The Blue State

Bush helped oust Iraqi democracy in 2006

The traditional media is finally taking notice of the back-and-forth battle between Bush and US commanders over the future of democracy in Iraq.  It's turning out to be a straight-forward case of idealism versus realism.

This week, a US general in Diyala Province said that democracy is "not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future."  Just one day later, Bush fired back, insisting that the Iraqi people "now live in a democracy and not a dictatorship."

Do the Iraqis really live in a democracy?  The Bush Administration should know the answer to that, since last year they helped oust democratically-elected Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and replaced him with Nouri al-Maliki.  This morning, the New York Times Editorial Board touched on that point:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has been catastrophic for Iraqever since he took over from the equally disastrous Ibrahim al-Jaafarimore than a year ago. America helped engineer Mr. Jaafari’s removal,only to get Mr. Maliki. That tells you something important aboutwhether this is more than a matter of personalities. Mr. Jaafari, as ithappens, was Iraq’s first democratically chosen leader under theAmerican-sponsored constitution.

...Mr. Maliki’s government has fashioned Iraqi security forcesinto an instrument of Shiite domination and revenge, trying to steerAmerican troops away from Shiite militia strongholds and leaving SunniArab civilians unprotected from sectarian terrorism.

So it looks like the 'democracy question' has already been answered.  What we need to do now is stop pretending Iraq is something that it is not -- a democracy -- and begin turning our attention to regional stability.  And it is difficult to argue that the US occupation has been a stabilizing force in the Middle East.

Judge Orders Bush to Release Global Warming Reports

On Wednesday,a federal judge in San Francisco ordered that the Bush Administration release two reports on Global Warming after being sued to do so by environmentalists.
The first report is a federal research plan, which is basically the guiding force in future research on climate change. This report was supposed to be released in 2006, but the Bush Administration refused to release the report.
The second report is a national assessment which gives the latest research data and projected impacts on environment, economy and health. This report should have been released in 2004. (Just a quick note: This national assessment is supposed to be released every four years by the White House. To date, the Bush Administration has NEVER released such a report.)
The Administration used the commonly-known "We know what's best for the country, and therefore have discretion over how and when (not to mention IF) these reports should be released.
It didn't work.

"The defendants are wrong," Armstrong wrote in the 38-page ruling."Congress has conferred no discretion upon the defendants as to whenthey will issue revised Research Plans and National Assessments."

So the Judge has set deadlines for the research and national assessment plans to be released next year on March 1 and May 31 respectively. Time will tell if the White House actually releases any documents, but I predict an extension filing followed by another extension filing until January 2009.
A question for the readers out there: Does it make anyone else giddy to hear the Bush Administration referred to as "the Defendants?" I sense that this might be a common name for Bush and his cabinet in the upcoming years.

Bush to prevent states from expanding child health care coverage

With just more than one year left in his presidency, Mr. Bush is rewarding the health care companies that donated more than $10 million to his '04 campaign.  The Administration is setting new rules that would keep states from significantly expanding the number of children that are covered under public-funded health care, so that private insurance companies are guaranteed more customers.

How does this one-time proponent of states rights plan to control money at the local level?  It's actually quite creative.  Instead of telling state legislatures, "You can't fund that," which would be unconstitutional, the President is just changing the federal rules that make it more difficult for states to fund health care for children in families over the poverty line:

The administration’s new policy is explained in a letter that wassent about 7:30 p.m. on Friday to state health officials from Dennis G.Smith, the director of the federal Center for Medicaid and StateOperations. The policy would continue indefinitely, though Democrats inCongress could try to override it.

...Inhis letter, Mr. Smith set a high standard for states that want to raiseeligibility for the child health program above 250 percent of thepoverty level.

Before making such a change, Mr. Smith wrote,states must demonstrate that they have “enrolled at least 95 percent ofchildren in the state below 200 percent of the federal poverty level”who are eligible for either Medicaid or the child health program.

DeborahS. Bachrach, a deputy commissioner in the New York State HealthDepartment, said, “No state in the nation has a participation rate of95 percent.”

In other words, Bush is telling states that the only way to expand health care for children is if the states meet certain enrollment requirements -- even though the requirements are impossible to attain.

The only way for Democrats to do something about it is to vote to override the Bush plan by the end of September.  They must pass it by a two-thirds margin to fend off a Bush veto.  Otherwise, if Congress does nothing, the Bush rules will come into effect.

