Another Quarter - Another Afghanistan Mission

Per the AP and Fox News: 'Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is heading to South Asia on a mission aimed at refining the goals of the nearly 9-year-old conflict in Afghanistan as fears mount about the war.'  We have consistently failed to establish a clearly stated mission in Afghanistan, adapting tactics to the situation as necessary, and we have yet to properly and fully source any of the stated missions to date.  Instead, we keep redefining the mission, accomplishing little in the way of long-term success as a result.  These are failures of both the Bush and Obama Administrations, and must be rectified if we are to achieve success.  This is not to advocate that we blindly stick with a mission that we're unable to accomplish, or for which there is no political and public will, but we must find a mission that we can and will support.  Otherwise, there is little point to being there.

Iran Restricting Airspace Over A Word

Iran is pitching a hissy-fit over the commonly used commercial air term, 'Arabian Gulf,' threatening to ban airlines that fail to call the shared waterway the 'Persian Gulf.'

'"The airlines of the southern Persian Gulf countries flying to Iran are warned to use the term Persian Gulf on their electronic display boards," Road and Transport Minister Hamid Behbahani said in comments in the daily Iran newspaper. "Otherwise they will be banned from Iranian airspace for a month the first time and upon repetition their aircraft will be grounded in Iran and flight permits to Iran will be revoked," he added. .... Iran says it is the Persian Gulf, the Arab states say it is Arab. Foreign language descriptions can offend either party if they use one name or the other, or sometimes if they avoid an adjective altogether.'

Iran has long been touchy about transit through the Gulf, especially at the Strait of Hormuz, where they have occasionally harassed both military and commercial shipping. And of course, there are multiple stories of Iran 'extending' its claims to airspace. This latest dust-up became public after Iran expelled a Greek steward working on a Kish Air flight (Iran also claims he threatened unruly passengers protesting the use of 'Arabian Gulf' on the in-flight monitors). It's possible this tantrum is part of Iran's response to the recent decision by the Obama Administration to beef-up missile defense throughout the Gulf. The most recent deployments were of Aegis cruisers to the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. These are in addition to the Patriot missile batteries installed under President Bush.

Comparing Relative Deficit, Debt and Spending Levels

This article from Robert Robb provides a good comparison between the relative debt, deficit and spending levels of the Bush and Obama Administrations, as well as providing several historic benchmarks. The entire article is well-worth reading, but these points jumped out (apologies for excessive quotation):

'From 2008 to 2009, federal spending increased 18 percent. This was a budget year that straddled the Bush and Obama presidencies. But the spending increase was driven by anti-recession measures, predominately the Bush stimulus and bailouts. Obama supported these measures. In fact, his complaint about the Bush stimulus was that it was too small. This raises a question of political ontology: If Obama agreed with Bush, is it still just Bush's fault? ... Obama proposes that the federal government spend over 25 percent of GDP in 2011, compared to a historical average of around 20.5 percent. He justifies this as necessary to continue to fight the recession. Obama, however, projects that the recession will be fully over in 2011 and robust growth under way. Yet he proposes that federal spending continue to be nearly 24 percent of GDP through 2020. In other words, rather than wind down the additional recession spending after recovery, Obama is proposing that it simply become a new, higher base. After the World War II debt was reduced, accumulated federal debt never exceeded 50 percent of GDP until 2009, when it reached 53 percent. Under Obama's recommendations it would grow to 77 percent by 2020. If Obama were to recommend a path to return spending to its historical share of economic output, in 2020 the deficit would be just $255 billion, about what the federal government spends each year on large capital projects, and just 1 percent of GDP. In other words, not a problem. And federal spending would have still increased by more than 4 percent a year since 2008. Instead, Obama recommends a 2020 deficit of over $1 trillion and a troubling 4.2 percent of GDP.'

Scary stuff indeed. Unfortunately, the president seems to feel he only needs to 'explain' things a little more clearly for the public to get over its annoying habit of judging his fiscal policy based on these numbers.

Obama Utters the E(vil) and T(errorist) Words

During his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Award, President Obama uttered the words "evil" and "terrorism" echoing President Bush, who was so often accused of using those words in service of 'fear-mongering.'

"But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. ... America's commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come."

The President also managed to simultaneously be humble ("Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight.") and give a defense of just war theory. All of this was good. Of course, it would have been nice if he could have managed to do this without snubbing the Norwegians, irritating yet another traditional ally, and without subtle disparagement of his predecessors ("Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified."), but perhaps that's too much to ask from this president. He seems incapable of making a clear, definitive statement of American power without undercutting himself. Subtle and careful thought are always desirable in a leader, and their lack was President Bush's greatest weakness, but it's also necessary for the president to promote the strength and history of his own country. In seeking to be the anti-Bush, Obama is in danger of making equally important mistakes in the opposite direction.

