Politics, Compassion, and Justice

Why does the President intentionally misuse facts to mislead Americans? His plan to save social security will actually destroy it. There is no precedent for warrantless wiretapping within the law… anything before 1978 doesn’t count. Who is the President referring to that is isolationist? Who is defeatist? Why does the President state that al Qaeda is fighting in Iraq but ignore that it was absent until he attacked in 2003? And al Qaeda attacked us before it was in Iraq. Leaving Iraq may cause chaos there, but it will save lives here. Do you look forward to the day where more Americans died in Iraq than on 9/11?

For the speech, see daily kos

I was on TV on ABC7 and my study on TV on NBC5 for the couples sleep study I’m running.

Fact Check discusses an exaggerating DNC pre-SOTU ad.

Americans are saving too little, interesting article and comments.

I’m pro-universal healthcare. Here’s another reason to have the debate.

Primary care — the basic medical care that people get when they visit their doctors for routine physicals and minor problems — could fall apart in the United States without immediate reforms, the American College of Physicians said on Monday.

A lot of great ones today

Q Let me ask you a question about elevating the tone, because, obviously, a lot of Americans are familiar with this talk from the President, even though it didn’t really come to pass after he was elected in 2000. The President has talked a lot recently about, in essence, trying to set the terms for how his critics should disagree with him on Iraq, what the responsible way is to do it and what the irresponsible way is to do it. So could you be a little bit more specific about what he thinks he can do to elevate the tone?

MR. McCLELLAN: Just exactly what he’s been doing throughout his administration. This President has always worked, whether it was when he was governor of Texas or since he’s been President of the United States, has always worked to reach out and elevate the discourse. If you look at his tone, this President has focused on how we can work together to get things done, and focused on what the American people expect us to do. And that’s what — and that’s what he will continue to do.

Q And then also equated Congressman Murtha to Michael Moore, when he questioned whether troops should be withdrawn, is that the sort of elevation in tone you’re talking about?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, we said that we have great respect for his service to the country.

Q You later said that.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we said that at the time. I correct you.

11/17/05 Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled — nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.

….

MR. McCLELLAN: …We were able to keep the growth of discretionary spending below the rate of inflation. We actually cut non-security discretionary spending. [programs that help the poor, sick, disabled, young, elderly, and otherwise disadvantaged] Congress is on the verge of passing $40 billion in savings in mandatory programs. That’s something that needs to be addressed. And the President will continue to talk about the importance of addressing that.

Congress also acted by cutting or eliminating nearly 90 programs. The President had called for more.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, tax cuts are part of the solution. It’s out of control spending that has been part of the problem that you bring up, [social security and medicare are out of control spending, but the war isn’t?] and that’s why the President has continued to lead and advocate spending restraint within the budget.[good point. He could be spending more] And Congress has changed the path that our budget is heading on by moving forward on initiatives that he outlined to –

Q Taking it out on food stamps –

MR. McCLELLAN: — address mandatory spending and reduce the growth of discretionary spending,[like food stamps] and it’s important that we continue moving in that direction. But we are a nation that has been at war. We are a nation that has had to address unanticipated challenges, like the recovery and rebuilding along the Gulf Coast. And, you bet, we’re going to continue to meet the needs when it comes to winning the war and –

Q But why give permanent tax cuts to the richest people?

MR. McCLELLAN: — we’re going to meet the needs when it comes to the people of the Gulf Coast as they work to rebuild their lives and their communities. That is something the President is strongly committed to.

Now, in terms of keeping our economy growing, and keeping our budget on path to cut the deficit in half [wouldn’t it be better if we didn’t have a deficit?], we need to continue to keep that economy growing, we need to continue to exercise spending restraint [we could be gilding our toilets with gold]. And tax relief has helped us lay the foundation of a strong economy. We’re creating jobs — 4.6 million new jobs created since May of 2003; [but how many net jobs. how many did we lose?] 400,000 in just the last two months. It’s because of the policies that we have pursued that our economy is growing.

