Obama By The Numbers

Make America great again? The last guy pretty much did that.

Unemployment rate
Jan 1, 2001: 4.2%
Jan 1, 2009: 7.8%
Jan 1, 2017: 4.9%

Consumer confidence
Jan 2001: 94.7
Jan 2009: 60.1
Nov 2016: 93.8

GDP (2016 dollars)
Q4 2000: 14.32 trillion
Q4 2008: 16.37 trillion
Q3 2016: 18.68 trillion

Median household income (2015 dollars)
2000: $57,790
2008: $55,376
2015: $56,515

Dow Jones
Jan 2001: 15,002
Jan 20, 2009: 7,949
Jan 20, 2017: 19,822

States gaining nuclear weapons
Clinton: 2
Bush: 1
Obama: 0

Percentage without health insurance
2008: 16.8%
2009: 16.8%
2016: 10.5%

Approval when leaving office (Gallup)
Clinton: 66%
Bush: 34%
Obama: 58%
Trump today: 40%

Not Substantiated by Available Intelligence

Way back when--even before I knew what a blog was--I started keeping a journal of the crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush White House. It evolved into Notes on the Atrocities, the blog, which was really my way to document what I could about unspun reality of Washington. So it is no news to me that Bush lied about Iraq. But now it's official. This, from a memo by Jay Rockefeller, who just released two Senate reports (with long, bureaucratic titles): "Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information" and "Report on Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq Conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans Within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy."

• Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
• Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
• Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
• Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
• The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
• The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

Even in the gentle bureaucratese of Washington, "not substantiated by available intelligence" is well understood to mean "lies."

Let history be the judge.

SotU by the Numbers: 2008 Edition

In an annual tradition (see 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007), perhaps the last of its kind, I offer you George W. Bush's 2008 State of the Union speech by the numbers.

Length: 5700 words
Applause lines: 71

Portion devoted to ...

Domestic policy - 42%

Economic problems - 5%
Taxes, tax cuts – 3%
Earmarks and spending – 6%
Health Care – 3%
Education – 5%
Trade policy – 5%
Energy independence – 4%
Science policy – 4%
Immigration – 3%

Iraq - 21%
Terrorism - 14%
Foreign policy initiatives - 7%
Middle East issues - 6%

Times Bush used the following words...

Iraq, Iraqi, Iraqis - 39
Afghan(i) (stan) - 8
Iran - 7
War - 10
Peace - 9
Free, freedom - 22
Victory - 0
Defeat - 5
Hope - 13

Terror, terrorism, terrorists - 23
Osama bin Laden - 1
al Qaida - 10

Tax(es) - 16
Job(s) - 6
Health care - 2
Earmark(s) - 4
Number of times "earmarks" has appeared in six SOTUs prior to Democrats taking control of Congress: 1 (2006)

Full text of the speech here.

Bush on the NIE (or Pathology of a President)

Bush serves up a rare naked lunch: in today's press conference, he quite baldly offered two amazing bits of reasoning related to the Iran-ain't-got-no-stinkin'-nukes National Intelligence Estimate. I summarize.

One

Q: So it turns out Iran has no nukes. The attack's out, right?

A: The NIE proves that Iran is extremely dangerous and we'll probably have to attack, just as I have always said and believed.*

Two

Q: There's no nukes, but you warned darkly of WWIII. What the hell?

A: I didn't hear about it until last week.

Q: So while you were warning of WWIII, no one from intelligence mentioned that Iran was no danger?

A: Yup. And anyway, this NIE doesn't change anything; Iran is still trying to enrich uranium and bomb soccer moms on their way to pick up groceries.**

A couple things bear mentioning. Bush could not have more clearly described his mental pathology had he been Sigmund Freud. One has belief, which is real, and facts, which must serve the reality of belief. Iran is dangerous because he believes it is; whether they have nukes is wholly beside the point. This has not been in dispute since mid-2003, but rarely have we had such a clear view of it.

Speaking of 2003, the second point is this: Bush's madness is abetted by those who pretend it's not madness. Chief among the enablers are the members of the press corps, who seem to write around the strange insanity of the most powerful man on the planet. It will be interesting to see whether they report this as dire evidence that our president is disconnected from reality, or the usual Bush-said, facts-say formulation.