UPDATED: A Pox On All

Update 1: As expected, the sanction of Rep. Wilson passed the House on a largely partisan basis. The hyperbole involved was enough to choke a horse. Hypocrisy marches on.

For all I know, the sanction of Rep. Wilson for the shout heard 'round the world last week, is fully justified. What's bothering me is the sheer hypocrisy. Democrats loudly booed, hissed and called out at President Bush during the 2004 and 2005 State of the Union addresses. Sen. Reid famously called Bush a loser and a liar (several times) later apologizing via a surrogate. Nancy Pelosi is refuses to sanction or take the gavel from Rangel, despite multiple investigations into tax evasion and corruption, but she'll happily sanction a man who did what she herself participated in a few years ago? This is the very definition of political hypocrisy and the reason so many voters say 'a pox on both your houses.

Dumbing Down Democracy

Much has been made in the blogosphere of President Obama's apparently contradictory positions on 'meddling' in other countries' affairs. On the one hand, he took a definite and hard position on the outer of the Honduran President Zelaya (who had tried to illegally extend his term, and for whom a legitimate arrest warrant was made out) and feels secure in directing Israel to cease all settlement building, including expansion relative to populations growth. On the other hand, other than threatening tougher sanctions should Iran fail to halt its nuclear program, and asking for a halt to the violence, Obama is unwilling to employ the harder side of diplomacy with regards to Iran.

The real problem to my mind is that President Obama, in his rush to disavow all things Bush and avoid falling into the trap of democratizing the world, is failing to support a genuine yearning for freedom. Thursday's issue of the Wall Street Journal labeled Obama's willingness to abdicate the discussion on Iran that 'dumbing down of democracy.'

'When the people of Iran filled the streets of their country demanding a fair election, the U.S. clutched for a week. Uncertain of whether U.S. interests lay with the nuke-building ayatollahs or the democracy-seeking population, the Obama team essentially mumbled sweet nothings through the first days of the most extraordinary world event in this young presidency's term. That moment of hesitation, when a genuine and strategically useful democratic moment needed support, could prove costly. When the Group of Eight nations tried to shape a response to the Iranian government's repression, Russia knew what to say about Iran. "No one is willing to condemn the election process," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, "because it's an exercise in democracy." Behold the official dumbing down of democracy. ... Dmitry Peskov was defining democracy in a way that could hardly be more different than the system of political pluralism developed over the past 300 years in the West. He couldn't have been clearer: We are changing the rules. Get over it. n this light, President Obama's performance in Moscow was disconcerting, to put it mildly. In Mr. Obama's worldview, political systems apparently don't compete. They simply . . . are. "America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country," he said, "nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country." Mr. Obama's political equivalence, conventional wisdom now among many Western sophisticates, is wrong and dangerous. Unless the West, led by the U.S. under this president, offers active push-back against the Russian definition of democracy, their version inexorably will back out ours.'

Whether we are nation that supports the growth of freedom and democracy in other countries or not, is a question that goes to the heart of nation and should not be decided by knee-jerk opposition to Bush or neo-cons or some other straw man. Supporting freedom doesn't require the use of 'hard power,' but it does require firmness of purpose and acting without fear of being accused of meddling or of being Bush.

P^5 and the Politics of National Security

There's an expression you probably know: 'lack of prior planning makes piss-poor performance.' It's corollary is 'your failure to plan is not my problem.' The 'problem' with the second phrase is that when the President of the United States fails to plan (acting on ideology or political expediency or both), it is the country's (and possibly the world's) problem. We saw that with some of the decisions made by President Bush, and we're seeing it again with President Obama. Yesterday's speech did nothing to alleviate concerns in Congress and among the public that there is a concrete plan in place to deal with the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison. While the President laid out what the categories of prisoners are, and some general ideas for those categories, he made no specific statements of what plan he proposed for them. Indeed, rather than proposing something specific, he kept whining (yes, I used the word - he sounded exactly like my eight-year-old at times) that it's not his fault and that he's inherited a mess from President Bush and that the problem is hard. The Weekly Standard pointed out that President, while talking nicely about not pointing fingers and using divisive language, spent much of his time doing just that. 'While insisting "we need to focus on the future," President Obama devoted much of his speech on terrorist detainees today to denouncing the policies of President Bush's administration. He faulted everyone in Washington for "pointing fingers at one another," yet pointed his own finger frequently, and critically, at the Bush administration. Obama said America's problems won't be solved "unless we solve them together"--in a divisive and partisan speech certain to alienate Republicans and conservatives.' He wound up the speech by again pushing off his responsibility by talking about collective decision-making with Congress. Oversight is important, but Congress typically likes to have a plan of some kind presented to them for debate and modification. The President seems to want someone else to take responsibility and tell him what to do.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

