Instahoglets 5th May 06

Another one of these already?

By now most have heard of Rumsfeld's bare-faced lie in response to questioning by ex-CIA analyst. Michael Hussey at Loaded Mouth links to the video and remembers another time Rummie was caught in the same way on Face The Nation. Meanwhile even Rick Moran, the Right Wing Nut, couldn't hide what Rummie did - but then tried to spin it as all being the fault of Bill Clinton and traitors at the CIA!

Bruce Bartlett at Cato Unbound - "the Republican Party has become deeply corrupt and appears to lack any leaders with the potential for pushing it back in a more conservative direction. It is going to have to suffer a defeat of Nixonian proportions in order to cleanse the party and create opportunities for new leaders to emerge that may be able to right its course."

Glenn Greenwald on conservatives (like Bruce Bartlett, who admittedly started doing so early but - libertarian, my ass) who try to distance themselves from Bush - "The argument which began as a claim that Bush the Conservative sometimes advocated un-conservative views has morphed into a claim that Bush is not and never was a conservative at all. That is the difference between, on the one hand, claiming that someone is an impure and imperfect ideologue, and on the other, excommunicating them entirely and claiming that they are not even part of your political movement."

Here's one especially for my good friend Fester at Comments From Left Field to chew over, from economist Charles Wheelan - "Debunking One of the Worst Ideas in Economics" - The Laffer Curve. Here's the punchline: "Whether it's tax policy or dieting, you can't have your cake and lose weight, too, which is why America currently has huge deficits and a lot of fat people." In other words, if the Laffer Curve is crap then the only justification left for Bush's tax cuts is to make him and his rich pals richer...

The U.S. is at the UN today, defending its treatment of detainees. The usual denials of torture and rendition for torture are being rolled out but it all depends on your definition of torture. The Bush administration maintains waterboarding isn't torture, for instance. The other claim is that its simply a few bad apples, all of whom have been investigated. That one doesn't stand up either unless by "investigated" you mean "covered up".

In the fall of last year General Barry McCaffrey visited Iraq and gave a briefing based on what he found - it was glowing in its praise and predicted a substantial withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2006. Recently he returned again and his latest memo, while still full of praise for American troops, is not quite so up-beat - 2 to 5 years "in country" minimum and a ten year struggle to create a stable state for Iraqis if all goes well. Fred Kaplan has the good and bad news in detail.

Just in case you haven't noticed that Bush's adventure in Iraq has meant the real war on terror is going badly too, here's a report from The Guardian about the increasing Talibanization of Pakistan's Northern provinces - and the complicity of Pakistani intelligence in aiding Afghan insurgents. My theory? Musharraf is just fine with Islamist terror in other nations - he only becomes an anti-Islamist when it's a threat to his power at home.

Guess who else was a big pal of Michael Wade, one of the defense contractors at the heart of Hookergate? Katherine Harris, the wingnut Senator from Florida who once ordered Florida scientists to waste time and money on whether "Celestial Drops" - water blessed by an kabbalist snake-oil merchant - would be a good treatment for citrus canker. (Don't believe me? Look here.)

In all fairness, let us not pretend that all Democrats are squeaky clean. For instance there's the case of Rep. William J. Jefferson (La) who says he is innocent even after the man who it is alleged bribed him pleaded guilty to doing so! There's been a fair bit of discussion on whether the Dems are being hard enough on Jefferson. My own view? They should insist he suspend himself from the House while investigations complete themselves. The certain belief that this WON'T happen tells you how cynical I am about the likelihood the Dems will rollback the Bush Year's greatest sins - corruption and the Presidency of Kings - should they gain both Hill and White House.

Talking of the "Presidency of Kings" - go read the New York Times editorial for today. It is a must read item on Bush's use of signing statements.

The founding fathers never conceived of anything like a signing statement. The idea was cooked up by Edwin Meese III, when he was the attorney general for Ronald Reagan, to expand presidential powers. He was helped by a young lawyer who was a true believer in the unitary presidency, a euphemism for an autocratic executive branch that ignores Congress and the courts. Unhappily, that lawyer, Samuel Alito Jr., is now on the Supreme Court.

...Mr. Bush has decided not to take the open, forthright constitutional path. He signed some of the laws in question with great fanfare, then quietly registered his intention to ignore them. He placed his imperial vision of the presidency over the will of America's elected lawmakers. And as usual, the Republican majority in Congress simply looked the other way.

...Like many of Mr. Bush's other imperial excesses, this one serves no legitimate purpose. Congress is run by a solid and iron-fisted Republican majority. And there is actually a system for the president to object to a law: he vetoes it, and Congress then has a chance to override the veto with a two-thirds majority.

That process was good enough for 42 other presidents. But it has the disadvantage of leaving the chief executive bound by his oath of office to abide by the result. This president seems determined not to play by any rules other than the ones of his own making. And that includes the Constitution.

Which means three Republican presidents and one democrat have so far blatantly given the finger to the constitution - and I personally have no confidence as yet that the next president won't keep on doing just the same no matter which party he or she comes from.