Look at this illustration that accompanied USA Today's story on a new poll on the Republican Party:

Who's missing? Sarah Palin. When Americans were asked who speaks for the Republican Party, the winner was Rush Limbaugh (13 percent). The next four were Dick Cheney, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and George W. Bush (who was picked by 3 percent). Palin didn't make this list. Responding to this poll, Republican strategist Ed Gillespie told reporter Susan Page, "We cannot be a party of balding white guys." Gillespie, who has a decent crown of hair, ought to check that illustration. Only one of the five is non-balding; only one of five is not white. None are non-male.

In politics, there's always time to fill a vacuum in leadership. Perhaps the more troubling indicator for the GOP is this particular finding in the poll: 33 percent of the GOP respondents said they have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party. When one-third of your own rank-and-file doesn't like you, you're in trouble. (On MSNBC, super-smart analyst Charlie Cook noted that only 4 percent of Democrats are not pleased with their party.)

But does the GOP's disaffected third want the party to go more to the right or to moderate? That's not clear. But two-thirds of the Republicans polled said they yearn for the party to hold the conservative line. (A majority of the wider pool of respondents said the GOP should seek to attract moderates.)

The bottom line: if the POed GOPers crave more conservative red meat, the party can only solidify its base by moving in a direction that will further alienate it from most voters. If those POed GOPers desire a more moderate party, they are at odds with most of their party comrades. Either scenario is bad news for the Republican Party. The party is in a spot where it may not be able to do much on its own to improve its fortunes--other than to wait for economic disaster and/or an overseas crisis that causes voters to become disenchanted with President Obama and Democrats. And that's not a strategy; that's a hope.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo on relations between the West and the Muslim world was a tour de force. Watch it; read it. (My colleague Nick Baumann lists the nine hard truths in the speech.) But this episode is a reminder that a speech is composed of two elements: the words and the person delivering them. Look at this portion of the address:

Now, make no mistake:  We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan.  We see no military -- we seek no military bases there.  It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women.  It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.  We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.  But that is not yet the case.

...Today, America has a dual responsibility:  to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis.  And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources

It is not hard to imagine George W. Bush, as president, saying those same words. Yet millions of people at home and abroad would not have believed his claim to have no interest in sustaining a US military presence in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else. Why? Well, if you don't know, you slept through the first eight years of this century. The fine words that Bush did frequently speak about promoting democracy abroad and protecting the world from tyrants and terrorists were undermined by his misrepresentations of the actual threats (see WMDs in Iraq) and his actions (see rushing to war in Iraq when the UN weapons inspections process was under way and working).

Obama has no such baggage. More important, he is willing to acknowledge US errors:

I was on Hardball again with uber-hawk Frank Gaffney Jr., a onetime Reagan Pentagon official. The subject tonight: the possible prosecution in Spain of six past Bush officials--including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith, former Justice Department official John Yoo, and David Addington, onetime counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney--for devising the legal justification for torture conducted at Guantanamo. Gaffney, of course, decried the Spanish action as an attack on US sovereignty. If I heard him right, he essentially argued that the United States need not abide by any international rules (or treaties) if they lead to any undue infringement of national sovereignty. And who gets to judge what makes for such an infringement? I think Gaffney would like that job.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

Speaking to the Turkish Grand National Assembly in Ankara on Monday, President Barack Obama offered this interesting observation:

At the end of World War I, Turkey could have succumbed to the foreign powers that were trying to claim its territory, or sought to restore an ancient empire. But Turkey chose a different future. You freed yourself from foreign control, and you founded a republic that commands the respect of the United States and the wider world.

And there is a simple truth to this story: Turkey's democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power, nor did it come without struggle and sacrifice. Turkey draws strength from both the successes of the past, and from the efforts of each generation of Turks that makes new progress for your people.

Imagine if George W. Bush were still president.

Don't gag. But ponder what might have happened at the G-20. Would Bush have arrived with the same-old agenda and urged other nations to cut taxes for individuals and corporations and to resist the calls for too much reregulation of high-flying financiers? Would he have also advocated, as his fellow Republicans in Congress are doing these days, spending cuts in order to restrain government deficits? And if so, would he have been laughed out of London?

The problem in years past was that Bush, no matter what any foreign leader thought of him, led the biggest economic and military power on the globe. So he could not be laughed off. (See Iraq). Barack Obama, on the other hand, is appreciated, not merely tolerated. And though Bush had entered office promising a certain amount of humility in foreign affairs (and then dumped that vow after 9/11), Obama actually demonstrated how such a pledge could be put into practice. During a Thursday press conference, he said:

It's always enjoyable when a senior government bureaucrat states the obvious--especially when it entails dissing a previous boss and complimenting a current one. On Meet the Press on Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked by host David Gregory "what's the difference between working for President Obama versus President Bush." Gates' reply:

SECRETARY GATES: I--that's--it's really hard to say. I think that, I think that probably President Obama is, is somewhat more analytical, and, and, he makes sure he hears from everybody in the room on an issue. And if they don't speak up, he calls on them.

MR. GREGORY: A marked difference from his predecessor?

SECRETARYY GATES: President Bush was interested in hearing different points of view but didn't go out of his way to make sure everybody spoke if they hadn't, if they hadn't spoken up before.

In other words, Obama is sincerely intellectually curious and wants to make sure he is not rendering decisions within a bubble of his own (or his advisers') making, while Bush was content to remain within his narrow comfort zone. Analysis? We don't need no stinkin' analysis.

No surprise here. Gates also raised the prospect of writing a book in which he would compare the different presidents he has worked for. It would be something if he could be truly forthcoming on that subject.

Here's the video:

George W. Bush gave his final speech to the nation on Thursday night. I skipped it to see my daughter, who has known no other president, perform with her school chorus. But when I later sat before my television to see how the speech was being punditized on the cable news shows, I was surprised. The water-landing of a US Airways flight in New York City dominated the coverage. There was little chatter--almost nothing--about Bush's farewell.

After watching the speech on the White House website, I understood why. It was flat and short. Bush said little of interest. He dwelled mostly on 9/11 and the so-called war on terror, once again (and for the last official time) characterizing the invasion of Iraq as part of his effort to take "the fight to the terrorists." He suggested that although the Iraq war was the subject of "legitimate debate," there "can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil."

Was the nation's safety ensured because Bush invaded Iraq and did not finish the fight in Afghanistan? No doubt, he and his ever-dwindling band of defenders will continue to insist that it is so--just as a rooster might insist there is a connection between his crowing and the rising of the sun. And Bush defended himself for having been "willing to make the tough decisions"--as if making hard choices is the same as making wise ones.

George W. Bush the wise and somber presidential veteran.

Spare me. But as Bush prepares to leave office, he's trying to strike that sort of tone. I suppose it's easier to pontificate about the office of the presidency than to say, "Boy, did I screw up, I'm outta here." So at a press conference on Monday morning--probably his final as president--Bush discussed the burdens of presidential leadership and noted there will come a moment next Tuesday when Barack Obama, after taking the oath of office and watching the parade, settles into the Oval Office and says to himself, "Oh, my." (Maybe he will add, "Is this my beautiful house?")

But being president is really not that bad, Bush said. According to Fox News, he remarked: "Disappointments will be clearly a minority irritant." (Was that a Freudian slip? Or just another Bushism? According to the official transcript of the press conference, Bush actually said, "minor irritant.")

But the most surprising (I suppose) element of his non-mea-culpa is his insistence that he is unpopular because he did the right thing. For instance, he said that it would have been wrong for him to back the Kyoto global warming treaty just to be popular. Of course. But that doesn't mean trashing it was the correct thing to do. Bush seems to believe that popular disgust with some of his actions is a signal that he made the hard and right choice. See Iraq.