On a somewhat smaller, although telling, note, the President evidenced in his speech several internal contradictions (whether they're internal to him alone or to his administration is difficult to tell). During the campaign debates the President made repeated statements about governing pragmatically rather than from idealism. It seems from yesterday's speech that he doesn't quite buy that rhetoric. In one moment he said, "But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world. ... I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake." But in the very next breath, the President went on to say, "We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe."

Why should minor moments such at the tension between idealism and pragmatism matter? In part, because the evidence the real difficulty of making national security decisions. Josh Gerstein laid out some of the difficulties in a catchy article on Politico.com yesterday. The opening sentences read: 'During the campaign, it all sounded so simple. Shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison, which critics around the world called a symbol of U.S. disregard for human rights. As president, Barack Obama has found the specifics of closing Gitmo far more complicated.' I was pleased to hear the President abandon the ridiculous language of 'man-caused disasters' and 'overseas-contingency operations,' acknowledging that we are in fact at war (albeit an unconventional war). 'Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat.' However, he seems unwilling to realize that being a Commander-in-Chief during a time of of war means that the president must make decisions and be fully responsible for them, even if those decisions destroy his political power. I'm not trying to make the argument that President Bush was right in all of his decisions, but I am disturbed by President Obama's unwillingness to put forward his own plan and own up to the consequences that would be attendant on it. Instead, while claiming he wants to look forward, he seems stuck in the loop of continually blaming President Bush for everything he doesn't want responsibility for himself.

President Obama's unwillingness to put forward a concrete plan has caused the Congressional leadership to balk at any closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, and yesterday's address did nothing to alleviate that concern. Quoted in Politico yesterday: 'Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned that Obama’s still needed to lay out a detailed plan for closing the detention center. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, whose home state of New York will be the venue of the first court battle with a Guantanamo detainee, said Democrats would have “patience” for Obama’s plans. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Obama’s speech “changes the contours of the debate,” but said that Democrats had “felt they were in a vulnerable position because they were being asked to defend a policy that they didn’t know.” “We’re all awaiting the details of the plan and the president is going to come up with one,” Reid told reporters, saying it was “important” that Obama laid out a “broad vision” on Thursday. “The problems of Guantanamo came from the previous administration … But we are wanting and willing to work with him to come up with a responsible solution.”' It isn't President Bush's fault that President Obama has yet to persuade his own party that he knows what he's doing and why.

Part of President Obama's difficulty in persuading his party (or anyone else) lies in the fact that he does have an internal contradiction to resolve: when to govern from ideology and when to govern from pragmatism. He does not want to use enhanced interrogation (or torture, depending on perspective) because it would violate the ideals of the country, but he does acknowledge the imprudence of simply letting sworn enemies free. He wants to close Guantanamo, but knows that some of its prisoners are are dangerous and can not be tried under any system. Vice-President Cheney calmly laid out the primary divisions in view and substance in his speech that followed on the heels of President Obamas'. 'Cheney said made no apologies for what he called "the comprehensive strategy" he said the Bush Administration developed "to make certain our nation never again faced such a day of horror." To Obama, that strategy included breaches of America’s core values in the methods of surveillance, interrogation and detention of terror suspects. To Cheney, the policies reflected powers derived from Article II of the Constitution and from the Joint Resolution of Congress authorizing the use of "all necessary and appropriate force" to protect the American people.'

While the back-to-back speeches were frequently over-hyped in the media as a 'duel,' they served as useful contrasts to each other (Cheney's speech was scheduled several weeks before Obama's). The former Vice-President began by laying out the rationale behind the national security policies of the Bush administration, directly rebuking the idea in the President's speech that the prior policies were ad-hoc. 'Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact - crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed. That's how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least - but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat - what the Congress called "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.' Cheney then turned to the general decision-making involved post-9/11, and his primary concern with the current policies. 'To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. ... By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know. We're informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision. Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers. Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists.'

