Self-righteous GOPers who attacked Clinton are now mimes

I saw this on Bob Geiger's blog and I had to repost and comment. It seems that the following 25 self-righteous senators who saw fit to flog President Clinton like he was going to bring down the country haven't had much to say in the wake of Scooter Libby's pardon. Not one of these senators thus far have made a public statement:

Wayne Allard (R-CO)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Dick Lugar (R-IN)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

Not one. Like that's a surprise. But, they had plenty to say about Clinton. A trip down memory lane (again, from Geiger's Website)...

Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback (who's running for president):

By his words and deeds he chose to place himself above the law. By his words and deeds he has undermined the rule of law in America to the great harm of this nation," Brownback said. "By his own words and deeds, he has undermined the truth-finding function of the judiciary, at great harm to that branch of our government. By his words and deeds, he had done great harm to the notions of honesty and integrity that form the underpinnings of this great republic.

"We have lost many things over the past few months: trust in public officials, respect for the rule of law, confidence in the truth of the White House's public statements. But perhaps the most tragic loss has been the steady erosion of our societal standards."

As Geiger sagely opines, it's too bad that Brownback said this about President Clinton and not Scooter Libby. His silence on Libby is deafening. In fact, during the last Republican debate, I got a huge kick out of most of the candidates defending the decision on stage, but they largely sidestepped the question of whether they supported Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. More Clinton flashbacks...

Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO):

"The Constitution is what preserves the rule of law, and guarantees that we remain a nation of laws, not of men.

"I hold the President to a higher standard because he is the chief law enforcement official of the nation [Editor's Note: I thought the attorney general is the highest law enforcement official in the United States, but maybe I'm wrong - PECAD]. If he is above the law, then we have a double standard; one for the powerful, and one for the rest.

"The sworn oath is central not only to our Constitution, but also to the administration of justice. Our legal system would not function without it."

One could easily substitute Scooter Libby in the above statement where you see "the president." It's not a stretch to call Libby "powerful" - he was Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

Judas John McCain seemed to think that truthfulness and the rule of law were both pretty important in 1999. What a difference eight years makes:

"All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society. I do not hold the President to the same standard that I hold military officers to. I hold him to a higher standard."

I've nothing more to say about the soon-to-be-ex presidential candidate. He hitched his wagon to a falling star long ago. Maybe it's time for another stroll through a Baghdad Market.

Self-righteous Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) gave a statement about how "we should hope that history looks back kindly at how we observed the rule of law":

"I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our country are applicable to us all, including the president, and they must be obeyed. The concept of equal justice under law and the importance of absolute truth in legal proceedings is the foundation of our justice system in the courts.

"A hundred years from now, when history looks back to this moment, we can hope for a conclusion that our Constitution has been applied fairly and survives, that we have come to principled judgments about matters of national importance, and that the rule of law in American has been sustained."

When I read this piece by Geiger, all I could do was shake my head and say out loud, "Hypocrites."

Hypocrites.

I know, I know - Bush has the power to pardon or commute sentences under the Constitution, and no one is disputing that, including me. What I do have a problem with is Bush pardoning someone who worked so closely to him and his vice president. I can't believe more people don't have a problem with it, but as with many important political debates in the U.S. today, it's not the right thing that's important, it's the right thing for someone's party. There are very few instances of a Republican standing up for a Democrat and a Democrat standing up for a Republican on anything more important than trivial matters.

Ideology over ethics is now the norm, not the exception.

Congress passes bill, W vetoes, Congress fails to override (and other thoughts)

It's been a pretty remarkable week in Washington - the anniversary of Mission Accomplished, Congress finally passing a Bill to fund the troops, Bush vetoes it, and Congress fails to override his veto.

I've got some video clips below with some thoughts, but first, Bush's latest self-imposed nickname:

Uniter, Not a Divider
War-time President
The Decider
The Commander Guy

On Tuesday, Bush vetoed the Bill passed by both houses of Congress fully funding the war (and then some), but mandating that the troops begin to come home. Congress failed to override his veto yesterday, and that's when Bush made comedians everywhere jump for joy, yet again.

"The question is, 'Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?," said Bush. "As you know, my position is clear – I'm the commander guy." [Emphasis Mine]

Both sides said after Congress failed to override Bush's veto that they believed compromise was possible. That's news, considering it hasn't been possible so far. Personally, my view is that Congress had better hold its ground. That's what the Democrats were returned to power to do.

Yesterday, Bush vowed if Democrats try to tie his hands in prosecuting the war, he will issue another veto.

Coming Soon: The Vetoer

My thoughts on the last few days...

