Tag: George W. Bush

The Enemy of my Enemy.

“There’s a broader lesson here, and it speaks to the Bush administration’s present jam throughout the Middle East and in other danger zones. If the British had adopted the same policy toward dealing with Pakistan that Bush has adopted toward dealing with, say, Syria or Iran (namely, it’s an evil regime, and we don’t speak with evil regimes), then a lot of passenger planes would have shattered and spilled into the ocean, hundreds or thousands of people would have died, and the world would have suddenly been plunged into very scary territory.” In light of yesterday’s foiled plot, Slate‘s Fred Kaplan points out one of the critical flaws of Dubya Diplomacy (which, thankfully, the British do not share.)

Democracy Dubyaed Down | Condi’s PhD Shield.

“Once again, Bush demonstrated that he doesn’t understand what makes young democracies flourish or why Hezbollah has appeal even to many nonterrorists. He doesn’t seem to realize that democratic governments require democratic institutions and the resources to make them thrive. He evinces no awareness that the longer Israel bombs Beirut into oblivion, the harder it becomes for Siniora (who has few resources) to retain legitimacy — and the easier it becomes for Hezbollah (which has many more resources) to gain still greater power.” Slate‘s Fred Kaplan parses yet another dismaying press performance by Dubya regarding the current international scene.

Update: “Scholars who enter the chambers of power should use their training as a tool to help them make decisions. Condi Rice is using hers as a chant to wish away the consequences.” In a related piece, Kaplan examines Condoleeza Rice’s tendency to hide behind her PhD when faced with tough questions. Well, she may be a “student of history,” but as Sean Wilentz noted earlier, she’s never been a very good one when you get right down to it (although, to her credit, she has been very busy creating work for future members of the profession.)

No rest for the wicked.

“‘It was a political calculation that his advisers persuaded him that he needed to do, and I think he knew it,’ said one Republican with close ties to Mr. Bush, who would discuss internal White House decisions only if not quoted by name. He added, ‘I don’t think he is resentful or angry or anything; I think he is resigned to it.”‘ Well, shucks. Sometimes it just sucks to be the leader of the free world (which, you may remember, is “hard work!”): Dubya’s vacation gets cut to only ten days.

Hamstrung by Choice.

“This has constrained U.S. foreign policy in many damaging ways…The United States does not have effective diplomatic channels for managing the situation, much less resolving it.” Former members of Bush administrations past and present criticize the Dubya White House for their complete lack of diplomatic avenues with Syria, Iran, the Palestinians, or anyone else that might be able to mitigate the current Middle East crisis. “As unattractive as they are, the Syrians are in a position to affect U.S. interests in Iraq and Lebanon…We should be having a broad-based dialogue with them — not as a favor to them but as a favor to ourselves.“

Dubya Who?

“All these guys are trying to seem like reasonable, moderate guys who are not the scary conservatives who their opponents will make them out to be…But they all have very conservative records and support for the president that will make it difficult for them to duck this.” As November looms closer, the WP finds GOP candidates running scared from Dubya.

Government Accounting: The Ken Lay Way.

As reported over the weekend in the NYT, an audit finds that the US Agency for International Development (AID) has been using funny math to hide huge cost overruns for Iraqi reconstruction projects. “The agency hid construction overruns by listing them as overhead or administrative costs, according to the audit…[for one new power station]the project’s overhead, a figure that normally runs to a maximum of 30 percent, was a stunning 418 percent.“

Res ipsa loquitur.

“This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy…If left unchecked, the president’s practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries.” Then, again, I could be sold on the merits of bar associations…if they continue to call out Dubya for trampling on our Constitution.

Here’s to Hamdan.

“If another nation’s leader adopted such positions, the United States would be quick to condemn him or her for violating fundamental tenets of the rule of law, human rights, and the separation of powers. But President Bush has largely gotten away with it, at least at home, for at least three reasons. His party holds a decisive majority in Congress, making effective political checks by that branch highly unlikely. The Democratic Party has shied away from directly challenging the president for fear that it will be viewed as soft on terrorism. And the American public has for the most part offered only muted objections. These realities make the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, issued on the last day of its 2005-2006 term, in equal parts stunning and crucial.” In related news, as seen at both Salon and Mother Jones (as well as the New York Review of Books), author and law professor David Cole underlines the importance of the Hamdan decision in preserving the rule of law and throttling Dubya’s unchecked power grabs of late.

Crushed at the Stem.

As y’all probably know by now, Dubya — so eager to exploit and enlargen executive power in other arenas — vetoed his first bill in five years yesterday, when he decided to capitulate to the sad remnants of his base, set back medical science a few more years, and nip stem cell research in the bud once again. While Dubya said the bill would have forced “American taxpayers…for the first time in our history…to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos,” he made no argument for criminalizing fertility clinics, where similar embryos get tossed away unused every day. “‘If that’s murder, how come the president allows that to continue?’ asked Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). ‘Where is his outrage?’ Harkin called the veto ‘a shameful display of cruelty, hypocrisy and ignorance.‘”