Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The biggest flaw of this president is selecting cronies and people he knows and trusts for key positions

Well, duh: if not for the echo chamber at the top, he would never have invaded Iraq.

Posted by at March 20, 2007 05:51 PM

Really?

I thought it was about Halliburton/Ooooiiil/
Gettingrevengefordaddy/SaddamtakingEuros...

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 20, 2007 05:55 PM

I thought it was about Halliburton/Ooooiiil/
Gettingrevengefordaddy/SaddamtakingEuros...

That is rather an infantile way to ask the question. But since you mention it, Halliburton certainly was a concern that bounced about the echo chamber, and so was oil, and so was family revenge. Yes, all of these reasons were there.

I was about to call them bad reasons, but actually oil could be a valid justification for war. If a tyrant controls oil, that's a bad thing. That's assuming though that (a) the war actually does make the oil cheaper, (b) the war isn't several times more expensive than the amount of oil produced, and (c) the war doesn't deliver the oil to even worse tyrants.

Posted by at March 20, 2007 06:15 PM

I agree with Rand regarding Bush's general selection criteria.

However, Bush seems to give every indiction that he will fight for Alberto tooth and nail. Heck if he fired Al he might actually appoint someone who will vigorously defend the Constitution.

I remember early posts here on this issue where the consensus from left and right was that this would blow over. I guess it's surprised us all.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 20, 2007 06:23 PM

Bush seems to give every indiction that he will fight for Alberto tooth and nail.

No, he'll fight for Karl Rove tooth and nail. Or maybe the point is that Karl Rove will fight for Karl Rove tooth and nail. Their new stance is that they'll let Congress interview Rove and Miers, but not under oath and with no transcript either. It's almost a straight admission that they're hiding the goods.

Gonzalez, on the other hand, is expendable. Bush will fight for Gonzalez, until he won't. It could be just like Rumsfeld.

Posted by at March 20, 2007 06:53 PM

I wouldnt replace Gonzales..now.

I'd recommend that Bush ride this mess out, he can and then a few months from now Alberto gets moved to somewhere.

Otherwise I agree with Rand's comments.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 20, 2007 06:57 PM

It's almost a straight admission that they're hiding the goods.

Nope. no almost. It is a straight admission. Period.

Posted by at March 20, 2007 07:56 PM

Speaking of Attorney-gate, who said this:

Evidently, [the President] wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

When was it said?

Posted by Bill White at March 20, 2007 08:18 PM

Nope. no almost. It is a straight admission. Period.

Posted by at March 20, 2007 07:56 PM..

Not really...It could be, but I am not for sure what "goods" are being hidden.

There is one pivot point here.

Could The President fire these people? YES.

Is there anything improper about him firing them? That is the pivot point and you dont need Karl Rove to tell you that. What has not been said by a single USA (as best as I can tell) is that a case was stopped or not proceeded on that tehre was evidence to proceed on when they were fired.

In other words the salient feature that the Dems need to be able to prove, and I dont think that they have the ability to do it, and Karl Rove certianly doesnt have the ability to prove it...is "were cases stopped that otherwise would have gone on?"

If so then that is the drum that the Dems need to beat. Problem is they dont have the proof of that and none of teh USA's that were canned said as much.

So what is being banged on here is the ability of the POTUS to fire people who serve at his pleasure.

End of ride.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 20, 2007 09:23 PM

Rich Lowry's article in the latest NR about Bush's flaws as a manager is spot on. Of course all of this has been obvious since the beginning. (Why didn't Bush fire the top management of the CIA and FBI after 9/11? Why Norman Mineta? etc.)

Posted by Jonathan at March 21, 2007 04:28 AM

Being reluctant to allow advisors to testify is just another exertion of executive privilege. Pretty much every president takes this sort of position at some time or another. There is some justification for it--the President has to be able to talk to advisors without them being hauled before Congress on a weekly basis--however, there's certainly no doubt that this Administration has plenty of nastiness to keep out of the public eye, too.

Posted by Pro Libertate at March 21, 2007 06:00 AM

The President has to be able to talk to advisors without them being hauled before Congress on a weekly basis

Talk to advisors!? Hauled out on a weekly basis!? Karl Rove has been there six years and has never been asked to testify before. And if Bush himself talked to Rove about firing those prosecutors, the public ought to hear about it!

Why Norman Mineta?

I can see why Mineta would be a convenient punching bag in this discussion: he's a Democrat. Whether or not he's doing a good job, he certainly isn't a Bush crony.

Posted by at March 21, 2007 06:26 AM

What's with all the anon people who can't be bothered to come up with a fake name? I can't tell you apart assuming there is more than one of you. Rand, maybe you ought to require a name.

