Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed tonight on Larry King Live. In it, he confirmed that Alberto Gonzales lied last week to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Below is the exchange between Larry King and Dick Cheney:

Q Moving on to other areas. Alberto Gonzales — do you stand by him?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do. Al is a good man, a good friend, in a difficult assignment.

Q Are you troubled by what appears to have happened — the appearance of him not telling the truth?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t want to get into the specifics with respect to his testimony and the questions that were asked. I know Al on a personal and professional basis, and I hold him in high regard.

Q You’re going to stand by him?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir.

Q No doubt about that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct.

Q In that regard, The New York Times — which, as you said, is not your favorite — reports it was you who dispatched Gonzales and Andy Card to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital in 2004 to push Ashcroft to certify the President’s intelligence-gathering program. Was it you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don’t recall — first of all, I haven’t seen the story. And I don’t recall that I gave instructions to that effect.

Q That would be something you would recall.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I would think so. But certainly I was involved because I was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and had been responsible and working with General Hayden and George Tenet to get it to the President for approval. By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it.

Q So you didn’t send them to get permission.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don’t recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital. [Emphasis added by me.]

Larry King was asking Dick Cheney about "the President’s intelligence-gathering program". In response, Cheney confirmed that by the time the hospital confrontation occurred, "it" had been approved 12 times by the DOJ and there was "nothing new about it". The "it" being the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" as Cheney makes clear in the preceding sentence, even though Larry King had referred to it as "the President’s intelligence-gathering program". There you have it: confirmation from the Vice President of the United States that Gonzo confronted Ashcroft about the "Terrorist Surveillance Program".

In last week’s testimony, Gonzo claimed that the "dissent" and the subject of the hospital bed confrontation with Ashcroft was not about the "Terrorist Surveillance Program":

“The dissent related to other intelligence activities,” Gonzales testified at Tuesday’s hearing. “The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program.”

“Not the TSP?” responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. “Come on. If you say it’s about other, that implies not. Now say it or not.”

“It was not,” Gonzales answered. “It was about other intelligence activities.”  [Emphasis added by me.]

Now, the man who apparently sent Gonzo on his late night errand is directly contradicting him. Time to resign, Gonzo.

[UPDATE (7/31/2007 10:50 PM): I cross-posted at the Daily Kos. The diary has hit the recommended list and there is a lively comment thread.]

[Update 2: TPMMuckraker has now picked up on Cheney’s little admission. Hopefully, the MSM will follow…]

Today the New York Times reports on the dispute in 2004 that led Alberto Gonzalies to rush to Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room to intimidate a sedated and sick man. The Times explains Gonzalies’ lies:

A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.

…

Mr. Gonzales insisted before the Senate this week that the 2004 dispute did not involve the Terrorist Surveillance Program “confirmed” by President Bush, who has acknowledged eavesdropping without warrants but has never acknowledged the data mining.

If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct. [Emphasis added by me.]

The Times is giving Gonzalies too much credit. It is true that Gonzalies tried to parse carefully to try and give the impression that there was no dissent about the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program", but he did not parse to separate data mining from eavesdropping. He initially tried to parse to separate the "program" from its "operational aspects", but lost his way last week and may have dug his hole deeper.

To understand this, let’s review Gonzalies’ public statements and testimony on the matter.

On December 17, 2005 George W. Bush publicly acknowledged during his radio address the existence of a NSA program to eavesdrop on calls to and from the United States. The program had previously been leaked to the New York Times. Mr. Bush said:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

The following Monday, on December 19, Alberto Gonzalies and General Michael Hayden briefed reporters at the White House about the NSA program. At the beginning of the briefing Gonzalies made this very important statement about what he was to discuss:

The President confirmed the existence of a highly classified program on Saturday. The program remains highly classified; there are many operational aspects of the program that have still not been disclosed and we want to protect that because those aspects of the program are very, very important to protect the national security of this country. So I’m only going to be talking about the legal underpinnings for what has been disclosed by the President. [Emphasis added by me.]

It is clear from Gonzalies’ statement that operational aspects of the program, such as data mining as described by the New York Times today and earlier revealed by the USA Today, are part of the NSA program, and not part of another program.

During the same briefing, a reporter asked Gonzalies about the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Council’s (OLC) legal rationale for this NSA program. Gonzalies side-stepped the question:

Q Judge Gonzales, will you release then, for the reasons you’re saying now, the declassified versions of the legal rationale for this from OLC? And if not, why not? To assure the American public that this was done with the legal authority that you state.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: We’re engaged now in a process of educating the American people, again, and educating the Congress. We’ll make the appropriate evaluation at the appropriate time as to whether or not additional information needs to be provided to the Congress or the American people.

