John Bolton O-U-Thttp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/4/121237/766
[NYT] President Bush today ended his efforts to have John R. Bolton confirmed by the Senate as United Nations ambassador and said Mr. Bolton will leave the position, which he has held for the past year after being chosen between Congressional terms, this month....
President Bush said that he accepted "with deep regret" Mr. Bolton’s decision to end his service.
"I am deeply disappointed that a handful of United States Senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate," Mr. Bush said. "They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time."
[McJoan] Get used to feeling disappointed, Mr. President. . .
The true explanation: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_03.php#011387
[Josh Marshall] The White House is saying that Bolton's re-nomination died because of a "Democrat filibuster". But didn't he tank because Republican Linc Chafee said 'no'?
Who’s next? http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2171.html
[Mark Leon Goldberg] There are a few names being kicked around: Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, Representative Jim Leach, and Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky to name a few. Each of these three could be described as foreign policy pragmatists from of Secretary Rice's camp. If this holds, it seems that we may be in for a course correction at the United Nations.
Bolton’s greatest hits: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061218/williams
Winners and losers: http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/dec/04/winners_and_losers_after_john_boltons_resignation
How the Democrats are going to make future “recess appointments” impossible (and how Bush is helping them)
http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7924
[Bob Novak] Sen. Harry Reid, leading the Senate's new Democratic majority, is framing next year's schedule in a way that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for President Bush to give recess appointments to nominees blocked for confirmation.
Reid's schedule limits Senate recesses to one week. Recess appointments usually are made only when Congress has been out of session for at least 10 days. . . .
A footnote: Bush did not make his difficult course in the Senate any easier when he inexplicably failed to place a congratulatory phone call to Sen. Mitch McConnell on his election as Senate Republican leader. The president did call the new minority whip, Sen. Trent Lott. After McConnell revealed the presidential snub in an interview, Bush called him.
The Petulant President
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116527344848997537
[Digby] Not only did he send out the snotty statement about Bolton's resignation . . . he held a photo-op and talked to the press slumped down in his chair, lip curled, obviously pissed off. He said this:
"I'm not happy about it. I think he deserved to be confirmed. And the reason why I think he deserved to be confirmed is because I know he did a fabulous job for the country."
You'd think he'd be used to failure after experiencing it his entire life but he doesn't seem to he handling it well. His arrogance has always been there, throwing his weight around, peppering his speech with phrases like "I told the American people they were gonna have tah be patient and I meant it." But now there's a darker edge to it. I see no signs that he's ready to see reason on a judgment call like Iraq. . .
More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7923
There’s something wrong with this guy (seriously)
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/is-president-not-only-losing-iraq-but.html
[Joe] Anyone who has watched George Bush over the past weeks must wonder if the President of the U.S. has any semblance of sanity left. Frank Rich, in that brilliant way that of his, asks and answers the question of whether our President is losing it. This is a serious piece and must be read. These are frightening times and our leader is delusional:
IT turns out we’ve been reading the wrong Bob Woodward book to understand what’s going on with President Bush. The text we should be consulting instead is “The Final Days,” the Woodward-Bernstein account of Richard Nixon talking to the portraits on the White House walls while Watergate demolished his presidency. As Mr. Bush has ricocheted from Vietnam to Latvia to Jordan in recent weeks, we’ve witnessed the troubling behavior of a president who isn’t merely in a state of denial but is completely untethered from reality. It’s not that he can’t handle the truth about Iraq. He doesn’t know what the truth is.
The most startling example was his insistence that Al Qaeda is primarily responsible for the country’s spiraling violence. Only a week before Mr. Bush said this, the American military spokesman on the scene, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, called Al Qaeda “extremely disorganized” in Iraq, adding that “I would question at this point how effective they are at all at the state level.” Military intelligence estimates that Al Qaeda makes up only 2 percent to 3 percent of the enemy forces in Iraq, according to Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News. The bottom line: America has a commander in chief who can’t even identify some 97 percent to 98 percent of the combatants in a war that has gone on longer than our involvement in World War II.