On Fox News Sunday, Bush had this telling exchange with Brit Hume:

The Iraq war is not over. Afghanistan is a mess. The economy is a mess. Nothing's been done about climate change. And all around the world people have cheered a guy who threw a shoe at the president of the United States. So what's Bush's legacy? On the foreign policy front, his people are trumpeting his so-called promotion of democracy abroad. And that's how Bushies are talking about the war in Iraq they are bequeathing to the next guy. Here's Condi Rice from Meet the Press this past Sunday:

RICE: This Iraq, at the center of the Middle East, a powerful Arab state that is a friend of the United States and democratic, is going to make the Middle East a fundamentally different place.

DAVID GREGORY: Do you believe that over time, then, the United States will emerge with what will be considered an unambiguous victory in Iraq?

RICE: I believe that it will be, as time goes forward, absolutely clear that Saddam Hussein's Iraq would never have allowed the Middle East to change, and that this Iraq has the potential to anchor a more democrat, a more prosperous, a more peaceful Middle East, and, by the one, one that--by the way, one that is friendly to the United States.

From Iraq, it's just a few skips and a jump to more democratic Middle East, right? Not so. Democracy activists in the region have been complaining about Bush's policies--especially the Iraq war--for years, noting that Bush has set back the cause of democracy in the Middle East.

I'm on the run today, but I did spot this bit of we're-shocked-shocked news. From the Center on Public Integrity comes a report entitled Broken Government that lists 125--count-'em!--"systematic failures across the breadth of the federal government" that have marked (and marred) the eight-year tenure of (now-disappearing) President George W. Bush. From the press release:

Among the examples:

* a Food and Drug Administration unable to guarantee the safety of food or drugs
* a National Aeronautics and Space Administration inspector general who blocked multiple investigations
* a budget deficit that ballooned to $455 billion for fiscal year 2008, and could reach $1 trillion in fiscal year 2009
* an Environmental Protection Agency that ignored and underutilized its own office and task force on children's health
* a Securities and Exchange Commission that sat largely on the sidelines, allowing little-understood new financial instruments to undermine the pillars of the economy
* a Federal Labor Relations Board with neither a general counsel nor the quorum needed to handle hundreds of complaints regarding unfair labor practices
* a terrorist detention system based at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, whose legality has repeatedly been challenged by the courts

Many of the failures are rooted in recurring themes: agency appointees selected primarily for ideology and loyalty, rather than competence; agency heads who overruled staff experts and suppressed reports that did not coincide with administration philosophy; agency-industry collusion; a bedrock belief in the wisdom of deregulation; extensive private outsourcing of public functions; a general failure to exercise government's oversight responsibilities; and severely slashed budgets at understaffed agencies that often left them unable to execute basic administrative functions.

I know, I know. Most of this will not come as a surprise to anyone who has not been in a coma for the past eight years. The Government Accountability Office, as we reported recently at Mother Jones, has put together its own list. Chronicling the damage of the W years is an important job. And, alas, it won't be over any time soon.

As I noted in the previous posting, the "Outlook" section of Sunday's Washington Post featured a piece in which I evaluated Barack Obama's staffing decisions to date. I noted how several key picks had been either disappointing, upsetting or puzzling to some progressives. But I added that it was my hunch that Obama had adopted a change-by-cooption strategy, in which he will try to use centrist-oriented members of the Establishment to implement a left-of-center policy agenda.

And--boy!--how the responses have poured in. From the left, the right, and the in-between. On the left, the replies have been generally divided between those who are somewhat concerned by Obama's opening moves and those who say that they still believe he's a progressive leader and are hoping for the best but waiting to see what he can pull off with the team he is assembling. Those who claim to be moderates (or recovering Republicans) who supported Obama note that they did not vote for a president who would govern from the left, and they inform me that they are tickled pink that the candidate who promised to rise about partisan politics has loaded his White House and Cabinet with centrists. If he moves too much to the left, they warn, he will lose them.

Then there's the conservatives. They declare either that Obama is an empty suit and that progressives should not be surprised he is (as they put it) screwing them. Liberals should have realized, they argue, that there is nothing solid at this man's center and that he's a crass opportunist. You've been duped, they exclaim (somewhat joyfully). As one put it indelicately, "I don't blame you and the rest of the leftie idiots for having your nose out of joint. Obama used you and is now happily screwing you without even taking the time to kiss you first." Other rightwingers proclaim that Obama is a socialist, and none of his appointments can hide that. Once he starts this country on the road to socialism, they say, the citizenry will rise up against him--and he and the liberals will be vanquished in the next election.

That's some range of opinions. Reading through these emails, it occurred to me that Obama will be a Rorschach president. Citizens, voters, and, yes, pundits will see in him (or not see in him) what they want. I suppose this happens with most presidents. But given that Obama has been on the national stage a relatively short time, that he's a young black (or biracial) guy, and that he does indeed represent change more than your average president, it may be that he will be more Rorschach-y than most chief executives.

During the Bush years, there was never much debate over what Bush stood for or the meaning of Bush. Sure, there were lots of fights over his policies and whether he was up to the job. With Obama, I wonder if his supporters and foes will spend the next few years arguing over what's at his core. If so, that certainly will keep politics interesting and pundits employed.

I'm scheduled to do Hardball on Monday. And if you want to follow me on Twitter.com, you can. Go to Twitter.com/DavidCornDC.

Dealing with a crashed computer today. See you soon....

The other day, The Washington Post reported that President-elect Barack Obama was considering tapping Richard Holbrooke, one of the many runners-up in the secretary of state sweepstakes, to be a special envoy for South Asia, focusing on thorny matters involving India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Whether Holbrooke is the ideal candidate for the post or not, this is a good idea. For years now, the United States has not had any high-level official with immediate White House access in charge of the Afghanistan mess. And though the portfolio for this post would extend beyond the war, tapping Holbrooke or some other diplomatic bigfoot as such an envoy would bring much-needed policy leadership to the Afghanistan war.

Two years ago, I wrote a piece noting that the largely forgotten war had been forgotten by the Bush White House:

George Bush has no senior-level official responsible for policies and actions in Afghanistan. "The situation is worsening," notes former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. "We have to have someone in government responsible for the whole picture--military, economic assistance and political. There's a nexus between each. But there's not one person in the government designated to be in charge of that nexus. It could be the ambassador. It could be someone else--if they have resources and clout and accountability. But this Administration has not been keen on accountability."

Since then, there have been no signs of much change on this front. Can you name any top Bush administration official overseeing Afghanistan issues? Let's hope Holbrooke--or some other runner-up--wins this consolation prize.

Is it spin or self-delusion?

In an interview with George W. Bush, ABC News' Charlie Gibson asked if he had a "do-over," what would it be. Bush replied:

The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

Whoa, there. Time for a reality check: much of the intelligence was indeed iffy, yet Bush acted as if it had been as solid as Dick Cheney's arrogance. Bush, Cheney and others claimed that Saddam Hussein had obtained aluminum tubes that could only be used for enriching uranium for bombs--when the intelligence community was split on this point (with the true nuclear experts maintaining the tubes could not be used for such a purpose). At one point prior to the war, Bush said that it wasn't known whether Saddam yet had obtained a nuclear weapons--suggesting that the Iraqi dictator might have already gone nuclear. But every intelligence report noted Iraq was years away from producing a nuclear bomb. In the run-up to the war, Bush hyped less-than-definitive intelligence--insisting it was indeed definitive--and exaggerated the case for war. (Don't believe me? Go read Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn.)

