On Presidents and Monkeys

Saw this AP article on how some people were up in arms about the racial connotations behind depicting the President of the United States as a chimpanzee being shot.

Of course it's only racist because the current President is black. Depicting the former President as a monkey was a favorite pasttime for Steve Bell, political cartoonist for the UK's Guardian, who may be the most famous person named Steve Bell, at least until my grand plans for world domination come to fruition. An example of his work is shown above.

Bush Isn't Done Bringing his Allies Down

The Bush Effect claims another victim.

My OU women's basketball team wins in Waco, 56-51, in an ugly game.

Hey, haters! The Inaugural Speech Didn't Suck!

Look out, America, Barack Obama's at the wheel now!

Unlike a lot of commentators, I thought it was a great inaugural speech. Maybe they were expecting the best speech of their lives, perhaps a speech that would make sweet, sweet love to the English language as Daily Show correspondent Aasif Mandvi said. But what we got was something that I was hoping for; a polite implicit castigation of the policies of former president George W. Bush.

He started out by listing all the big problems in our country today; job losses, health care costs, oil-dependent energy policy, et cetera. Then he started with the hope spiel, which all along has been an implicit put-down of the fear politics of former president Bush. Obama made sure to proclaim an end to the "recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." Always an expert at reframing the debate, Obama put the big government vs. small government argument to rest by saying we need a government that works; and he pleaded for a new era of transparency to replace the shadowy dealings of former Lord Cheney and his minions. And then he said probably my favorite line of the whole speech, "The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous." Take that, tax cuts for the wealthy!

Of course this was a good line too: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." This is about as flowery as a statement of rejection of torture and illegal wiretapping can get. Obama went on to make the case for diplomacy over brute power using history and pragmatism as a reference. "Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint." Speak softly, even if you do have a big stick.

As a president, Obama must now make tough statements directed at unfriendly nations just like former president Bush was fond of doing. But even Obama's tough statements are tempered with moderation. Take for instance the sentence that is now banned in China: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." If former president Bush was the one speaking, he probably would have stopped after "history".

Then Obama wrapped it up basically by saying we shall overcome if all nations can see we share a common respect for humanity, and that we shall prosper by taking responsibility for our actions, and let's keep gettin' better, America! So while it was maybe not an epic speech, it served its purpose of turning the page on the Bush administration and uplifting a nation that has taken a few punches over the last 8 years.

So now the real business begins!

Our Long National Nightmare is Over

It was 12:04 pm after I had started my car to go home for lunch when I first heard this phrase while listening to NPR's news bulletin: "Former President George W. Bush".

It's all smiles today!

In George W. Bush's Final Press Conference, a Parting Jab at the Elites in Europe

A very interesting question from Monday's press conference with outgoing president George W. Bush:

One of the major objectives that the incoming administration has talked frequently about is restoring America's moral standing in the world. And many of the allies of the new President -- I believe that the President-elect himself has talked about the damage that Gitmo, that harsh interrogation tactics that they consider torture, how going to war in Iraq without a U.N. mandate have damaged America's moral standing in the world. I'm wondering basically what is your reaction to that? Do you think that is that something that the next President needs to worry about?

The still-president responded, "I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged." He went on to list Africa, India and China as regions that still cling to a generally positive view of the United States. The problem is with those "elite" Europeans.

I disagree with this assessment that, you know, people view America in a dim light. I just don't agree with that. And I understand that Gitmo has created controversies. But when it came time for those countries that were criticizing America to take some of those -- some of those detainees, they weren't willing to help out.

Well, the Europeans and I are in agreement on this one. The problem with Guantanamo is the problem with the whole War on Terror concept in the first place. Normally how it works, via the 6th Amendment, is that the accused has a right to a speedy public trial in whatever district the crime was committed in. The prisoners at Guantanamo were not picked up in the United States, and plus the United States can't pin any particular crime on the accused. This is preemptive action in work. Logically if you get detained before you commit a crime, there is no evidence against you because there was no crime.

Ordinarily such a situation would mean that the accused detainee would be released back into his own country. And this has happened for American citizens, as well as citizens of most European nations. But many of those detained could possibly face persecution and (more) torture if they were released back to their own countries, such as Yemen. And this matters because it is an international violation of human rights to release anyone to the custody of countries that have committed human rights violations.

So Europe is the one place that could take Guantanamo detainees from the United States without the latter getting accused of human rights violations. This is because Europe has roughly the same detention laws as the United States. But of course, unlike the United States, European nations have realized that a prisoner not charged with a crime has to be released, or else it's a human rights violation.