But that’s not the half of it. Mr. Bush relentlessly refers to Iraq’s “unity government” though it is not unified and can only nominally govern. (In Henry Kissinger’s accurate recent formulation, Iraq is not even a nation “in the historic sense.”) After that pseudo-government’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, brushed him off in Amman, the president nonetheless declared him “the right guy for Iraq” the morning after. This came only a day after The Times’s revelation of a secret memo by Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, judging Mr. Maliki either “ignorant of what is going on” in his own country or disingenuous or insufficiently capable of running a government. Not that it matters what Mr. Hadley writes when his boss is impervious to facts. . .
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_03_atrios_archive.html#116525043952273921
[Atrios] I'd like to believe that Bush is going to declare victory and go home, and I do believe that it is possible, but that isn't going to happen unless they can create some artificial benchmark by which we can actually declare victory. It'd be bullshit, and we'd all know it was bullshit, but in order to save the fragile ego of the worst president ever we'd all go along with the charade. Or something. But I don't see how that artificial benchmark can be created. We've turned all the damn corners there are to turn. At each magical step, especially the formation of the government, they could've declared victory and started coming home. But Bush couldn't let go of his pet war. . .
There's no way out which preserves the fragile ego of the boy king, and therefore absent immense political leadership elsewhere I fear there is no way out until he has left office.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/something-changed-last-week-regarding.html
[AJ] This past week marked a tremendous shift in the public perception of Iraq. A series of significant events combined to make it clear that the situation not only continues to worsen, but that even "serious" establishment types know it and are saying so very openly. . . .
So . . . what happens now? What will the President actually do in the face of establishment pressure to change? Based on past evidence, the answer appears likely to be: not very much. He has consistently said the only way to lose is to withdraw, which means, to him, staying equals winning. With Secretary Rumsfeld out, I'm not sure who other than Cheney shares that view, but if President Bush does, it's the only opinion that really matters. . .
More: http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/12/04/a-are-his-lips-moving/
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9235.html
“A collective national intervention”
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_03.php#011385
[Josh Marshall] Back before the election, Andrew Sullivan said the 2006 midterm was shaping up not so much as an election as a collective national intervention. But do you get the sense now that it was a failed one?
I don't mean that in the sense that it was a failed election or that the Democrats have fallen short in any way. I mean more specifically about the president.
I go around the web and I see headlines like, Will President Listen to What James Baker Says?
Then there's Stephen Hadley saying, Believe Me, the President Knows Something Has to Change.
It's like hearing from relatives and friends that so and so knows he has to make a change. But will he?
And this is the guy running the country?
More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/4/161112/975
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3622
The worst job in Washington
http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7927
Q I have a question about the Rumsfeld memo. At the time when he was saying to the President, in this memo, that things aren't working in Iraq, the President was saying two things publicly: One, that we're winning in Iraq, absolutely; and he was also lashing Democrats, saying that criticism was not a plan for Iraq, and that we -- the administration -- have a plan for victory in Iraq. So why wasn't the President leveling with the American people?
MR. SNOW: Actually, at the time that this came --
Q Why wasn't he saying publicly what top members of this administration who were running the war were saying privately?
MR. SNOW: Well, there are a couple of things. First, at that very time, he was actually saying, things are not getting well enough fast enough. That was a formulation he was using at the time. If you take a look at the Rumsfeld memo that was printed in The New York Times, what you end up having is what the President I think has made it clear that he wants, which are people thinking creatively and exhaustively about ways of getting better results in Iraq.
[snip]
So I don't think you've got a case where the President was saying one thing and advisors were saying another.
[snip]
Q But doesn't it strike you that at the same time that you and others in this administration were accusing the likes of John Murtha of cutting and running by suggesting redeployment of forces to the periphery of Iraq or to nearby Kuwait, that the Secretary of Defense is suggesting similar options?
MR. SNOW: What Mr. Murtha had suggested was -- he was never quite that specific, and I think I'd let him speak for himself, but I believe when he came on "Meet the Press," he was talking about redeploying to Okinawa. What you have in here is a description of possibly having forces --
Q But that's not the -- he talked about redeploying to Kuwait. You say you don't want to talk more, but you're not talking accurately.