22% jump in foreign policy analysts that oppose Bush's surge

As time has goes on, the experts grow less confident that the troop surge will be a success.  When Bush announced the new military strategy back in February, only 31% of foreign policy analysts, liberal and conservative, opposed the new approach.  Today, nearly one week after the most violent day since the war began, more than half say surge is not working.

The numbers were released this morning by Foreign Policy Magazine:

More than half of top U.S. foreign policy experts oppose PresidentGeorge W. Bush's troop increase as a strategy for stabilizing Baghdad,saying the plan has harmed U.S. national security, according to a newsurvey.

As Congress and the White House await the Septemberrelease of a key progress report on Iraq, 53 percent of the expertspolled by Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progresssaid they now oppose Bush's troop build-up.

That is a 22 percentage point jump since the strategy was announced early this year.

The survey of 108 experts, including Republicans and Democrats, showedopposition to the so-called "surge" across the political spectrum, withabout two-thirds of conservatives saying it has been ineffective ormade things worse in Iraq.

Maybe the two-thirds of conservatives who say the strategy has been ineffective can relay that message to their talk-radio friends.

This study comes amid a new report by the AP about troop exhaustion.  The military has reached its breaking point.  This spring, the Administration will run out of forces to send to Iraq.  They have three options:

_Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule.

_Breaking the military's pledge to keep soldiers in Iraq  for no longer than 15 months.

_Breaching a commitment to give soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war.

Something has to give.  Bush will need to decide whether to anger military families even more by extending deployments, hurting the Republican Party long-term.  Will the Republicans in Congress let Bush destroy their reelection chances in 2008?

Karl Rove's master plan was a "permanent Republican majority."  This war -- one that Karl Rove helped sell -- is having exactly the opposite effect.

White House reveals tactics for countering protesters

A court order has forced the White House to disclose an internal manual that explains how to counter protesters during presidential events.  This certainly will not surprise some of you:

The first step to keeping demonstrators out of events, the manual tellsthe president's event staff, is to encourage the Secret Service to "askthe local police department to designate a protest area...preferablynot in view of the event site or the motorcade route."

Inside the event space, the manual advises, White House advancepersonnel should preposition "rally squads" that can swarm anyprotesters at the event and "use their signs and banners as shieldsbetween the demonstrators and the main press platform."

The rally squads can be formed using "college/young republicanorganizations, local athletic teams, and fraternities/sororities," themanual notes.

The squads can "lead supportive chants to drown out the protesters (USA!, USA!, USA!)," it suggests.

So, in a nutshell, the White House is spending your tax money to isolate the President from -- you guessed it -- you!  And that is democratic...how?

Congress? Who Needs Congress?

Remember back in 2006 when the Democrats promised the American people that if elected to the majority, they would start holding the Bush Administration responsible for their activities. Some even suggested that some of the problems the country is facing can be traced back to a Republican Congress that simply "rubber-stamped" everything on the White House agenda.
Well times, have changed! And with Bush's presidency entering lame duck status, the time has come to slowly submit to a hostile legislative branch, and attempt to salvage any chance of a Republican at 1600 Pennsylvania come January 2009. Right?
Wrong!

His strength is sapped by an unpopular war, Democrats are running Congress, and the 2008 presidential election is in full roar, distracting attention from the president's priorities. With dwindling options, Bush has decided he might get more done in his final months by going it alone.

That's right! Now that Congress isn't giving Bush what he wants, he'll simply stop asking them to approve his programs and just start making changes himself. But surely these must be minor issues we're talking about here. No way would anyone in the White House be brazen enough to go after the big fish. Here are three examples of issues that Bush is attempting to  bypass Congress on are:

• Immigration
• Energy
• Education

Like I said, minor issues. No need to bring Congress in on this. Let the monarchy mayhem continue! I would love to see the headline in tomorrow's paper, "President Bush Declares Legislative Branch Unnecessary: Disbands Congress."

(Video) Jon Stewart exposes Cavuto's crush on Bush

After watching the entire interview earlier this week, I have been patiently waiting for someone -- ANYONE! -- to point out how ridiculously flirtatious Fox News host Neil Cavuto was towards George W. Bush.  With Bill Maher on vacation and Al Franken busy running for Senate, who else but Jon Stewart came to the rescue.

My favorite line:

STEWART: I have a follow-up (question).  Can I lick you?

It comes as no surprise that Cavuto has been granted four interviews with Bush since 2001.  Gee, I wonder why?

Bush to cut taxes on large corporations

Taxes are usually a winning political issue for Republicans because many Americans still buy into the trickle-down hype.  But after years of Republican leadership, the public is finally beginning to realize that the subsidization of corporate America by the Administration lacks fiscal discipline and is a recipe that hurts the middle class.