In addition, the United States insists that the detainees be indicted or put under 24-hour surveillance if they are transferred to other nations. Of course in order to get an indictment, a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime, a crime has to have been committed. And 24-hour surveillance, if you're not actually in prison, can be very costly and likely an abuse of power.

The Bush administration insists that the prisoners who aren't charged with any crime must not be released, neither in the United States nor in any other nation, because they could potentially commit a crime in the future. If Castro or Saddam threw people in prison and claimed that it was because those people could potentially commit a crime in the future, we'd all just chalk it up to the despotic rule of a dictator. Of course we wouldn't accept prisoners of those nations with a stipulation that they must be detained indefinitely.

So it comes as no surprise that England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc., don't want our Guantanamo detainees, especially if they had to continue the detainment themselves. But the reason isn't because the Europeans are jerks who criticize America without helping the human rights situation. It's George W. Bush who is the detainment jerk.

It should be noted that with the election of Barack Obama, European nations are now signalling that they would be more open to helping out with America's little torture camp problem. Barack Obama has strongly declared his intention to shut down Guantanamo Bay starting on Day 1 of his presidency, and European countries have answered his call (before he even made a call for it, no less). So maybe in the end it's not a matter of human rights issues but more of a diplomatic plea: "We'd be glad to help you out if you'd stop calling us elitist do-nothings in your press conferences."

Bush's Interior Department: Completely Corrupt by Design

It's hard for a lame duck president in his final days in office to make the big headlines he used to get, and short of an assassination attempt or a random shoe-throwing attack abroad, the president is typically treated with quiet disinterest by the media. This is a shame, because one of the most widespread department-wide displays of corruption and scandal is playing out right now in George W. Bush's Department of the Interior.

Lots of information over the past two or three years has been revealed showing the amount of brazen corruption in the department, but most people have ignored it, quite possibly because they don't give a shit about the goings-on of the vaguely-named Interior. Or it could be that it's the least surprising cabinet-level department to be influenced by cronyism from the top. I mean, if you had to pick just one department in the executive branch that would be most influenced by the anti-environmental pro-oil Bush 43, wouldn't it be Interior, a department responsible for both wildlife protection and regulating oil companies?

So how has Bush hollowed out Interior from the interior? By putting in place corrupt executives and officials who had compelling interests in loosening Department of the Interior regulations. It started off early. Two members of George W. Bush's pre-inauguration transition team were J. Steven Griles, the future Deputy Secretary of the Interior and a coal-industry lobbyist who pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in 2007; and a disgraced Indian affairs lobbyist known as Jack Abramoff. The first Bush secretary of the Interior, Coloradoan Gale Norton, now works for Royal Dutch Shell oil company in their oil-shale department. Her biggest claim-to-fame was opening up Yellowstone National Park to snowmobiles, but her most lasting legacy will be the rules loosening regulation of federal lands and opening them up to developers and hunters.

Bush's second and current Secretary of the Interior is Dirk Kempthorne, who worked for a chemical manufacturing company before becoming mayor of Boise and eventually a U.S. senator and then Governor of Idaho. Not surprisingly, the chemical company's man Kempthorne sought to undermine the Safe Drinking Water Act once he got to the U.S. Senate, and was given zeros year after year by the League of Conservation Voters in their annual legislative scorecards. As Secretary of the Interior, Kempthorne has constantly worked to reduce protections to endangered species. He was the inaugural recipient of the Rubber Dodo Award from the Center for Biological Diversity for holding the record of the longest amount of time without a new federally protected species (at the time, 472 days). Earlier this month, Kempthorne presented a change to the Endangered Species Act that would remove oversight of projects that potentially could be harmful to endangered species.

But all of that stuff is legal! There are plenty of illegal ethics violations and straight up crimes to report from the Interior Department too! The above-mentioned former Deputy Secretary of the Interior J. Steven Griles was alleged to have steered policy and oil and gas leases to his own lobbying clients. He was forced to resign and pleaded guilty to Obstruction, but he is once again an energy company lobbyist. Former Secretary Gale Norton was accused of dismissing or ignoring 25 ethics violations against Griles in a 2006 Inspector General's report of Interior Department's "culture of managerial irresponsibility and lack or accountability".

In 2007, the Inspector General found broad failure by the Minerals Management Service to collect the $10 billion in royalties owed by oil companies to the government, mostly because the government agency in charge was "too cozy with oil companies". That report also found that individuals who leaked information about the corrupt activities of management were often retaliated against.

