Ashcroft gets the inside word on the FBI’s Plamegate investigation. Well, on one hand he is the Attorney General. But, c’mon now – the smart thing to do would be to recuse himself from this case, particularly given his close ties to Rove. As I’ve said before in other contexts, if we were talking about Janet Reno here, Dan Burton would already have fired up the investigation train.
Category: The Middle East
Anger Abroad.
From across the pond in London, my friend Luke starts up a new Expats Against Bush weblog. It’s still in its very early stages, but expect it to grow in the near future.
Second Thoughts.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, generally a straight shooter (despite being on the wrong side of campaign finance), calls out Congress for abdicating to Dubya’s foreign policy. “We probably have given this president more flexibility, more latitude, more range, unquestioned, than any president since Franklin Roosevelt — probably too much. The Congress, in my opinion, really abrogated much of its responsibility.” Well said, Chuck…now when is your buddy John McCain going to say the same?
Patriot Act?
As the WP delves into the leadership qualities of Wesley Clark, Rick Perlstein wonders aloud about the opportunities for leadership missed — or avoided — during the General’s war correspondent days. If Clark’s going to emerge from the Democratic primary, he really needs to develop an answer to his Iraq position that doesn’t sound evasive or needlessly complicated. He’s not there yet.
A Line (and Figure) in the Sand.
By respective votes of 303-125 and 87-12, the Iraq funding bill passes the House and Senate. (In terms of the Dem contenders, Lieberman and Gephardt voted in favor of the bill, while Kerry, Kucinich, and Edwards did not.) So Dubya got his money this time…let’s hope it’s enough to get the job done. Perhaps it’s time for Congress to reconsider the Biden Amendment?
Between Iraq and a Hard Place.
Facing the lowest numbers of his presidency and a increasingly troubling lack of WMD, Dubya fails to garner any new international support for the reconstruction of Iraq. And what did he expect, after waltzing into the UN and insulting the intelligence of the world? Amateur hour continues at our nation’s peril.
Battle Cry of Falsehood.
In the bookmarks for awhile: James McPherson, author of Battle Cry of Freedom and current head of the AHA, criticizes Dubya’s use of revisionist history and “revisionist history.”
From Victim to Bully.
While Dubya tries in vain to muster international support for his “save the US” Iraq bailout plan, the NY Times portray the chilling consequences of his blunt unilateralism. For, in only two short years, the administration has completely squandered the considerable reservoirs of international goodwill that followed the wake of 9/11. It’s troubling to think what a President with some understanding of the art of diplomacy could’ve accomplished in this time. Instead we’ve had a rank amateur at the helm, poisoning the image of our nation in the eyes of the world. In so doing, the Bushies have done America — and American values — a great disservice.
Hat in Hand.
While he’s still abusing the terrorism angle to hoodwink us on Iraq (As Howard Dean noted yesterday, the only indisputable thing Iraq has to do with terrorism is that we’ve now chosen it as the place where terrorists can attack us), Dubya at least admitted on nationwide television that unilaterally, we’re in over our head, which I suppose amounts to what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. Yet, with the necessary Iraq funds — even lowballed as they are — threatening to blow the deficit to $525 billion, I do hope that the Bushies realize that the responsibility and sacrifice they’re expecting from the American people, our somewhat skeptical allies, and everyone but themselves in prosecuting this war should preclude any more discussion of a tax cut in the coming year. After all, why shouldn’t America’s wealthiest citizens also have to pay the heavy price for Dubya’s blundering, incompetent, and hubris-ridden diplomacy on the road to war?
Incoherent Preemption.
“As Paul Wolfowitz has all but admitted, the ‘bureaucratic’ reason for war — weapons of mass destruction — was not the main one. The real reason was to rebuild the pillars of American influence in the Middle East. Americans may have figured this out for themselves, but it was certainly not what they were told. Nor were they told that building this new pillar might take years and years. What they were told — misleadingly and simplistically — was that force was justified to fight ‘terrorism’ and to destroy arsenals of mass destruction targeted at America and at Israel.” In a wide-ranging article for the NYT Magazine, Michael Ignatieff offers an historical critique of our currently muddled intervention policy, and outlines his own best-case-scenario proposal for US-led UN reform. “Putting the United States at the head of a revitalized United Nations is a huge task. For the United States is as disillusioned with the United Nations as the world is disillusioned with the United States. Yet…Pax Americana must be multilateral, as Franklin Roosevelt realized, or it will not survive.“