MR. SNOW: No, here's what he says, is, "You can withdraw forces from vulnerable positions -- cities, patrolling, et cetera -- and move forces to a quick reaction force status operating from within Iraq and Kuwait." Now, it is one of many options that are described here. What it means is the administration is trying to take a look at every suggestion, as I think would be incumbent.
Q Wait a second. You're not really answering the question. You're trying to parse what Murtha's position was.
MR. SNOW: No, I'm not --
Q Wait a second, let me just finish.
MR. SNOW: Okay.
Q Isn't it striking that this administration was accusing the likes of John Murtha and other Democrats who suggested course correction, including phased withdrawal, of cutting and running --
MR. SNOW: No, let me --
Q -- at the same time that the Defense Secretary was suggesting just the same option?
MR. SNOW: No.
Q You don't see hypocrisy there?
MR. SNOW: No, because you're talking about apples and oranges. If you take a look at --
Q Really?
MR. SNOW: Yes, really -- because there is no suggestion in here that things be done without regard to developments on the ground. What the President has already said is, what you try to do is, obviously, we want U.S. forces to be withdrawing based on what is going on, on the ground in Iraq. And there is still a significant difference.
[snip]
Q So this White House is playing it straight with the American people?
MR. SNOW: Yes. . .
Q Rumsfeld says in the memo, advising the President, "announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis."
MR. SNOW: That's one of the options.
Q Right, this will give the U.S. the "ability to readjust and move to another force, if necessary, and therefore, not to lose."
MR. SNOW: Right.
Q Does the President typically get this kind of advice from Rumsfeld, to do one thing, but tell the American people he's doing something else?
MR. SNOW: No. Again, if you take a look at this, this is illustrative options and this covers a whole lot of ground. And the President can sort through it. I think Secretary Rumsfeld was musing, but you'll have to ask Secretary Rumsfeld what he had in mind.
Q You don't see this as duplicitous in any way?
MR. SNOW: You know, I'll let you characterize it. What he was doing was laying out options.
Q Well, how does the White House characterize it? To say to tell the American people one thing and to do another --
MR. SNOW: Well, the White House characterizes it --
Q -- how is that not duplicitous?
The Bush-Hakim meeting
http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/from_tragedy_to_farce_and_back/
[Matthew Yglesias] With Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's visit to Washington, one really might have thought that the cognitive dissonance from the White House would have gotten too intense for the Beltway press corps to keep covering administration "policymaking" with a straight face. . . Really, truly do we need to take the idea that Hakim is the solution in Iraq even remotely seriously. The hope, it seems, is that more Hakim means less Muqtada, but what's the point? Why would we want to trade an upstart Iranian-backed vicious Shiite Islamist would-be theocrat for a more establishment-oriented Iranian-backed vicious Shiite Islamist would-be theocrat? . . .
More: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005281.html
http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/al-hakim-us-troops-should-stay-urges.html
Is this McCain’s version of Newt’s “Victory or Death”?
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/dec/04/mccain_you_either_win_or_you_lose_in_iraq
John McCain, who's courting the conservative vote by positioning himself as the GOP primary's über-hawk, today made it clear that there's only one option he considers unacceptable for Iraq: compromise. The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin reports that McCain has now become the latest hawk to pre-emptively attack the forthcoming proposals of the Iraq Study Group, which is reported to favor withdrawing troops from Iraq. McCain told conservative radio host Michael Smerconish that he's sticking by his position that more troops need to be sent to Iraq, and rejected any notion of "compromise" that may be floated by the Baker-Hamilton group, elaborating as follows: "Well in war, my dear friends, there is no such thing as compromise; you either win or you lose."
More: http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/the_ignorant_way_of_war/
The list of who to blame for Bush’s failed war continues to grow: so far, we’ve had (1) the ungrateful Iraqi people, who don’t deserve the democracy we gave them, (2) the irresolute American people, who lost the nerve to “stay the course,” (3) the Democrats, those traitorous turncoats, who refused to back their Commander in Chief. Today, a new addition to the list: (4) the press, of course!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_03.php#011393
[Michael Novak] "What we have discovered in Iraq is the weakest link in the ability of the United States to sustain military operations overseas. That link is the U.S. media. They are Islamists' best friends."