Further Inspector General reports released this year threw alcohol, drugs and sex into the "ethical failures" mix in the ultimate example of getting too "cozy" with industry. But more damning is the report released earlier this week showing how the Interior Department often "interfered with scientific work in order to limit protections for species at risk of becoming extinct." This is the report where we learned about Julie MacDonald, former deputy assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife. The Inspector General Earl Devaney had this to say:

"Ms. MacDonald’s narrow focus on her own agenda not only endangered the Endangered Species Act, it opened the door for countless land-use decisions and developments that would have never otherwise been considered.”

Mr. Devaney also criticized several of Ms. MacDonald’s colleagues at the agency who, he said, aided and abetted “her attempts to interfere with the science” and “the unwritten policy to exclude as many areas as practicable from critical habitat determinations.”

Julie MacDonald has a degree in civil engineering and worked as a hydraulic engineer for the Bureau of Reclamation before becoming an administrator. As a civil engineer who has worked on many hydraulic engineering projects (okay, a handful of detention ponds in Lawton), I know that environmental protections are annoying to work with and seem like bureaucratic nonsense to comply with. Julie MacDonald probably took a similar mindset with her as she ascended the bureaucratic ladder. Maybe the Fish and Wildlife service should have hired more of a conservation-type rather than a developer-type to run their conservation-type program. But such is the way of upper management decisions in Bush's Interior Department.

Change can't come soon enough for this country, but the Department of the Interior is perhaps most in need of it. One hopes that Colorado Senator Ken Salazar (the most recent senate candidate who I voted for who actually won) will be up to the task.

The Failed Policies of George W. Bush

According to almost every news source in America, the Democratic Party will win big on November 4. Presidential candidate Barack Obama is far from the only Democrat who will ride into Washington on the coattails of bad feelings for President George W. Bush. Almost every Democratic candidate for office in America, fairly or not, has enjoyed a bounce in popularity by campaigning on a platform of being anti-Bush, or by linking his/her opponent to the "failed policies of the Bush administration". Indeed, George W. Bush has never had a lower approval rating than right now, partly because of the recent financial crisis. But what these Democratic candidates are not doing is reminding people what it is that is so bad about the "failed policies of George W. Bush" in the first place. If the American public remembers that it can't stand that Bush guy but can't remember why, then the "failed policies" will surely be repeated by elected members of the Government. So to serve as a reminder mostly to myself, I've jotted down 33 "failed policies" that I think have made our country worse off thanks to the 43rd President of the United States of America.

1) "The United States doesn't torture." Except when it does. George W. Bush vetoed anti-torture bills, watered down water-boarding by referring to it as an interrogation technique (like how rape is just a sexual technique), and flauted the Geneva Conventions time after time when confronted in interviews or press conferences.

2) Unfounded wars on sovereign nations. Bad intelligence that should have been ignored about WMD and yellow cake fissile material led to a war against Iraq. The previous sentence was the best-case, most P.C. explanations for George W. Bush's intentions in the Middle East. Speculation abounds as to his real reasons for war with Iraq, most of which would be inconceivable if you told it to anyone eight years ago.

3) Secrecy. Over-classification of classified documents.

4) The Patriot Act

5) Bullying. Bullying of foreign nations for support for the above unjust Iraq war. Bullying of congressional leaders for support. Bullying of the U.N. to pass the war resolution, or else. It's called negotiating when there's a give and a take, and it's called persuasion when there's a well-explained and well-grounded rationale for action. It's called bullying if threats are made and fear is induced in entities that should be our allies.

6) Over-simplification of foreign viewpoints. You don't have to be either "for us or against us".

7) "Axis of evil". Well so much for negotiation.

8) Isolating North Korea to the point that they needed to build an atomic weapon to get any bilateral negotiation with the U.S.

9) War on terror. How does one win a war against extremism? You can't kill 'em all. There are always fringe elements in even the most tightly regulated societies, like gay people in Iran, bloggers in China, and terrorists in America.

10) Pre-emptive wars. The "Bush Doctrine", I think. Even police *should* have to wait until a crime is committed to detain people. And speaking of detaining people...

11) Guantanamo Bay. And more importantly, the lack of trials for prisoners there. (I hesitate to call them "detainees".)

12) Oh wait, not "prisoners" or "detainees". "Unlawful Combatants".

13) "Extraordinary renditions". They lead to "erroneous renditions" in the absence of the law.

14) Over-reaching of executive power to facilitate illegal wiretapping. FISA courts are just not necessary anymore.

15) The Alberto Gonzales Department of Justice. Attorney firings for partisan reasons, mealymouthed testimony by most Department of Justice officials including the Attorney General himself on several occasions, the approval of warrantless wiretapping, and the attempted repeal of Habeas Corpus.

