Are Republicans Shooting Themselves In The Foot?
Congressional Democrats are putting even more pressure on the Bush White House this week, on many investigative fronts. Subpoenas are flying, contempt citations are voted out of committee, and the Senate is considering opening a perjury investigation because Attorney General Alberto Gonzales continues make statements to them which are easily proved wrong. Most Republicans, though, are continuing to try to paint the whole process as "a partisan political witch hunt." My guess is that while they may put up a good front now, the closer we get to the 2008 election, the more nervous the party as a whole is going to be about the prospect of defending the Bush White House throughout the campaign.
Because the White House continues to stonewall on everything they possibly can, indications are that they are not even interested in any sort of compromise with Congress. They're on a crusade for the Unitary Executive and Executive Privilege, and Vice President Dick Cheney's been spoiling for this fight ever since Watergate. So I just don't see them backing down any time soon.
What this means is it's going to be a very long, drawn-out process. There will be court cases, contempt citations, many delays for various legal reasons, judgments, appeals, and all the rest of the glacial judicial process. Even if it is eventually heard before the Supreme Court, the political damage to the Republican Party will already have been done by that point.
Of course, anyone who reads the Nixon court decision (on his tapes) knows that precedent is heavily on the side of the Democrats -- much like the right to privacy, the courts have held that although Executive Privilege is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, there is a legal reason for its validity and existence. Unfortunately (for Nixon) the court also held that Congress had a legitimate power to oversee the Executive Branch, that Executive Privilege was indeed limited, and that it could not be used to cover up lawbreaking. The court ordered Nixon to hand over the tapes, which he did, which ultimately torpedoed his Presidency.
But with today's Supreme Court, who knows what they'll decide?
The bad news for the GOP is that it doesn't even really matter which way the court rules. Because it's going to take awhile to get there. And that means that throughout the entire campaign season, voters are going to hear "stonewall" and "Nixon" over and over again (which I've written about before). The electorate is already leaning heavily away from the Republicans (in every poll published this year), so this isn't going to help.
President Bush isn't going to back down, either. Even if a delegation from the Republican National Committee, with leading Republicans from the House and Senate, and even the ghost of Ronald Reagan marched down to the White House to "lay down the law" -- in other words, to tell him: "Mr. President, we will let you destroy your presidential legacy, but we will not allow you to destroy the entire national Republican party" -- even then, I just don't see Bush and Cheney backing down. Nixon, remember, did resign when faced with such a delegation from his own party, but I doubt Bush and Cheney will follow his example.
Which leaves only two options for incumbent Republicans in Congress: tie themselves to the fortunes of the Bush White House, or break with Bush and run against him to get re-elected.
Either one of these is going to help Democrats in the election.
This could have bigger implications in September. Because if Republican incumbents (who are already nervous about continuing to back Bush on Iraq) decide that defending Alberto Gonzales is going to get them voted out of office -- and if they decide this before mid-September -- then maybe they'll use their war votes to declare their independence from the Bush White House. Which would be ironic (i.e., Gonzales helping to hasten the end of the war), but would also be a welcome development.
So far, the indications are mixed. The House voted its contempt citations out of committee on a straight party-line vote. And, for some reason, they're not going to take it to the full House for a vote until after their month-long August vacation, which delays the process even more. For comparison, the last time the House voted on a contempt citation, in 1984, the vote was 413-0.
The real political questions in this game of "chicken" are how long it will take Republican congressmen to realize that defending Gonzales is a losing game, and whether it'll happen soon enough for them to realize that voting with the White House on the Iraq war is equally a losing issue for them.
September isn't that far off, so we'll know the answers to these questions fairly soon.
-- Chris Weigant
Do you think it is wise for the Democrats to go so far out of their way and, by hook or by crook, tear down the commander in chief during a time of war???
Aren't you (and the Democrats) even the SLIGHTEST bit concerned as to how all this political infighting is weakening America as a whole in a time of war??
Just curious if the thought of the consequences has crossed the Democrats's minds in their glee and enthusiasm to take down Bush...
I can't help but keep coming back to that Klingon proverb about fools fighting in a burning house.
The Democrats and Republicans seem to be intent on playing the fool here..
Michale.....
I find this all a bit troubling. You lay out current events very well, and I expect your predictions will play out before our very eyes in the coming months. But it seems too easy.