____________________
*Actual exchange:

Q: Mr. President, a new intelligence report says that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago, and that it remains frozen. Are you still convinced that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb? And do the new findings take the military option that you've talked about off the table?

A: Here's what we know. We know that they're still trying to learn how to enrich uranium. We know that enriching uranium is an important step in a country who wants to develop a weapon. We know they had a program.... And so I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. And the reason why it's a warning signal is that they could restart it. And the thing that would make a restarted program effective and dangerous is the ability to enrich uranium, the knowledge of which could be passed on to a hidden program.

**Actual exchange:

Q: On October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat?

A: In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze. Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.

Q: Mr. President, thank you. Just to follow, I understand what you're saying about when you were informed about the NIE. Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as "World War III" was making it into conversation, at no point nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, maybe you want to back it down a little bit?

A: No, nobody ever told me that. Having said -- having laid that out, I still feel strongly that Iran is a danger. Nothing has changed in this NIE that says, okay, why don't we just stop worrying about it. Quite the contrary. I think the NIE makes it clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace. My opinion hasn't changed.

Now, the Iranians -- the most difficult aspect of developing a weapons program, or as some would say, the long pole in the tent, is enriching uranium. This is a nation -- Iran is a nation that is testing ballistic missiles. And it is a nation that is trying to enrich uranium.

A Bush Civics Lesson: The Veto

I pay less attention to Bush than I used to, and so sometimes miss things like this:

That's why the President has a veto. Sometimes the legislative branch wants to go on without the President, pass pieces of legislation, and the President then can use the veto to make sure he's a part of the process. And that's -- as you know, I fully intend to do. I want to make sure -- and that's why, when I tell you I'm going to sprint to the finish, and finish this job strong, that's one way to ensure that I am relevant; that's one way to sure that I am in the process. And I intend to use the veto.

Scholars take note, this theory may be new to you.

Even a Blind Squirrel

Bush got one right.

BUSH AND CONGRESS HONOR DALAI LAMA
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 — Over furious objections from China and in the presence of President Bush, Congress on Wednesday bestowed its highest civilian honor on the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists whom Beijing considers a troublesome voice of separatism.

But the Dalai Lama said he felt “a sense of regret” over the sharp tensions with China unleashed by his private meeting on Tuesday with Mr. Bush and by the Congressional Gold Medal conferred on him in the ornate Capitol Rotunda.

This is the perfect time to hammer China on these issues. The arrival of the Olymipics in Beijing next year means the Chinese have a huge amount on the line. In order to make a good impression, they've spent vast treasure getting ready and may even shut the city down days before the events so the pollution has a chance to clear. China have always been so panicked about His Holiness because it's the foreign relations equivalent of the S-CHIP battle: tryants versus a buddha. By virtue of their dirt-cheap labor and vast markets, they've always held the cards when it comes to the Dalai Lama. But no more. They need us more than we need them.

With any luck, foreign governments will start to make a very big stink about Tibet (not to mention the Uyghurs) , because China can't retailiate, and in their effort to look good, they may actually be forced to make some concessions.

Here are a few passages from the Dalai Lama's speech:

I believe that today's economic success of both India and China, the two most populated nations with long history of rich culture, is most deserving. With their new-found status, both of these two countries are poised to play important leading role on the world stage. In order to fulfill this role, I believe it is vital for China to have transparency, rule of law and freedom of information. Much of the world is waiting to see how China's concepts of "harmonious society" and "peaceful rise" would unfold. Today's China, being a state of many nationalities, a key factor here would be how it ensures the harmony and unity of its various peoples. For this, the equality and the rights of these nationalities to maintain their distinct identities are crucial.

With respect to my own homeland Tibet, today many people, both from inside and outside, feel deeply concerned about the consequences of the rapid changes taking place. Every year, the Chinese population inside Tibet is increasing at an alarming rate. And, if we are to judge by the example of the population of Lhasa, there is a real danger that the Tibetans will be reduced to an insignificant minority in their own homeland. This rapid increase in population is also posing serious threat to Tibet's fragile environment. Being the source of many of Asia's great rivers, any substantial disturbance in Tibet's ecology will impact the lives of hundreds of millions. Furthermore, being situated between India and China, the peaceful resolution of the Tibet problem also has important implications for lasting peace and friendly relation between these two great neighbors.