16) Incompetent "loyal Bushies" like "heckuva job" Brownie.

17) Highly competent yet highly evil "loyal Bushies" like Dick "Overlord" Cheney.

18) Anti-choice-ism

19) Anti-intellectualism

20) Anti-Europeanism.

21) Right-wing judicial nominees. I'm not talking about Roberts or Alito, which almost any other Republican president would have nominated. I mean all the other judicial appointments to lower courts that add unfounded legitimacy to an extreme right-wing judicial viewpoint by giving high-level careers to cronies. This will lead to future right-wing judicial nominees to the Supreme Court who should have gotten rejected long ago for their lack of objectivity being seen as legitimate. These juditial nominees also nearly tore up the rules of the Senate.

22) Federal Marriage Amendment. So glad that one didn't get anywhere.

23) Stem cell research. Not so much for the position (federal funds only for "existing" stem cell lines) but for the process of letting the church's viewpoint into a science decision.

24) Not signing the Kyoto protocol for anti-UN reasons.

25) While we're at it, John Bolton.

26) Sabotaging the EPA to the point where entities are now suing the EPA because it's not strict enough in regulating emissions.

27) Trying to privatize social security. How's that stock market idea looking now?

28) Increasing the national debt from about $5 trillion to about $10 trillion. This riles me up so much, I'm going to need some more bullet points about the budget.

29) Tax cuts benefitting the wealthiest of our society at a time when we were finally getting Reagan's debt under control.

30) Massive non-mandatory spending increases primarily benefitting the military industrial complex. We've got loads of money for super advanced fighter jets, but we're losing wars against people who make explosives out of pvc pipe and wire.

31) Making war spending separate from the budget. This would make sense only if the expenses were unforseeable.

32) Not addressing health care at all. Seriously, during a decade in which health care spending rose faster than any other industry, how was health care almost completely ignored by the Bush administration?

33) Well, he did address one thing. He vetoed SCHIP.

I'm sure there are plenty more policies I dislike, and I know there are plenty more policies that others dislike (No Child Left Behind, immigration). But none of this stuff gets specifically talked about by any of the Democratic candidates. We need to remember this so that we can hold future administrations accountable.

Why is No One Challenging This Notion That the Surge is a Success?

So the new thing in the McCain campaign is to retort Barack Obama's claims of superior judgment about the disaster of starting the Iraq War with claims of superior judgment about the success story the "surge" turned out to be. And this story of campaign talking points gets passed around in the surficially non-partisan election-year coverage from the media without any analysis. What gets lost in this traditional election year back-and-forth is that the fiction about the surge's success remains unchallenged.

It's like everyone has forgotten why we had this surge of troops in the first place. We were tired of getting our asses kicked, so congress set up the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group to come up with some things we could do to stop the hurtin'. When their report came out, Bush ignored most of the recommendations and keyed in on a footnote developed by some of the more hawkish members which suggested that the U.S. increase the number of soldiers in Baghdad by lengthening tours and whatnot. Strategy was developed to give purpose to these extra brigades, and the White House came up with the overarching goals, including reducing the violence enough to allow the Iraqis to come up with and enforce their own laws, training Iraqi security and law enforcement more quickly, and in general guiding Iraqis towards stable democracy. Good points certainly, but it required Iraqi leaders to take up the initiative. This is why the strategy was flawed.

The surge started in January of 2007 and would last through this month, July 2008. The new Democrat-controlled Congress gritted its teeth and passed many non-binding resolutions in full awareness of their lack of constitutional oversight into the executive branch's war powers. But they did manage to pass what would turn out to be completely irrelevant benchmark legislation that required the military to evaluate itself. They did evaluate themselves, dishonestly but still poorly, and the surge bumbled along. After the reporting frenzy of September 2007, the media started not caring about Iraq anymore, choosing instead to start Election 2008 coverage.

It wasn't until about November 2007 that violent attacks finally started to decline, which mostly went unnoticed at first. Eventually the media caught on to the fact that merely dozens of Americans instead of hundreds of Americans were being killed every month and reported it unequivocably as a success story, even though about a thousand Iraqi civilians still die every month from sectarian gunfire and suicide bombers. But since the whole stated purpose of the Surge was dependant on the Iraqis developing a functioning civil society, can we really call it a success? Have the Iraqis properly dealt with their problem of training militia members who turn around and become loyal to sectarian leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr? Are the national police loyal to the state? Are the Iraq Security Forces able to take our place yet? Do the people recognize the Iraqi parliament as the creator of laws? Are there oil-revenue sharing laws yet (I actually don't know about this one)? If these benchmarks of the surge aren't met, how can we call the surge a success? Someone needs to call John McCain's bluff.