Second, I am puzzled by the controversy. Gonzales strikes me as an incredibly bad choice for attorney general, but the prosecutors in question do serve at the whim of the President. I see no obvious reason that the President can't make arbitrary and self-serving hire and fire decisions there.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 21, 2007 07:23 AM

Someone said: No, he'll fight for Karl Rove tooth and nail. Or maybe the point is that Karl Rove will fight for Karl Rove tooth and nail.

Has anyone really noticed how much heat the administration is taking lately? Heck, with this amount of mistakes, you'd think Karl Rove is the perfect man for the job! If he's such a mastermind at political maneuvering, why are so many mistakes being made? I think a lot of hate is the reason.

Posted by Mac at March 21, 2007 08:26 AM

I see no obvious reason that the President can't make arbitrary and self-serving hire and fire decisions there.

Sure, if he comes clean to the fact that Carol Lam was on the verge of taking down some heavy-hitting GOP power brokers. Along with many other examples. But once Tony Snow says the President wasn't personally involved in the decision, you cannot then say "It's the President's decision"

It is ALL politics and what the Dems are doing to Bush now is exactly what the GOP did to Clinton.

Those who favor right leaning policy should decide who their next leader will be since Dubya has less than two years left and he will be embattled the entire time. Which is the definition of "lame duck"

Posted by Bill White at March 21, 2007 08:30 AM

Attorney-gate increasingly becomes an "own goal" by the Administration:

WASHINGTON -- Two weeks after firing him as chief federal prosecutor in Nevada last December, Justice Department officials were preparing to offer Daniel Bogden a new job as an immigration judge, according to documents examined on Tuesday.
The overture came from a top deputy to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who confessed on the day of the firing he was having second thoughts about removing Bogden as U.S. attorney in the state.

Subsequent discussions about the post went nowhere when it became clear there were no openings in Nevada, Bogden confirmed Tuesday.

A spokesman for Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said this week that Justice officials are in new talks with Bogden about opportunities to "restore his reputation" after his dismissal as part of a widening scandal engulfing the Bush administration.

Let's fire a bunch of Republican lawyers who have the resume to be appointed US Attorney in the first place. Then tell everyone it was due to poor job performance.

What a terrific way to demoralize mid-ranking GOP-ers across America all to perserve the cult of personality surrounding the President.

= = =

PS -- Gonzales was having second thoughts? I thought these decisions were made by POTUS?

Posted by Bill White at March 21, 2007 08:49 AM

Rand: "Unfortunately, it's a failing of almost every president."

To a degree, but I don't recall any president for whom personal loyalty was THE sole criterion.

Rand: "I thought it was about Halliburton/Ooooiiil/
Gettingrevengefordaddy/SaddamtakingEuros..."

Could be any or all of those, but that's beside the point--we should be content to leave speculation about his motives to the sentencing hearing.

Robert: "I'd recommend that Bush ride this mess out"

His "presidency" is the mess.

Robert: "he can and then a few months from now Alberto gets moved to somewhere."

Like how the Church handles pedophile priests.

Toast: "Heck if he fired Al he might actually appoint someone who will vigorously defend the Constitution."

Why would he appoint someone determined to impeach him?

Robert: "...is "were cases stopped that otherwise would have gone on?""

Or "did cases proceed that otherwise would not have?" I trust we'll find out, and evidently Bush agrees given his desperate Waco-style tactics, refusing Congressional subpoenas.

Robert: "So what is being banged on here is the ability of the POTUS to fire people who serve at his pleasure."

Let's not forget the ability of Congress to impeach for abuse of power. "Abuse," mind you, does not require exceeding authority.

Jonathan: "Rich Lowry's article in the latest NR about Bush's flaws as a manager is spot on."

Bush's flaw as a manager is that he isn't one.

Jonathan: "Of course all of this has been obvious since the beginning."

Boggles the mind that anyone could have been stupid enough to vote for him, let alone twice. But I guess if you wave a Bible and promise a tax-cut check, some people would vote for David Koresh.

Jonathan: "Why didn't Bush fire the top management of the CIA and FBI after 9/11?"

Paul O'Neill's book portrayed Bush as an ignorant, vacant-eyed zombie during his economic discussions with him, so how would similar stories look in a national security context? "Mr. President, the towers have fallen." "Oh, that's too bad. Could you get me some guacamole from the kitchen?"

Pro Libertate: "Being reluctant to allow advisors to testify is just another exertion of executive privilege."

