The "I" Word

In this week's Time Magazine, Joe Klein appears to edge close to the 'impeachment' argument, on a 'national interest' line of reasoning. Key quote:

I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining sins of the Bush Administration--arrogance, incompetence, cynicism--are congenital: they're part of his personality. They're not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.

The strongest argument against impeachment, of course, is Dick Cheney.

UPDATE: He is not, apparently, hinting at impeachment.

And Now Pakistan?

Yesterday was a huge news day, as commentators tried to unpack the President's speech from Wednesday, and absorb Hill testimony from Sec of State Condi Rice and Sec of Defense Robert Gates, together with Congressional reaction to the surge/escalation itself.

However, lost in the US coverage of the events was disturbing testimony from National Intelligence Director John Negroponte accusing Pakistan of turning a blind eye to al Qaeda's 'rebuilding' within that country's borders. So far, only the BBC is seeming to feature the story prominently, with this comment:

The BBC's James Westhead in Washington says that until now the US has not been so specific about where it believes al-Qaeda's leaders are hiding.

Such a claim will be embarrassing for Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, who Mr Negroponte described as a key partner in America's war on terror, our correspondent says.

Putting pressure on Pakistan (which has been described as a key ally in the region since 9/11) would seem to be risky when so many other parts are moving at the same time.

Uncomfortable

The President seemed, upon reflection this morning, extremely ill-at-ease with the first third of the speech, almost as though he was not familiar with the text. Or perhaps it was the anticipation of anticipating the 'admission of a mistake'?

Changing the Subject?

The President's speech was supposed to be justifying (and supporting) the decision to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq. Instead, half-way through:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

The debate could quickly shift from whether or not to deploy more troops to the region to how aggressively we are going to confront Syria and/or Iran.

The Reid-Pelosi Letter

Key language: "It is time to bring the war to a close."

The Democratic Congressional leadership are clearly raising stakes; the question is what will happen if Bush calls them on it.

Are they prepared to cut off funding? And how will that play out politically?

Finally, which Democratic Presidential candidate gets asked about the letter first?

Important (and Sobering) Post-Christmas Reading

In the pre-holiday rush of parties, presents, and preparations, important articles and news items are sometimes missed (and of course, sometimes meant to be missed.) One such article that I got a chance to read last week was William Langewiesche's "How to Get a Nuclear Bomb" in the December Atlantic.

Although mostly focused on the vulnerabilities of the West to a determined terrorist, the piece also contains a concise summary of where we are in the "Long War":

The danger comes from a direction unforeseen in 1945, that this technology might now pass into the hands of the new stateless guerrillas, the jihadists, who offer none of the targets that have underlain our nuclear peace—no permanent infrastructure, no capital city, no country called home. The nuclear threat posed by the jihadists first surfaced in the chaos of post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s, and took full form after the fall of the World Trade Center. With so little to fear of nuclear retaliation, and having already panicked the United States into historic policy blunders, these are the rare people in a position to act.

(Emphasis added)

Two Images, Three Bushes

I have been thinking of two images in the news this week: (1) George H.W. Bush (41)'s emotional breakdown in Florida on Monday; and (2) the look on George W. Bush (43)'s face when discussing the Iraq Study Group (ISG)'s report on Wednesday (tip of the cap to old friend Josh Marshall).

A few thoughts the images bring to mind:

1. Although most of the recommendations had been leaked (via trial balloons) over the past few months, the report was more negative than expected. As the Times writes today (12/07), "the independent panel rocked Washington with its bleak assessment of conditions in Iraq."

2. The report, although 'delivered' to the President yesterday (12/06), was surely completed earlier (to allow for printing, binding, etc.)

3. The co-author of the report, James Baker, is a close political ally of the President's father, 41. Baker ran 41's presidential campaigns in 1980 and 1992, and led the effort in Florida on behalf of W in 2000. It seems reasonable to assume that 41 had read much of the report by Monday.

4. Both 41 and Baker must have known in advance the political pain that the ISG's conclusions would bring to 43. In the same way, 41 must have been pained by the report's bottom line conclusion: the US policy is Iraq is failing. (Obviously this comment is not intended to minimize the real pain endured by those who are serving, have been injured, or who have lost a loved one, in Iraq.)

5. 41 broke down in tears Monday when speaking in Florida about Jeb Bush's close loss (51-49%) in 1994 to Lawton Chiles.

6. Prior to 1994, Jeb Bush was the 'next great hope' for the Bush family, and was expected to be elected Governor in 1994.

7. On Election Night in 1994, both 41 and Barbara Bush were in Florida with Jeb.

8. Indeed, in a congratulatory telephone call between 41 and W that evening, W was quoted as saying: "'Why do you feel bad about Jeb? Why don’t you feel good about me?'"

9. It is reasonable to believe that if Jeb had won in 1994, and had been re-elected in 1998, he, rather than W, might have been the Bush running for President in 2000.

10. Bob Woodward reported earlier this fall that 41 does not speak to 43 about foreign affairs.

"Are we right to be worried about this Iraq thing?" Mrs Bush asked [Former Senator David Boren]
"Yes, very worried," he said.
"Do you think it's a mistake?"
"Yes, ma'am. I think it's a huge mistake if we go in … "
"Well, his father is certainly worried and is losing sleep over it. He's up at night worried."
"Why doesn't he talk to him?"
"He doesn't think he should unless he's asked."
Bob Woodward, State of Denial

11. Just as Brent Scrowcroft (who co-authored a book with 41) warned against the invasion in 2002, another 41 confidante is using a public forum to mark, in effect, the 'end' of the Iraq adventure.

12. And finally, if you allow that Baker is a political brother-in-arms to 41, the ISG report is, so-to-speak, a public intervention, in front of 300 million Americans. No wonder 41 was crying. Why couldn't have Jeb have beaten Walkin' Lawton?