Congressional Balls!

For the first time really since the Democrats regained a majority in the House of Representatives, they finally decided to wield the power the voters gave to them in the elections of 2006. They didn't cave (yet)!

I am writing this regarding the House's vote in favor of a FISA bill that would substitute judicial review for blanket immunity. Instead of letting the executive branch use a private phone company as a tool to piss on the Constitution's 4th Amendment without legal recourse, the House's bill would allow a phone company to defend itself based on evidence presented in compliance with the Constitution's 6th Amendment.

Bla-dow!

Of course this alternative bill will be vetoed by the President, and there's not enough support from both the House and the Senate to override it, but so what? We've gotten by for years only relying on the original FISA bill without the illegal part that the President wants. We'll be fine. I'm just glad the House was willing to stand up to the President for once.

Why George W. Bush Shouldn't Disown the NIE Report

One of the few things about which I agree with both President Bush and my father: despite December's NIE report which stated with high confidence that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, Iran remains a threat. According to a Newsweek article, President Bush told Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that the NIE's conclusions don't reflect his own views, but I think that there is plenty of evidence in the NIE report to support Bush's view that Iran is still a persistent threat.

The first sentence of the Key Judgments section of the NIE report reads as follows: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." Everything before that semicolon is what we've all heard from the press; everything after the semicolon is what we hear from President Bush. In reality the President's assertion that Iran is still a threat despite halting a nuclear weapons program in 2003 is clearly laid out by the very document that Bush has "all but disowned".

Iran's actions prove that they have every intent on continuing to enrich fissile material. Iran continues to thwart the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and the United Nations by continuing to enrich uranium. They have opened at least one new enrichment facility in the past year, and they continue installing centrifuges at their facilities. Iran claims that the enrichment of uranium is only for peaceful nuclear power. This may be true or it may not be, but it certainly shouldn't matter to us. The difference between civilian-use enriched uranium and weapons-grade enriched uranium can be made up with a few more spins around the old centrifuge. Plus, also according to the NIE report, "Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so."

So the only reason why Iran can't develop a nuclear weapon right now is because it takes a really long time to separate out enough U-235 from the uranium ore to make enough fissile material to go to critical mass. There is a miniscule ratio of naturally occurring U-235 to U-238, and the weight difference is also miniscule, so it takes many chains of centrifuges and many years of spinning in order to get a small amount of the stuff. During WWII, the United States worked non-stop day-and-night from 1942 to 1945 on developing enough U-235 to create one bomb. After dropping our one uranium bomb and our one plutonium bomb on Japan, the threat was something like, "Surrender now, or there's more where those came from!" Complete bullshit of course, as it would have taken another couple of years just to get enough fissile material, but the threat worked and Japan finally surrendered. My point is that it's not a lack of technological knowledge that's keeping Iran from having a bomb right now, it's a lack of materials. And the soonest Iran could get enough U-235 would be about 2010, and the soonest Iran could get enough plutonium would be about 2015, according to the NIE report.

In addition to saying that the uranium enrichment is for civilian power facilities only, Iran has also declared that they never had a nuclear weapons program, which of course the NIE refutes. So, Iran tells the truth only when it wants to and closes its doors to the West. Even if Iran is telling the truth about their civilian enrichment program, there's no reason to believe them.

The Solution for Iraq: Lots and Lots of Sick Kids

President George W. Bush decided it would be much too expensive to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, designed to provide insurance to children who live in households with incomes higher than Medicaid levels but lower than middle class levels. So he used his fourth veto in office to keep a bipartisan health insurance bill from becoming law, because he wants everyone to know how fiscally responsible he is. In January, our hypocrite-in-chief will once again ask for more money to continue funding the war in Iraq. Would we save enough money by denying expansion of SCHIP to be able to spend another year killing Iraqi thugs and miscreants at will? Can we just consider this a way for our children be able to sacrifice a part of themselves for the good of our nation's security?

Sadly, no. Far from it, in fact. According to the CBO, the plan that Bush vetoed would have cost on average $7 billion extra per year on top of existing coverage until 2012 in order to make sure that 3.8 million children who were previously uninsured could become insured, an average of 760,000 children a year. Also according to the CBO, the U.S. government will spend $113 billion this year on the war in Iraq. In other words, by denying health care coverage to 760,000 American children, our government is able to buy 22 days of gun battles and IED's in Iraq. That's not nearly enough to win the global war on terror. We are going to need a lot more uninsured children in order to pay for this thing. At this rate, the only way we could win in Iraq is if our government could figure out a way to deny health insurance coverage to 12.3 million children a year. We're going to need a lot more vetoes.