Gibson followed up:

On Monday night, I attended a screening of Frost/Nixon, the new film directed by Ron Howard and written by British dramatist Peter Morgan. It's an excellent and highly entertaining tale recounting and recreating the 1977 interview of the resigned and disgraced president conducted by British talk show host (and man about town) David Frost. Though Morgan said after the screening that he had not intended the film to be a statement on the current occupant of the White House, the film does raises questions about Bush. In a key moment during the interview, Nixon (played astutely by Frank Langella) responds to a question from Frost (placed wickedly by Michael Sheen) about a White House plan for the systematic use of wiretappings, burglaries, mail openings and infiltration against antiwar groups and others. Nixon says (as he did during the actual interview), "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal." In the film, Nixon goes on to add, "But I realize no one else shares that view." (That quote does not appear in the transcript I found of that portion of the interview.)

How can this not conjure up recent history, when the Bush administration essentially argued the same point to justify its use of Gitmo, torture, unlimited detentions, extraordinary renditions and the like? Bush, however, has not noted that only he buys this argument. In fact, the White House counsel's office and Bush's Justice Department went to great lengths to come up with legal opinions supporting this view of the all-powerful chief executive. In the real Frost interview, Frost pushed Nixon on this point, asking, "Is there anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that suggests the president is that far of a sovereign, that far above the law." Nixon answered: "No, there isn't. There's nothing specific that the Constitution contemplates in that respect."

At the screening, Morgan noted that he "never" wanted the film "to become a springboard for talking about George Bush." Though he has written a wonderfully engaging movie--that both nails Nixon and depicts him somewhat sympathetically--Morgan, alas, did fail in that regard. I wonder if Bush will watch it. The film opens this weekend, and Bush does seem to have time on his hands these days.

All the talk is Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. As President-elect Barack Obama announced his national security team on Monday morning, the headliner was indeed the junior senator from New York State. While this move remains a surprise and perhaps even a gamble--I've had my say on this--it could be that the more important pick of the day is retired General James Jones to be Barack Obama's national security adviser.

One of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's many accomplishments was to wreck the national security apparatus of the United States government--with key assists from Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. For years, Foggy Bottom and the CIA were at war with the Pentagon and the White House, while the national security adviser (that would be Rice) became not a policy broker (as the job requires) but an enabler. She allowed ideologues to run wild and to trump expertise. She made sure that dissenting opinions were not placed front and center before the president. Foreign policy became the territory of a small band of arrogant know-it-alls who, it turned out, did not know nearly enough.

On Bush and Cheney's watch, the system broke down--by design. It's imperative that the foreign policy machinery of the US government be revived and restored. There needs to be a working balance between the intelligence community, the military, and the diplomats. There needs to be a free flow of ideas. The views of true experts inside and outside the government ought to be factored into major decision-making. And it is the job of the national security adviser to ensure this happens.

That mission will fall to Jones. At a press conference on Monday morning, Obama said that Jones

In the aftermath of a decisive defeat, Republicans and conservatives are nursing their wounds and wondering what went wrong. Many have come up with an easy answer: the GOP has drifted from its core principles; consequently, the voters have handed it the pink slip.

But is the drift more to blame than the principles?

Let's look at one example of this argument. Michael Steele, the former Maryland lieutenant governor and an unsuccessful candidate for Senate in 2006, is running to become the new head of the Republican Party. In a statement he released on Thursday, he said,

The Republican Party must present a vision for the future of America that relies on our conservative values and core principles. It is wrong to believe the voters have suddenly become liberal. They have just lost any sense of confidence that the Republican Party holds the answers to their problems. We must face the fact that our party has failed in recent years to live up to our own principles -- we have failed to be 'solutions oriented' in addressing the concerns of all Americans.

Does Steele have it right? Has his party failed to present "solutions" in recent years? Not really. The Republicans have presented plenty of "solutions," but the voters have not cared for them.

What are the two core principles of the Republican Party? Cutting taxes (to ensure a smaller government) and swinging a big stick when it comes to national security. There's also the social issues, such as opposing abortion rights and gay rights. But those lifestyle issues have often been a second-tier matter for many Republican leaders.

This time it's personal.

Then again, it was personal in 2004.

In September 2003, I published a book immoderately titled, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. Its contention was a simple one: that Bush had gone beyond the normal boundaries of presidential spin in using falsehoods and misrepresentations to skew the public discourse on many fronts: stems cells, global warming, tax policy, and, above all, the invasion of Iraq.

At the time, this was not--in certain circles--a well-received argument. Conservative pundits, pointing to my book and others that came out at the time (Al Franken's Lying Liars, Molly Ivins' Bushwhacked, written with Lou Dubose, and Joe Conason's Big Lies), declared a new phenomenon was at hand: rabid, irrational Bush hatred. MSM commentators, ever looking to reside within the comfortable, above-it-all middle, observed that the left was now mirroring the extreme rhetoric of the Limbaugh-crazy, Coulter-loving right. I noted some examples of this dismissive reax in a recent Mother Jones essay. The New York Times' Matt Bai, citing my book, wrote, "the new leftist screeds seem to solidify a rising political culture of incivility and overstatement." Conservative columnist David Brooks proclaimed that "the core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves." (Yes, I was more dangerous than George W. Bush.) What few of these commentators of the center and right bothered to do was to evaluate the case I (and the others) had put forward. That is, to confront the facts I had presented. Their aim was to discredit the very idea of anyone going so far as to call the president of the United States a liar. And National Review editor Rich Lowry opined, "I don't think the public is going to buy the idea that [Bush is] a liar."

Lowry got it wrong. By Election Day 2004, polls showed that a slight majority believed that Bush was not honest and trustworthy. Still, Bush managed to best John Kerry in an election that was something of a referendum on Bush's first term. But that election came too early. Had it been held a year later--post-Katrina--any Dem would have thrashed Bush and Cheney at the polls. And now about seven out of ten disapprove of his presidency, and most of the public agrees with the premise that Bush deliberately misled American citizens about WMDs and the threat supposedly posed by Iraq. Bush is heading toward the door widely regarded as a failure: Iraq, Katrina, the financial meltdown. He has become the vanishing president. Hardly seen. Barely relevant.

Bush's style of politics, his policies, his political party--it's all been discredited. Whatever happens in the presidential race, the GOP is poised to take a beating in congressional races. He has led his party to ruin. The battle over the W. story has been won by his critics--at least in the short run. The view that Bush has been a dishonest president and bad for the United States has become the majority position in the United States. If McCain somehow manages to win, it will be in spite of Bush.

Many presidents are elected as reactions to the previous president. George W. Bush's (faux) victory in 2000 was a reaction to the Bill Clinton soap opera. And a Barack Obama triumph would be the natural reaction to the W. years. Obama is the most progressive (or liberal) Democratic nominee since FDR ran for reelection. He is black (or biracial). He is an intellectual. He is no child of privilege. To sum up: he is the opposite of George W. Bush. Not only has Bush started two wars he couldn't finish, presided over a government that lost a major American city, and did little as a financial tsunami hit the nation; he has (I am guessing) created a yearning among many Americans for a non-Bush. And within the realm of conventional U.S. politics, Obama is about as non-Bush as it gets. No wonder Obama has a strong chance of becoming president. He spoke (endlessly) of change; he is an antidote to the Bush presidency.

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama is a big deal--but it ought to be difficult for Obama-backers to raise a full-throated cheer for it. Obama's chief selling point at the start of the campaign was that he had been right on the Iraq war. Powell, of course, was not only wrong; he had lent his prestige to the invasion, fronting for the Bush White House on the phony WMD case. And while some may view Powell's Obama endorsement as a stab at rehabilitation, Powell has never fully come to public terms with his role in the Iraq WMD scandal.

On Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw gently approached the matter:

BROKAW: I want to ask you about your own role in the decision to go to war in Iraq. Barack Obama has been critical of your appearance before the United Nations at that time. Bob Woodward has a new book out called "The War Within," and here's what he had to say about Colin Powell and his place in the administration: "Powell didn't think Iraq was a necessary war, and yet he had gone along in a hundred ways, large and small. He had resisted at times but had succumbed to the momentum and his own sense of deference -- even obedience -- to the president. Perhaps more than anyone else in the administration, Powell had been the `closer' for the president's case on war." ...What's the lesson in all of that for a former -- for a new secretary of state or for a new national security adviser, based on your own experience?

POWELL: Well, let's start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation. We took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action.I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so, we went in and used military force.

My unhappiness was that we didn't do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn't have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret....

BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?

POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don't think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public. It was the reason we took it to the American people, to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it's the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then, Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.

That last sentence is a syllogism. Of course, without WMDs, Iraq was not the threat it would have been had it possessed WMDs. The point was that it did not possess WMDs. And as Michael Isikoff and I showed in our book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, the Bush administration purposefully exaggerated the error-ridden WMD case that was in itself based on faulty and incomplete evidence. But Powell dumps all the blame here on the intel gang for screwing up the intelligence. That's too convenient a dodge. Here's a case in point: the Bush White House claimed that aluminum tubes obtained by Saddam Hussein could only be used for nuclear centrifuges. Yet the nuclear scientists within the intelligence community with the most expertise on the subject disputed this. That did not stop Dick Cheney and Condi Rice from making claims on this matter that were utterly false--claims that analysts at Powell's Department of State would have known were false.

Remember when Bill Clinton in 1996 pronounced "the era of big government is over"? Liberals were incensed that a Democratic president would bolstered Conservative Talking Point No. 1 and would accept the fundamental tenet of Reaganism.

Well, it turned out Clinton was sure wrong about that. Today, Big Government is on the march, with a Republican administration spending hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street and to partially nationalize banks. So while we wait for the final presidential debate of 2008, here's a question to ponder: is Reaganism dead? Short answer: you betcha. From Bloomberg:

So much for all that talk about Hurricane Gustav helping the GOPers by providing George W. Bush a convenient excuse for not showing up at their convention in St. Paul. On Tuesday night, Bush will address the convention via satellite.

The theme of the night, McCain campaign officials said, is "Who is John McCain?" Putting it that way seems odd. Why a question. Don't most voters already know? Using such a formulation reminded me of a not-so-grand moment in presidential politics involving retired Admiral James Stockdale, who was Ross Perot's running mate during the 1992 campaign. (Ignore the Fred Thompson bits in the below clip.)

Having Bush speak on Who Is McCain night is more proof of the hollowness of American politics. Only eight years ago, Bush supporters, during the 2000 primary contest between Bush and McCain, waged a whispering campaign to try to define McCain as a syphilitic, Manchurian Candidate who was married to a mob-linked, drugs-abusing wife and who had fathered an out-of-wedlock black child. At the time, the Bush campaign--and Bush himself--said nothing to distance itself from the vicious rumor-mongering. Of course, the McCain camp suspected that Karl Rove and the Bushies were actually behind the effort. Compare that to how Barack Obama has publicly declared that Sarah Palin's family life ought not to be a campaign issue.

In any event, Bush's appearance tonight will close a circle on the Bush-McCain relationship. Bush will return the praise that McCain, sacrificing honor and principle for expedience, (insincerely) heaped on Bush at the 2000 convention. And Bush's appearance will be a reminder to voters that McCain, the so-called straight talker, has forged a phony bond with Bush to advance his political career. It turns out that not even a hurricane could blow away McCain's deal with the devil.

I'm still on vacation--lucky me--but I've managed to watch a bit of the Olympics. The opening ceremony was rather impressive. Talk about organization and competence: two thousand and eight Tai Chi practitioners forming a perfect circle and maintaining it through a series of elaborate moves.

That was some counterpoint to George W. Bush. Later that night, during the parade of nations, he was practically slumped in his seat, toting a small American flag--was it made in China?--with a bored expression on his face. Prior to the games, there was a debate over whether he should attend and further legitimize the repressive Chinese regime. But as he sat there, that debate no longer seemed so relevant, for he looked irrelevant. There was no one next to him but his wife. And the question was, didn't he have anything better to do with his time? The apparent answer: no.

War was breaking out between Russia and Georgia. The economy in the United States was continuing a downward slide. Negotiations between Washington and Iraq over an agreement governing U.S. troops had seemingly failed. And his presidency was running out of time. Yet he seemed like not such a busy guy. He even stayed in China to watch events. I, too, would have enjoyed witnessing Michael Phelps first gold-medal victory of these Olympics, but, then again, I don't have a superpower to run. At least, Bush was able to hobnob with Henry Kissinger at that event. (He did meet with Chinese President Hu on Sunday for what he described, of course, as a "constructive" conversation.)

This all raised the question in my mind: what does Bush want to get done before the W. years are over. Not much, it seems. He has not pushed a major domestic issue since his Social Security flop. He has not addressed the climate change crisis. He has not taken any decisive steps regarding the sliding-into-a-quagmire war in Afghanistan. He has taken no significant moves regarding health care. It's as if he is not merely a lame duck but the clockwatcher-in-chief. And is it possible that the last major overseas action of the president who during his second inaugural address said that the mission of the United States was to stand with "democratic reformers" against their "oppressors" will be waving a mini-Stars and Stripes at the Chinese games? How harmonious, as the Chinese say.

Now isn't it about time for Bush to take his vacation in Crawford?

Please, President Bush, please attack me some more.

That must be what Barack Obama is thinking after Bush's speech in Jerusalem, during which the president blasted those who want to talk to America's enemies as appeasers. Forget that the policy substance of Bush's speech was illogical--or idiotic: Bush's own administration talks to North Korea's tyrants; his defense secretary, Bob Gates, has discussed engagement with Iran; his lead military and diplomatic people in Iraq have spoken with Iranians; the government he supports in Baghdad is in close contact with Iran; and significant members of Israel's national security community support talking to Hamas. But just on the politics, the speech was a boneheaded move that ought to make John McCain howl.

Bush is about as unpopular as a president can be. If Barack Obama could run against him, he would probably win by 80 points (or maybe a few points less than that). Consider what happened when the Republicans sent Dick Cheney to Mississippi to campaign for a Republican candidate in a special House election this week. Not only did the GOPer lose in this Republican stronghold, turnout was down in GOP precincts. Bush and Cheney are a pair of lame albatrosses for any Republican candidate in 2008, including McCain. Which is why Obama and the Democrats want to depict McCain as running for Bush's third term.

Casting McCain as the Spawn of Bush is not a slam-dunk. Though McCain has become a Bush clone on Iraq and the economy, he is quite different in character and biography than W. and boasts far more personal appeal. McCain also has that supposed maverick-thing to cite (Look--omigod--a Republican talking seriously about global warming!) So a day like yesterday was a boon for Obama. While McCain was giving a speech about what his presidency would look like--that is, if he had a magic wand (victory in Iraq, prosperity at home, lower health care costs for all!)--Bush was stealing the thunder by implicitly bashing Obama as an appeaser before a foreign audience. Such a stunt is toxic and perfect fodder for cable news.

Bush probably thought, "Well, I showed him." But any Bush versus Obama narrative assists Obama tremendously. Most Americans clearly would relish voting against Bush, were they able to. If Bush makes it seem that a vote for Obama is a vote against Bush, McCain is screwed.

You'd think the White House would be aware of this. But recognizing reality has never been this bunch's strong suit. After all, the White House thought it was a good idea to dispatch Cheney to help that faltering Republican in Mississippi. One question is, will McCain ask Bush to knock if off and lay low? Another is, if McCain does, will Bush listen? Whether most Americans like it or not--and they don't--Bush is still the president. And he's probably not eager to leave the White House on all fours or through the back door. Obama ought to try to exploit that, anything to provoke Bush. Obama should be saying to Bush, "Bring 'em on."

