bustardblog

John Deutch : Robert Gates

John Deutch's op-ed in today's New York Times, while possibly correct in its conclusions, is extraordinarily depressing to those of us of a certain age.

His basic point is that we need Robert Gates to run the Pentagon - because he is experienced and competent. Gates' involvement in Iran/Contra is to be ignored. His participation in propping up Saddam during the prior Bush administration must be forgotten.  The Bush/Rumsfeld debacle is so enormous and so catastrophic that we must beg leaders to return who were instrumental in pushing failed, amoral, but slightly less disastrous policies - a dozen years ago.

Remember when Bill Clinton appointed a Republican, former Senator William Cohen as our Secretary of Defense?  Clinton also appointed Bill Perry to the post. As General Shalikashvili* said when Perry retired: "Surely, Bill Perry has been the GI's secretary of defense." Perry was proudest of "his very strong bond with our men and women in uniform." (Sound like Rummy to you? * And yes, this is the same General who was fired for being honest about required troop levels in Iraq)

Today, Deutch noted that  James Schlesinger "moved from the intelligence directorship to the Pentagon in the 1970s, and he is remembered for his fierce independence from the White House."

The idea that a cabinet level appointee should be independent from the President, should do anything other than slavishly obey the instructions from the President's Politcal Potemkin [aka: Karl Rove] is unheard of in this administration. Our round table is set for  calculating courtiers, not a cabinet of independent thinkers.

Remember people like Elliot Richardson, and William Ruckleshaus? (Their refusal to fire Archibald Cox was finally reversed by none other than Robert Bork)  Janet Reno may have been imperfect - but she was independent. Whatever you think of a Ramsey Clark -visionary or madman -  his independence is undeniable. If you can, look at the list of Attorneys General in our country - it's quite an impressive group of people.

Not so for Abu Gonzalez - he tries to game the law in order to find ways to legitimize the illegal activities of the Bush Team.

It's just another example of Bush trashing our system of government, of his destroying traditions and institutions that made the U.S. what it should be.

Heros

This week, there are a lot of people deserving of thanks. Our greatest gratitude goes to our Vets.

And we're also really grateful to all those who voted and worked for change this week.

But we also have to thank a group whose brilliant analytical skills, willingness to sacrifice, and deep patriotism have done so much for our nation. I for one don't thank them enough.

We must not forget, and we must make sure the media remains focused on this small band of truth-tellers, people who are smart enough to note that:

• What we saw this week was "the death throes of a dying party" The Democratic Party. "So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was. (Ann Coulter)
• "But the ideologues aren't to blame. The Republicans are." (Jonah Goldberg, before taking his youngster for a stroll in the park, something a lot of actual soldiers in Iraq would love to be doing as well.)
• "The United States did not reject the agenda of the right tonight...The GOP failed to dupe the American public into a liberal agenda." (the ever-prescient Redstate)
• What the right really requires: "If we're gonna win, we need more Santorum." (The Corner's Any McCarthy)
• Referring to Democrats: "They're in real trouble in '08." (Tom Delay to Alan Colmes on Hannity and Colmes)
• "The GOP lost. Conservatism prevailed." (The incomparable, Miss Michelle Malkin)

As good Americans, we must not let the focus shift from such talent and honesty as those listed above.

Greed

I understand that in today's Republican controlled Washington, you have to pay to play. I just can't understand how they determine the rates.

• If you wanted to have a picnic lunch today with Senators John McCain and Linc Chaffee - it would have cost you $40.00. This fundraiser is being held in Rhode Island today from 12-2:00. 2 Senators, 2 hours, $40.00: So you're paying $10.00 per hour per Senator. (Plus you get Lunch)
• For access to Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas, the conservative American Enterprise Institute paid $873.81 per waking hour. In June of 2005 they spent $27,962.00 for him to spend  2 days in Beaver Creek, CO. (I am assuming that they had access to him 16 hours a day.) Appropriately enough, it was for a conference on entitlements.

Greed is not just good to these people; it is GOD

1996

In 1996, one of our nation's leaders was opposed to sanctions against Iran, and noted that "we Americans sometimes make mistakes. There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what's best for everybody else and that we are going to ...get everybody else to live the way we would like."
That leader was then the head of Haliburton, Dick Cheney, who earned over 8 million dollars from his old company in 2005.

Why Did He Do It?