The Bushie School of Positive Thinking and Economics

In a busy news week last week, what with the impending Ahmadinejad visit, the ongoing Jeffs and Spector trials, the reemergence of O.J., and Britney’s “adorable mistakes” that aren’t related to lack of underwear, a commonplace occurrence like George W. Bush saying something stupid can easily be glossed over.

President Bush was awkwardly holding a press conference involving the nation’s economy. When asked if there was a risk of a recession in the U.S. economy, the President replied, “You know, you need to talk to economists. Uh, I think I got a B in Econ 101, heh heh.” Well he obviously wasn’t talking about his college classes at Yale. It has already been shown that at Yale, Bush got a 71 and a 72 in two semesters of economics. But he wasn’t done yet! He goes on to say, “I got an A, however, in Keepin'-Taxes-Low, and Bein'-Fisky-Fiscally-Responsible-with-the-People’s-Money.” I don’t think Yale even offers classes with those titles. What school did Bush think he had attended?

Well, through some internet research, QP has found that apparently President Bush has an associates’s degree from the Bushie School of Positive Thinking and Economics, a 2-year community "internets-only" college located just outside Waco, Texas (he’s also head groundskeeper for his alma mater). But clearly, at the Bushie School, they participate in rampant grade inflation. Therefore, QP will try to correlate the grades given by the Fightin’ Tax Slashers of the Bushie School with more real-world grades.

Econ 101: The Basics

Anyone who got a C- in Economics should be able to tell you that when you increase spending (Iraq War, $600 billion since September 11, 2001) and you decrease revenue from taxes, you’re going to be in trouble financially speaking. Since Bush is not able to tell us this, it must be assumed that he would have done no better than a D in the real world.

BUSHIE GRADE: B
QP GRADE: D

Econ 201: Keepin’ Taxes Low

Well, he certainly did slash taxes, and this year the richest 1% will pay 3.1% less in income taxes than they did in 2000. The poorest 99% of us will only pay on average 1.4% less than we did in 2000. (Source: CBO) That’s $600 savings for the median income earner, and at least $10,850 in savings for the top 1%. Not to mention all the capital gains taxes and dividend taxes that President Bush cut, which benefit only people who invest money (not the poor). But it seems Bush studied hard for this class

BUSHIE GRADE: A
QP GRADE: A

Upper division course
Econ 301: Bein’ Fisky Fiscally Responsible with the People’s Money

His Bein’-Fisky-Fiscally-Responsible-with-the-People’s-Money course must have been a total blowoff, because he has certainly not demonstrated his capability to lessen government spending. The day Bill Clinton took office in January of 1993, the total outstanding public debt was about $4.1 trillion. Due to prior administration decisions, the debt grew in 1993 and 1994, but an economic boom and wiser money management kept the debt at about $4.9 trillion for most of 1995. The public debt lurched over $5 trillion for the first time on February 23, 1996. From then until September 11, 2001, a period of 67 months, the debt only grew by about $700 billion. Since that infamous day, the total public debt has skyrocketed. $6 trillion was reached for the first time seven months later, on March 14, 2002. $7 trillion was passed 22 months later on January 15, 2004, and $8 trillion was reached 21 months after that on October 18, 2005. Another 22 months went by before $9 trillion was reached for the first time last month. (Source: Treasury Dept.) It will take at least four more years to achieve surpluses again, according to the CBO, and that’s assuming that Bush cuts troops in Iraq substantially and doesn’t push for making his tax cuts permanent, which is unlikely.

BUSHIE GRADE: A
QP GRADE: F

BUSHIE GPA: 3.67
REAL-WORLD GPA: 1.67

Conclusions:

That degree's worthless.

- QP

Calculus and Benchmarks

“The United States strategy in Iraq, hereafter, shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks….” Thus sayeth Public Law 110-28 passed by Congress in May, which among other appropriations required the President and the Government Accountability Office to craft reports regarding the Iraqi government’s successful completion of 18 basic achievable benchmarks. To very little fanfare from the press, the White House released on Friday the Congressionally mandated second of two benchmark assessment reports (the first was released in July) to assess the progress of “the surge” in Iraq. As best I can tell, the White House graded 9 benchmarks as “satisfactory progress”, 4 benchmarks as multiple parts (part satisfactory, part unsatisfactory), 3 benchmarks as “not satisfactory” and two benchmarks as “not applicable”.