On the future of Tibet, let me take this opportunity to restate categorically that I am not seeking independence. I am seeking a meaningful autonomy for the Tibetan people within the People's Republic of China. If the real concern of the Chinese leadership is the unity and stability of PRC, I have fully addressed their concerns. I have chosen to adopt this position because I believe, given the obvious benefits especially in economic development, this would be in the best interest of the Tibetan people. Furthermore, I have no intention of using any agreement on autonomy as a stepping stone for Tibet's independence.

_____

Since you have recognized my efforts to promote peace, understanding and nonviolence, I would like to respectfully share a few related thoughts. I believe this is precisely the time that the United States must increase its support to those efforts that help bring greater peace, understanding and harmony between peoples and cultures. As a champion of democracy and freedom, you must continue to ensure the success of those endeavors aimed at safeguarding basic human rights in the world. Another area where we need US leadership is environment. As we all know, today our earth is definitely warming up and many scientists tell us that our own action is to a large part responsible. So each one of us must, in whatever way we can, use our talents and resources to make a difference so that we can pass on to our future generations a planet that is at least safe to live on.

Read the whole speech here.

Metaphor for a Failed Regime

Vincente Fox, on Real Time last week:

"You know in that visit, when I took him to see this beautiful stallion that I ride--and have ridden all my life, since I was two years old--I noticed that he was a little bit trembling, a little bit afraid of touching the horse. And then when I invited him to ride it he said, "No no, no--security will not allow me to ride that horse. And then I paid a visit back here in Texas and he invited me to go around his farm there. By the way, a very modest home that he's got there. And he was driving this pick-up, this beautiful pick-up. And so, I could notice that he knows how to drive a pick-up, but he doesn't know how to ride a horse."

Story of this administration: all Levis and no balls.

The Fundamental Question

Bush may have unwittingly outlined the Democratic strategy for 2008:

But he said he saw his unpopularity as a natural result of his decision to pursue a strategy in which he believed. “I made a decision to lead,” he said, “One, it makes you unpopular; two, it makes people accuse you of unilateral arrogance, and that may be true. But the fundamental question is, is the world better off as a result of your leadership?”

Let's see, how many incumbent GOP lawmakers agreed with his unilateral arrogance? I believe I'd be asking them all whether this fundamental question is the one they're running on. Or away from.

Rove's Legacy

I don't know that I would say anything different than I did on BlueOregon, so here's that post...

Last week, the feds announced that they planned to precipitously increase logging on Bureau of Land Management lands across Oregon, including on lands inhabited by the Northern Spotted Owl and including old-growth stands. The proposal will be held open for public comment through next year, allowing Oregon's old wounds to open up and fester again just in time for the November election. I don't have any evidence that the the motivation behind the proposal is to boost Republican chances in the US Senate and Presidential race, but it's exactly what we've come to expect from the Bush administration--a corrupt, politicized style that favors elective wins above good governance. From the way it has run the justice department to the Plame leak the current furor over the Klamath river salmon kill, everything this administration does is designed to increase its political advantage.

We have Karl Rove to thank. He announced today that he's going to leave the White House, but it's a good six years too late.

Rove was a genius of sorts. He managed to get George W. Bush, a man of no accomplishment or vision, elected not only to the Texas governorship, but to the White House--twice. Rove had an instinctive sense about how to divide voters so that just a bare majority supported his woeful candidate, and a knowledge of election tactics that has been unequaled in the last couple decades. Unfortunately, that same "genius" led him to infect the policies of government. There was no policy he couldn't tinker with to punish Democrats or rally Republicans, whether the subject was tax cuts or terrorism.

The short-term result was a series of catastrophic failures of governance and the most incompetent administration in a century. Long term, the results may even worse. Trust has been absolutely undermined between the parties and among citizens. Punitive politics is the currency of the day; genuine bipartisanship and serious consideration of solution-based policies a thing of a quaint, distant past. It will take years or decades to clean up this mess.

I would love to celebrate the departure of this most malign, nasty figure in American politics. Unfortunately, his legacy is such that I don't have any confidence that his successors will be any different.

More Charged Language

It is possible, in the midst of a three-hour, 39-minute baseball game, for the attention to wander. Anyway, while the Red Sox were clubbing Seattle yesterday afternoon, mine did. (Not enough for me to tune out; a win at Safeco is rare enough that I watch to the final out.) It wandered right over to the White House's webpage, where I continued looking at the frequency with which Bush used heated languages in speeches. See if you can spot the pattern*:

"Terror" and "Danger"



The pattern was thrown off slightly by 9/11, but sure enough, when it came time to scare soccer moms before an election, Bush was ready with the fear-mongering. Of course, he's not above emotional manipulation, either. Have a look at the next chart.