I got a kick out of White House spokeswoman Dana Perino calling the signing ceremony held by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid a "cynical publicity stunt." What a sanctimonious, hypocritical thing to say from an administration that has turned publicity stunts into cliché. Considering the sheer absurdity the Bush administration resorts to in order to prove its political points, it's not hard to imagine some White House events being skits for Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show, except we never get the punchline. On Monday, America just observed the fourth anniversary of the biggest (and saddest) political publicity stunt ever.

Anyway, YES, what Pelosi and Reid did was a publicity stunt, without question, but they did it to make a powerful political statement. It appears that getting in the face of the President Bush and the American public is necessary to bring this war to a merciful end. To date, more subtle means have proved fruitless.

Oh, I've got lots to talk about with this one. Above is video of Bush's press conference, immediately after vetoing the funding Bill.

Bush begins with:

"Good evening. Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform the funds and flexibility they need. Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians, for the judgment of our military commanders."

My first thought after hearing Bush blabber on about "substituting the opinions of politicians," was... um, no, Mr. President.

These politicians have passed a bill that respects and reflects the will of the American people, who spoke up loud and clear last November, and who continue to do so around the nation in just about every opinion poll I've read. The American people want this war over. NOW. Currently, opposition to the war is running at about 66 percent, give or take a few points, depending on the poll.

Think I'm exaggerating about the election last November? Then why did every Democrat up for reelection retain his or her seat in Congress?

I grow so tired of this administration bemoaning Congress' insistence that deadlines be attached to funding the war. Of course, you can find 24 sound bites coming out of the mouth of a Republican, depending on which day of the week you listen, that says, in so many words, "It's setting a date for defeat" or "Our enemies will simply set their calendars and wait."

That's what they are already doing. If Bush ever picked up a history book (like that's gonna happen), he'd know that the template for defeating the giant American military machine has been in place since Vietnam. (Of course, had he not dodged serving in Vietnam, he'd know, too, but I digress.)

In a war of attrition, the way to beat the United States is by steadily chipping away, day by day, American death by American death. Sooner or later, the American public will grow tired of dead sons and daughters coming home in flag-draped coffins. Of course, this is not always the case - the important variable in this theory is that the cause and reason for the war must be just in the eyes of a majority of Americans. In World War I and World War II, it was. In Korea, call it a push. In Vietnam and the current War in Iraq, the answer is an emphatic "no."

Bush continues:

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength, and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.

Noo, they aren't trying to do that now, are they, Mr. President?

Here's a whopper - "I believe setting a deadline would demoralize the people of Iraq," Bush says. You mean the same people who polls consistently show want us OUT of Iraq? (By overwhelming margins) Those Iraqi people?

And another - "...that means commanders in a combat zone would have to take directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C." 1. That's what Donald Rumsfeld did for nearly four years - from the start of this war until he "quit" the day after the 2006 election. Rummy constantly (and tragically) issued a constant stream of marching orders to commanders on the ground. 2. Don't our military leaders answer to the civilian politicians who are elected by the American people? I think I read that somewhere once.

I'm NOT for micromanaging the war, 1960s Lyndon Johnson-style, when members of his administration, most notably Defense Secretary Bob McNamara, personally selected bombing targets. That's beyond absurd. But, here's a thought that I'm yet to hear anyone say - maybe the commanders in our military are incompetent and don't know what they are doing? They are in a tough spot, no question, and Bush sent them there, but the bottom line is, they are not getting the job done. Our military commanders have had over four years to get the job done, at a cost of over 3,300 American lives, $500 billion and countless wounded and maimed soldiers. It's time for this madness to end. But, no politician dare say that - if you do, you're not "supporting the troops."

Yet, Bush and Republicans want an endless war. We're consistently told that "we need time to see if this plan will work."

This administration has been wrong about every single aspect of this war, every step of the way. Without running through a laundry list of things Bush and his cabal have been wrong about (who has that much time?!?), I'll just stick to one - the reasons for going to war.

Weapons of Mass Destruction
Bring Democracy to the Middle East, where it will flourish
He was an imminent threat
Iraq was involved in 9-11
(Followed by "We never said that.")
The supposed Prague meeting between al Qaeda and Iraqi leaders
He has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program
To liberate the people of Iraq (we'll be greeted as liberators

And on and on and on. This isn't a war, it's a PR effort with deaths. It's not the policy, or the war - it's the message. Apparently, no one gets it in American except the White House.

From before the outset of hostilities over four years ago, Bush has continuously kept trying out new labels or ideas until they found one that stuck. (It reminds me of the saying, "Throw a bunch of things at a wall, and see what sticks.")

