strong enough on Iran and do the deed himself.

<moan>

[lensue]

>I remember reading recently that someone in the Nixon White House (and doggone it, I cannot remember who it was <

Lindsey, I googled and wonder if this is the person: "Speaking of the Nixon time, has anyone ever confirmed the rumor that (SecDef) Schlesinger put out a message to all commands telling them, more or less, not to do anything ordered by the WH that was out of the ordinary without his countersignature? "

[Lindsey]

For us to be seen as courting anyone in the Middle East would be the mark of death...
Well, you've got a point there, too. :(

It did not have to be that way. Early after 9/11, Iran was quite helpful to us -- and it was certainly in their interest to be so. As Shiias, they certainly benefitted from a blow dealt to the Sunni al-Qaeda and their Taliban allies in a country on the Iranian border. They even benefitted from the takedown of the Sunni power structure in Iraq. (And if the main element in the Iraqi insurgency is Sunni, what kind of sense would it make for the Iranians to be arming them against their Shiite allies?)

In 2003, Iran conveyed an offer (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002509.php) to the Bush Administration, via the Swiss Embassy, to engage in a broad dialogue with everything on the table: full cooperation on nuclear programs, recognition of Israel, termination of support for Palestinian militant groups -- the whole nine yards. The Bush Administration told them to go %$#! themselves, and scolded the Swiss Embassy for passing the offer along.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Lindsey, I googled and wonder if this is the person: "Speaking of the Nixon time, has anyone ever confirmed the rumor that (SecDef) Schlesinger put out a message to all commands telling them, more or less, not to do anything ordered by the WH that was out of the ordinary without his countersignature? "
Yes, I think that's it. And it would make sense for that order to be coming from the Secretary of Defense. I suspect that question comes from the interview with Gerald Ford that was released after he died. And he confirmed that the story was true.

Thanks!

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

We've poisoned the well. We can't say squat to Iran. Perhaps back channel talks.
Yes, you're right -- it would have to be something done behind the scenes, and probably through a proxy.

Saw his impromptu press conference today and to me he sounded like he was seriously off the rails.
Somebody up there is seriously off the rails. Josh Marshall's most recent post (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012489.php):

Look at this.

All the other administration bamboozlement (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012479.php) aside, we're now supposed to believe that the central allegation in that Baghdad Iranian arms briefing (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002534.php) was false. Not just in the real world sense, but even in the Bush administration sense. That is to say, the administration didn't authorize him to say the arms transfers were authorized at the highest levels of the Iranian government. He just screwed up. He said something he wasn't supposed to say.

Do we believe this? This is the kind of goof that starts wars. Government officials are fired for screw-ups of far less gravity. Is this unnamed 'official' getting fired? And why has it taken three days for anybody to say this briefer went beyond its brief.
--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Oh Goodie. A historical precedent that "could" enable Dick Cheney to decide Bush is not strong enough on Iran and do the deed himself.

Or maybe an historical precedent that SecDef Gates could follow if an insane order came down from the White House. This guy was one of the Iraq Study Group people, remember -- the people who were trying to pull Bush's chestnuts out of the fire, until Bush snippily said he liked having his chestnuts there.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Or maybe an historical precedent that SecDef Gates could follow if an insane order came down from the White House. This guy was one of the Iraq Study Group people, remember -- the people who were trying to pull Bush's chestnuts out of the fire, until Bush snippily said he liked having his chestnuts there.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

One would hope so, but who knows with this emasculated Pentagon.

[Lindsey]

One would hope so, but who knows with this emasculated Pentagon.
Yeah, it's hard to know how much pushback to expect out of anyone in this administration. Who'd have thought Colin Powell would turn out to be such a patsy?

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Yeah, it's hard to know how much pushback to expect out of anyone in this administration. Who'd have thought Colin Powell would turn out to be such a patsy?

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Pelosi and Reid are seemingly wedded to this "non-binding" resolution with no teeth of any kind. Murtha's amendment was beaten back (he wanted to both increase training cycles and increase time off between deployments, thereby strangling troop deployments by exposing how stretched the Army and Marines are at this time). BTW, Murtha's amendment reflects how the Army USED to deploy its troops at the beginning of this conflict. Training cycles and time between deployment have been shortened as manpower requirements have not been met.

[Lindsey]

Pelosi and Reid are seemingly wedded to this "non-binding" resolution with no teeth of any kind.
First things first. At least they are getting a majority of Congress going on record saying that they are not in agreement with Bush's escalation policy. Most importantly, they are getting Republicans going on record as opposing the president. Compare that to what was happening in 2002 -- that's a major, major change. And, hopefully, they will be able to build from there.

Murtha is absolutely right: we should not be deploying troops without the proper support. And I hope he will keep plugging that point. But it's a bit early to force a vote on that.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

First things first. At least they are getting a majority of Congress going on record saying that they are not in agreement with Bush's escalation policy. Most importantly, they are getting Republicans going on record as opposing the president. Compare that to what was happening in 2002 -- that's a major, major change. And, hopefully, they will be able to build from there.