Thanks to Richard, a commenter at Atrios, I got a chance to read April's Vanity Fair article on Jack Abramoff. Reading of an encounter with Bush, who observed how Abramoff  was really getting "buff" and asking how much weight the lobbyist could "bench press," I was again reminded of my utter inability to understand our President, and why he is our President.

My question about understanding him is not related to agreeing with him. I hated the Reagan Presidency. I really hated Nixon's. But I knew who they were. I am also not  asking how our country could have voted for W.: merely why he wanted us to.

He has no interest in government. Watching the recent video of his being warned of Katrina just reinforces that judgment. He asked no questions. As his first Treasury Secretary said of his running a cabinet meeting; the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

Former Reagan aid, Bruce Bartlett, today described the administration as lacking "anybody who does any serious policy analysis" on policy issues.

When interviewing a prospective Supreme Court nominee, Bush "focused heavily on the upbringing of the two men,.. He wanted to know about his personal life and where he came from."

Clearly, this is not a Clinton, nor a Gore, who is actually interested in policy. Nor does he believe in the efficacy of either planning or strategy.

There was no plan for what we wanted to have happen in Iraq after Saddam fell. There is also no strategy as to what happens after we killed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty during W's visit in Delhi. Questioning the success of the treaty might be valid. Destroying it without proposing an alternative is inexcusable.

Bush has no interest in policy, nor in the role of the government. So why does he want the job?

Greed is always a possibility. It is a phenomenally corrupt administration. I have tended to dismiss that; thinking that the Bush's must have enough money.  But then I read of Barbara Bush's paid speaking gig at the annual convention of party furniture rental companies instead of appearing at Coretta Scott King's funeral, and I wonder about my innocence.

Is the greed explanation the only way to understand W's motivation to be president? Or does it have more to do with a former cheerleader asking the most important lobbyists in town and one of his biggest fundraisers about being buffed? Is it really about W being a member of the grown-up's club? His father might finally respect him?

To me one of the saddest, most telling moments of this tragedy of a presidency occurred in the White House on a Sunday afternoon at about 5:30.  W is sitting in a room by himself, watching football on TV. When he faints and falls to the floor, bruising his face after eating a pretzel, no one cares. The next day he said that he must have been unconscious for only a very short amount of time, because the dogs hadn't moved. Can you imagine falling onto the floor and your dogs don't move? So even the dogs didn't care. And when told this fanciful tale, the reporters didn't really question it.  Even the Press didn't care.

Poor one.

Brooks on Bush

When David Brooks of The N.Y. Times attacks W., you know something has happened. Just as Grover Norquist and WIlliam F. Buckley recently deserted Team Bush, Brooks has begun taking potshots at our great leader.

Today's piece purports to be about falling standards at elite colleges, but it's really a thinly veiled commentary on the ignorance of Bush.

Brooks lists courses that anyone who wants to be considered educated must take. Bush's behavior gives no hint that he ever learned any of the lessons Brooks considers essential.

One of his suggestions is that a student spend a year abroad. Bush certainly ranks as one of least well traveled Presidents ever inaugurated. A year abroad by the time you're 21? Bush may have spent two weeks abroad by the age of 50.

The requirement that Brooks lists first is that one study the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, whom he quotes as writing "The devout would learn that public piety corrupts private faith." Was there ever a President more public with his "piety" than W? Was there ever one more corrupt?

"Read Plato's "Gorgias" - insists Brooks. "You need it to understand the "superiority of philosophy (the quest for wisdom or truth) to rhetoric (the art of persuasion in the cause of victory)...rhetorical skills are dangerous, potentially soul-imperiling,gifts." Two Words: Karl Rove.

"Take statistics", "Take a course in neuroscience," "Take a course in ancient Greece," are more Brooks recommendations. Is there any reason to believe Bush absorbed one scintilla of knowledge from any study that he might have done in any such course? (Assuming he ever took one.)

To be fair Brooks also says that you should "learn a foreign language," and it seems that Bush can speak a form of Spanish. But still, we have to give Bush a failing grade on this instruction. According to Brooks the purpose of learning another's language  is for one to "annex a another culture and discover unseen sides to themselves." I doubt that Bush would be able to recognize a single side to himself, let alone plural sides.

His Op-Ed today is subtle, especially for the heavy hand of David Brooks, but undoubtedly an attack, and a fair one, on George W. Bush.