On the one hand, you have the 'attorney scandal'. If the white house had been competent, they would have had all their ducks in a row before this story broke and the story wouldn't have survived the weekend. Documents show that they were well aware that this could become a fight, so why weren't they ready for it?
On the other hand, you have Alberto Gonzales self destructing before our very eyes. Certainly these uber smarties in the White House saw this coming and could instruct Alberto to defuse the situation before it became headlines, but they didn't, why?
What I worry is that we have this huge double headed public spectacle playing out in large print while in the meantime, something is going on well out of sight. Something hidden that must be so important, so embarrassing, so damning that they are willing to chuck a large portion of the ballast they have left in hopes that they can keep the balloon aloft.
I can't help but wonder what's really going on.
Chris,
The Republicans are going to be "against prosecution before they were for it" come 2008... just like they will be "against withdrawal of our troops before they were for it"...
They called John Kerry a flip-flopper... well, just wait, the flipping and flopping is coming.
CDub,
That is easy; illegal activity.
Why wasn't the WH and Gonzo prepared for the story to break you ask? Because they couldn't defend it. Go to TPM and read the work done on the document dump. The DoJ (Goodling, etc) were already asking HOW to characterize the firings. Now, if it was above board and by the law, why would they have had to ASK that question?
Why is Gonzo self-destructing? Because he isn't running the DoJ, Rove and Cheney are, and what they are doing is illegal. They know it. That is why there is so much stone-walling.
Right now, they are probably betting that they can stone-wall until 2009 and slip out scott-free before the Democrats in Congress get their act together.
Michale,
WISE? Gee... let's see... THIS C-in-C started a WAR based on LIES. Is it WISE to tear him down before he can start ANOTHER WAR (Iran) based on LIES? Yes... not only tear him down, but impeach him, prosecute him in the Hague, and JAIL his sorry butt forever. Right now... we have to settle for tearing him down so they CAN'T start another war for oil.
And the only people playing the fool are the 30% rabid base of the Right that still think it is cool to go kill people in another country based on lies, just as long as THEY aren't the ones being asked to DO it.
Go to Daily Kos and read the diary about how college republicans are all for the war, they just have "other priorities" then to SERVE during it (all on VIDEO btw). They are called "chickenhawks" for a reason. It was AMAZING how many of them who were asked, ON VIDEO, why THEY weren't signing up stuttered and brought out all these medical reasons of why they couldn't serve.
>THIS C-in-C started a WAR based on LIES.
That is the emotion..
The reality is that the war was started with mistaken intelligence. A far FAR cry from "lies"...
As I have said over and over, there are no grounds for impeachment. Pelosi has said this. Obama has said this. Even Al Gore has said this..
Why can't ya'all accept that??
>Go to Daily Kos
Hate monger's site... 'nuff said about that...
Michale.....
Michale,
First, it wasn't "mistaken intelligence". Tyler Drumheller flat stated that the CIA knew that Saddam had no weapons program before the invasion. It has already been proven that the CIA knew that there was one Al-Qaeda cell in the mountains near the 36th parallel where Saddam couldn't touch them and that Bush let that cell remain there as justification for the whole Iraq/Al-Qaeda "connection". Even Bush himself has flat stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 while Cheney was making that link repeatedly. It was lies. Period. Rumsfeld flat stated that we "knew were the WMD's were"... well guess what... they didn't. Colin Powell's UN speech about aluminum tubes was BS as federal agencies had already stated the tubes had no connection to WMD's or their manufacture.
Kos is a hatemongers site? I know what you watch now... Faux News. I guess you didn't know Faux News' argument in court, in response to a lawsuit brought against them by two of their reporters who were told to remove facts in their story and air lies instead, was that the network had the right to LIE and air FALSE stories. No?
You want hate... try KSFO... a right-wing hate radio show.
Try googling... you'll learn something. Your talking points hold zero water and less facts.
@Michael
>Tyler Drumheller flat stated that the
>CIA knew that Saddam had no weapons
>program before the invasion.
That was ONE report. Other reports said differently..
Hind site is ALWAYS 20-20...
>Kos is a hatemongers site?
Yes, it is. ANY site that allows and even ENCOURAGES the type of bilge and garbage that is allowed to flourish on KOS is a "hate" site, pure and simple...
>I know what you watch now… Faux News.