There's no "reluctance" here, it's absolute determination that nobody in a position to incriminate the key players testify under oath. If any of them got caught in a lie, they might decide to make a deal.

Pro Libertate: "Pretty much every president takes this sort of position at some time or another."

Unfortunately, this is the default position of the Bush regime under virtually all circumstances--ignore letters from Congressmen, ignore or deny document requests, ignore requests for testimony, fight all subpoenas to the fullest extent of the law, then drag their feet on complying if all other options are exhausted. They're a lawless gang, abusing every inch of legitimate power and quite a bit outside the law.

Pro Libertate: "the President has to be able to talk to advisors without them being hauled before Congress on a weekly basis"

They haven't been hauled before Congress ever. A few of them were permitted to testify before the 9/11 Commission, after six months of wrangling and negotiations, but only with questions strictly limited in advance by the Republican chairman. What few Republican hearings have been held were basically the left hand questioning the right hand, occasionally expressing faux-outrage at a few low level officials, and then letting the matters in question drop.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 21, 2007 10:24 AM

I can see why Mineta would be a convenient punching bag in this discussion: he's a Democrat. Whether or not he's doing a good job, he certainly isn't a Bush crony.

Mineta isn't a punching bag because he's a Democrat, he's a punching bag because he's inept. That's why, as you appear not to have noticed, he is no longer Secretary of Transportation and hasn't been for quite some time.

Mineta was the idiot who kept defending the TSA's searches of little old ladies and lack of concern about young Muslim men. Because we can learn to live with the occasional mass-murder, but the appearance of ethnic profiling is an evil that we must never be accused of.

Posted by Jonathan at March 21, 2007 01:06 PM

There's nothing mysterious about why this is happening. It's what happens when you lose both houses of Congress to the other party. The Democrats now control all the committees.

Posted by Jonathan at March 21, 2007 01:10 PM

Jonathan: "Of course all of this has been obvious since the beginning."

Boggles the mind that anyone could have been stupid enough to vote for him, let alone twice. But I guess if you wave a Bible and promise a tax-cut check, some people would vote for David Koresh.

What boggles my mind is how some people can be stupid enough to make gross generalizations about people they don't know, based on nothing more than political affiliation.

Jonathan: "Why didn't Bush fire the top management of the CIA and FBI after 9/11?"

Yeah, we all know that Paul O'Neill is a modest and unbiased source who couldn't have had any axes to grind in writing his book after Bush, who rarely fires anybody, fired him for incompetence. Think there might be some resentment on O'Neill's part? Bush has been running a multi-front war for 5+ years, was reelected, presides over a strong economy, and still the peanut gallery keeps repeating its "Bush dumb!" mantra. Believe what you want, but don't be surprised if the rest of us don't accept your supposedly biting anecdotes at face value.

Posted by Jonathan at March 21, 2007 01:36 PM

Squidward says: To a degree, but I don't recall any president for whom personal loyalty was THE sole criterion.

SOLE? To hear you guys (or in this case read) he wouldn't have a SOLE thing he does right. Either continue to beat the "Bush sucks and does nothing right" drums or say that he has one detraction.

Posted by Mac at March 21, 2007 02:57 PM

Looking at this through a Nixon/Watergate/Vietnam prism, I find this particular scandal, and whatever else Bush's opposition can dredge up very interesting.

My current understanding of what happened in the US and Vietnam/southeast asia in the late 60's and early 70's is as follows:

We have a war fighting the spread of communism in the 60's, and the Vietnam part of that war is unpopular with a large portion of our population

Nixon is elected, apparently partly with a suggestion that he has a plan for getting us out of Vietnam with honor.

We don't show much of a sign of leaving Vietnam.

Democrats pull down Nixon, using the watergate break in coverup scandal as the catalyst.

Once congress gives Nixon the boot, they first stop helping south Vietnam militarily, and then stop helping altogether (no money, no arms).

Eventually south Vietnam falls to a conventional arms invasion from north Vietnam (this is important to note--it wasn't a bunch of guerrillas that crushed South Vietnam, it was a visible army with tank brigades).

Millions of people are killed in Vietnam and Cambodia in Godless communist regimes. (Okay, I'll go for evil, tyrannical communist regimes.)

I see the Democrats trying to use the Vietnam playbook: try to disempower the president by bringing him down with a scandal. An interesting difference, in my opinion, is that although Bush is currently unpopular, he hasn't done anything criminal, at least in the eyes of most of the populace--and I'm pretty sure most people finally became convinced that Nixon had committed criminal acts.