And if you look back over the last few years — and, Helen, I would encourage you to do this — the revenues have come in much higher than anticipated [but still lower than we need. Cutting taxes lowers revenue, duh. But lowering it less than expected isn’t an achievement]. Many people said that we’d pass tax cuts and that it would have the opposite effect.[oh, so tax revenue is up?] Well, it didn’t turn out that way. Tax cuts are good to keep our economy growing. It’s important that we make the tax cuts [for the rich so that the burden is on the poor] permanent. You bet, the President is going to continue advocating for that. The worst thing we can do to our economy right now is raise taxes on working families and the American people[Heh, see if you notice that I imply it’s okay to raise taxes on the rich, heh heh]. As I pointed out last week, it would be a $1.3 trillion tax hike on the American people and working families if we let those tax cuts expire [But “working families” don’t get the tax cuts, (pulling out hair)].

Q You’re contemplating $40 billion to $50 billion in cuts for food stamps, scholarship grants, everything that affects the poor.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I disagree with that. We’re making sure that — the President has talked about this on a number of occasions. The government has a responsibility to make sure that we are meeting the needs of our neediest Americans, and we’re meeting the needs of people with disabilities, and we’re meeting the needs of the elderly. [it’s called voodoo healthcare] That’s why this President worked to pass Medicare reform. And now seniors are starting to realize significant savings on their prescription drug cost. [And the insurance companies are doing quite well, too] And we will continue working to make sure that those priorities of the neediest Americans and our elderly are met.

…Q And insofar as the President has made it clear that those who don’t stand with the U.S. against terrorism stand — if you’re with the terrorists — you’re either with us or against us. In a nuclear stand-up with Iran, are we beginning to see ourselves — is the U.S. beginning to see itself in a situation where you’re either with us or against us against Iran?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I wouldn’t describe it that way at all, Carl. I would describe it as the international community continuing to come together to send a unified message to the regime in Iran.
….
Q Is the peace process then, is it stalemated, is it set back, is it broken? Where is the peace process now, given this whole election?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as we indicated the other day, we believe very strongly that the Palestinian people want a peaceful life, that they want to live in peace. The way to get to peace is the two-state vision that the President outlined….

The election, as we talked about the other day, had much more to do with fighting corruption and responding to the needs of the people….

Q Do you consider this, then, a setback for peace at this point?

MR. McCLELLAN: Freedom is advancing. [But peace?] Again, elections are the beginning of the process. We congratulate the Palestinian people for conducting a successful election that was peaceful. And we are going to continue to work with our partners and others and support people in the region as they move forward to achieve peace. [See Iraq has voted twice and they’re doing much better. The key to peace and freedom is lots of elections]

Q According to data currently available at the Department of Homeland Security Funded Terrorism Knowledge Base, the incidents of terrorism increased markedly in 2005: worldwide attacks were up 51 percent from the year before, and the number of people killed in those attacks is up 36 percent; since the year 2000, attacks are up 250 percent, and deaths are up 550 percent. How do you reconcile those numbers with your claim that you’re winning the war on terrorism and putting terrorists out of business?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, just look at the facts.[Yes, and they are?] If you look at the facts, many of al Qaeda’s known leadership have been put out of business. [So, they’ve become more efficient? Wha?]
…
Q …A couple of Republicans over the weekend, including Senator John Thune, suggested that the White House do a public data dump on everything you’ve got related to Jack Abramoff, just to clear the air. Your response on that?

MR. McCLELLAN: My response is that it’s important for anyone that was engaged in this wrongdoing to be held to account.[except for us] …And nothing has changed.

A pretty spinny day, no?

From today’s Cabinet meeting. I’ve color coded the relevant questions and answers.

Q Mr. President, Israeli officials are seeking an international boycott of a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. Do you support this? And, if so, isn’t that punishing the Palestinian people for exercising the democratic rights that you’ve called for in the region?