One may vigorously agree or disagree with President Bush's decisions and Vice-President Cheney's defense of those policies and his own role in them, but the contrast between President Obama whining about inheriting a mess that's someone else's fault, and Vice-President Cheney taking responsibility for himself and credit for success is a stark one. As a result of the President's failure to date to present concrete plans; for success the war he has now acknowledged we're in as well as how to close Guantanamo Bay, he is beset on all sides as laid out in US Today: 'Congress stands in the way of the Guantanamo shutdown by withholding funds. Conservatives, led by former vice president Dick Cheney, are criticizing Obama's decision to release Bush administration memos approving the interrogation techniques. Liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union are fuming at his refusal to seek prosecutions, release photos and end military tribunals.' The President needs to grow up, stop pointing fingers, and become a leader. Somehow I doubt he's going to do it anytime soon.

UPDATE - Porter Goss: No Cover from the Obama Administration

UPDATE 2: Porter Goss published a damning OpEd in the Washington Post this morning. In it he explicitly condemns members of Congress (no doubt, he was particularly referencing Pelosi) for convenient memories.
In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers. ... Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience. ... The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

The Congressional leadership needs to 'man-up,' now, before their own words and deeds are released by name for the public to examine. Those in glass houses need to be careful of what they throw.

UPDATE 1: To further illustrate the confused message coming from the administration, read both the President's call on the CIA to change their wicked ways, and his assurance to the agency that its members have his full support.

ABCs Jake Tapper published an article yesterday in which he cited a number of current and former CIA officers who shared their concerns that the Obama Administration is now on a path that leaves them exposed and 'without cover.' A former lawyer for the agency, Mark Lowenthal was one of the sources:

"We ask these people to do extremely dangerous things, things they've been ordered to do by legal authorities, with the understanding that they will get top cover if something goes wrong," Lowenthal says. "They don't believe they have that cover anymore." Releasing the photographs "will make it much worse," he said.

Even though President Obama has announced that the Justice Department will not prosecute CIA officers who were operating within the four corners of what they'd been told was the law, Lowenthal says members of the CIA are worried. "They feel exposed already, and this is going to increase drumbeat for an investigation or a commission" to explore detainee treatment during the Bush years, he said. "It's going to make it much harder to resist, and they fear they're then going to be thrown over."

The officers have good reason to fear this, if history is any guide. The Washington Examiner related the story of Ted Olson, who provided legal advice to President Reagan. Olson became the subject of a long-running independent counsel investigation for providing legal advice that later became politically unpopular among members of Congress. The investigation took up years of his life, went nowhere in the long run, and damaged his reputation. There's a great danger that the current thirst for 'truth' turns to a thirst for vengeance. Persecuting those who did their jobs believing their actions to be legally correct and acceptable, and possibly endangering members of the military and intelligence communities who are currently deployed when further exposures are made, is irresponsible at best. Giving a pep talk to Langley won't reassure officers who have done a dangerous job for years, and expected to be covered by the White House, no matter who holds the presidency.

The way that the administration seems to be handling this issue has, at times, appeared almost schizophrenic. Stephen Hayes exposed some of the confusion in the recent edition of The Weekly Standard. The gravest concern raised in his article is not the apparent internal debate in the administration, and between various factions of the Democratic Party, but rather than selective leaking of the memos and possible investigations, will be only for political gain. That possibility should concern any citizen.

This is Rich - Iran tells the US to Offer Honest Dialogue and Change

While using the word dialogue, Iran managed to still verbally spank the US and the President. Ahmadinejad offered dialogue only if the US will become honest, and give up its evil ways. In case you thought he meant just President Bush, Ahmadinejad clarified that he meant the US policies that 'go back for tens of years.' Funny, I always thought disguising a weapons program under the guise of an energy program was pretty dishonest. And calling for the destruction of Israel, while denying the Holocaust is just despicable. Meanwhile, the gaftastic VP Biden changed his mind last year, and switched (from allowing that Israel has the right to first strike) to instructing Israel to take to possibility of first strike off the table. If someone had called for my destruction, and then developed a weapon to end all others, I'd go for the first strike. Just saying ....

I wonder if talking to Iran is going to prove any more successfuly than talking to N. Korea. Any takers?

President Obama overstepping his leagal authority? - How can that be?!

