The Political Junkies

archived: 15 - 21 Apr, 2007 Back Next

UPDATED: April 19, 2007

DEMOCRATS MAKE A STAND

Democratic leaders of Congress stood their ground with Bush on the Iraq war resolution. These interesting snippets from the meeting describe the parameters of what happened:

During an hour long meeting at the White House, the president told lawmakers directly he will not sign any bill that includes a timetable for a troop withdrawal, and they made it clear Congress will send him one anyway.

"We believe he must search his soul, his conscience and find out what is the right thing for the American people," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada, told reporters after the session. "I believe signing this bill will do that." . . .

Several officials said the session was polite. But they said it turned pointed when Reid recounted a conversation with generals who likened Iraq to Vietnam and described it as a war in which the president refused to change course despite knowing victory was impossible. Bush bristled at the comparison, according to several officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private. One quoted him as saying, "I reject" the comparison.

Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo (a TPJ favorite) provides more details:

"Reid talked about a recent conversation he had with a retired general where they talked about the similarities between the current situation and Vietnam," the source relates. "He talked about how the President and Secretary of Defense [during Vietnam] knew that the war was lost but continued to press on at the cost of thousands of additional lives lost."

"The analogy to Vietnam appeared to touch a nerve with the President. He appeared a little sensitive to it," the source continued. "And he clearly didn't like to hear people in the room say that the war couldn't be won militarily."

More: "Reid made it clear to the President that he understood that the President and Vice President after the veto would come after him and Speaker Pelosi with everything they have. Reid said that he and Pelosi would respond just as aggressively. He said he was convinced that they were on the right side of the issue."

Democrats are obviously prepared to hold their position and Bush will most probably veto. The clear evidence is that Bush loses this policy fight with the American public. A CNN/Opinion Research poll (emphasis added):

taken April 10-12, 69 percent of Americans say things are going badly for the United States in Iraq. That's the most negative assessment yet recorded, up from 54 percent who thought things were going badly last June and 62 percent in October.

The public's view: it's not working. Only 29 percent of Americans believe that sending additional troops to Iraq will make it more likely the U.S. will achieve its goals there. Only 21 percent believe the U.S. and its allies are winning; the prevailing view (62 percent) is that neither side is winning.

Democrats can claim to have to the force of public opinion behind them. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said before meeting with President Bush, "the president must recognize that the American people, the military all over America and majorities in both the House and Senate have said the President must change course."

Sen. John McCain's view, expressed in a speech last week: "The judgment of history should be the approval we seek, not the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll."

Asked which side they take in the standoff between Congress and President Bush, the result is not close: 60 percent of Americans side with the Democrats in Congress and 37 percent with the President.

That 37 percent is a persistent figure.

37 percent say if President Bush vetoes the Iraq funding bill, Congress should pass a bill with no timetable for withdrawal. 48 percent favor another bill with a timetable, and 13 percent want Congress to cut almost all funds for Iraq by next year (making a total of 61 percent who favor restrictions on funding).

37 percent want the U.S. to keep troops in Iraq as long as they are needed. 35 percent want the U.S. to begin withdrawing immediately and 26 percent want to see all U.S. troops withdrawn by next March (making a total of 61 percent for withdrawal within a year).

One senses that the first crucible of many is approaching. Democrats simply must hold the line.

_____________________________________________

UPDATED: April 15, 2007

A PICTURE

The age old adage is that a picture is worth a thousand words. Bush paints a picture that the American economy is booming.

The Economic Policy Institute publishes a graph comparing Bush’s employment record against six similar business cycles. It is a far different picture than the one Bush would want Americans to believe.

[W]e now have six years of employment data from the last business cycle peak of March 2001. The figure below compares job growth over the current cycle to four other cycles that have lasted at least this long. The figure reveals that despite the recent healthy pace of job growth, this business cycle still significantly lags the others. Six years out, payroll employment is up 4%, compared to an average of 13% for the other cycles in the figure, and 9% for the 1990s cycle, which also begin its life as jobless.

Had job growth in this cycle occurred at the rate of the last cycle (9% vs. 4%) the nation's payrolls would have added 12 million jobs over the cycle as opposed to 5 million. In fact, the 5.1 million jobs added over this cycle is lower even in raw numbers than the 8.6 million jobs added over the 1960s recovery, a time when the payroll base was less than half of today's level. In other words, the jobless recovery, while safely far behind us, has done lasting damage to the magnitude of job growth over the full cycle.

Simple question for Americans, “Had enough?”

REPUBLICAN HYPROCRISY

Campaigning in 2004, Bush promised Americans:

"After years of false statements and empty promises, it's time for big changes in Washington," Bush said. "We need a president who will finally stand up and fight against the lies and corruption. It's time to renew the faith the people once had in the White House. If elected, I pledge to usher in a new era of integrity inside the Oval Office."

Instead, Bush has ushered in another era of rampant corruption infecting every level of the executive branch. Most recently, Americans are discovering that Bush’s Attorney General and his top appointees, who are charged with dispensing justice on behalf of all Americans, lie and obfuscate the truth in pursuit of an unjust political agenda.