THE PRESIDENT: The Hamas party has made it clear that they do not support the right of Israel to exist. And I have made it clear so long as that’s their policy, that we will not support a Palestinian government made up of Hamas. We want to work with a government that is a partner in peace, not a government that is — whose declared intentions might be the destruction of Israel.

Secondly, this new democracy that’s emerging in the Palestinian Territories must understand that you can’t have a political party that also has got an armed wing to it; that democracies yield peace. And so the second half of our message to Hamas is get rid of your arms, disavow terrorism, work to bring what you promised to the people of the Palestinian Territories. Listen, these folks ran on the campaign “we’re going to get rid of corruption” and that “we’re going to provide services to the people,” and that’s positive. But what isn’t positive is that they’ve got parts of their platform that will make it impossible for them to be a peaceful partner.

So, as opposed to what Scott said on Friday, we will boycott a Palestinian government that includes an armed, violent Hamas. Oh, and apparently only unarmed groups can form democracies. I’m pretty sure there were no armed conflicts in 1776 or 1789. Perhaps what Bush means is, when a newly elected government’s platform includes the destruction of a UN member, then we don’t have to work with that government.

Here’s the thing though, Bush won with a 1% margin in 2004 and took it as a mandate. Hamas got some 20% more than that. How can you marginalize the will of the people? How can you see that as a mandate against corruption, as if Hamas was a single issue party? I admit, it’s a bit hairy, but can’t Bush just say, we won’t give aid to a terrorist government?

The part where they merge with the PA militias is okay with me.

Please post comments here or here as I’m still thinking through this one.

While discussing why we often hear that the Abramoff scandal is bipartisan when it isn’t, Paul Krugman writes:

“How does one report the facts,” asked Rob Corddry on “The Daily Show,” “when the facts themselves are biased?” He explained to Jon Stewart, who played straight man, that “facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda,” and therefore can’t be reported.

Mr. Corddry’s parody of journalists who believe they must be “balanced” even when the truth isn’t balanced continues, alas, to ring true. The most recent example is the peculiar determination of some news organizations to cast the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff as “bipartisan.”

Seriously, the Daily Show should be quoted more often.

From the 1/29/06 NYTimes Editorial

Spies, Lies and Wiretaps

A bit over a week ago, President Bush and his men promised to provide the legal, constitutional and moral justifications for the sort of warrantless spying on Americans that has been illegal for nearly 30 years. Instead, we got the familiar mix of political spin, clumsy historical misinformation, contemptuous dismissals of civil liberties concerns, cynical attempts to paint dissents as anti-American and pro-terrorist, and a couple of big, dangerous lies.

The first was that the domestic spying program is carefully aimed only at people who are actively working with Al Qaeda, when actually it has violated the rights of countless innocent Americans. And the second was that the Bush team could have prevented the 9/11 attacks if only they had thought of eavesdropping without a warrant.

Sept. 11 could have been prevented. This is breathtakingly cynical. The nation’s guardians did not miss the 9/11 plot because it takes a few hours to get a warrant to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail messages. They missed the plot because they were not looking…. “President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they’re calling and why,” he told Republican officials. “Some important Democrats clearly disagree.”

Mr. Rove knows perfectly well that no Democrat has ever said any such thing — and that nothing prevented American intelligence from listening to a call from Al Qaeda to the United States, or a call from the United States to Al Qaeda, before Sept. 11, 2001, or since. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act simply required the government to obey the Constitution in doing so. And FISA was amended after 9/11 to make the job much easier.

Only bad guys are spied on. …Vice President Dick Cheney claimed it saved thousands of lives by preventing attacks. But reporting in this paper has shown that the National Security Agency swept up vast quantities of e-mail messages and telephone calls and used computer searches to generate thousands of leads. F.B.I. officials said virtually all of these led to dead ends or to innocent Americans. The biggest fish the administration has claimed so far has been a crackpot who wanted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch — a case that F.B.I. officials said was not connected to the spying operation anyway.