In a speech scheduled for Monday afternoon, John McCain will essentially say, "President Bush screwed up on global warming." From the prepared text:

As president...I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges....The United States will lead and will lead with...an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation.

That sure sounds as if McCain thinks Bush was a shirker. Now did he say that during the GOP primaries? I don't recall him doing so. Wonder why he didn't blast Bush on global warming when he was courting Republican voters?

Now that McCain is fishing for independent and moderate voters in the general election, he's touting his global warming position, which is rather enlightened for a Republican. But as my colleague Jonathan Stein points out, McCain's environmental record is hardly all green. His lifetime voting record from the League of Conservation Voters: 24 percent.

A few weeks ago, I published a story that reported on how McCain sabotaged his own global warming bill in the Senate by attaching to it billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the nuclear energy industry. Even though many people--including his own environmental policy aide--warned him that doing so would do in his bill, the Senate's first attempt to redress global warming, McCain stubbornly insisted on the nuclear subsidies. Well, the warnings were right. The subsidies sank the bill. McCain's attempt to craft a legislative remedy for global warming fizzled. He then passed the buck to other senators. No doubt, he does feel strongly about the need to address climate change. Yet in that episode he was his own worst enemy. Read the full story here.

As part of his silly-named "Time for Action" tour, John McCain on Thursday hits New Orleans to discuss what still has to be done to help the residents of the area, which has yet to recover fully from Hurricane Katrina. In a long press release about the trip, McCain's campaign notes, "Recovery from Katrina has been a slow struggle." But the release--which details the history of New Orleans--does not note who's partly to blame for that struggle: George W. Bush and his administration. Nor does it mention the Bush administration's failure to respond adequately to the hurricane and flood. And while the press release hails the rise of charter schools in New Orleans and the establishment of an anti-crime coalition of various community groups, there is a another conspicuous absence: no mention of any action McCain has ever taken to help the people of New Orleans. Time for Action? Hasn't the time for action long passed. Rather than a history lesson about New Orleans, McCain ought to tell local residents what he has already done to assist them--if anything.

Though he might not want to remind them what he was doing the day the hurricane hit:

Yes, he was partying with Bush, holding a small celebration of McCain's 69th birthday in Phoenix. Instead of Time for Action on that horrific day, it was Time for Cake.

Last night, as I noted yesterday, was the annual Radio and TV dinner in Washington. George W. Bush sent his regrets, citing a higher calling than dining with 2000-plus broadcasters, journalists, and others: that is, hosting a dinner for the pope. Yes, Bush passed up the chance to make jokes about the Iraq war, as he did four years ago. Bush's stand-in at the dinner as stand-up-in-chief was Dick Cheney.

Cheney did not sling any jokes about the war. Instead, he riffed on global warming and his own lack of enthusiasm for that particular threat, noting that he prefers to refer to global warming "as spring." And, he added, it's going to get a lot warmer and then it's going to get cooler. Get it?

His routine was good enough, if predictable. But what was not entirely predictable was that night passed without serious mention of the fact that U.S. troops are now at war. Cheney made not a reference to the war and the Americans serving overseas. Not that e should have worked them into his ghostwritten gags. But there was no moment at the end when the Veep got serious and noted that as journalists and Washington players eat, drink, and make merry, this is a nation at war, with thousands of its sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters in harm's way.

I don't want to come across as a stuffy killjoy. But there was a frivolity at the dinner that was out of sync with...well, the real world. I'm sure hardworking broadcasters and journalists could use a night out. But there was no recognition from our national No. 2 that this country is in a moment of trouble (and that would include economic trouble). And there was no nod to the guys and gals he dispatched to Iraq, Americans who are not able to take time out to joke around at a formal dinner. Talk about no class--or elitism.

This is not a first. Following the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2005, I wrote:

No mention of the US troops being killed in Iraq but a horse jerk-off joke--that is one way to sum up the First Couple's appearance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday evening.

So there is now a tradition in Washington. The president or the vice president laughs it up at the fancy dinners and ignores the troops in Iraq and the war they are supposed to be overseeing night and day. No wonder I needed a drink.

Tonight is the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner--an annual formal affair that is the cousin to the White House correspondents' dinner. And this reminds me of one of my (own) favorite columns, which came about four years ago when I attended the dinner and watched in amazement as George W. Bush made jokes about the missing WMDs in Iraq (that is, joked about the purported reason for which he had sent Americans to war and, for some, to death). But what was most amazing was that everyone around me was laughing at Bush's routine. And laughing. And laughing. Never in my two decades of working in Washington have I felt more alienated--and, perhaps, more angry. Of the thousands of people in the room--which included hundreds of working journalists--I was, I believe, the only one to immediately write a piece questioning Bush (and his audience). That episode remains one of the more telling and revealing moments of modern-day Washington. (Talk about elitism.) And I believe it should not be forgotten. So I've posted that column below.

And on the subject of misplaced humor, I recently suggested on NPR's Diane Rehm Show that in a decent world John McCain would have been disqualified for running for president when he answered a question on the campaign trail about Iran by jokingly singing, "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" (to the tune of the old hit "Barbara Ann") My point: anyone who would make light of launching a war--and killing people with bombs--should not be given the power to do so. As I made these comments, Tony Blankley, a PR man and columnist for The Washington Times leaned toward the microphone. Do you want to defend McCain's joke? I asked. Yes, he said, insisting that we had to allow for humor in politics.

Humor in politics? That's the job of Jon Stewart. Or Stephen Colbert. (Or me--to a much, much, much lesser extent when I do standup, once every year or two.) But laughing at a president or a presidential wannabe about wars they start or can start? That's truly amusing ourselves (and others) to death--to reference the late Neil Postman's 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. I hope this time around--at the Radio and TV dinner--Bush sticks to less deadly fare when he tries to win giggles from the well-fed journalists and broadcasters in the room.
------

MIA WMDs--For Bush, It's a Joke
March 25, 2004

Only in Washington.

Last night I was at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner. It's a formal-and-fun affair where thousands of media folks assemble at the Hilton for a fancy dinner and fab pre- and post-parties. I'm not going to denigrate such soirees. I enjoy them. While bookers and producers jiggled and jostled on the dance floor and media and political celebs dissected the news du jour (this time it was Richard Clarke's dramatic appearance before the 9/11 commission), I was able to chat with former weapons hunter David Kay and learn about some troubling developments in the intelligence community (more on that down the road). And there was free sushi.

But an awful you're-all-alone moment came during George W. Bush's comments that followed the sit-down dinner. The current president is often the honored guest at this annual affair, and the audience toasts him in what is supposed to be a sign of communal and nonpartisan spirit. And the tradition is that the president has to be funny; he has to provide us with an amusing speech that pokes fun at himself and his political foes. After all, political journalists love to see politicians engage in self-deprecating humor. Bill Clinton was quite good at these performances. Bush seems to enjoy them less. Rather than do straight standup, he sometimes relies on a humorous slide show, and that was how he chose to entertain the media throng this time.

It's standard fare humor. Bush says he is preparing for a tough election fight; then on the large video screens a picture flashes showing him wearing a boxing robe while sitting at his desk. Bush notes he spends "a lot of time on the phone listening to our European allies." Then we see a photo of him on the phone with a finger in his ear. There were funny bits about Skull and Bones, his mother, and Dick Cheney. But at one point, Bush showed a photo of himself looking for something out a window in the Oval Office, and he said, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."

The audience laughed. I grimaced. But that wasn't the end of it. After a few more slides, there was a shot of Bush looking under furniture in the Oval Office. "Nope," he said. "No weapons over there." More laughter. Then another picture of Bush searching in his office: "Maybe under here." Laughter again.

