June 24, 2005 PERMALINK
Bush *Hearts* Law Enforcement
Too Bad He's No Good At It
(posted June 24 1:30 AM ET)
Here's WH Press Sec. Scott McClellan yesterday:
Q: So you're suggesting that Rove's approach to discussing the philosophy that Democrats -- is to say that they want to prepare indictments and seek counseling.
That's their philosophy, is that what you were saying?
McCLELLAN: I think the comments were saying -- the conservative approach and the liberal approach is what he was talking about...
...There are many who have looked at the war on terrorism and said it is a law enforcement matter, that we should prosecute people.
[But] the President recognizes that it is a war and that we must stay on the offensive, we must take the fight to the enemy.
And here’s then-Sec. of State Colin Powell, on ABC’s This Week in March ’04, describing Dubya’s approach to terrorism:
Terrorist organizations ... are a threat to all civilized nations. The President recognized this threat early.
He made it clear right after 9/11 that we all have to come together and go after these kinds of organizations, sometimes with military force, more often with law enforcement activities, intelligence activities, going after their financial infrastructure.
[emphasis added]
As LiberalOasis noted during the campaign, this is no different than what John Kerry was saying. Here’s Kerry, on ABC’s This Week, in Feb. ’04:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: ...you did say that the war on terror was "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement [operation]."
KERRY: It is primarily...Primarily means first. Secondarily means once you know who they are, and where they are, and what they're planning, you can go get them...
...I think that intelligence is critical...to knowing what you're target is.
Once you know what you're target is, I'm prepared to use any combination of military force that's necessary to take them out and protect the United States of America...
So Kerry and Powell were on the same page. But was odd-man-out Colin Powell somehow misunderstanding Bush Administration policy?
No.
Just two weeks ago, Bush gave a big speech on terrorism to the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy, where he told the patrol troopers that they are “serving on the front lines of the war on terror.”
And Bush stresses “law enforcement” more than a dozen times, for example:
We've made terrorism the top priority for law enforcement...
Law enforcement officers stand between our people and great dangers...
Finding our enemies in the war on terror is tough enough -- law enforcement officers should not be denied vital information their own colleagues already have...
If we have good tools to fight street crime and fraud, law enforcement should have the same tools to fight terrorism...
Terrorists are using every advantage of 21st century technology, and Congress needs to ensure that our law enforcement can use that same advantage...
Why is Bush talking so much about law enforcement?
Because he wants to expand his beloved Patriot Act, the legislation that is supposedly is so necessary, which is supposedly about law enforcement and prosecuting terrorists!
So in reality, liberals and conservatives actually don’t disagree that we need a law enforcement strategy to fight terror, despite what conservatives like to say.
However, liberals do have one little problem with Bush’s law enforcement strategy: it isn’t working.
In that Ohio speech, Dubya bragged:
...America's law enforcement and intelligence personnel have proved that the Patriot Act works, that it was an important piece of legislation.
Since September the 11th, federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted.
Sounds great. Too bad it’s a lie.
The W. Post directly debunked Bush’s claim:
An analysis of the Justice Department's own list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people -- not 200, as officials have implied -- were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.
Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law -- and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows.
For the entire list, the median sentence was just 11 months.
...The statistics provide little support for the contention that authorities have discovered and prosecuted hundreds of terrorists here...
Among all the people charged as a result of terrorism probes in the three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them.
Similarly, The Nation reported in Sept. ’04:
On September 2 a federal judge in Detroit threw out the only jury conviction the Justice Department has obtained on a terrorism charge since 9/11...
...Until that reversal, the Detroit case had marked the only terrorist conviction obtained from the Justice Department's detention of more than 5,000 foreign nationals in antiterrorism sweeps since 9/11.
So Ashcroft's record is 0 for 5,000.
On top of the pathetic prosecution track record, Bush is also failing in reforming the FBI, a major component in any law enforcement strategy.
As 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser told the NY Times this month:
[It is] wholly unacceptable that more than three years after 9/11, the FBI still doesn't have a useable computer system, and we're still dealing with the same problems we were before.
How much ineptitude are we going to tolerate?
It’s understandable that Rove and McClellan would want to pretend that the Administration does not believe in law enforcement to fight terrorism, since it is doing such a crappy job of it.
June 22, 2005 PERMALINK
How Good Is The Bolton Vote?
(posted June 22 2:30 AM ET)
First, a mea culpa.
A few weeks ago, LiberalOasis accused Sen. Joe Biden, the Dem point man on the John Bolton nomination, of giving up the fight.
He clearly did not. He and Sen. Min. Leader Harry Reid kept at it and held enough Dems together to block the nomination for a second time.
Also, last month after the first failed cloture, LO said that was “nothing to get excited about” because it wasn’t a “real filibuster.”
Well, this is looking more like a real filibuster.
The Dems are still showing fight, despite the odds, despite the White House pressure.
But why are they showing fight? How did Biden and Reid keep the caucus together?
Not by focusing on why Bolton’s nomination would be bad for America’s national security.
But by focusing on the rights of Senators to get information they request.
Granted, that is an important (small “d”) democratic principle.
But it seems like, outside of Social Security, the only time Dems can really show spine is when their rights as Senators are threatened.
As a practical political matter, the focus on Senators’ rights puts the Bolton battle far deeper into the arcane, inside baseball realm.