"Troops"



For a guy who has ridden the backs of the military harder than any president in American history, this is pretty cynical, don't you think? But cynicism isn't just for the troops. Bush also played the God card to the hilt.

"God"


Based on this pattern, it looks like we can expect to hear a lot more of "God," "the troops," "danger" and "terror" in a few months.

_______________
*As with the earlier graph, these use six-month averages, which is why the height of use doesn't necessarily correspond with the election. If an enterprising blogger wanted to break it down by month, it might be even more illustrative. Maybe I'll get to it during the next televised Red Sox game. (Might be awhile--I don't have cable.)

"al Qaeda" in the Air

Does it seem like Bush is using the phrase "al Qaeda" more frequently? Yes. That can only mean one thing: an election year is on the way. I did a search on that phrase at the White House's website, and what I discovered is depicted in the graph below (click to enlarge):


Say bereft Republicans: "Oh 'al Qaeda,' how long will you feed us?"

Impeachment as Clever Politics

Ever since the fantastic Moyers piece on impeachment, good lefties can at least raise the issue without looking like deranged fanatics. The idea is generally quickly dismissed, but at least it's not so absurd as to obviate the need to kick it around conversationally. We're still at the point where it seems like political suicide, but at least we're doing the polling.

Ah, but I think I see a way to have your impeachment and eat it, too. Here's how.

The Argument Against
Most recently, I heard Rosa Brooks and Heather Hurlburt discuss the cons of impeachment on a podcast of their bloggingheads discussion. Their analysis, typical of lefties, goes like this:

HEATHER: In an alternative fair and just universe, the president would be already be impeached, he'd be convicted, he'd be gone.

ROSA: Absolutely, okay. Here here. (smiles broadly)

HEATHER: So I'm totally with that as the ideal outcome.

But the problem, they conclude, is that it's politically unwise. Yes, Bush has committed crimes against the Constitution, and yes, his is exactly the case the framers envisioned when they included impeachment in it. Having just declared independence from a king, they wanted to make sure there were stops in place to prevent one, too. This is the essential argument for impeachment as a remedy--when a president seizes power beyond those granted to the executive, there must be a way to stop him besides waiting for the next election. As Nichols noted in the Moyers discussion, impeachment is the corrective to the crisis, not the crisis itself. With these arguments Rosa and Heather agree.

Still, impeachment is politically out of the question because the '94 zealots beat Dems to the punch, squandering this rare privilege in a contemptuously partisan move. Impeaching Bush/Cheney would look like cheap payback for Clinton, plus it would galvanize the GOP and jeopardize Democratic chances in '08, plus the votes aren't there, anyway. So fahgeddaboutit. Move on, let history be the judge.

The Argument For
There's actually very little disagreement--even on the right--about presidential "overreaching." Since taking office, Bush has claimed powers that are demonstrably not granted by our Constitution: he hides things from the Congress, imprisons and tortures suspects, spies on citizens, uses the federal government as a political arm to abuse political foes. The case has been made well elsewhere (and ad nauseum) and I won't go into it here.

The real threat, of course, is that having granted a president these "rights," we have to live with them. Future President Clinton will have the right to torture suspects she doesn't like, to spy on her enemies, and to use the federal government to punish her foes. Or Giuliani, or whomever. There is only one way to prevent these rights from being transferred, and that is to force the president to cede them; and that is done by drawing up articles of impeachment. (If he chooses not to cede them, then removal settles the matter.)

Now, here's the clever politics part. If the current Democratic presidential field led the charge for impeachment* and demand impeachment on the grounds that they shouldn't have these rights when they become president, it would defang the political argument and turn it into a discussion about what it properly is: a Constitutional crisis. Most of the field are senators, so they can't actually begin the process, but by taking point on it, they could raise the heat on power-grabbing Republicans. Even more to the point, they could begin hammering the Congressional GOP by asking whether they want these rights to be transferred to a Democratic president, and demanding that if the answer is no, they support the impeachment process.