Disapproval must have registered upon my face, for one of my tablemates said, "Come on, David, this is funny." I wanted to reply, Over 500 Americans and literally countless Iraqis are dead because of a war that was supposedly fought to find weapons of mass destruction, and Bush is joking about it. Instead, I took a long drink of the lovely white wine that had come with our dinner. It's not as if I was in the middle of a talk-show debate and had to respond. This was certainly one of those occasions in which you either get it or don't. And I wasn't getting it. Or maybe my neighbor wasn't.

At the end of the slide show, Bush displayed two pictures of himself with troops and noted these were his favorites. The final photograph was a shot of special forces soldiers--with their faces blurred to protect their identities--who were posing in Afghanistan where they had buried a piece of 9/11 debris in a spot that had once been an al Qaeda camp. Bush spoke about the prayer the commander had said during the burial ceremony and noted he had this photograph hanging in his private study.

So what's wrong with this picture? Bush was somber about the sacrifice being made by U.S. troops overseas. But he obviously considered it fine to make fun of the reason he cited for sending Americans to war and to death. What an act of audacious spin. One poll recently showed that most Americans believe he either lied about Iraq's WMDs or deliberately exaggerated the case to justify the war. And it is undeniable that in seeking public support for the war he made many false assertions that went beyond quoting intelligence that turned out to be wrong. (I've written about this in many other places. If you still don't believe Bush mugged the truth, check out this short guide.) As the crowd was digesting the delicious surf-and-turf meal, Bush was transforming serious scandal into rim-shot comedy.

Few seemed to mind. His WMD gags did not prompt a how-can-you silence from the gathering. At the after-parties, I heard no complaints. Was I being too sensitive? I wondered what the spouse, child or parent of a soldier killed in Iraq would have felt if they had been watching C-SPAN and saw the commander-in-chief mocking the supposed justification for the war that claimed their loved ones. Bush told the nation that lives had to be sacrificed because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used (by terrorists) against the United States. That was not true. (And as Kay pointed out, the evidence so far shows these weapons were not there in the first place, not that they were hidden, destroyed or spirited away.) But rather than acknowledge he misinformed the public, Bush jokes about the absence of such weapons.

Even if Bush does not believe he lied to or misled the public, how can he make fun of the rationale for a war that has killed and maimed thousands? Imagine if Lyndon Johnson had joked about the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident that he deceitfully used as a rationale for U.S. military action in Vietnam: "Who knew that fish had torpedoes?" Or if Ronald Reagan appeared at a correspondents event following the truck-bombing at the Marines barracks in Beirut--which killed over 200 American servicemen--and said, "Guess we forgot to put in a stop light." Or if Clinton had come out after the bombing of Serbia--during which U.S. bombs errantly destroyed the Chinese embassy and killed several people there--and said, "The problem is, those embassies--they all look alike."

Yet there was Bush--apparently having a laugh at his own expense, but actually doing so on the graves of thousands. This was a callous and arrogant display. For Bush, the misinformation--or disinformation--he peddled before the war was no more than material for yucks. As the audience laughed along, he smiled. The false statements (or lies) that had launched a war had become merely another punchline in the nation's capital.

On the run today , so no new posts. In the meantime, check out the major investigation I worked on for MotherJones.com regarding a private security firm of ex-Secret Service agents that spied on Greenpeace, other environmental groups, and corporate targets by swiping garbage, infiltrating operatives, and penetrating confidential meetings. The piece is based on internal documents we obtained and includes references to Wal-Mart, Robin Wright Penn, the NRA, Mary Kay, and the Rolling Stones.

Quick--give me two words that did not appear in George W. Bush's speech today. How about "breathing space"?

When Bush announced his so-called surge of troops in Iraq in January 2007, he said it would create "the breathing space [the Iraqi government] needs to make progress." But the government has hardly made the best of whatever "breathing space" was offered by the escalation of troops. In today's address, Bush covered Baghdad's supposed progress in two sentences.

Of course, he offered no surprises and did not veer from his stay-the-course stance. And he backed General David Petraeus so thoroughly it was if he was subcontracting out the war to the commander:

General Petraeus says he'll need time to consolidate his forces and assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making measured recommendations on further reductions. And I've told him he'll have all the time he needs.

What's wrong with this? Well, first, Bush is out of here in nine months. Easy for him to say, "Take as much time as you want." More important, Bush is going overboard in delegating. Is he suggesting that as commander in chief he will accept whatever Petraeus tells him? That he will unquestioning grant Petraeus a blank check? Isn't it part of the president's job to evaluate what his field commanders tell him?

Petraeus' approval ratings must be higher than Bush's. (Roger Clemens probably has higher numbers than Bush.) So it's to Bush's political benefit to hide behind the No. 1 front man for the war. But no commander in chief ought to grant a commander--even one who can wow 'em on Capitol Hill--so much leeway.

During the speech, Bush also said:

Some in Washington argue that the war costs too much money. There's no doubt that the costs of this war have been high. But during other major conflicts in our history, the relative cost has been even higher. Think about the Cold War. During the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, our defense budget rose as high as 13 percent of our total economy. Even during the Reagan administration, when our economy expanded significantly, the defense budget still accounted for about 6 percent of GDP. Our citizens recognized that the imperative of stopping Soviet expansion justified this expense. Today, we face an enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland -- and intends to do so again....

We should be able to agree that this is a burden worth bearing. And we should be able to agree that our national interest require the success of our mission in Iraq.

Here we go again: defending the Iraq war and justifying its costs by connecting the war to "an enemy...that has actually attacked our homeland." You'd think that Bush would become tired of that old canard. Moreover, he says everyone should agree the war is worth it. Then why do 70 percent of Americans, according to polls, not agree with this proposition? The country just doesn't buy what Bush has to say. It long ago turned off to his never-ending disingenuous sales pitch. Consequently, the speechifying he did today won't matter. But maybe the next time he feels the need to make a speech on Iraq he should ask Petraeus to give the speech for him. And in that speech, Petraeus can declare: "I am giving myself as much time as I think I need. And I thank me."

In all the excitement of mini-mini-Super Tuesday--that is, the Potomac Primaries--George W. Bush's slam of Barack Obama seemed to slip by without much notice. And it wasn't just a slam, it was a lie.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday this past weekend, Bush was asked by moderator Chris Wallace about Obama. Here's the exchange:

WALLACE: Do you think there's a rush to judgment about Barack Obama? Do you think voters know enough about him and --

BUSH: I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad, which -- I -- I think I commented that in a press conference when I was asked about that.

WALLACE: I hope not. But -- but -- (chuckles) -- so you don't think that we know enough about him or what he stands --

BUSH: Doesn't seem like it to me, but there's -- with campaigns, there's plenty of time for candidates to get defined. He (is yet ?) his party's nominee.

MR. WALLACE: So why do you think he's gotten this far, if people don't know what he stands for?

PRESIDENT BUSH: You -- you're the pundit. I'm just a simple president.

Embrace the Iranian president? Wallace could have forced the president to back up this statement by asking Bush, "where did you get that?" But he did not.

Of course, Obama has never said he would "embrace" Ahmadinejad. In on of the Democratic debates, he promised to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during his first year in the White House, should he be elected president. At the time, I questioned whether Obama had gone too far in making such a vow. But leave it to Bush to turn an offer to talk with Iran into a big bear-hug for the thuggish Iranian leader. Bush was casting a false accusation. But at this point, no one seems to care much about what he says. I didn't see the Obama campaign take much offense. And imagine what the Obama people would have done, if Hillary or Bill Clinton had said it!

Bush's attack on Obama can be seen as a preview of the Republican assault that will come if Obama is the Democratic nominee. The real facts won't matter. They will be trumped by mischaracterization and misrepresentation. Nobody cares much now when Bush goes after Obama by mangling the truth. But if Obama does triumph in the Democratic contest, the Republican attack machine and the newest Swift Boaters will swing into high-gear. Such blasts will have to be countered quickly and effectively.