And it was already hard enough trying to explain why people should care about the UN Ambassador.
This battle should have been an opening salvo in the battle over the foreign policy direction of our nation, an opportunity for Dems to draw distinctions on how the two parties would protect our national security, as Bolton represents the reckless unilateralism of the Republicans.
It is far from that now. It’s barely about Bolton at all now.
Hell, Dems aren’t even saying the most obvious thing in response to the White House’s refusal to release the requested info: What Are They Hiding?
To pound the podiums and raise suspicions about the White’s House motivations to hide the info would properly put the focus on the deeply flawed Bolton.
But the Dem message is just about Senate rights, which keeps the focus off of Bolton, off of his views, off of his abusive behavior.
That makes it easier for Bush to grant Bolton a recess appointment.
If the public isn’t given a clear reason by the Dems why Bolton is such bad news, there won’t be much grassroots outrage over his nomination, and therefore, little domestic political risk in a recess appointment.
So LiberalOasis remains underwhelmed, though its fingers are crossed, hoping Biden and Reid have a few more tricks up their sleeves.
June 20, 2005 PERMALINK
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown
A weekly feature of LiberalOasis
(posted June 20 2:30 AM ET)
On Thursday, the Bushies signaled to the W. Post that the Iraq War’s flagging poll numbers required them to reassure the public by dusting off the war’s talking points once again.
And on Sunday, Sec. of State Condi Rice was there, on three of the morning shows, serving up some classics.
Iraq and 9/11, same thing! Condi sez:
The most important point about Iraq is that it was time to deal with Saddam Hussein and to create conditions in this very important region, this very volatile region, that would help bring about a different kind of Middle East so that the United States can be secure.
The Middle East came home to us on September 11 in ways that we never expected.
And without change in this region, we're going to continue to fight terrorists for a very, very long time.
The insurgency’s days are numbered! Nothing to worry about!
Condi sez, the insurgency “must think that its last days are eventually going to come”.
Those adorable, scrappy Iraqis! They keep “making progress!”
They’re making so much progress, Condi said “progress” 12 times yesterday.
And Condi was sure to include the Bushies' special blend of mixed message, designed to obscure yet reveal truth at the same time!
On ABC’s This Week, Condi said that as “the Iraqis [take] more and more responsibility for their security ... then it's going to be possible for coalition forces to step down and, indeed, to leave.”
Yet over on Fox News Sunday, she casually noted that we have a “generational commitment to Iraq.” (But not a commitment “in military terms,” of course, that’s a silly way to look at it.)
But it’s not just Condi trotting out the classics.
Sen. Joe Biden, on CBS’ Face The Nation, said for the millionth time that if that durn Bush would just “level with the American people” about how crappy everything is going and how long it’s going to take to fix it, then the people would really support this wonderful war.
And Sen. John McCain, on NBC’s Meet The Press, said pretty much the same thing, also for the millionth time – although unlike Biden, he assured the public that he believes “the president is going to tell them.”
(Message to Sunday talkshow bookers: The show is getting old. New characters please.)
Will the classic talking points work for the Bushies?
Like LiberalOasis has said in the past, every time a milestone is trumpeted – Uday and Qusay killed, Saddam captured, “sovereignty” turned over, elections held – without the violence subsiding, without the troops coming home, the public grows more anxious and the talking points get less effective.
It’s a slow process (slower than LO thought).
But 52% of 2004 voters said the war was going badly, showing that the talking points' effectiveness had begun to fade (although enough of those folks voted for Bush anyway to get him 51%.)
That number is surely higher now.
QUICK HITS
Fun Iraq War Facts!
How Did Iraq Become A “Generational Commitment” Anyway?
There was no talk of “generational commitment” before the war in March 2003.
But after it started, on August 1, 2003, a “senior administration official” told the W. Post we had a “generational commitment.” The post noted “As the search for illegal weapons in Iraq continues without success, the Bush administration has moved to emphasize a different rationale for the war.”
Then a week later, a senior administration official named Condi Rice gave a speech where she said a “generational commitment” to Iraq “has been the President's clear and consistent message.”
In a totally unrelated development, the Project for the New American Century also said we have a “generational commitment” to Iraq, after the war started.
Dick Durbin Chokes
Dick Durbin learned the wrong lesson from Amnesty International.
After correctly noting that a first-hand FBI report on torture in Gitmo read like something that happened under the Nazis or Soviets, the White House and the right-wing went after him just as they Amnesty.
Amnesty remained steadfast, forcing a wider discussion of the abuses and prompting bipartisan calls to shut Gitmo.
After initially being defiant, Durbin cracked on Friday, offering a half-assed “regret” if he was “misunderstood.”
Durbin could have gone on the Sunday shows himself, stuck to his guns and repeated his earlier demand for an apology from Bush for the Gitmo policies that led to this un-American abuse.
Instead, Democrats from Biden to Sen. Chris Dodd and former Sen. George Mitchell shook their fingers at Durbin and fed the GOP narrative.
Did Durbin’s “regret” stop the attacks from the GOP? Of course not.
On Fox, Newt Gingrch called for Durbin to be formally censured. While McCain graciously offered that while censure is not necessary, he “owes...the Senate an apology.”
LiberalOasis would have loved to stand up for Durbin against these ridiculous attacks, but you can’t stand up for a guy who won’t stand up for himself.
Other Dems, take note.