I don't have any great delusions that it would lead to actual impeachment hearings, but it could become the political coup of '07. And based on polling, it wouldn't hurt their approval ratings, either. Dems miss an enormous opportunity by letting it pass.

_____________
*Or join Kucinich's charge.

Errata on the Libby Commutation

In no particular order.

1. The first of the gutlessness observations: commutation by press release? Cojones grande, amigo. I guess this case hadn't attracted sufficient attention to warrant a public acknowledgement.

2. Gutlessness cont. On the week of the Fourth of July? Worse than a Friday news dump, this was certain to go into the black hole of public attention.

3. One more on gutlessness. It's bad enough that he didn't have the balls to pardon Libby outright (the famous poll-ignorer somehow thought this would appease all), but worse that he gave Libby a lecture: " My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged." Of course, Bush is pure grit and energy, a man who was never bailed out by his bettors, so I guess kicking Scooter with a moral boot isn't hypocrtical.

4. Irony: Men rot in Guantanamo with no hope of release--or legal representation--but Bush was concerned that Libby's sentence was "excessive." He's sent dozens of men and women to the gallows in Texas, is proud of his heartlessness toward "evildoers," but when a man with a $500 manicure from his inner circle is threatened with the indignity of spending soft time with lowlifes, Bush found his compassion.

[Update: via Andrew Sullivan, "I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," - George W. Bush on why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas.]

5. Executive privilege. A traditional Bush MO: cite the opinions of others until they begin to disagree with you, then overrule them. Never allow the cocoon of false reality be sullied by heterodoxy. So follow the generals until they say Iraq's a mess, then find new generals. Say you won't talk about the Libby case because you so deeply respect the rule of law, then ignore it and commute Libby's sentence.

6. What about the BS of drumming out of the White House anyone who had leaked Plame's name? Where does an executive commutation fit in there?

Libby Declared Independent

I wondered why Bush hadn't pardoned the Scootman, given that only the neocon fringe still approved of his job and were now also wavering. So he did:

President Bush spared I. Lewis Libby Jr. from prison Monday, commuting his two-and-a-half-year sentence while leaving intact his conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the C.I.A. leak case.

It's what presidents do: they protect rat finks who helped them climb the rungs of power. Of course, Bush, for whom generosity is not a reasonable adjective, left the scarlet "F" (felony) on Libby. A decision that makes everyone feel dirty--nice.

What a beautiful ending to a beautiful saga.

Pew: Bush at 29%

Polling isn't about the numbers, it's about the methodology. Anyway, it is if you want to know what a population actually thinks. The gold standard for assiduous methodology is Pew, which tends to have numbers that don't make the news--they're not sexy outliers produced by talking to too few people or the wrong people (as Gallup's, famously, are). So it was a shocker to see that when they polled 1500 people from May 31-June 3, they found that Bush was at 29%.

For the first time in Pew Research Center polling, disapproval of President Bush's job performance outnumbers approval by more than two-to-one (61% disapprove, 29% approve). Bush's job approval is down six points from April, and is three points below the previous low measured in November and December of 2006.

This is the first credible poll I've seen where Bush has fallen into the twenties. I didn't think it would ever actually happen--his base is so loyal, and apparently a pretty stable third of the electorate, that I thought he'd avoid a Carter-like plunge late in his term.

So what gives? Immigration. His unshakeable base has finally been shaken, and now they're starting to fall away. Among Republicans, Bush is down 12% among self-identified conseratives and Republicans since April. Even more eyebrow-raising (and a good signal for Dems) is this:

White evangelical Protestants have been one of the groups consistently backing George W. Bush throughout his presidency. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when the president's overall job approval spiked to 86% nationwide it was as high as 95% among white evangelicals. As recently as December 2004, more than three-quarters of white evangelicals gave the president a positive performance review. But the current survey finds just 44% of white evangelicals expressing approval of the president's job performance; roughly the same number (46%) say they disapprove.

The poll also asked about current candidates, and I'm happy to report that Obama's rising among Dems--closing in on a dead heat with Hillary. Pew asks the question sort of oddly: "Is there a good chance, some chance, or no chance you would vote for [candidate]." Hillary is at 44%, Obama 40%.

More promisingly, Obama's crosstabs are looking up: he's in a dead heat among women (59%), is catching up among older voters and the poor (where Hillary had been killing him). He's now pulled ahead among black and religious voters. The trouble area is among less-educated voters, where he trails by 20 points. Still, these are improvements over his numbers a month ago.