I'll be on a break until after President's Day. Enjoy contemplating the great leaders of our past.

George W. Bush should be damn mad at his speechwriters. His final State of the Union speech was pedestrian. And it was irrelevant. After all, at this point, his deeds drown out any words he could issue. As he faces the last year of the presidency, he really has nothing new to say: win, win, win in Iraq; tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts; freedom, freedom, freedom. He certainly is not in any position to propose major new policy initiatives. He cannot move anything significant through the Democratic-controlled Congress in the next eleven months--except the continuation of his unpopular war. So the speech barely warrants analysis. That said, here are portions that stood out and the obvious commentary.

"As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. So in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free people to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives and their futures."

Then why won't the Bush allow the U.S. Senate--which represents the people--to authorize or not authorize the agreement the Bush administration is now negotiating with Iraq concerning the U.S. military presence there? Democrats maintain this accord should be treated as a treaty and put to the Senate for a vote. Bush says he can do it on his own. How's that for empowerment?

"Most Americans think their taxes are high enough. With all the other pressures on their finances, American families should not have to worry about the federal government taking a bigger bite out of their paychecks. There is only one way to eliminate this uncertainty: make the tax relief permanent."

He keeps calling tax breaks for millionaires "relief." Why do people making over $250,000 need "relief"?

"Next week, I will send you a budget....And this budget will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012. American families have to balance their budgets, and so should their government."

Just not during Bush's entire time in office and not for the four years after he departs the White House. He will be leaving his successor $9.2 trillion in national debt.

"I ask you to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, modernize the Federal Housing Administration, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. These are difficult times for many American families, and by taking these steps, we can help more of them keep their homes."

What about the predatory lending industry that created the subprime mess? Nothing.

"We share a common goal: making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans. The best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control. So I have proposed ending the bias in the tax code against those who do not get their health insurance through their employer. This one reform would put private coverage within reach for millions."

But not for all of those millions of Americans who are uninsured. Bush's plan would give a modest tax credit to people who can afford to buy their own plans. If you can't, well....

"Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil."

After seven years of the Bush II administration, is the nation significantly closer to energy independence?

"And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases."

Complete an agreement? How about getting one going? The Bush administration has demonstrated no urgency on this front, repeatedly blocking international steps toward redressing global warming.

"Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources."

This was Bush's only mention of China in the speech. China presents perhaps a fundamental challenge of this century. And what about freedom in China? Apparently, that issue didn't make the final cut for this address.

"To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow."

But it's okay to censor the work of government scientists when it involves climate change.

"Tonight the armies of compassion continue the march to a new day in the Gulf Coast. America honors the strength and resilience of the people of this region. We reaffirm our pledge to help them build stronger and better than before. And tonight I am pleased to announce that in April we will host this year’s North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in the great city of New Orleans."

If it's a march, it's a rather slow one. Much of New Orleans is still a wasteland. At least Bush is sending the city diplomats.

"Every Member in this chamber knows that spending on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is growing faster than we can afford. And we all know the painful choices ahead if America stays on this path: massive tax increases, sudden and drastic cuts in benefits, or crippling deficits. I have laid out proposals to reform these programs. Now I ask members of Congress to offer your proposals and come up with a bipartisan solution to save these vital programs for our children and grandchildren."

Translation: I give up.

"Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals."

Translation: I have no idea what to do next.

"Our foreign policy is based on a clear premise: We trust that people, when given the chance, will choose a future of freedom and peace."

See Hamas.

"We will stay on the offense, we will keep up the pressure, and we will deliver justice to the enemies of America."

Haven't we heard this before? Paging Osama bin Laden.

"And we gave our troops [in Iraq] a new mission: Work with Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pursue the enemy in its strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country."

That mission, Bush said a year ago, was to create breathing space for the Iraq government. In this speech, Bush did not mention breathing space for the Iraq government. Nor did he note that 2007 was the deadliest year overall for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. He did say that "American troops are shifting from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission." A "protective overwatch mission"? Bush did not define what that meant? But it sure sounds like mission creep.

"Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated."

Bush always talks about the war in Iraq as if the primary battle is against al Qaeda, though numerous military and terrorism experts have repeatedly said that al Qaeda is a rather small slice of the insurgency in Iraq.

"Reconciliation [in Iraq] is taking place."

That remains debatable.

"A free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven."

In Saddam Hussein's unfree Iraq, al Qaeda had no safe haven. And there is little chance that should the U.S. withdraw troops from Iraq, the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds would hand over the country to the small and unpopular al Qaeda outfit in Iraq.

"This month in Ramallah and Jerusalem, I assured leaders from both sides that America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve a peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state by the end of this year."

It just took Bush a little while to get around to working on the Middle East.

"America is using its influence to build a freer, more hopeful, and more compassionate world."

That must be why the United States' standing in the world is so low.

"America is leading the fight against global poverty."

Other Western nations devote a higher percentage of their gross national product to foreign assistance. By the way, there was no mention of American poverty in the hour-long speech.

"So long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the State of our Union will remain strong."

We just cannot trust the people when it comes to war. Two-thirds of the American public now say the Iraq war was a mistake. Bush refuses to acknowledge that. This profound gap between the people and the president was not part of his assessment of the state of the union. Then again, how could it be?

According to Fred Thompson, George W. Bush has been derelict in his duty as commander in chief. How else to explain Thompson's latest policy initiative?

On Tuesday, Thompson unveiled what he has dubbed his "Four Pillars of a Revitalized National Defense." You might ask, why must the national defense of the United States of America be revitalized after nearly seven years of the Bush administration? And remember that for most of this time, Bush's GOP controlled Congress. Yet Thompson is saying that on Bush's watch, the military has not been properly managed. He is essentially calling Bush a devitalizer.

His Pillar No. 1: boosting military spending. Apparently, Bush's 60-percent hike in Pentagon expenditures since 2001 (in real terms) hasn't been enough--even though U.S. military spending now represents almost two-fifths of the world's total military tab. And at $626 billion, the U.S. military budget is about seven times the size of the military budget of China, the second largest military spender on the planet. It also is much larger than the combined military spending of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Cuba (about $15 billion). But still, six-tenths of a trillion dollars is not enough for Thompson. So he must believe that Bush has imperiled the nation by spending too little during the previous six years.

For Pillar No. 2, Thompson wants to increase the size of the military to create a "million-member" ground force. Right now, the Army has about half a million troops, and the U.S. Marines Corps has about 180,000. Bush has called for increasing the Army to 550,000 and the Marines to 202,000. But yet again, Bush--as Thompson sees it--is not doing enough. Thompson advocates boosting the Army to 775,000 troops and beefing up the Marines to 225,000. Will there be a draft? Thompson doesn't say so. By the way, CBS News on Tuesday reported that Iraq war veterans have a suicide rate two to four times higher than civilians the same age. How's that for a recruitment pitch?

Moving on to Pillar No. 3. "The U.S. must modernize its Armed Forces," Thompson insists. That's obviously one more important task Bush did not get to while he was busy with the Iraq war.

Pillar No. 4: "The U.S. must take better care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines....We must also take care of our veterans by fixing the VA system." Is Thompson implying that Bush has not done all he can to support the troops and our wounded warriors? (See the suicide stats mentioned above.)

It would appear that Thompson has a low regard for the current military status quo. And who's to blame for that?

Of course, Thompson doesn't point a finger directly at Bush. Now that would take guts, for the GOP presidential contenders don't want to criticize the president and possibly piss off Republican voters. (John McCain wimps out by blasting Donald Rumsfeld, not Bush, for the mismanagement of the war.) Thus, we have the spectacle of Thompson calling for revitalizing a military establishment that has been run by his own party for seven years and holding no one accountable for doing a lousy job. (By the way, Thompson is crashing in recent polls--for instance, placing sixth in New Hampshire.)