The White House benchmark assessment differs in two ways from the Government Accountability Office’s own dismal benchmark assessment released earlier in September, which found that the Iraqi government met 3, partially met 4, and did not meet 11 of the 18 benchmarks. The first difference, merely an academic point, is that the data from the GAO only accounts for activity through July, while the White House’s version goes through August. The second difference, and the much more important difference, is the method by which each benchmark is measured. The GAO gives a pass / fail grading to benchmark assessment, which is what the original meaning of the buzzword “benchmark” would indicate. The White House sees things differently:

To make this judgment (i.e., whether “satisfactory progress . . . is, or is not, being achieved”), we have carefully examined all the facts and circumstances with respect to each of the 18 benchmarks and asked the following question: As measured from a January 2007 baseline, do we assess that present trend data demonstrates a positive trajectory, which is tracking toward satisfactory accomplishment in the near term? If the answer is yes, we have provided a “Satisfactory” assessment; if the answer is no, the assessment is “Not Satisfactory.”

Not only does satisfactory progress not have to be met, but even the trend of satisfactory progress doesn’t have to be positive, as long as the change in trend data demonstrates a positive trajectory. So if we think of “progress in Iraq” as a function f(x), and if we set “benchmark” equal to zero, then the GAO assessment would count satisfactory progress if and only if f(x) > 0. The White House, on the other hand, counts satisfactory progress if and only if d²f / dx² > 0. And even with these low standards, half the benchmarks that the Iraqi government was supposed to have met by now cannot be assessed as satisfactory progress.

- QP

___________________________________________________________


The following is a benchmark-by-benchmark assessment of the White House’s reports and the GAO report, along with Quibbling Potatoes's grading comments.

Benchmark 1: Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: S
Comments: No scheduled vote by Iraqi parliament. Should be U

Benchmark 2: Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: S
Comments: Laws drafted, but no scheduled votes. Should be U

Benchmark 3: Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shi’a Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: U
Comments: Again, documents have been drafted. What makes this one U but the previous two S, I don’t know. Should be U.

Benchmark 4: Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: half S
WH Sept: S
Comments: Implementation not yet occurred, but will in 2008. Technically a U.

Benchmark 5: Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.

WH July: Quarter S
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: Half S
Comments: They’ve got an IHEC, but it doesn’t do anything yet. Part S = Whole U

Benchmark 6: Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.

WH July: NA
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: NA
Comments: Prerequisite not met, very much a U

Benchmark 7: Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq.

WH July: NA
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: NA
Comments: Prerequisite not met, very much a U

Benchmark 8: Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: S
WH Sept: S
Comments: Probably done in one afternoon meeting, but a legitimate S.

Benchmark 9: Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations

WH July: S
GAO Aug: Half S
WH Sept: S
Comments: Some nitpicking by the GAO on the readiness of the brigades, I say S.

Benchmark 10: Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions in consultation with U.S. Commanders, without political intervention to include the authority to pursue all extremists including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: Part S
Comments: Political meddling continues. What good is an army if it becomes a sectarian militia? Definite U.

Benchmark 11: Ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.

WH July: U, but in some places S
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: Half S
Comments: How can the White House say “much has to be done” and still give it a partial S? Definite U.

Benchmark 12: Ensuring that, as President Bush quoted Prime Minister Maliki as saying, “the Baghdad Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

WH July: S
GAO Aug: Part S
WH Sept: S
Comments: Tricky word, that “ensure”. Seems to me that if there are “safe havens” like in Sadr City, and no one is actively stopping them, then this one gets a U.

Benchmark 13: Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.

WH July: Part S
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: Part S
Comments: Don’t know which part the White House was looking at. Both parts of this benchmark have not been met. Definite U.

Benchmark 14: Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: S
WH Sept: S
Comments: What part of “all” don’t these organizations understand? Establishing 30 of 33 stations is not “all”, even though it is still a good thing. Technically a U.

Benchmark 15: Increasing the number of Iraqi Security Forces units capable of operating independently.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: U
Comments: Decrease = U. Not even the White House could wriggle out of that one.

Benchmark 16: Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: S
WH Sept: S
Comments: Regardless of whether or not those minority political parties choose to participate in the legislature, this one is an S.

Benchmark 17: Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: S
WH Sept: S
Comments: The money is allocated, but can’t be spent all at once due to some long term projects. Technically a U, but I’ll give it an S for Spirit.

Benchmark 18: Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the ISF.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: U
Comments: Goes with that whole political meddling benchmark.

Total:
WH July: 8 S, 6 U, 2 part S, 2 NA
GAO Aug: 3 S, 11 U, 4 part S
WH Sept: 9 S, 3 U, 4 part S, 2 NA
QP assessment: 4 S, 14 U

QP Grade = 22%

Will the Iraq strategy change now that this report has been released, as mandated by Congress? Yes, but not because of anything the Iraqi government has or has not done. "The Surge" is ending soon, partly because of the recommendations of General David Petraeus, but mostly because of necessity, as frequently stated by Slate.com's Fred Kaplan.