Here comes #5 – watch for it
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010333.php
[Newsweek] The American military is fed up with Maliki. The ground commanders in Iraq felt betrayed by him this summer when he undermined a push to get control of the streets of Baghdad. The Iraqis failed to deliver on a promise to put enough troops on the ground. A four-star general who declined to be identified discussing a confidential conversation told of this encounter with Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who was in charge of day-to-day ground operations. "Do you have enough forces? Enough to clear an area and stay there to secure it 24/7?" Chiarelli replied, "Of course not." The four-star recalls replying, "It's going to fail, it's absolutely going to fail." . . .
Bush’s leaks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/12/04/BL2006120400612.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9239.html
The reassessment of Condi Rice continues (here’s someone whose star is going to fall a long way before it’s over)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/4/193520/083
The Padilla video – what it shows and why it’s the worst thing since Abu Ghraibhttp://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2179.html
[Lizardbreath] We seem to be systematically ill-treating our prisoners in a way that doesn't make any legitimate sense. If it's punishment, it's simply wrong because they haven't been tried. If it's for interrogation, it seems insanely excessive. If the argument is that "We are certain enough that Padilla had vital information that we are justified in confining him for years and treating him in any manner, no matter how psychically damaging not likely to cause organ failure in the hopes of extracting that information," I really want that argument to be made explicitly. What do they hope to find out from these people? And if we're claiming that the ill-treatment is necessary for security, that is patent nonsense. What was done to Padilla (and is being done to prisoners at Guantanamo) is obviously not necessary to keep them from escaping or hurting other people, and anyone putting forth that justification for blindfolding Padilla on his way to the dentist is either deceiving themselves or a liar.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116521229285082092
[Digby] Mr. Padilla’s situation, as an American declared an enemy combatant and held without charges by his own government, was extraordinary and the conditions of his detention appear to have been unprecedented in the military justice system. . .
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_03_atrios_archive.html#116523845969729137
[Atrios] Mr. Padilla was added as a defendant in a terrorism conspiracy case already under way in Miami. The strong public accusations made during his military detention — about the dirty bomb, Al Qaeda connections and supposed plans to set off natural gas explosions in apartment buildings — appear nowhere in the indictment against him. The indictment does not allege any specific violent plot against America.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/12/padilla.html
[Andrew Sullivan] Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen. He was detained without formal charges for almost four years and turned into a mental patient. The original charges against him appear nowhere in his current criminal prosecution. They were fabrications or delusions or fantasies. . . .
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/ongoing-national-disgrace-of-lawless.html
[Glenn Greenwald] I've honestly run out of adjectives to use when discussing the Bush administration's treatment of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. . .
More: http://sideshow.me.uk/sdec06.htm#12041623
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2173.html#014693
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/12/evidence_mounts_that_us_used_psychological_and_physical_torture_against_padilla.html
An indicator of things to come? Dems revive a House subcommittee on oversight of military spending
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002072.php
The panel was abolished by Republicans in 1995 soon after they took control of Congress.. . .
Rushing to expand Gitmo before Democrats control the funds
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/12/pentagon_rushes_to_build_megacomplex_at_gitmo_before_dems_take_congress.html
The Mark Foley affair (my, how distant it seems already) is heating up again – and Denny Hastert is going to get creamed
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002074.php
Re-appreciating Al Gore (yes, he got shafted in 2000, and yes I respect what he’s been doing lately — but no, no, and no for 2008). He does get off a good joke, though
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116527416948731603
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9237.html
Theocracy watch: with George Allen and Bill Frist out, here’s the religious right’s new darling for 2008 (and no, it’s NOT Mitt Romney)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120400403.html
More from the Florida 13th district
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002073.php
Bonus item: An Iraq timeline – brilliant! (thanks to Atrios for the link)
http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2006/12/putz-on-iraq-timeline.html
***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).
I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