When Bullies Compromise

Not really back blogging, but I couldn't resist an observation on Bush's press conference today.

Take one:

Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq.

Take two:

If Democrat leaders in Congress are bent on making a political statement, then they need to send me this unacceptable bill as quickly as possible when they come back.

Take three:

In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership, Democratic leadership, in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds.

It's the little things, right?

Bush Outtakes

Bush's press conference last night was like performance art. I know most people can't stand to hear the man's voice, but it's worth watching a clip for the perverse entertainment value (video's here). Here are a few of the more entertaining comments. (I'd paraphrase in parody, but you really can't beat the original.)

BUSH: Michael, I'm worried about precedents that would make it difficult for somebody to walk into the Oval Office and say, Mr. President, here's what's on my mind. And if you haul somebody up in front of Congress and put them in oath and all the klieg lights and all the questioning, to me, it makes it very difficult for a President to get good advice.

BUSH: They serve at our pleasure. And yet, now they're being held up into the scrutiny of all this, and it's just -- what I said in my comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their service, and I'm sorry that the situation has gotten to where it's got. But that's Washington, D.C. for you. You know, there's a lot of politics in this town.

BUSH: If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed. And the idea of dragging White House members up there to score political points, or to put the klieg lights out there -- which will harm the President's ability to get good information, Michael -- is -- I really do believe will show the true nature of this debate.

Screw you, you little pissants! I'll show you kleig lights--I'll ship your candy asses down to Gitmo! You all serve at my pleasure! Yeaaaahhhhh....

Bush: He's Got Confidence in Me

Bush gave (or is giving?--I'm watching it on webcast, anyway) an amusing press conference today wherein he was aggressive about defending Gonzales. Really amusing. He was seriously pissed, and he clearly thinks this is a witch hunt designed to "score political points."

Transcript selections forthcoming.

Biggest Crime?

Question: is the White House orchestrated firing of federal prosecutors the biggest crime Bush is accused of?

Answer: Yes.

The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.

The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to a White House spokeswoman.

Gonzales approved the idea of firing a smaller group of U.S. attorneys shortly after taking office in February 2005. The aide in charge of the dismissals -- his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson -- resigned yesterday, officials said, after acknowledging that he did not tell key Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress. . . .

Sampson sent an e-mail to Miers in March 2005 that ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys. Strong performers "exhibited loyalty" to the administration; low performers were "weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc." A third group merited no opinion.

The test of a real democracy is the independence of its judiciary. Bush sought to subvert it for purely political gain. Watergate looks like a fraternity prank by comparison.

Gonzales and the Beleaguered Judiciary

As the recent news about eight fired prosecutors has unfolded, I've pretty much kept my mouth shut and listened. The implications are obvious--no need for me to add anything. Then came word that the motivation for firing them wasn't merely punitive--thanks to a Patriot Act provision, Bush could replace the fired prosecutors with appointees with "interim appointees"--stooges who didn't have to go before the Senate. And, since this only bolstered the obviousness of the first point, I again had no reason to comment. I mean, a coup's a coup, right?

The latest information comes from Paul Krugman (via Andrew Sullivan) about the Bush assault on the judiciary:

Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: "We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest."

And let's not forget that Karl Rove's candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove's time in Texas: 'In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.'

Today the Post reported that US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales agreed to quit packing the court with toadies; he was forced by GOP Senators who could no longer bear the public outrage of the firings and their culpability in rigging the Patriot Act.

And with this news, I finally have an observation to add. Back when Bush had the opportunity to appoint a replacement for Rehnquist and later O'Connor, some thought he might select his old friend from Texas. But now we see why that was never in the cards. Bush had his man on the inside. Gonzales was far more valuable to him as a judicial bagman than a court appointee. Recall that before this flap, two of the hits on Bush's top ten crime list have Gonzales' fingerprints on them: blowing off the FISA courts to spying on Americans and torturing suspected terrorists, an act based onGonzales' "torture memo."

It's no wonder Bush ushered John Ashcroft out the door. While his first AG was an evangelical and huge supporter, he was apparently independent. Gonzales was not. But in the end, we may have gotten lucky--at least Gonzales can be fired (and may be on his way); had he become a Supreme Court justice, we'd have him around another forty years.