Actually, I don't watch any news anymore. Now since the news became another form of entertainment. I get all my news from the web.. FNC is just one of the many sites I peruse. I also read from CNN, Drudge, Breitbart, Al Jazeera, some Israeli News Site plus a few Israeli Military sites and regular AP news feeds...
My knowledge of KOS being a Hate site comes from personal experience, not from any news reports.
I deal in facts. You seem to want to deal in emotion. I have always said (and by and large it is true) that any position taken in emotion is usually the WRONG position to take..
Michale.....
Michale,
Facts??? I GAVE you facts... and you pooo-pooo'd how it was only "one" report. Here are FACTS:
- Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn’t: "The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller. Drumheller says he doesn't think it mattered very much to the administration what the intelligence community had to say. "I think it mattered it if verified. This basic belief that had taken hold in the U.S. government that now is the time, we had the means, all we needed was the will," he says. When he returned, Wilson told the CIA what he had learned. Despite that, some intelligence analysts stood by the Italian report that Saddam Hussein had purchased uranium from Niger. But the director of the CIA and the deputy director didn’t buy it. In October, when the president’s speechwriters tried to put the Niger uranium story in a speech that President Bush was scheduled to deliver in Cincinnati, they intervened. In a phone call and two faxes to the White House, they warned “the Africa story is overblown†and “the evidence is weak.†The speechwriters took the uranium reference out of the speech. Meanwhile, the CIA had made a major intelligence breakthrough on Iraq’s nuclear program. Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister, had made a deal to reveal Iraq’s military secrets to the CIA. Drumheller was in charge of the operation. "This was a very high inner circle of Saddam Hussein. Someone who would know what he was talking about," Drumheller says. "You knew you could trust this guy?" Bradley asked. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," Drumheller replied. According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high-level meeting at the White House, including the president, the vice president and Secretary of State Rice. At that meeting, Drumheller says, "They were enthusiastic because they said, they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis." What did this high-level source tell him? "He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program," says Drumheller. "So in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?" Bradley asked. "Yes," Drumheller replied. He says there was doubt in his mind at all. "It directly contradicts, though, what the president and his staff were telling us," Bradley remarked. "The policy was set," Drumheller says. "The war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy." (From CBS 60 Minutes interview)
That was just "one report"... from one of the men who knew more then anyone else who "reported".
My point exactly..
That was just ONE report..
For every report you show me, I can show you a report that was equally compelling at the time for the OPPOSITE conclusion.
You are relying on hind site, which as I indicated, is 20-20..
It's like saying I "lied" when I stated that the Jags were gonna go to the Super Bowl... Is it a lie because it turned out that they didn't go?? Of course not. Your claim of Bush's "lies" is in the same venue...
My only point is what you are calling "lies" is simply mistaken intelligence that was believed for the good of the country..
I would much rather that the US errs on the side that SAFEGUARDS our lives, than to err on the side that would put our lives at risk.
ANY sane person would feel the same.
The simple fact is, is that there has been no PROVEN intent to lie and deceive the American public. All you have is hysterical innuendo and rumor, coupled with Monday morning quaterbacking and 20-20 hindsite.
That is the rational fact of the situation and no amount of hysterical screams of "LIES!!!" and/or "IMPEACH!!!" will change that.
Remember, logic and reason always prevails over hysteria. Every time...
Michale.....
Interesting Article here:
Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html
This is a scenario that hasn't been mentioned before..
CW (or anyone), what do you think??
You have talked about how an unfavorable report may swing some GOP over to the Dem side of things..
What about a FAVORABLE report that swings Dems over to the GOP side of things???
Michale.....
Michale,
You are so wrong on so many levels it goes beyond partisanship.
It is now "hindsight" that we only NOW know that Bush LIED then??? OMG... he LIED. He said that there were WMD stockpiles and Saddam had the means to attack us. He didn't and he KNEW IT. This is no longer conjecture, it is FACT. It was NOT mistaken intelligence and the sooner everybody comes to grip with that the better.
Your football analogy holds zero water since Bush KNEW the intelligence was cooked to bolster what he already knew was going to happen; an attack on Iraq.
Who was cooking up that intelligence? The neo-con's in the Pentagon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xYeuzG24mo
Watch 1-4 at the above YouTube link...
You'll see where that neo-con Pentagon unit was directly responsible for the cooked up intelligence that YOU want to spout as "one report" to counter.
Truly... go get some facts... do some research... and at least watch the above `Why We Fight`.
