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.
WHO'S IN CHARGE? There was an odd headline on a Washington Post front-page article this Sunday:
Joint Chiefs Chairman 'Very Positive' After Meeting With Obama
The article reported on the first meeting between Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and President-elect Barack Obama:
There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.
The thrust of the article was that Mullen and the military are not freaked out by Obama and that at this early stage they guardedly consider him acceptable.
Now wait a minute. Who is supposed to be reassuring whom? Mullen and the rest will be working for Obama, and they have been leading a Pentagon that is out of control when it comes spending, especially due to cost overruns. As Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration wrote recently, "President Obama also needs to bring defense spending under control. Since 2001, the regular defense budget has risen by 35 percent in real terms, because weapons programs have experienced cost overruns of $401 billion and the military still buys too many weapons from a bygone era." And though the so-called surge is publicly hailed as a success, there have been tactical and strategic mistakes in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Mullen and the rest should be worried about keeping their jobs.
They also should thank their lucky stars they will soon have a new commander-in-chief who will indeed listen to their views. As the article did note:
"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.
"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."
Isn't it time to deep-six the narrative that Democrats warrant suspicion when it comes to national security matters? And what could be more disrespectful of the military than to not solicit the opinions of its leaders? George W. Bush and Dick Cheney inflicted much damage on the military and misused it to terrible ends overseas. They also did little to protect the Pentagon from its own excesses. Military leaders should be relieved that a new commander in chief is about to ride into town. And the bottom line ought to be whether Obama is satisfied with their performance.
You can get notices of when I post articles and blog items and when I appear on radio and television by following me on Twitter. Just click here.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
DC,
Excellent post!
I have a feeling, even though he has been busy, Obama has thought this through.
The M$M narrative will survive in some form or another. Poor people are weak, democrats are weak, smart people are weak. union workers are weak, etc. etc. - only the GOP are strong. Maybe it will sell again but it was a no-sale this election cycle.
I wonder how self-defeating that message is in the era of broadband information access?
Time will tell.
Posted by: capt
| December 2, 2008 12:11 PM
CHICAGO (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama said on Monday he believed U.S. combat troops should leave Iraq within 16 months of his taking office but he would listen to advice from military commanders.
"I believe that 16 months is the right timeframe but, as I've said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders," Obama said after unveiling his nominees for top national security posts.
U.S. troops may be out of Iraq in 16 months: Obama
Obama said a new security pact between Iraq and the United States already put the United States on a "glide path" to pulling out of Iraq. He also noted that a "residual" U.S. force may need to remain in Iraq longer than combat troops.
(Reporting by Andrew Gray, Editing by Sandra Maler)
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4B05IW20081201
Posted by: capt
| December 2, 2008 3:24 PM
Wallace Defends Bush’s Abuses Of Power, Says Comparison To Nixon Is ‘A Gross Misreading Of History’
During a discussion period after the screening yesterday of Ron Howard’s new film “Frost/Nixon,” Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace defended President Bush against criticism by Howard that Bush has abused the office of the presidency in way similar to President Richard Nixon:
“Richard Nixon’s crimes were committed purely in the interest of his own political gain,” Mr. Wallace told Mr. Howard before an audience of a few hundred after viewing the filmmakers new film “Frost/Nixon,” which is about the only U.S. president to resign from office.
“I think to compare what Nixon did, and the abuses of power for pure political self preservation, to George W. Bush trying to protect this country — even if you disagree with rendition or waterboarding — it seems to me is both a gross misreading of history both then and now,” Mr. Wallace said.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/02/wallace-defends-bush/
Posted by: capt
| December 2, 2008 7:22 PM
The Enforcer
Obama's most important national-security pick isn't Hillary—it's Gen. Jim Jones.
http://www.slate.com/id/2205746/
*****
Looks like Kaplan proves imitation is a sincere form of flattery but . . .
Posted by: capt
| December 2, 2008 11:50 PM
Treachery Inside The US Supreme Court
http://rense.com/general84/treach.htm
Posted by: as_if!
| December 3, 2008 3:08 AM
US masses naval-air-marine might in Arabian Sea opposite India, Pakistan, Iran
Three US aircraft carriers with strike groups, task forces and nuclear submarines have piled up in the waters of the Arabian Sea opposite the shores of India, Pakistan and Iran, and in the Persian Gulf.
http://tinyurl.com/6gfldw
Posted by: as_if!
| December 3, 2008 3:14 AM
Bush to receive first-ever International Medal of Peace.
http://tinyurl.com/6nepgj
Posted by: as_if!
| December 3, 2008 3:30 AM
Post A Comment