Murtha is absolutely right: we should not be deploying troops without the proper support. And I hope he will keep plugging that point. But it's a bit early to force a vote on that.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Murtha has the authority now to change funding. He won't do it because he really does support the troops, but he does have the power of the purse in part for the mlitary.

[Lindsey]

Murtha has the authority now to change funding.
Huh? He's one congressman. How does he have the power to change anything singlehandedly?

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Huh? He's one congressman. How does he have the power to change anything singlehandedly?

--Lindsey

Murtha is chair of one of the two house committes that controls military funding. He has his ducks all lined up and can do a lot.

[Judy G. Russell]

Although -- I remember reading recently that someone in the Nixon White House (and doggone it, I cannot remember who it was -- maybe Gerald Ford, because I think when Ford died was about the time that I remember seeing this) sent the word out to the senior military officers that if an order for any kind of out-of-the-ordinary aggressive action came from the President, not to follow through on it without an independent confirmation from someone else in the Executive Office. There was concern that Nixon had become seriously unbalanced and that he might do something rash to try to distract from his Watergate problems.Somewhere in the dim recesses of my Watergate era memories comes recollection that it was Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger in connection with that...

[Lindsey]

Murtha is chair of one of the two house committes that controls military funding. He has his ducks all lined up and can do a lot.
He can make it more likely that the ball will be put into play. But it would take a majority vote on his committee, a majority vote in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and consent of the president (or 67 votes in the Senate without the consent of the president) before anything actually happens.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Somewhere in the dim recesses of my Watergate era memories comes recollection that it was Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger in connection with that...
That's what Len said, too, and I am reasonably certain that you are both right about that.

--Lindsey

[lensue]

>That's what Len said, too, and I am reasonably certain that you are both right about that.<

Lindsey, no, I'm right--Judy's wrong! [fleeing]

[Judy G. Russell]

>no, I'm right--Judy's wrong! [fleeing]I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken...

[lensue]

>I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken...<

Judy, LOL! I was googling around for a retort but couldn't come up with anything--came upon this while looking:

English author G.K. Chesterton had this to say: "My country, right or wrong is like saying, my mother, drunk or sober." Hmmm, I'll have to think about this a little! [g]

[lensue]

Judy, disregard my last reply--I found some better ones! [g]

“Admitting Error clears the Score, And proves you Wiser than before.”

“The weak have one weapon: the errors of those who think they are strong.”

“To err is human, but when the eraser wears out ahead of the pencil, you're overdoing it”

[Lindsey]

“To err is human, but when the eraser wears out ahead of the pencil, you're overdoing it”
I recently got caught up in doing sudoku. Wearing out the eraser far ahead of the pencil is par for the course!

--Lindsey

[lensue]

>sudoku<

Lindsey, I never heard of that-- had to look that up--a puzzle--looks interesting! I used to do the NY Times puzzle with a pen but haven't done one in many years now.

http://www.websudoku.com/

[Lindsey]

I used to do the NY Times puzzle with a pen but haven't done one in many years now.
They are strictly logic puzzles, much easier than crosswords, because they don't actually require you to know anything except how to count from 1 to 9, and I find them soothing when I'm feeling agitated. But I could never do them with a pen; I make myself tiny little notes in the squares as I work the puzzles and narrow down the possibilities of what will go into any one square: a 3 has to go in one (but only one) of these three squares, this particular square must be either an 8 or a 1, etc. And then the notes have to be erased when you work out what number definitely goes in a particular place. I don't know how you could solve one without making notes like that -- you couldn't possibly hold all those contingencies in your head. Or I certainly couldn't, anyway.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

“To err is human, but when the eraser wears out ahead of the pencil, you're overdoing it”I like that one... and there are a few people I know that it sure applies to...

[Dan in Saint Louis]

a 3 has to go in one (but only one) of these three squares, this particular square must be either an 8 or a 1, etc.Try imagining each cell as further divided into 9 like a tic-tac-toe board. In any of the nine positions representing a number that CANNOT be used that cell, place a dot.

As soon as a cell has 8 dots, the empty space is the answer.

. . .
. . .
. .

so the correct answer is 9.

[ndebord]

He can make it more likely that the ball will be put into play. But it would take a majority vote on his committee, a majority vote in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and consent of the president (or 67 votes in the Senate without the consent of the president) before anything actually happens.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

"Legislative oversight?" We don't need no friggin' oversight.


Slipped into the defense bill sans debate was this little item I just read about in the Times:


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/opinion/19mon3.html?em&ex=1172034000&en=a62c4d8c568f28fc&ei=5087%0A

[Lindsey]

As soon as a cell has 8 dots, the empty space is the answer.
That sounds like an interesting system, but I think I would get myself confused very fast. And I get confused easily enough as it is!

--Lindsey