Michale,
Also... now it is "there was no proven INTENT to lie"... LMAO... can you get into any tighter pretzel of your logic? You continually do it. You put forth one argument, that gets shot down, you change your argument after doing contortions.
It HAS been proven.
Next you'll say "but... but... it hasn't been proven in a court of law... waaaaaa"
You are using the classic Republican tactics... attack the person... not the content. You have presented ZERO facts, ZERO evidence, ZERO anything but argument after failed argument and trying to discredit character by using terms like SANE and RATIONAL.
Ya know, you saying over and over that Bush "lied" doesn't make it true..
The simple fact is, Bush did NOT lie... And there is absolutely ZERO conclusive proof that Bush lied..
I'll say it again.. All you have is hysterical innuendo, hyperbole and scathing ad hominem attacks to "prove" that Bush lied..
Here's another wake up call for you. Even if Bush did lie, I really don't have a problem with that.. If you think that ANY politician (GOP or DEM) hasn't "lied" to the American public at one time or another, I have some swampland in FL I would like to sell you...
The point of THAT issue is WHY was the lie told..
If there is anyone here who can honestly say that they have NEVER lied, then that person is...well, is lying...
So, we have established that there is ZERO conclusive proof that Bush lied about intelligence pertaining to Iraq...
We have also established that even if a President has to "lie" in order to serve the greater good, then that isn't really any big deal. It's the sign of character to be able to do the wrong thing for the right reasons..
In other words, sometimes, the end DOES justify the means...
Anything else we haven't covered??? :D
Michale.....
Michale wrote:
Ya know, you saying over and over that Bush "lied" doesn't make it true..
-------
Saying the opposite over and over doesn't change the facts either.
I'll grant you that Bush may not have knowingly lied. It's possible that he's not bright enough to know what's going on. It is well established that he has repeated lies, but it's possible that he's just a pawn in a game being played by those around him who visibly manufactured those lies.
The intelligence community was pretty straight forward about what was known, and tried hard to steer the rhetoric back towards actual facts. So Cheney created a new intelligence agency within the pentagon, the Office of Special Plans (OSP), who were willing to spin an alternate reality. This fact is well known.
The IAEA was very clear that Iraq had no WMDs or active WMD programs, so the OSP stepped in to spin an alternate reality. This is well established.
Bush just repeated what these liars pretended to be true. So did Bush lie, or just not care about doing his job well?
Michale wrote:
Here's another wake up call for you. Even if Bush did lie, I really don't have a problem with that..
We have also established that even if a President has to "lie" in order to serve the greater good, then that isn't really any big deal.
------
That's all fine and good, but most Americans DO have a problem with that. The majority of Americans have no faith that this president would recognize the greater good if it were offering him Girl Scout cookies at half price. The majority of Americans are clamoring to impeach what little remains of this administration, and I say good riddance.
So did Bush tell lies?
Yes, to this very day.
Does he know that he's lying?
He probably can't even spell it.
@CDub
I find it very hard to even fathom a person who thinks that a man could rise to the presidency and be as dumb as you think Bush is...
Are you certain that you are not being just a tad irrational?? That you are letting your partisanship color your intellect...
>The IAEA was very clear that Iraq had no
>WMDs or active WMD programs,
And yet, our intelligence organizations and assets were JUST AS CLEAR that Iraq DID have WMDs and a Nuclear Program.. It's acknowledged by all that Iraq DID have a Bio WMD program...
So, without the benefit of hind site, what's the better choice?? Assume the best or assume the worst??
There is no conclusive proof that Bush lied. Period
"These are the facts. And they are undisputed"
-Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale.....
Michale wrote:
@CDub
I find it very hard to even fathom a person who thinks that a man could rise to the presidency and be as dumb as you think Bush is…
---------
And yet, here we are. Wisdom is not bound to intellect, but Bush exhibits no wisdom, so it makes no difference whether he's been duped into lying, or whether he's calculated about it. The results are the same.
Michale wrote:
Are you certain that you are not being just a tad irrational?? That you are letting your partisanship color your intellect…
----------
I'm not partisan, if Bush were a democrat, I'd still point out that he's destroying America.
Michale wrote:
And yet, our intelligence organizations and assets were JUST AS CLEAR that Iraq DID have WMDs and a Nuclear Program.. It's acknowledged by all that Iraq DID have a Bio WMD program…
------
No no no, not our intelligence organizations, the OSP, the organization that was specifically created after the fact to pretend that Iraq had WMDs, a pretense our intelligence organizations were unwilling to provide.