Even now, with more skepticism towards Bush's tax policies that have benefited the rich more so than working Americans, the White House is unveiling a tax policy that would cut taxes for corporations even more:

President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates forU.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, aninitiative that could further inflame a battle with the DemocraticCongress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of histenure.

Advisers presented Bush with a series of ideas to restructurecorporate taxes, possibly eliminating narrowly targeted breaks to payfor a broader, across-the-board rate cut. In an interview with a smallgroup of journalists afterward, Bush said he was "inclined" to send acorporate tax package to Congress, although he expressed uncertaintyabout its political viability.

This is Reaganomics on steroids.  What another creative excuse to further increase the disparity between the CEO class and the forgotten middle class.

Already, the middle class has to deal with a tax code that is weighted against them.  Sales taxes are regressive.  The payroll tax is regressive.  Also, millionaires are less likely to pay the alternative minimum tax than middle class families.

Furthermore, if we cut taxes for large corporations, how would we make up for all the lost revenue?  Would we let ourselves sink further into debt?  If Bush is so concerned with international competition, as he should be, then first fix our currency woes.  One of the main causes of a devalued currency is debt.  When you have an uncontrollable number of 'I owe you' letters on the international market, plus all the added interest that grows in time, your currency is worth less.  The European Union, for good reason, has a balanced budget amendment in their constitution.  Maybe start there if you want to compete, instead of investing even more US treasury in a trickle-down theory that fails to increase the purchasing power of the American middle class.

Historians will not give Bush a break

Ever hear conservatives compare George W. Bush to Harry Truman?  It's a convenient comparison because they simply say, "Well, Bush might have a 28% approval rating, but Truman's was even worse, and now he is thought of by historians as one of the greatest presidents ever."

So the question at hand is when we are all long gone, how will historians view George W. Bush?  For the most part, the 43rd president is already getting negative marks from history scholars.  For example, David Shanet, a member of the Organization of American Historians, says our grandchildren will view Bush as a president that obviously did not learn his history:

Hyper-masculine and self-defeating, the Bush imperialist executiveprobably does not see its adventure in Iraq as a generational issue.Historians who know about the post-Civil War generation drumming up theSpanish American War, can see that eagerness to be tough “like Daddy’sgeneration” runs through this group, too. Ignorance and militantxenophobia along race, social class, religious and cultural lines areeasily seen in the United States ’ occupation of Iraq today.

The secrecy will not stop history, and people will tell the tale of theBush years. Corruption, incompetence, waste, Cheney’s own Halliburtonand its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root squandering vastfortunes…this was all historically predictable from the U.S. experiencein Vietnam and other post-colonial wars. The ignorance of Arabic, theignorance of Sunni, Shia and Kurd conflicts, the ignorance of basicmilitary ‘artillery and infantry’ relationships, all these factors putthe US in today’s embarrassing position.

Kids, this is why studying your history is important.

Why to set the bar high for politicians

  Each time the sun comes up, bloggers try their best to analyze the political events of the day.  Like academics and magazine editors, we have the luxury of being wrong from time to time.  Politicians, on the other hand, are much more important.  They conduct oversight and pass laws that affect real lives.  And when they screw up, it is our job to let them know and vote them out of office.

One particular New York Times columnist who originally supported the decision to invade Iraq now suspects why writers like himself were so naive.  He thinks it all had to do with the traditional media's inability to distinguish interesting theories from fact:

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin once said that the trouble with academicsand commentators is that they care more about whether ideas areinteresting than whether they are true. Politicians live by ideas justas much as professional thinkers do, but they can’t afford the luxuryof entertaining ideas that are merely interesting. They have to workwith the small number of ideas that happen to be true and the evensmaller number that happen to be applicable to real life. In academiclife, false ideas are merely false and useless ones can be fun to playwith. In political life, false ideas can ruin the lives of millions anduseless ones can waste precious resources. An intellectual’sresponsibility for his ideas is to follow their consequences whereverthey may lead. A politician’s responsibility is to master thoseconsequences and prevent them from doing harm.

Okay -- we all agree that because the media was carelessly lazy it became much easier for the Bush Administration to sell the war.  But in the end, it was George W. Bush who made the decision to invade.  Instead of being a pragmatist and considering consequence before taking action, Bush behaved like a magazine editor and embraced a particular theory because it sounded interesting.

Maybe this tragedy is something to keep in mind when selecting our next president.