- QP

We need you, Abu Dhabi

Throughout the Iraq War, George W. Bush has made sure to recognize and thank the other nations besides the United States that compose the Multi-National Force, the Coalition of the Willing, or whatever other term the occupying army is called. And yes, even though the United States makes up 90% of this force, it is still seen as a statement of where a nation stands on the war. The Taliban captured South Korean missionaries in Afghanistan in part because the South Koreans have a few soldiers there. Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands, among other European nations, sent in a token 3,200, 1,300, and 1,345 troops, respectively, during the early phases of the war, but completely withdrew them before this year, not because of devastating loss of life or completion of mission, but because of pressure from within to change their nations' stance on the war. Even Iceland's two soldiers have been redeployed.

America understands that even though the war is for all intents and purposes only an American war, it adds legitimacy to mention other nations of the world, especially if the argument for being there is fighting global terror, 'cause fighting global terror helps everybody, y'all. In last night's speech, Bush thanked the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq, because "[t]he success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation." Which brings me to my point: if it matters so much, where are all the Muslim nations in our coalition? If this is really about fighting global terror, why hasn't Indonesia contributed to stopping the spread of extremism in Iraq? You'd think with so many Moldovans, Tongans, and Norwegians, at least a couple of Yemeni could slip in there, or a few Qatari to add legitimacy to this global struggle. You won't find a nation with a crescent on it's flag among those willing to stand with the U.S. in Iraq. I can see why Iranians aren't there fighting (well actually, they are, just not with us), but at least some soldiers from hyper-capitalist Dubai ought to join the Multi-National Force. Terrorism is bad for global investments.

I guess what I'm saying is, it doesn't look good when a bunch of Christian nations get together, march to the Holy Land, and impose their will on an Islamic nation. It would have appeared much more solid if one of the following nations had contributed soldiers: Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, our new friends Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Tunisia, Turkey (especially Turkey), U.A.E. or Yemen. If we could have gotten some ground support from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (I know, don't laugh), that would have been a coup. But as it is, it just looks like another Crusade, even if it isn't.

- QP

Reframing the Debate: Alberto Gonzales Resigns

With two sentences in an otherwise routine speech, President Bush completely changed the complexion of the discourse on the legacy of outgoing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Last month, after it was announced that Alberto Gonzales was resigning his post of Attorney General amid several different scandals, the President delivered a statement from the Waco airport bidding his close friend and ally an official good-bye. Slipped into the speech, right after recognizing Gonzales's family and right before tapping Paul Clement to temporarily succeed him, Bush gave his opinion of the Justice Department scandal:

"After months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department, Judge Gonzales decided to resign his position, and I accept his decision. It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."

This was clearly meant to be a jab at those who consider the Attorney General to be a servant of the public and the Constitution, and not just of the President. The "unfair treatment" referred to months of congressional testimony given by Gonzales where at different times, he inconsistently claimed innocence, ignorance, or executive privelege regarding the U.S. attorney firings and the Terrorist Surveilance Program. His perjurous testimony did indeed create, among other things, a "harmful distraction at the Justice Department", especially when considering the trouble he got former aides Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling into, among others.

Bush calls Gonzales "talented and honorable" and claims that he has a "good name". He even called him "Judge Gonzales" to make him sound more unbiased and dignified, even though Gonzales was obviously no longer serving on the Texas Supreme Court. Bush paints a picture of a noble and just hero who tragically fell victim to unfounded accusations from corrupt politicians looking to score political points. But when so many members of both the House and the Senate, including both Democrats to Republicans, from liberal members like Russ Feingold to conservative members like my state's junior senator Tom Coburn, come together in such a bipartisan manner to express dissatisfaction with the actions of one individual, well, your hero cred goes way down. Just another example of "reframing the debate", a tactic expertly and frequently employed by George W. Bush.

As an aside, I agree that the original scandal of the executive branch firing U.S. attorneys, government employees who work at the discretion of the President, was a little bit of political mud-dragging. After all, it may be a black eye to fire someone not for performance reasons but rather for political affiliations, but it's still legal for the President to do. It's really the manner in which the scandal was handled that I have objection to, first with the refusal to meet with members of Congress on the record, then to the refusal of congressional subpoenas, and then with the outright absurd claim of executive privelege, and finally to the lies and contradictions in testimony. Really, if there was nothing to hide, why try to hide it so much?

- QP