Michale wrote:
So, without the benefit of hind site, what's the better choice?? Assume the best or assume the worst?? There is no conclusive proof that Bush lied. Period
--------
When 100,000 women and children will die needlessly over either choice, a good leader assumes nothing. To have killed them all over an assumption is the definition of irresponsibility.
The proof that Bush lied is well established, if you're suggesting he has an IQ above room temperature, the jury is still out.
Michale,
Here you go... no "conclusive" proof... more contortions. Do you need salt to go with the pretzel?
I also noticed that, once again, you attack the poster and not the content. So, CDub is irrational now?
Typical R tactics... deny the facts, spin and keep spinning, then attack the person when all else fails.
Michale,
And no CONCLUSIVE evidence that Bush lied? Really?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html
(Sept 12, 2002-UN General Assembly speech by Bush)
"Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons."
It could build a nuclear bomb within ONE YEAR! THAT was the lie! We KNOW it was a LIE because as I have ALREADY shown
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749_page2.shtml
in this link to Tyler Drumhellers 60 Minutes interview, he CLEARLY STATED:
"So in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?" Bradley asked. "Yes," Drumheller replied. He says there was doubt in his mind at all. "It directly contradicts, though, what the president and his staff were telling us," Bradley remarked. "The policy was set," Drumheller says. "The war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."
Now... READ and UNDERSTAND... in the FALL OF 2002, it was CONCLUSIVE that Iraq had NO WMD PROGRAM from an insider high in Saddam's cabinet. Not a defector, not some discredited informant like curveball, but a credible, reliable, person. Yet, in the 2003 State of the Union address, Bush stated:
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured."
Who IS assembling. These words spoken AFTER he knew there were NO WMD PROGRAMS in Iraq.
That is CONCLUSIVE PROOF that BUSH lied. PERIOD. But it doesn't end THERE. From the State of the Union speech:
"The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."
So, AFTER Bush KNEW that there were no WMD programs in Iraq, Bush sent Powell to the UN with "evidence" (all of which has now been discredited, btw), to say EXACTLY THAT. And what did Powell say about his LYING to the United Nations?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-08-powell-iraq_x.htm
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday his prewar speech to the United Nations accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction was a "blot" on his record."
Yes... LYING to the United Nations to send a country to WAR would be a "blot" on your record.
Bring FACTS to the argument... not your typical R tactics...
What you have posted are not lies but mistaken intelligence..
Along the lines of my statement that, "The JAGS will go to the Super Bowl this year."
Being wrong does not a lie make. It's a very simple concept that you, blinded by partisan hatred, just cannot seem to grasp...
There is plenty of conclusive proof that our intelligence assets were wrong with regards to Iraq.
There is ZERO conclusive proof that Bush actively lied.
It's that simple.
You hate Bush. I get it.. I understand that.
But the simple fact is, he was mistaken. That is it.
Finally, you keep wanting to equate "WMD PROGRAM" with nuclear weapons. The fact is that Iraq had a very complete BIO Weapons arsenal and that BIO weapons are also considered "WMDs" and a BIO Weapons Program is the same thing as a WMD Weapons Program.
Ergo, when you said, "These words spoken AFTER he knew there were NO WMD PROGRAMS in Iraq." you were mistaken. Note, I didn't say you were LYING, I simply said you were mistaken. There WAS WMD Programs going on in Iraq. The fact that they weren't of a nuclear variety doesn't negate the fact that they were still WMD Programs.
Ergo, Bush did not lie...
Michale.....
Michale,
While I have posted interviews, state of the union speeches, and Bush's own words... you refute them with personal attack about "partisan hatred".
That is all you have to "refute" me with...
70% of America knows Bush lied... you are obviously part of that 30% that doesn't care (your own words).
Yeah... we get it... you like a President that lies.
I don't.
All you offer is out of context quotes and ONE side of the issue. How can I call it anything else BUT partisan hatred when you make completely unfounded and totally biased statements like, "70% of America knows Bush lied" when it is completely untrue...
Three different commissions (2 bi-partisan US and one British) determined that Bush did NOT LIE...
When I match those facts against your obvious bias and irrational hatred, how can I come to any other conclusion but "partisan hatred"??
It's the ONLY logical conclusion...
Michale.....