The spying is legal. The secret program violates the law as currently written. It’s that simple. In fact, FISA was enacted in 1978 to avoid just this sort of abuse…. The attorney general can authorize electronic snooping on his own for 72 hours and seek a warrant later. But that was not good enough for Mr. Bush, who lowered the standard for spying on Americans from “probable cause” to “reasonable belief” and then cast aside the bedrock democratic principle of judicial review.

Just trust us. Mr. Bush made himself the judge of the proper balance between national security and Americans’ rights, between the law and presidential power. He wants Americans to accept, on faith, that he is doing it right. But even if the United States had a government based on the good character of elected officials rather than law, Mr. Bush would not have earned that kind of trust. The domestic spying program is part of a well-established pattern: when Mr. Bush doesn’t like the rules, he just changes them, as he has done for the detention and treatment of prisoners and has threatened to do in other areas, like the confirmation of his judicial nominees. He has consistently shown a lack of regard for privacy, civil liberties and judicial due process in claiming his sweeping powers. The founders of our country created the system of checks and balances to avert just this sort of imperial arrogance.

The rules needed to be changed. In 2002, a Republican senator — Mike DeWine of Ohio — introduced a bill that would have done just that, by lowering the standard for issuing a warrant from probable cause to “reasonable suspicion” for a “non-United States person.” But the Justice Department opposed it, saying the change raised “both significant legal and practical issues” and may have been unconstitutional…. Now, the president and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are telling Americans that reasonable suspicion is a perfectly fine standard for spying on Americans as well as non-Americans — and they are the sole judges of what is reasonable.

….
War changes everything. Mr. Bush says Congress gave him the authority to do anything he wanted when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan. There is simply nothing in the record to support this ridiculous argument.

The administration also says that the vote was the start of a war against terrorism and that the spying operation is what Mr. Cheney calls a “wartime measure.” That just doesn’t hold up. The Constitution does suggest expanded presidential powers in a time of war. But the men who wrote it had in mind wars with a beginning and an end. The war Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney keep trying to sell to Americans goes on forever and excuses everything.

Other presidents did it. …These precedents have no bearing on the current situation, and Mr. Gonzales’s timeline conveniently ended with F.D.R., rather than including Richard Nixon, whose surveillance of antiwar groups and other political opponents inspired FISA in the first place. Like Mr. Nixon, Mr. Bush is waging an unpopular war, and his administration has abused its powers against antiwar groups and even those that are just anti-Republican….

So, in sum, there is no justification for what the President has authorized. None.

At the AIPAC Midwest Conference, my father asked Dr. Daniel Gordis if Israelis could find a slogan as universal and powerful as the Palestinians “End the Occupation”.

Dr. Gordis responded, that if Israelis had decided to market sushi, the campaign would probably advertise it as “Dead Raw Fish”. Then he suggested “Every People Deserves a Homeland.”

Scott argues in today’s Press Briefing that Hamas is bad, but democracy is good, and change through democracy is really good, so Hamas taking power is we will not comment.

Q How can you describe a belief that the Palestinian people, through their vote, wanted peace, when they voted for a group that does espouse violence and maintains an armed militia? Those things seem to be in conflict.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, I think the President actually addressed that yesterday in his remarks. He talked about the power of democracy. Democracy puts the people in charge. And the people want peace; the people want responsive government. And they voted to change the status quo. And the President said it should be an eye opener to people in the — leaders in the Palestinian Territory. They voted to change the status quo. They’re concerned about things like corruption in the government. They were concerned about making sure that their needs were being met. And democracy leads to government that is responsive. And if it’s not responsive, then the people have the opportunity to hold that government accountable and change.

Q But they also chose a group that has violent intentions.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I just pointed — what the President pointed out yesterday, you have to look at what they voted for. It was voting for change. But the aspirations of the Palestinian people is one of peace. The Palestinian people believe in an open and tolerant society, and they believe in a diversity of views. I think we’ve seen that through their actions. They also want government that is responsive to their needs. And in terms of Hamas, as we’ve said, our views remain unchanged….