Q You declassified OLC opinions before, after the torture — why not do that here to show, yes, we went through a process?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I’m not confirming the existence of opinions or the non-existence of opinions. I’ve offered up today our legal analysis of the authorities of this President.

We of course learned earlier this year from former Deputy Attorney General James Comey that the OLC had raised serious objections about the NSA program.

Gonzalies was asked specifically about Comey’s and the OLC’s objections to the program by Senator Chuck Schumer during a February 6, 2006 appearance in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. At this hearing Gonzalies parsed his words very carefully in order to give the impression that no such objections existed about the "program". It is also worth noting that Gonzalies was not under oath at this hearing after Arlen Specter, then Chairman, refused requests by Senators to have Gonzalies under oath. Following is the relevant exchange between Schumer and Gonzalies:

SCHUMER: I concede all those points. Let me ask you about some specific reports.

It’s been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, here’s the response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements.

There has not been any serious disagreement — and I think this is accurate — there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations which I cannot get into.

I will also say…

SCHUMER: But there was some — I’m sorry to cut you off — but there was some dissent within the administration. And Jim Comey did express, at some point — that’s all I asked you — some reservations.

GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we’re talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we’re not talking about today.

SCHUMER: I want to ask you, again, about — we have limited time.

GONZALES: Yes, sir.

SCHUMER: It’s also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School, expressed reservations about the program. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, rather than going individual by individual, let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories did not deal with the program that I’m here testifying about today.

SCHUMER: But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right?

GONZALES: Senator, I want to be very careful here, because, of course, I’m here only testifying about what the president has confirmed.

And with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you’re identifying had concerns about this program. [Emphasis added by me.]

Gonzalies again drew the distinction between "operational capabilities" and the "program". In his opening statement he made clear that his responses would not address "operational details" of the NSA program:

Before going any further, I should make clear what I can discuss today. I am here to explain the department’s assessment that the president’s terrorist surveillance program is consistent with our laws and the Constitution.

I’m not here to discuss the operational details of that program or any other classified activity.

The president has described the terrorist surveillance program in response to certain leaks, and my discussion in this open forum must be limited to those facts the president has publicly confirmed: nothing more.

Many operational details of our intelligence activities remain classified and unknown to our enemy. And it is vital that they remain so. [Emphasis added by me.]

So far, Gonzalies was side-stepping dissent about the NSA program by creating two artificial buckets - one bucket that was the description of the NSA program, and another bucket that was all the operational aspects of the program. By conveniently pushing all dissent into the "operational" bucket he had created the illusion that the "program", that is the description of the program (perhaps just the name), had not been the subject of serious dissent. Mr. Comey, however, in his May 2007 testimony clearly described significant dissent at the Department of Justice, testimony that has since been confirmed by FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Alberto Gonzalies however parsed a little too far last week when he testified that the "dissent related to other intelligence activities" and not the "terrorist surveillance program". Gone is the distinction between "operational aspects" and the "program" - he is now under oath asserting that what Comey testified to, what Director Mueller testified to, and what the Negroponte memo cited, were not about the "terrorist surveillance program" or "operational aspects" of the program, but belonged outside the program altogether. In doing so, he has lost the fine line that he had created and was walking in his earlier public statements and testimony about the NSA program. In last week’s testimony, he failed to stick to the strict parsing that he had maintained for more than a year and a half. In parsing in a different direction, he has undermined his previous parsing.

Alberto Gonzalies may have just parsed himself out of a job. However, to be fair to Alberto Gonzalies, he has only been the Attorney General and not privy to the "operational aspects" of the Attorney General program - or, to be more precise, other attorney general activities. So, although there has been dissent about the "operational aspects" of the attorney general, would it be fair to say that the attorney general should be fired?

 [Note: The image above is from today’s New York Times article. Interestingly, the image file is named "gonzo600.jpg".]

We are witnessing historic events in Washington. It is now indisputable that the Attorney General of the United States has perjured himself. It is now only a matter of time before Alberto Gonzales is forced to resign for his lying, dissembling and obfuscations. It is also now very likely that the chief law enforcement officer of the United States may himself be guilty of serious crimes.

FBI Director Robert Mueller, at a hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee, directly contradicted Gonzo’s sworn testimony from Tuesday:

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has contradicted the sworn testimony of his boss, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, by telling Congress that a prominent warrantless surveillance program was the subject of a dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration.

Mueller’s testimony appears to mark the first public confirmation from a Bush administration official that the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program was at issue in an unusual nighttime visit by Gonzales to the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, then under sedation and recovering from surgery.

