We need less deference to US presidents, not more

Politicians and pundits are all atwitter today because a Republican member of Congress shouted out “You lie!” during the President’s speech, when Obama declared that health care benefits would not be extended to illegal immigrants. Their outrage is directed not so much at the accusation, which was false, as at the fact he displayed disrespect for the country’s chief executive.

Yet as the last eight years have made clear again and again, we need to show less respect to the president…much less. It’s our political class in particular that needs to learn how to be boldly and loudly confrontational whenever the president is behaving outlandishly.

To take but one example of an occasion when confrontation and, yes, bold disrespect was desperately needed for the welfare of the country, and yet totally lacking, there was George W. Bush’s State of the Union address in 2003.

It was a speech that nearly made my blood run cold. Bush strongly hinted at a secret and very ugly covert program to torture, assassinate, or ‘disappear’ terrorist suspects around the globe. The audience in Congress reacted not in shock or horror or disgust. They didn’t revile the President or demand an explanation for what he was bragging about. They didn’t shout “You un-American scum!” No, they just applauded enthusiastically.

All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries.

And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.

(APPLAUSE)

For whatever it’s worth, we now know that the great majority of terrorist suspects detained by the US were eventually released without charge – setting aside those who were killed in custody, of course. We still have not learned who these “many others” were or what their “different fate” turned out to be.

In the same speech Bush told his famous lies about Iraq, asserting falsely that Saddam Hussein had continued active nuclear and biological weapons programs in the 12 years since the Gulf War. Bush stated, falsely, that “we know” that Hussein had mobile biological weapons factories. The President repeated the canard, already exposed as nonsense, that aluminum tube imports into Iraq were intended for nuclear weapons centerfuges. Bush even cited a claim disproven by the CIA, based upon a forged document, that Hussein was seeking to import more nuclear material. Bush mischaracterized the UN resolution as an ultimatum to disarm, when in fact Iraq had no such weapons. Bush also described Hussein, falsely, as failing to cooperate with inspectors’ demands to destroy the non-existent weapons. Bush even went on to assert, falsely, that Hussein was sponsoring Al Qaeda. He concluded by announcing that even without UN authorization, he intended to invade Iraq to depose Hussein. No member of Congress had the decency, however, to shout out “You lie”. Instead, this farrago of transparent lies and proud war-mongering was greeted with applause, repeatedly.

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct--were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

[…]

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

[…]

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

(APPLAUSE)

[…]

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's--Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

(APPLAUSE)

In the same speech, by the way, Bush stated that America had a crisis in health care and he was making reform a priority.

Our second goal is high quality, affordable health for all Americans.

(APPLAUSE)

The American system of medicine is a model of skill and innovation, with a pace of discovery that is adding good years to our lives. Yet for many people, medical care costs too much, and many have no coverage at all.

These problems will not be solved with a nationalized health care system that dictates coverage and rations care.

(APPLAUSE)

Instead, we must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy, choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need.

(APPLAUSE)

Instead of bureaucrats and trial lawyers and HMOs, we must put doctors and nurses and patients back in charge of American medicine.

(APPLAUSE)

So far so good. But Bush’s proposals, when they finally emerge, do nothing to address bureaucracy, give health care to the poor, improve its quality, or bring costs down. It turns out that he’s advocating nothing more than tort reform for medical malpractice lawsuits, and a Medicare drug plan (for those who already had good medical coverage at low cost).

Instead of applauding deferentially, why didn’t any member of Congress demand to know “Where does that leave the poor and uninsured?”

As a country we’re practically addicted to deference toward our presidents. We even reflexively call him “The Commander in Chief” – as if that presidential role applied to anybody not currently serving in the military. We really need to unlearn those habits of deference that the nation picked up during the Cold War, and recognize anew that presidents gain or lose respect primarily by their actions.