Even the corrupt Sen. Dodd is expressing consternation and confusion about the legal authority under which the Administration is acting with respect to the auto industry. The TARP legislation was specifically designed to make funds available to financial institutions, but as with last year's auto bailout, the Obama Administration wants to use those funds for GM and possibly Chrysler. While the Administration will undoubtedly make the same arguments advanced by President Bush (that the Treasury Secretary has broad discretion and that the auto industry has its own lending institutions that qualify), both the Democratic and Republican Congressional leadership seems uneasy about the power grab. I wrote about this the other day, but it does seem that the President and his Administration are intent on imposing their will on the private sector. Rep. Frank is helping them along with his proposal to dictate compensation packages for all employees of any institution receiving federal assistance. I love the new NBC show, Kings, but this is taking the whole life imitating art thing too far.

But, too cheer us all up, Fox Nation has provided us with a new music video to accompany tea party coverage. It's a lot of fun, so link over (I'll upload when Blogger stop freaking out on me) and enjoy.

Pretty Soon, We'll be Talkin' Real Money

Last night, the Senate passed the omnibus spending bill, allowing the measure to move to President Obama's desk where he's expected to immediately sign it. The bill is only a budget-filler to take the government through until September, when the trillion-dollar-plus budget for 2010 is expected to come up.

I don't object to passing a budget - it's a necessary exercise. But the $8-billion in pet projects really bug me, and the fact that a number of prominent Republicans/traitors support the earmark process makes it doubly hard to swallow.

The big immediate excuse by all for those earmarks?
"It is in America's best interest to close the book on the last administration and let the new one hit the ground running," said Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Please; Congress holds the purse-strings and determines what is in and out of the budget. Even if President Bush had personally requested each and every earmark (the largest requester by dollar value is Murtha, and the largest by number of earmarks is Shelby), blaming what is chosen today on something that originally came up for debate on a prior Administration (Bush refused to sign this bill until some of the earmarks were removed) is the height of childishness.

Here is a list of all the earmarks by dollar value. Strangely, one of the other reasons offered up for allowing the bill to pass as is, is that the earmark dollar value, as a percent of the total budget, is small, and that focus on that small amount is simply diversionary. Wow! $8-billion is such a small amount that you shouldn't worry your pretty little head about it. Now go back to the corner and play with your dolls. Here's a thought - I don't care if the amount is only $1-million. It's the corruption and waste that bothers me.

The long-term excuse for continuing the earmark culture is that the money would be spent anyway, and Congressional members are simply ensuring a 'fair share' for their individual states. This is an amazingly duplicitous argument. It would be reasonable to fight for a block of money to go to one's state or district, and then let the local and state governments go through their normal budgeting and allocation process. Instead, by having Congress decide which individuals projects are funded, local and state governments, and the normal bidding process are circumvented. This power can only lead to corruption in the end, and that end result is the reason McCain has been screaming about earmarks for twenty years.

NPR calls it: The stock market reacts negatively

Right after Sec. Treas. (I can't pay my own taxes) Geithner announced plans to use up to $2 trillion in NEW money to prop up failing banks, bank stocks led the way in a massive drop. A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon we'll be talking real money, along with generations of debt. NPR noted that the market drop is in large part due to the total lack of specificity (or limits) in the plan. No kidding!

Meanwhile, our erstwhile President seems content to blame President Bush and the GOP, despite the massive Congressional spending under a Democratic Congress (of which he was a part).

Refusing blame and taking credit

The Iraqi provincial elections were peacefully conducted, under relatively free and fair conditions. They absolutely have a long way to go, but they've come a long way to a democratic state in a very short period (just look how long it took the U.S. to have free and open elections), and President Bush deserves at least the credit for envisioning this. President Obama, however, seems to be the one in the limelight, and feels free to lecture the Iraqis after having repeatedly said we have failed in Iraq.

Mr Obama urged the newly elected councils to "get seated, select new governors, and begin work on behalf of the Iraqi people who elected them".

On a different note, the promise of the Obama campaign to retire Hillary Clinton's debt has gone unfulfilled. The new Secretary of State still has a nearly $6M debt to vendors. It's a little awkward for a Sec. State to explain and enforce US policy overseas when she can't pay up. I hope this is one campaign promise that the President does keep. He certainly owes her that much.

A timely (and appropriate) pardon

The New York Times published an article today on President Bush's last use of his authority to commute and pardon, by reducing the sentences of two border agents convicted of shooting an unarmed and fleeing drug dealer. The dealer apparently had 743 pounds of marijuana, and the agents shot him while he was 'running away.' It's true that they shot an unarmed man who was fleeing, and that there was no imminent danger to themselves or fellow agents. It's also true that the long-term effect was to protect the American public, and to keep our borders secure. Even Sen. Feinstein seemed to troubled by the continued prosecution of these agents. I think it's an appropriate use of his authority to pardon. It's surely a better use of that authority than the pardon of Mark Rich.