The Grover Pees on The Bush

The always essential Eschaton tipped me off to yesterday's report from U.S. Newswire about the organization entitled Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB).  This is a group that believes the President has violated the law by wiretapping without following FISA requirements.

In the last few years, Bob Barr, former GA Congressman and  floor manager for Clinton's impeachment, has been quite active in the field of civil liberties. So his participation is not a big surprise.

What I, as well as a lot of other Atriots, found amazing was Grover Norquist's jumping on this particular bandwagon.

He's the President of Americans for Tax Reform, a close friend of Karl Rove's and the host of the famed Wednesday morning meetings that have been invaluable in pushing Bush's agenda forward. So it is a bit of a shock when he said "Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping."

There was a lot of speculation at Eschaton as to why he would have done this. My simple explanation is that Grover Norquist is fighting to save Grover Norquist.

The strategy he has chosen in order to pursue this goal demonstrates the perfidy that is this administration, and suggests that it might be in more trouble than we suspect.

Norquist  and Abramoff and Reed have worked together for over 25 years.  When Jack wants to get some money to Ralph, he sends it through Grover's washing machine.  Abramoff's plea bargaining deal spelled the probable demise of Norquist as well. Fearing that his end is near, Grover wants to appear to take the high road and calls for investigations.

But the investigations he wants are into the wiretapping scandal.  Grover does not have a lot of chips left, so he decides to bluff.  His bet? That investigations into national security, crimes committed by Bush, and possible impeachment, will make his "little" scandal seem insignificant.

There is a lot about Bush to denigrate; and although I thought it frequently misplaced, I did have respect for his loyalty. Now we'll see about the loyalty of his lieutenants.

Can They Learn?

Corruption is currently really rife in Republican circles.  That wild and crazy liberal William F. Buckley writes in today's N.Y. Sun that it has gotten so bad, it's "on the order of a structural breakdown."

So what happens when the Appellate Court ruled that charges against DeLay cannot be dismissed? Two very venal Representatives vie to fill the vacancy.

Roy Blunt is so connected to DeLay that you might want to search for the umbilical cord. In the 2000 campaign season,  the Blunt and DeLay team spent wildly on the Republican Convention in Philadelphia. The New Republic (11/7/05) also reports about $150,000 that seemed to go back and forth between their pacs.  Not long ago, Blunt divorced his wife and married a Ms Perlman -  lobbyist for Phillip-Morris, and former finance director of the NRCC. While at the NRCC, it made a gift of $500,00 to the U.S. Family Network, a front group of Tom DeLay's.  As a result of this gift, the NRCC was fined $280,000 by the FEC. (Mr Bush's FEC)  Mr. Blunt tried to insert a last-minute change to the Homeland Security Bill to benefit his wife's employer. But this did not pass even the Republican smell test and was not passed. Phillip-Morris is a major source of funds for the Turkish Lobbying group - the ATC.  This group has paid for vacations to Turkey for many,many Blunt staffers. One former Blunt Chief of Staff, Gregg Hartley, went on some of these trips. He currently is with the lobbying firm of Cassidy Associates: they hired Abramoff after reports of his bilking Indian Tribes forced his departure from his prior firm. (H/T FiredUpAmerican.com)

Boehner is a member in good standing of the corrupt Republican Machine of Ohio. (Blackwell, Ney, Taft etc.) In fact he helped, through a group called "Ohio First Education" to make sure that no election reform got passed during the last cycle. They wanted crazy things like a bi-partisan Board of Supervisors overseeing Ohio elections. Expect more Diebold Deception in 2006, in part thanks to Rep Boehner. You might remember that he had to resign from his last leadership position as a result of his illegal conspiring to help Newt Gingrich avoid the consequences of his ethics violations. He believes in teaching intelligent design, and approves of Head Start programs being allowed to fire someone because of their religion.One of his more recent acts of indecency was changing the student loan program in ways that  benefit the lender, not the student.  This program is already enormously profitable for the lending institutions. (which make up by far the biggest donors to Boehner's campaigns)  But he wanted to make it even more so. Clinton hating columnist Dick Morris calls the plan an "obnoxious...rip-off." The N.Y. Times called it "Robbing Joe College to Pay Sallie Mae."

As a Democrat, I could take cold comfort that one of these two seems to be the best that the Republican house can offer. But I am not. William F. Buckley sees the "national disgust" that this corruption has caused, but the Republicans seem to require some remedial help.