Americans may not be as aware that Paul Wolfowitz, one of the principal neocons in delivering Bush’s war in Iraq and who was elevated to President of the World Bank last year, has been caught in a striking ethical lapse with his “pants down.”

It seems that Wolfowitz’ “significant other,” Shaha Riza, was an employee at the World Bank. Established policy at the World Bank prohibits such relationships when one of the partners supervises the other. Wolfowitz’ viewed his relationship as a problem easily rectified; he simply arranged for the US State Department to hire Riza, at a substantial pay raise exceeding World Bank standards, and arranging for the World Bank reimburse the State Department the amount of Riza’s new salary.

Wolfowitz initially denied any personal involvement in making the arrangements for this girlfriend. Wolfowitz’ denial was a lie.

Revelation of the duplicitous arrangement stunned World Bank employees and segments of its management. Wolfowitz’ exposure led to a public apology before World Bank staff. The apology was not well received, World Bank employees chanting “resign, resign” during Wolfowitz’ delivery of the mea culpa.

While making a public apology, Wolfowitz obfuscated his actions in making the arrangements to protect and promote Risa (emphasis added):

[T]he documents also revealed that Wolfowitz's description of events has been less than candid. In a May 25, 2005, letter to Wolfowitz's personal lawyer negotiating his contract, Roberto Dañino, then the bank's general counsel, acknowledged that Wolfowitz had disclosed "a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staffer" and had proposed to resolve it "by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member."

Wolfowitz lawyer Robert Barnett responded two days later with an e-mail stating that the proposal "WOULD NOT -- I REPEAT, NOT -- INVOLVE RECUSAL FROM PROFESSIONAL CONTACT" with Riza. "THIS MATTER," Barnett wrote, "MUST BE RESOLVED" before Wolfowitz would sign his contract.

The board eventually ruled that "professional contact" between the two violated bank policy and instructed Wolfowitz to order the personnel department to arrange her departure and compensation.

But the board insisted yesterday that it neither "commented on" nor "reviewed or approved" the agreement that Wolfowitz ordered his human resources department to make with her.

In a memo to the bank's vice president for human resources dated Aug. 11, 2005, Wolfowitz wrote, "I now direct you to agree to a proposal which includes the following terms and conditions." Riza was to be "detailed to an outside institution of her choosing while retaining Bank salary and benefits." She was to receive an immediate raise with approximate annual increases of 8 percent.

By 2010, when Wolfowitz's five-year term expired, she would reach a salary of $244,960, significantly above the maximum of $226,650 allowable for her pay grade. On her return to the bank, she would be automatically promoted to the level of senior country director; if her return were delayed another five years by a second Wolfowitz term, she would be elevated to the level of bank vice president.

In a memo dated Sept. 9, 2005, Wolfowitz aide Robin Cleveland, a former White House official he brought with him to the bank, wrote that Wolfowitz had hired an outside counsel to review the agreement since Dañino, the general counsel, worked for the bank and thus had a conflict of interest. Wolfowitz, the memo said, had selected the Washington firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, "based on their ability to present a strong team within 24 hours which included, among others, the former U.S. solicitor General and Eugene Scalia, a personnel policy expert."

In a letter to Wolfowitz after its review, the firm judged the pact "a reasonable resolution . . . that avoids, among other things, the risks of protracted legal proceedings."

As Wolfowitz’ girlfriend, he arranged, without complete knowledge of his own Board of Directors, for:

1. Riza to receive a pay raise larger than permitted for World Bank employees of the same rank;

2. Automatic promotions for Riza when she returned to the World Bank upon Wolfowitz’ departure; and

3. A review of the arrangement outside of the World Bank’s general counsel, selecting a law firm he chose and which
ultimately rendered an opinion consistent with Wolfowitz’ arrangements.

Of course, Wolfowitz claims that all of these steps ostensibly protected the World Bank from a lawsuit by Riza. That noble defense has also largely vaporized (emphasis added):

Wolfowitz first claimed that he had nothing to do with the generous terms of the assignment, then admitted his involvement but said he acted in part to prevent the bank from the risk of a compensation lawsuit from Riza.

However, his defense was further eroded Saturday by comments from the World Bank's then top legal officer, Roberto Danino.

"I advised the board committee that I did not see any grounds for a successful lawsuit," he told the Financial Times.

It is not merely fortuitous that Danino is the legal officer that Wolfowitz bypassed in obtaining a legal opinion from outside counsel to approve Wolfowitz’ plan to move Riza while raising her pay and guaranteeing future promotions.

If Wolfowitz remains as President of the World Bank, its leader will be an exposed liar who attempted to conceal his ethical lapses. Certainly, it is a strange choice for a World Bank President who has campaigned for restricting bank loans to corrupt governments.

Of course, Wolfowitz is also responsible for the lies and distortions that propelled America into the war in Iraq. So much for Bush’s campaign pledge.

Tumble Weed (Bush) Watch