I’m not advocating rudeness for the sake of rudeness, much less the anger and incivility that has coarsened our public discourse during the last generation. I’m certainly not excusing the shameless slanders that Obama’s Republican opponents have made their forte.

But I do think we need to welcome and encourage thoughtful, honest, and frank confrontation of the most powerful and least accountable members of our political class.

Dan Quayle is back

Sarah Palin's ABC interviews last night were a national embarrassment. From the opening moments it had the feel of a cringe comedy except the joke is on America. I had a sense of deja vu from Dan Quayle's elevation in 1988. Just as with Quayle's first infamous interviews, Palin came across as ignorant and full of conviction and vacuous and earnest and equivocating and bellicose and naive and talking-pointed and unreflective and determined and shallow and self-righteous and hapless. It was immediately clear why the McCain campaign had to keep Palin away from reporters for the last two weeks.

Although the train-wreck is attracting plenty of attention already, what has gone unremarked is that the questions were straightforward, predictable, and fairly general. Charles Gibson did ask Palin about a couple of her controversial statements, though given how many false, contradictory, and bizarre comments she has made, he went exceedingly easy on her. He also pressed Palin a few times when she was especially evasive. But that was the extent to which the interview could be considered 'tough'. None of his questions were specific in the way that reporters generally test the extent of an unknown candidate's understanding of governance, policy issues, legislation, foreign relations, or history. Anybody who was remotely competent should have been able to respond to every one of those questions with ease. So the train-wreck was self-induced.

In the most revealing moment, when Gibson asked whether Palin supported the Bush Doctrine of preemptively and unilaterally attacking countries that might pose a threat to the US, it became clear that she had never heard of his policy. That's an astounding level of ignorance. To justify the invasion of Iraq, Bush had rejected a world consensus on international relations going back to the establishment of the UN 60 years earlier. Even as her own son was about to ship out to Iraq, Palin still hadn't figured out the basis on which Bush had invaded the country in the first place.

Here is how in September 2002 the White House outlined the Bush Doctrine of preemptively attacking countries that might pose a threat:

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning...

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans are dead as a direct result of the Bush Doctrine, millions more Iraqis are driven into exile, cities lie in ruins, our reputation among the world's nations is in tatters, John McCain has threatened further war against Iran on the same basis, and the Republican vice-presidential nominee couldn't even figure out what Gibson was talking about when he raised the issue.

Her deer-in-the-headlights look, as she sought repeatedly to avoid being pinned down, showed how far out of her depth she is. For she's more than just ignorant. Her blathering about the need to fight terrorism, a transparent smokescreen, shows that Palin thinks others don't know what she doesn't know.

Especially pathetic was her sudden attempt to change the subject to Bush's blunders and the need for new leadership. And even after Gibson explained to her what the Bush Doctrine is, she tried to deflect the question another time with more platitudes. Pressed once again to take a position, Palin appeared to fall back on the pre-Bush consensus that it's the imminence of a threat which justifies taking military action. Thus, unwittingly, she backed into a position that conflicts with McCain's support for the Bush Doctrine.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

I've seen this kind of thing many times before – and not just in the abject cluelessness of Dan Quayle during 1988, or George W. Bush during 2000. Palin was the 'F' student trying to convince a teacher that she merits at least a 'B'. Her performance is like the final exam essay that, starting off with an incomprehension of basic terms, and showing an awareness only of a single assigned book – though not its contents - tries to get by on banalities that might have been composed before the course ever began.

It was an interview with a candidate who knows next to nothing about political matters because (as James Fallows remarks) she obviously was never interested enough even to pay attention to the news.

If gross ignorance and the indifference that lie behind it are troubling, even more is the attitude that it doesn't matter. Palin embodies to an even greater degree than McCain the belief on full display at the GOP Convention that issues and policies are insignificant, that the Republican candidates can run instead on their character and biographies.