In a speech on Tuesday at The Citadel, a military college in South Carolina, Thompson promoted his four pillars and proclaimed, "We can either build up and deter war, or we can allow our forces to wither and risk conflict." That is a false either/or. He left out one option: use well the extensive resources already committed and pledged by the Bush administration to the military. But from Thompson's perspective, sticking with what we got would put America at risk. And that makes Bush, in the world according to Thompson, the weakener-in-chief.

From George W. Bush's second inaugural address:

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world....

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

From Sunday's New York Times story on the Bush administration's response to General Musharraf's crackdown in Pakistan (which includes suspending the country's Constitution, dismissing the chief justice, and calling out the national police):

"We were clear that we did not support it," Ms. Rice said, speaking to reporters aboard a flight from Istanbul to Israel [on Saturday], where she is traveling for regional talks. "We were clear that we didn't support it because it would take Pakistan away from the path of democratic rule."

But even as she criticized General Musharraf's power grab, Ms. Rice stopped short of outright condemnation of General Musharraf himself, even going so far as to credit him for doing "a lot"--in the past--toward preparing Pakistan for what she called a “path to democratic rule."

Doing "a lot" in the past? Such as seizing control of previously democratic government? And while Rice was getting nostalgic about Musharraf and the good ol' days, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe called Musharraf's actions--the equivalent of declaring martial law--"very disappointing." The next day, the Bush administration sent Musharraf this message: Don't worry; you'll still going to receive billions of dollars in U.S. aid, even as you detain human rights advocates and leaders of the opposition.

Look how the big sentiments of Bush's grand speech give way to such small words and weasely action when his administration is put to the test. Certainly, Bush and his aides cannot be expected to handle the thorny issue of Pakistan with sophistication or competence. But his administration's response to events in Pakistan show that Bush was more hat than cattle when he claimed at the start of his second term to be freedom's champion. That speech was mainly an attempt to dress up his mess in Iraq. Now those easily delivered words ring out as a reminder of Bush's proclivity for placing rhetoric above reality.

THIS IS WHAT WATERBOARDING STILL LOOKS LIKE. A year ago I obtained pictures of a once-operational waterboarding device and posted them on my blog. The Drudge Report and other sites linked to them, and my blog was besieged with so much traffic the server shut down. Why? Because at that point, there were few, if any, public photographs of this torture device, then a subject of much public debate. With Michael Mukasey's pending nomination as attorney general scheduled to be voted upon by the Senate judiciary committee, waterboarding has again become a topic of political discourse. (It's hard to believe I just wrote the words "waterboarding" and "topic of political discourse" in the same sentence.)

Mukasey's nomination hit trouble after he declined to pronounce this interrogation technique illegal and he endorsed the Bush administration's view that the president, as commander in chief, can interpret the Constitution to place himself above laws passed by Congress. But that trouble passed on Friday when two Democrats on the committee, Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, declared they would vote for Mukasey on Tuesday (and did so minutes after Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic committee chairman, announced his opposition to Mukasey). This assured the Mukasey nomination would be approved by the judiciary committee.

Now that Schumer and DiFi have angered fellow Democrats, it seems an appropriate time to repost that waterboarding item from a year ago. Here it is:

******
As Congress has debated legislation that would set up military tribunals and govern the questioning of suspected terrorists (whom the Bush administration would like to be able to detain indefinitely), at issue has been what interrogation techniques can be employed and whether information obtained during torture can be used against those deemed unlawful enemy combatants. One interrogation practice central to this debate is waterboarding. It's usually described in the media in a matter-of-fact manner. The Washington Post simply referred to waterboarding a few days ago as an interrogation measure that "simulates drowning." But what does waterboarding look like?

Below are photographs taken by Jonah Blank last month at Tuol Sleng Prison in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The prison is now a museum that documents Khymer Rouge atrocities. Blank, an anthropologist and former Senior Editor of US News & World Report, is author of the books Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God and Mullahs on the Mainframe. He is a professorial lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and has taught at Harvard and Georgetown. He currently is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic staff in the Senate, but the views expressed here are his own observations.

His photos show one of the actual waterboards used by the Khymer Rouge. Here's the first:

Here's another view:

How were they used? Here's a painting by a former prisoner that shows the waterboard in action:

In an email to me, Blank explained the significance of the photos. He wrote:

The crux of the issue before Congress can be boiled down to a simple question: Is waterboarding torture? Anybody who considers this practice to be "torture lite" or merely a "tough technique" might want to take a trip to Phnom Penh. The Khymer Rouge were adept at torture, and there was nothing "lite" about their methods. Incidentally, the waterboard in these photo wasn't merely one among many torture devices highlighted at the prison museum. It was one of only two devices singled out for highlighting (the other was another form of water-torture--a tank that could be filled with water or other liquids; I have photos of that too.) There was an outdoor device as well, one the Khymer Rouge didn't have to construct: chin-up bars. (The prison where the museum is located had been a school before the Khymer Rouge took over). These bars were used for "stress positions"-- another practice employed under current US guidelines. At the Khymer Rouge prison, there is a tank of water next to the bars. It was used to revive prisoners for more torture when they passed out after being placed in stress positions.

These photos are important because most of us have never seen an actual, real-life waterboard. The press typically describes it in the most anodyne ways: a device meant to "simulate drowning" or to "make the prisoner believe he might drown." But the Khymer Rouge were no jokesters, and they didn't tailor their abuse to the dictates of the Geneva Convention. They-- like so many brutal regimes--made waterboarding one of their primary tools for a simple reason: it is one of the most viciously effective forms of torture ever devised.

The legislation backed by Bush and congressional Republicans would explicitly permit the use of evidence obtained through waterboarding and other forms of torture. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and other top al Qaeda leaders have reportedly been subjected to this technique. They would certainly note--or try to note--that at any trial. But with this legislation, the White House is seeking to declare the use of waterboarding (at least in the past) as a legitimate practice of the US government.

The House of Representatives voted for Bush's bill on Thursday, 253 to 168 (with 34 Democrats siding with the president and only seven Republicans breaking with their party's leader). The Senate is expected to vote on the bill today. Its members should consider Blank's photos and arguments before they, too, go off the deep end.
******

Well, it's too late for that in the case of Schumer and DiFi.

And let me add that it was unfortunate that the Mukasey debate became so defined by the waterboarding issue. The larger issue at hand is the Bush administration's (and Mukasey's) view of executive power. By accepting Mukasey, these Democratic senators are tacitly accepting that view.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION.... To determine policy in the Bush White House. But here's an all-too relevant passage from Dogs of God: Columbus, the Inquisition, and the Defeat of the Moors, by my friend James Reston Jr.:

When the rack did not produce the desired result, the churchmen turned to the water torture. In this hideous remedy, the prisoner was tied to a ladder that was sloped downward, so that the head was lower than the feet. The head was held fast in position by a metal band, twigs were placed in the nostrils, and ropes winched tightly around his appendages. The mouth was forced open with a metal piece and a cloth placed over the mouth. Then a pitcher of water was brought, and water poured over the cloth. With each swallow, the cloth was drawn deeper into the throat, until in gagging and choking the victim nearly asphyxiated. The terror of suffocation was extreme, and the process was repeated endlessly, bloating the body grotesquely until the victim was ready to confess. If the suspect was still uncooperative, his body was turned over, causing unimaginable pain in the heart and lungs. From the inquisitor's standpoint---for he was there to record every detail---the treatment was easy to administer and left no telltale signs.

First the rack, then waterboarding? Unlike the inquisitors, the Bush administration seems to want to cut right to the chase. How's that for progress?