"God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States -- a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an exclusive interview.
"Total failure" at what?
He went to war, with a complacent (and largely toothless) Congress repeatedly going along, giving him the money he wanted, even token strings blocked. The previous presumptive Democratic presidential nominee went along at the key moment. The actual one voted against occupation funding without strings as a token matter, after mentioning he ("we") didn't want to deny money to the troops in the field (riding fascist spin didn't start in the "keep us safe" vote on FISA ... again, Dodd, Feingold, et. al. should be damned by him for voting not to keep us safe). And, stuck the next President with dealing with his mess, Obama supporting keeping troops in the Green Zone, and more based on the facts on the ground, including open-ended things like regional security. Some failure.
Bush also was no "total failure" at executive power, the recent FISA amendment but the most recent case of the Cheney view of getting us back to more Nixonian mode that old Tricky Dick vet with which is more comfortable. It took the Supreme Court (5-4, two of dissenters confirmed with the help of various Democrats) to negate a bill that stripped habeas corpus, a third of the Dems in the Senate supporting it, the "opposition" left to Republican stalwarts. Past war crimes were immunized via a congressional act, that again gained support from more than a handful of Democrats.
And so forth. [See 7/18] The excesses on some level robbed the executive of "credibility," but again, some failure. A note on a bit from one of the congressional hearings on such matters. Walter Dellinger, former solicitor general in the Clinton years (so clearly a lib ... I snark), was on deck yesterday. A Republican wondered why torture was not allowed, while the death penalty (or assassination of Bin Laden) was. Now, to me, this is not very complicated -- we allow the death penalty in this country, but don't get to (legally) torture (as defined by law) the prisoners. One baby faced congressman actually couldn't figure the "hell" difference between torture and executing rapists of children.*
WD focused on congressional choice (Congress decided to declare torture illegal) and the fact Bin Laden does not have constitutional rights when not in U.S. custody (he ignored the fact that the U.S. itself might still lack certain power -- a core issue, e.g., with Art. I., sec. 9, and international law overall). Fine, but on some level some line has to be drawn. He was asked if torture to prevent the death of Daniel Pearl would be morally and/or legally okay.** WD actually hesitated and admitted it probably could be morally acceptable. This is too big of a step on the road to perdition: it simply is unclear that some act of torture is the sin qua non to information. Also, why stop with foreigners? Why not -- not that these people would -- torture alleged murderers here? And, the act itself is verboten. Why not suggest rape to stop a death?
MR. DELLINGER: No, because there are circumstances in which the president can constitutionally decline to comply with an act of Congress where it would impinge upon the core of his responsibility.
REP. LUNGREN: So the core of the responsibility of Franklin Delano Roosevelt meant circumstances to protect this nation against our enemy, Germany, correct?
MR. DELLINGER: Yes, but --
REP. LUNGREN: And the core of the president of the United States at the present time, at least reflected in these actions, is to attempt to protect us against the terrorist threat that we have at the present time, correct?
MR. DELLINGER: That is correct.
This is obscene. Congress has, for example, the express power to define and punish war crimes (via regulating the armed forces or fleshing out international law). This, as does the Constitution itself, tempers the breadth of executive discretion. The end doesn't justify all means. A top law official under the last Democratic President, however, gave fodder to those who would argue otherwise. In fact, an example given to him involved reprisals -- the whole point of reprisals, disfavored these days, is that normal international rules do not apply when the other side violates them (tit-for-tat). IOW, it is not a breach anyway. Overall, the "core" role of the executive is to uphold the Constitution, not "protect us." Idiot.
All of this makes this far from surprising:
That poll showed that its approval rating had reached an anemic 14 percent, while more than 70 percent of those polled said they disapproved of the job Congress is doing.
The House speaker said she doesn't consider those numbers a negative referendum on the Democrats in charge, saying she thinks they stem largely from Congress' failure to end the war in Iraq.
"Everything I see says this is about ending the war -- 'I disapprove of Congress' performance in terms of ending the war,' " she said. "In the House, we, of course, have over and over, five or six times, sent to the Senate legislation for a time certain to reduce our deployment in Iraq and bring our troops home safely, honorably and soon. We haven't been able to get it past the Senate or the president of the United States.
True up to a point, probably, but the continual weak-willed way it dealt with other issues helped the case. And, the Senate inaction is damning, but it is not like the House is helpless. If it actually wanted to, the House could very well make the Senate's job difficult. Likewise, of course, on FISA and other issues, the House left something to be desired. In fact, even the House's Iraq bills are far from ideal -- it is truly damning their fairly weak limits on presidential control of the Iraq occupation was defeated by their co-branch.
The whys are a separate issue, and the Nader route of saying the hell with middle of the road paths reckless. But, let us not ignore that it is understandable on some level ... enabling war criminals who recklessly are the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths, thousands of our own citizens (plus many more injured, mentally and physically) leads to the very human lashing out at those you think actually have some shred of a conscience on such matters. Bloodless cries to recognize pragmatic reality, or even angry lashing outs against some disgust, really is in bad form.
[On Democracy Now!, Jane Mayer referenced the fears of some that the Bush Administration's policies would lead to criminal prosecutions. How amusing -- Congress apparently cannot even find out what happened, it being somehow protected even though privileges cannot be used to aid and abet lawless action, making its power to define/punish violations of the laws of nations (e.g., torture) etc. toothless at best.]
Once, Molly Ivins voiced the reality that you have to support some losers to prevent something much worse -- she knew what she was talking about, given the nature of Texan politics. [Only a small subset, surely now, truly disagree, even if they have no desire to like or sugar coat it.] And, in real life, you can only do so much. Even great moves forward like Brown v. Bd of Education and the Civil Rights Acts on their own only did so much. Recognizing what is done, how things can be worse, and how having certain people in power gives you at least a chance to succeed is very important.
All the same, I'll largely leave the cheerleading to others. Surely, when Pelosi -- who as an accessory to executive torture and mistreatment by being informed of it and not doing anything about it (among other sins) -- speaks about a "total failure" she helped. There are too many signs the President, who the public truly does think of as something of a sick joke, continues to succeed. This insult to injury is no failure.
---
* Putting aside those who do think the death penalty is a form of torture, the dissent to a ruling striking down a ban on videos depicting animal cruelty says it well:
While sometimes the line between cruelty to animals and acceptable use of animals may be fine, our society has been living and legislating within these boundaries for centuries, since the advent of the first anti-cruelty law. Although an imprecise analogy, we would posit that preventing torture to humans is an undisputedly compelling interest despite the fact that under certain circumstances it is legal to put a person to death.
[As an aside, this ruling is cited, a sorta weird one in which Thurgood Marshall is criticized by John Paul Stevens as not protecting the rights of prisoners enough. This includes citing an infamous ruling upholding the death penalty after a failed electrocution. OTOH, the ruling looks like a strategic move to declare a broader point, by an unanimous vote, the specific loss less important in the long run. The Brethren suggests Justice Brennan also took this tack, as does strategic refusals of certs.]
** Have not read her book yet, though did see the movie partially based on it, but doubt his widow supports torture in her husband's name.