For example, after Palin had tried yet again to claim national security expertise because Alaska lies close to Russia, Gibson asked whether she'd ever met a foreign leader. In response, Palin suggested that expertise is overrated and that Americans are "sick and tired" of people who have a "big, fat resume":

GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state ... these last couple of weeks ... it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

Asked by Gibson whether she'd hesitated to join the ticket because of her scant experience, Palin replied that her lack of doubt was her chief qualification. Her commitment to McCain's goals is what matters rather than her knowledge, background, or abilities. Evidently the test is not blinking, though maybe not in a deer-in-the-headlights way.

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?

PALIN: I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink.

So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

What else does Palin have no qualms about? For starters, an Israeli attack on Iran. Gibson asked what the US should do if Israel wished to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Palin's repeated response is that the US cannot "second guess" any steps Israel takes to defend itself. She appears not to realize how large that blank check is; that Israel might not hesitate to cash it; and that helping Israel to violate the Iraqi air space it patrols would engulf the US inevitably.

Palin also sees no reason to hesitate about bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. The chance that it would involve the US in war with Russia is barely worth a thought.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

[...]

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

Inviting war with Russia is worth a "perhaps" and nothing more. On top of that, Palin falsely states that the Russian invasion of Georgia was "unprovoked".

On top of all that, there were plenty of moments when Palin clumsily tried to avoid being pinned down on issues whose implications she didn't understand fully, or sought to distance herself from her own previous assertions.

For example, Palin had to acknowledge that human activity might be contributing to global warming. She falsely denied that she was contradicting her earlier position. Here for example is Palin as recently as August 28, 2008:

"A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."

In yesterday's interview, Gibson asked about her tendency to depict government policies she supports as God's will. In a recent speech at a church in her hometown, Palin had described the invasion and occupation of Iraq in those terms:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Gibson quoted Palin and asked her, "Are we fighting a holy war?" Palin first tried to deny that she'd said the war is "a task that is from God", then retreated and claimed she was paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln's exhortation to pray, not that God is on our side, but rather that we are on God's side. However after a good deal of blather about terrorism, democracy and freedom, Palin ends up taking back her assertion that the Iraq war is a task from God.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don't know if the task is from God, Charlie.

Palin is not running on expertise, experience, or knowledge – of which she has practically none. She is running on her personal characteristics. What she's demonstrated in these interviews is that she'll say absolutely anything to get elected. Some character.

crossposted at unbossed.com

Bush has no regrets

In a speech today at the Pentagon, George Bush declared that he has no regrets about an unnecessary and costly invasion of Iraq. Bush might have been drawing his inspiration from Edith Piaf, whose 1960 recording of Je ne regrette rien was dedicated to the Foreign Legion then fighting to subdue Algeria.

No! No regrets
No! I will have no regrets
All the things
That went wrong
For at last I have learned to be strong

No! No regrets
No! I will have no regrets
For the grief doesn't last
It is gone
I've forgotten the past

One thing we can however say with certainty is that Bush was taking little notice of the death toll in Iraq. Exactly as on first anniversary of the invasion, the war dead earned only a single, fleeting mention at the very end of his long speech.

You will always remember the comrades who served with you in combat [but] did not make the journey home. America remembers them as well. More than 4,400 men and women have given their lives in the war on terror. We'll pray for their families. We'll always honor their memory.

The best way we can honor them is by making sure that their sacrifice was not in vain. Five years ago tonight, I promised the American people that in the struggle ahead "we will accept no outcome but victory." Today, standing before men and women who helped liberate a nation, I reaffirm the commitment.

Another anniversary of the invasion, and once again Bush promises to honor the war dead by tossing more lives into the Iraq quagmire. Bush can't see his way to honoring them by attending even one of their funerals.

Indeed, I recall that in 2004 on the first anniversary of the war Bush visited the wounded in Walter Reed. But not today. Nor last year. Nor the year before last. Nor the year before that. Remember it the next time Bush talks of "progress in Iraq". That's what "progress" looks like – hiding from the dead and wounded of your war.