Bush's decrying of pork-barrel spending (in the video above) is beyond comedy. Keep hammering away at those talking points, Mr. President. Does Bush have any credibility left? One can't find a single spending bill he has ever vetoed, because he never has. Funny how when the Republicans were in power, pork was never an issue.

I don't agree with it tacking on spending to bills, and the Democrats are not completely innocent when it comes to pork. But, it's how things get done in Washington. Certainly, it needs to change, but we can't solve all that is wrong in Washington with one bill. It's just another in a long line of examples of Bush using a canard to distract from the real issue.

Bush has no idea what political deal making is, because he's never had to do it while president. With an exception of about 18 months when Jim Jeffords defected from the Republicans, temporarily giving the Democrats a one-seat majority in Bush's first term, Bush has had an all GOP, rubber-stamp Congress. He hasn't had to make any deals, nor has he ever had to reach out to Democrats to accomplish anything. He's now faced with that reality, and quite frankly, he has no tolerance for it, and he doesn't even know how to go about it.

What's more, Bush has made so many enemies, it'll be tough getting anything done before he leaves office. Considering Bush's conduct during his 6+ years in office, if I were a DemocratIC member of Congress, I would be in no mood to work with him at all.

Here's another thought - why does Congress have to continuously pass these emergency appropriation bills? Why isn't all of this money included in Bush's original budget? How in the world can an administration be hundreds of billions of dollars off in its estimate for the war's cost? (Flashback: It's "fuzzy math") The reason's pretty simple - if these numbers were included in a yearly budget, that budget would have zero chance of passing, because even the spend-crazy Congress would get sticker shock.

Bush whining about "getting the troops the equipment they need," is the height of hypocrisy, since the troops haven't had all of the best technology and equipment available to them since the war began. (The best Humvees and body armor are only two examples, and let's not forget about Walter Reed and the disgraceful neglect that troops suffer once they do return home.)

Bush continues: Al Qaeda is "the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting." You mean Osama bin Laden? That al Qaeda? (By the way, can this White House hire a linguist? It's SUBVERT, W, not "subert.")

Bush no doubt took great delight in mentioning what General David Petraeus said last week in Washington: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front in of all al Qaeda's global campaign." That's because the United States is occupying Iraq.

And finally, it's a Bush staple to never miss an opportunity to bring up "September the 11th," as he calls it, in ANY speech about Iraq, even though he's publicly admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, but two minutes later, he'll imply the two are linked. Lie, lie, lie until you start to believe it, right, Mr. President?

This is Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi responding to Bush's veto. I don't have much to add here, other than to reaffirm that these two are spot on - our troops are in an open-ended civil war in Iraq.

Good point by Pelosi about then-Governor Bush calling for Bush to lay out a timetable for the War in Kosovo circa 1999.

I'd say Bush is a hypocrite, but that's a double negative.

Photos at top from HuffPo and AP

Russ Feingold on Bush's threatened veto

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann a few nights ago to talk about President Bush's promised veto and rhetoric about the emergency appropriation for the War in Iraq. Feingold is as spot on and articulate as anyone I've heard on the subject.

Feingold rightfully points out that there is plenty of precedent on ending funding for combat operations during war time, most notably during the Clinton Administration when we had forces in Somalia during Operation Restore Hope. After we lost 18 U.S. troops in the Battle of Mogadishu. (By the way, I tire of hearing Repubes deride Clinton for the loss of those soldiers - he deserves some blame, but it was President George H.W. Bush who put our troops in Somalia in December 1992.)

Anyway, Feingold hit it right on the head - if Bush vetoes the spending bill, it's going to be on his head, or at least partially. He rightfully reasons that the Democrats were sent to Congress to do the bidding of the people, and that's to end this war:

Well, it's just incredible to me that the president of the United States is planning on vetoing a bill that actually provides the funds that he wants for this next phase of the war. And the reason is, is, that he thinks he shouldn't have to follow the will of the American people, which was expressed in November, and that is that somehow this war has to start to end.

The bill is a very reasonable approach, and the president is being beyond stubborn in saying that we have to provide the funds and have no reaction at all to the fact that the people of this country want us out of this war. It's incredible to me that the president is this detached from reality.

Of course, some hear this and get all hysterical, that the Democrats are simply Bush hating. No, they are not. What we are seeing now is a president who had no oversight for the first six years of his presidency. Bush is totally incapable of compromise, or reaching across party lines. For a man who ran in 2000 as "A uniter, not a divider," he's shown a shocking indifference to even having a dialogue with the Democrats. More from the interview:

OLBERMANN: He referred to, in this news conference, in some of the questions, some who believe our strategy there is not working, a group who believes that we should not be there in the first place. Is it possible, do you think, Senator, that the president does not realize that this group of some people constitutes about seven out of every 10 Americans?