This is an interesting case for character--Nixon probably wouldn't have been able to do something equivalent to the surge that Bush is pushing through due to the activities that he conducted do to flaws in his character. I'm sure there were various changes in strategy in the Vietnam war (I'm realizing my own ignorance--time to go get a book), but I think my general point is valid. Nixon finally became hamstrung by his own criminal activities. Except for a vocal minority that truly hates Bush, I think most people, even most of those who currently oppose the war, don't see him as a criminal.

Another interesting difference: what happens if we leave without establishing a stable government? Would Iran outright invade and take over? Egypt? Would the majority population ethnically cleanse the minority? Civil war (and how would that end)? It's not like the guerrilla fighters in Iraq are all ready to form a stable government if they happen to be successful.

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at March 21, 2007 03:15 PM

Has anyone really noticed how much heat the administration is taking lately?

Well, Bush has never had to handle an opposing legislature until now. He specializes in friendly audiences.

Heck, with this amount of mistakes, you'd think Karl Rove is the perfect man for the job! If he's such a mastermind at political maneuvering, why are so many mistakes being made?

Karl Rove is a potent political campaign strategist. That has always been his real job. The problem is that he has become an all-purpose handler for Bush. There are some big differences between on-season and off-season campaigning. On season, you can make a lot of problems disappear just by winning the election. Off season, even if you manage to undercut Democrats one day, you will still have to live with the Democrats and your own policy the next day.

For six years they had it easy in that they didn't much have to live with Democrats. But policy came back to bite them. The invasion of Iraq was a winner in 2002, but not in 2006. Now they have to live with both Democrats and all of their old decisions. They are not having an easy time of it.

Posted by at March 21, 2007 03:42 PM

What happens if we leave without establishing a stable government?

That should be, what happens when we leave Iraq without establishing a stable government. The answer is that the United States will look terrible, as bad as it did after Vietnam. It a great tragedy because it is not what America deserves, it is only what the architects of the invasion of Iraq deserve. The other thing that will happen is that the bitter enders on the Republican side will be very upset. They will view the president who pulls out as a traitor, especially if it is a Democrat.

Posted by at March 21, 2007 03:46 PM

An interesting difference, in my opinion, is that although Bush is currently unpopular, he hasn't done anything criminal, at least in the eyes of most of the populace--and I'm pretty sure most people finally became convinced that Nixon had committed criminal acts.

Exactly. It is this difference that foam mouthed BDS leftist don't understand. Anyway, what did these US attorney's do other than collect a paycheck?

Did they prosecute Scooter Libby?
Did they prosecute Dick Armitage?
Did they prosecute Sandy Berger?
Did they prosecute William Jefferson?

That said, I'll be happy to see Gonzales go too. Here's something to have fun with; imagine Rudy replacing Alberto.

Posted by Leland at March 22, 2007 05:59 AM

Jonathan: "What boggles my mind is how some people can be stupid enough to make gross generalizations about people they don't know"

People are known by their actions. I hesitate to ascribe evil or base corruption to Bush voters, since (as you say) all we have is the fact of their decision, but the best possible interpretation involves massive levels of ignorance and stupidity.

Jonathan: "we all know that Paul O'Neill is a modest and unbiased source who couldn't have had any axes to grind"

Are you calling him a liar, or merely accusing him of telling the truth for the wrong reasons? No doubt if Tenet had been fired after 9/11, he too would have been "disgruntled" and written the exact same "lies" with far juicier and more damaging details. Ergo, Tenet stayed.

Jonathan: "Bush has been running a multi-front war for 5+ years"

He *started* a multi-front war. America was involved in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban, restore the Northern Alliance government, and help reconstruct the country into something liveable, but at every step of the way Bush did the bare minimum. Any competent president could achieved far more in much less time, and the fact that we're still chasing guerrillas around the hills five years later is not a credit to his "leadership."

Furthermore, noting the fact that the war he deliberately ordered in Iraq is still going five years later, despite the grandiose and delusional pronouncements of his managerie of homicidal maniacs, is not a *compliment*. I don't know on what planet that's considered evidence of sound leadership, or even sanity.

Jonathan: "presides over a strong economy"

Why don't you just say he cured cancer, while you're parroting Orwellian GOP propaganda?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 26, 2007 12:07 PM

MJYNG http://otyanoma.net/~raiden/ragn/mtcgi/mt-comments.cgi mortgage refinance [url=http://adic-grp.com/blog/user002.php]mortgage refinance rate[/url] mortgage refinance rate mortgage refinance mortgage refinance

Posted by mortgage at April 16, 2007 05:44 PM

Posted by mortgage at April 16, 2007 05:45 PM

Posted by mortgage at April 16, 2007 05:45 PM

Post a comment