MR. McCLELLAN: What would be the implications for our assistance? Well, first of all, I think Secretary Rice spoke last night, and she talked about how we recognize that the Palestinian people have humanitarian needs. And I said that I don’t want to get into speculating about what the new government may be like. That is in the process of forming now. As the President said, he would like — we would like to see President Abbas stay in office, and continue to work to move the peace process forward.

We’ve made it very clear that we do not and will not deal with Hamas because it is a terrorist organization that has as part of its platform, the destruction of Israel. And so our views are very clear when it comes to Hamas.

Now, in terms of assistance that we provide, if Hamas is the government, then we have a policy and legal framework in place that we would have to look at. And we would make decisions at that point. We would review what our assistance is and make decisions at that point.

Q Now, separately, Israel, as they watch this process unfold, do you have a message for them?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, what the President emphasized yesterday was our commitment to the two-state vision. The two-state vision is the way to achieve peace in the Middle East. The international community has strongly stated their support for the two-state vision. And that’s what we’re committed to working toward. That’s the way you achieve peace in the Middle East.

Q So then you’re saying “if” Hamas is the government, well, there doesn’t seem to be any doubt that it will be based on the election results and on what’s happening over there today. So what you’re really saying, it seems to me, is that unless Hamas renounces the charter provision that calls for the destruction of Israel, the U.S. won’t deal with it.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President made our view very clear yesterday. We don’t deal with Hamas because Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Q Follow-up question, how do you know that it is simply a reaction to local conditions, corruption, and local problems that caused the election of Hamas?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that you can look at what was taking place. And the President referred to — the President referred to the “old guard” that was there.

Q Right. But why –

MR. McCLELLAN: But we believe — we believe very strongly that people around the world, and societies around the world want to, one, live in freedom; and, two, that they want peace. And I think that’s very clear from what the Palestinian people have said over the years. They want peace.

Q Where do they say this? I don’t –

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you can go and talk to people in that region, and you will hear them say that, yes, they want peace. The people in that society –

Q You keep laying it all off on the problems that they had with corruption and leadership.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, elections are about the government and it’s about a competition of ideas, as the President talked about yesterday. I don’t think you can ignore those facts.

Q Have there been any contacts with Hamas, other than your public statements here, and the President’s, in terms of trying to reach them or see what can happen?

MR. McCLELLAN: We don’t deal with Hamas, as I stated.

Go ahead.

Q Does the President believe Mahmoud Abbas should refuse to form a coalition with Hamas?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes that the Palestinian people have gone to the polls in large numbers, in a peaceful way, free of violence, and we congratulate the Palestinian people for doing that. They have spoken at the ballot box. And now President Abbas will move forward with the new legislative leaders and work on forming a government. And that’s for the Palestinian people to decide, and they have spoken at the ballot box.

Q Can the President move forward on the two-state vision while refusing to engage with a Hamas-controlled government?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, two things. One, we’re going to continue working with President Abbas and working with the current government that is in place. We’ll see how the new government unfolds.

David, go ahead.

Q Scott, I’m just trying to detangle that last statement because if the — the new government clearly will be controlled by Hamas. You’ve set out for us a very clear message: We don’t deal with Hamas. You’re saying you do deal with President Abbas. And so you’re in the situation now of having to deal sooner or later with a government that will be controlled by Hamas one way or another. So is that — are you telling us that you will be not dealing with Hamas right now?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t know how I can be more clear to you. We’ve stated our views on Hamas. They remain unchanged. And, two, I’m not going to speculate about a government that is in the process of unfolding at this point –

Q But that government clearly will –

MR. McCLELLAN: — or the formation of a government that is unfolding at this point.

Q We don’t need to speculate about what form it will take. It clearly — it clearly will be dominated by Hamas by virtue of this free election. So the question is –

MR. McCLELLAN: We’ll see what the formation of the government is.

Go ahead….

