President tells Congress:Give me money


President George W. Bush was at his disingenuous best yesterday, speaking before a supportive crowd at a Fairfax, Va., American Legion post, blaming Democrats and claiming for himself the ultimate right to set all policy — even those prerogatives given by the Founders to Congress.

The speech was full of a lot of spin — rosy pictures of progress in Iraq and all that. But what made the news — and it was the only news in the speech, really — was his direct attackon the Democratic leadership for, in his words, “substitut(ing) the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground.”

The president, of course, was using the speech to push his agenda — a prolonged war that is stretching the military beyond its limits, while doing little to quell the smoldering civil war in Iraq.

The funding issue is a bit of a red herring, of course. The president could very well sign the Congressional bill, but that would require him to acknowledge that Congress is a co-equal branch of government and that the system of governance we live under is designed to encourage compromise.

Instead, we get this:

Now, the Democrats who pass these bills know that I’ll veto them, and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation. And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field.

The focus is on “Congress’s failure,” which he says will lead to reduced training, equipment shortages and the like — all things that the military has been living with thanks to Donald Rumsfeld (remember “you go to war with the army you have”?), Dick Cheney and our petulant president.

Then, what do you expect from a president who has based his entire term on the reckless and arrogant disregard for anything other than partisanship and spin?

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Out-foxed

John Edwards and Barack Obama may win some support among the Democratic netroots for the decision to skip the Fox-sponsored TV debates, but they are doing a disservice to voters.

John Nichols, the peerless correspondent for The Nation, writes today on his blog that John Edwards — and by extension, other Democrats — should not have backed out because “Democrats need to get a whole lot better at dealing with conservative media” and because the “should, by their actions, confirm that they are better than Bush,” who rarely faces off against his critics.

Most broadcast and cable networks are unfriendly forums for progressive ideas. But they won’t get any friendlier if Democratic presidential candidates refuse to appear on them. And those candidates won’t get any more agile when it comes to parrying attacks – be they fair or unfair – if they avoid challenging venues.

Edwards should have accepted the invitation and then used the debate to talk about what’s wrong with American media. He could have started by discussing the flaws of Fox and then, if he wanted to do something useful, he could have pointed out that they are mirrored by other networks.

Instead, he has decided to avoid a potentially unfriendly forum. It’s a political misstep that this able contender ought to reconsider.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

A threat to the constitution

Dan Froomkin hits the nail on the head in his White House Watch column in The Washington Post.

The president’s “offer to make senior aides available for private interviews about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys” fails the smell test because “it would deny the public any reliable record of what was said.”

It would remove the pressure from senior aides, most notably White House political guru Karl Rove, to come clean on their involvement in the firings — while denying the public an opportunity to assess their veracity.

And it would make Congress a party to keeping important information obscured from the kind of public scrutiny that comes when journalists and bloggers have a chance to untangle the skillful evasions so common to this White House.

This is a president who likes to tightly control the little bit of information that gets out there and an administration that has engaged in bullying of critics (the Plame leak), has pushed lies and distortions — all to defend its distorted notion of executive priviledge and power.

It is because of this kind of behavior that George W. Bush’s presidency will go down in history as the one that posed the most serious threat to the Constitution.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here