FEINGOLD: Well, he must know at some level, but he refers to the fact that we're back in our states, listening to the people in our states, as a vacation. Well, he needs a vacation like that, or he needs to get back onto a place like Wisconsin, in the rural areas where I am this week, Keith, doing town meetings, where people are telling me, For God's sakes, when are you going to get out of there? How can you possibly have this thing continue? What is the president thinking?

He is truly out of touch with the people of this country. This is not a position of a few people in the Democratic Party. It is virtually a consensus of the American people that we have got to have an orderly end to this war, safely redeploy the troops in the next few months.

[...]

Senator Harry Reid and I have concluded that a bill or an amendment that would make that date a year from now, March 31, 2008, is the next step, if necessary, if he truly does veto the supplemental bill.

OLBERMANN: To the power of the purse, for all the president's talk of alleged irresponsibility on the part of Congress in his news event this morning, it would seem, in his answer to that question about the power of the purse, the president was forced to admit that what you and your colleagues are doing is, in fact, entirely legitimate. And if that's true, and he says it's true, doesn't that make his veto the cause of any interruption of funding for the troops, in the unlikely event that happens?

FEINGOLD: Absolutely, Keith, unless we've shifted into a monarchy. The whole idea of our system is that these powers are divided. The president's the commander in chief, but the Congress is given the power of the funding, the appropriations power. We had to provide the funding in the first place, and if we decide this war is a bad idea, which I think just about everybody's concluded, then it's our—not just our right, but our responsibility to say, "Well, by X date, we will no longer do the funding."

And if you—you can ask Republican senators who say this is a bad idea, why did they vote for a date to cut off the funding for Somalia in the early '90s? Remember Black Hawk Down, we lost those 18 brave Americans, and we said, You know, this isn't working out very well, we ought to stop this.

And so John McCain and John Warner and all of us voted for a date certain by which the troops were safely redeployed. And at the end of it, the funding was cut off. They've already voted for this approach. It's not extreme. It's right in the absolute core of our constitutional powers and our responsibilities as members of Congress.

###

Uh oh - I'm bringing up those pesky 1990s again. How inconvenient. I not-so-fondly remember Repubes howling and screaming whenever President Clinton did anything militarily. No matter the cause, he never, ever had the support of a Republican-controlled Congress - Somalia (which he inherited), Bosnia, Kosovo or any actions to combat terrorism.

At every turn, it was Republicans who were screaming about Clinton's misuse of the military, or worse. Funny how I never heard "When troops are in harm's way, we don't question the operation - we get behind the president." Feingold rightfully reminded viewers of this the other night.

Speaking of supporting the president, one final thought. I realize that it's difficult for most of us (myself included, on most occasions) to reflect on our foreign policy in the 1990s through a 9-11 looking glass. Fine.

But, what really roils me is the persistent, idiotic rumors that float around the Internet about Clinton not doing enough about Osama bin Laden while he was president. Part of that is a valid point - he even admitted as much during his contentious interview on Fox News with Chris Wallace last September.

However, I also vaguely remember President Clinton wanting to do more to fight terrorism, but the Republican-controlled Senate and House wouldn't give him the budget increases he asked for. I also remember his missile attacks on Baghdad in retaliation for the attempted assassination of President Bush Sr. in Kuwait, and also the missile attack on a bin Laden compound that missed the terrorist by hours.

But again, to hear Republicans talk about it, they all wanted to invade Afghanistan and get bin Laden immediately, but Clinton didn't want to. Lies, lies, lies. In fact, when Clinton was leaving office, the one thing that the Clinton team told the incoming Bush administration to pay particular attention to was bin Laden. Call that one Operation Ignore, as the Bushies did nothing.

Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism expert, served under presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and until 2003, President George W. Bush. He's confirmed the current Bush administration's willful indifference to bin Laden during the first eight months of the administration. And this has also been confirmed by Bob Woodward and Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary. But, they're all lying, right Mr. President?

For more reading, I highly recommend Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies; and Ron Suskind's book, The Price of Loyalty : George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill.

These are two fantastic books, told by former Bush administration insiders, and they both offer insight into how Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq before 9-11, a conveniently forgotten fact.

The truth of the matter is that Bush and the far right want perpetual war, with no end in sight. It's hard to conclude otherwise, considering their stubbornness and obfuscation in the face of Democrats' attempts to end this war.