Q Back on Hamas again for a second. Insofar as the President said yesterday and you said today that you can’t do business with a group that engages in terrorism — and the President mentioned yesterday can’t have an armed wing and can’t have destruction of Israel and its plank — as Bill mentioned, to renounce that plank in the platform related to Israel — the President said, can’t have an armed wing.

If we’re talking about, sort of, the rehabilitation of terrorist groups, or a way in which organizations that have had this kind of a history can now become part of the body politic — and Sinn Fein and the IRA is an example, or whatever — is it as simple as that, renounce the plank relative to Israel and give up their weapons and disarm, and then suddenly Hamas is a legitimate partner to be trusted? And, if so, how does the international community, how does the U.S. enforce it, make sure that it happens? I mean, if they were to say, yes, we do all those things, these are organizations and histories of people and cultures where there’s a lot of violence regardless of what’s said.

MR. McCLELLAN: You have the Quartet in place, that is very committed to working toward the two-state vision. You have a road map that was adopted. And, again, in terms of the contradiction that you bring up, that’s a contradiction that has to be resolved by the Palestinian people. You can’t have one foot in politics when you have the other in terror. You can’t be participating in a peaceful democratic process and then operating outside of that process in violence and terror, or armed — be armed outside of that process. And that’s what the President talked about yesterday. The Quartet put out a statement about that, as well.

Many European leaders talked about it, too, that if you’re going to participate in the democratic process and be part of that process, then you have to renounce terror and violence, and renounce a platform that calls for the destruction of Israel. The people in the region aspire to live in peace, and we want to help them move forward to that two-state vision because the two-state vision is the way you achieve peace. Democracies lead to peace.

Go ahead….

Q Scott, I have a two-part. Within hours of the President’s statement “a political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we will not deal,” former President Jimmy Carter held a news conference in Jerusalem, where The Jerusalem Post reports he “urged the international community to directly or indirectly fund the new Palestinian government, even though it will be led by an internationally declared terror organization.” And my first question. Does the White House know of any Jimmy Carter plea for the support of a mafia? And why would that be any worse than this?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I think the President made his views pretty clear yesterday that you can’t be a partner in peace if you have as part of your platform the destruction of Israel. The President wants peace. I think the Palestinian people want peace. And that’s what we’re committed to. We’re committed to the vision that the President outlined. And many others are, as well, and that’s where we are.

Q So what about President Carter? What does he have to say about President Carter?

MR. McCLELLAN: You want to ask President Carter, you can ask President Carter about his remarks. But we’ve made our views very clear.

Q The Fatah demonstrations in Gaza, would you just tell us, is the President concerned about unrest in the Palestinian territories?

MR. McCLELLAN: The Quartet put out a statement yesterday saying that it’s important to respect the elections and to respect the constitutional process that is in place as it moves forward, and do so in an atmosphere of calm and security. And so we continue to urge that, as well.

Carl, you had something.

Q Yes, thanks, Scott. Your answer to the question about President Carter’s remarks, was that the equivalent of the White House didn’t want to dismiss it, cold-shoulder it?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think we have a different view than what he was expressing, and if I didn’t make that clear, I apologize. Very different view.

Thank you. Have a good weekend.

Fripping Bullfrapers. There’s just too much to comment on here, but I think it’s pretty obvious that Scott’s in a pickle and doesn’t want to admit it. People want peace. The Palestinians want peace. Peaceful societies vote. The Palestinians voted for Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization. We do not deal with terrorist organizations. We deal with the democratic people who want peace. The Palestinians peacefully voted for Hamas, etc.

Spin this, Bush:

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken last weekend and interviews across the country this week found most Americans pessimistic about the economy, divided on the war and doubtful that Bush has the best plan to address the issues that matter most to them - among them health care and corruption.

By more than 2-to-1, those surveyed say things have gotten worse in the United States over the past five years. “I love my country, but we’re going the wrong way for sure,” says Faye Sherer, 59, of Salinas, Calif., who helps run a family produce company and was among those polled. “I don’t see the point in Iraq, when there were other countries going through worse atrocities and we did nothing to help them.”