Mueller’s remarks to the House Judiciary Committee about that contentious meeting differed from testimony earlier in the week from Gonzales, who told a Senate panel that a legal disagreement aired at the hospital did not concern the NSA program. Details of the program, kept secret for four years, were confirmed by President Bush in December 2005, provoking wide controversy on Capitol Hill.

"The discussion was on a national–an NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller said in response to a question from Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas). Mueller also told another lawmaker that he had serious reservations about the warrantless wiretapping program.

Director Mueller has also in his possession notes that he took to document the March 10, 2004 showdown in then Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room. The director said that he took the notes because the episode was "out of the ordinary."

Gonzo’s lies began to unravel after former Deputy Attorney General James Comey provided dramatic testimony of Gonzo’s late night visit to the hospital to try and take advantage of a very sick man. It is a story worthy of mob movies like The Godfather. Yet, it was then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales that was behaving in mafia-like fashion, quite likely at the direction of the President or Vice President of the United States. Today Gonzo is finally being held to account for his thuggish behavior.

This walking embarrassment to the Department of Justice must resign.

Below is James Comey’s dramatic testimony:

Below are relevant parts of FBI Director Robert Mueller’s testimony from earlier today:

Yesterday the Attorney General of the United States testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Today we find out that a US government document contradicts Gonzo’s sworn testimony. In other words, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States perjured himself:

Documents indicate eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

…

Gonzales, who was then serving as counsel to Bush, testified that the White House Situation Room briefing sought to inform congressional leaders about the pending expiration of the unidentified program and Justice Department objections to renew it. Those objections were led by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, who questioned the program’s legality.

“The dissent related to other intelligence activities,” Gonzales testified at Tuesday’s hearing. “The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program.”

“Not the TSP?” responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. “Come on. If you say it’s about other, that implies not. Now say it or not.”

“It was not,” Gonzales answered. “It was about other intelligence activities.”

A four-page memo from the national intelligence director’s office says the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP.

The memo, dated May 17, 2006, and addressed to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, details “the classification of the dates, locations, and names of members of Congress who attended briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program,” wrote then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. [Emphasis added by me]

The "Terrorist Surveillance Program" did not come about until January 22, 2006, when it was coined by the White House - as late as January 4, 2006 the White House was calling the NSA program "the program to detect and prevent terrorist attacks". The memo that contradicts Gonzo was written on May 17, 2006. On March 10, 2004 the domestic spying program was not known as the "terrorist surveillance program".

On January 24, 2006 George W. Bush said the following at Kansas State University as the White House launched a propaganda campaign to brand the program the "Terrorist Surveillance Program":

Let me talk about one other program — and then I promise to answer questions — something that you’ve been reading about in the news lately. It’s what I would call a terrorist surveillance program. [Emphasis added by me.]

So, Gonzo’s defense will be this: the program during the meeting on March 10, 2004 was not the "terrorist surveillance program". When the program was modified to accommodate the dissent from Jim Comey and others after March 10, 2004 and then approved by the Department of Justice, it came to be known as the "terrorist surveillance program". So, technically Senator, he was not "lying".

Then Gonzo’s pants will burst into fire.

This man is a national disgrace. Behold the attorney general of the United States testifying today in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s time to resign.

Gonzo as Miracle Max:

Gonzo cannot recall deciding to send a man to his death:

Gonzo becomes self-aware:

Gonzo sets a new standard for crime and punishment:

Gonzo gets an FBI escort:

Gonzo as errand-boy:

Gonzo clarifies his clarification:

Gonzo as Donald Trump:

Gonzo gives the Vice President broadband access to the DOJ:

The Washington Post today carries an article entitled (at least on its homepage) "Pakistani Immigrants Fret Over Fate of Homeland". Not to be outdone, the New York Times has its own article about Pakistan entitled "Al Qaeda Threatens; U.S. Frets". Both articles exhibit the fear and ignorance that has led the United States, over the last half century, to be the prime benefactor of Islamist extremism in the world.

The Washington Post takes a man-on-the-street approach by reporting the views of Pakistani immigrants in the Washington DC area. In a paragraph overflowing with ignorance, the Post captures the essential failure of American foreign policy vis-à-vis Islamist extremism. The Post writes about Pakistani immigrants and of Pakistan:

Although almost all are observant Muslims and many attend mosques, local Pakistanis tend to be moderate and well-integrated into American culture. Now, many say they fear that their once-tolerant native land — founded in 1947 as a Muslim democracy — could become the next victim of the violent militancy that is causing mayhem in many Islamic countries.

The Post seems to imply that somehow it is exceptional to both be moderate and attend mosques at the same time - a prejudice that obscures a more enlightened understanding of the struggles in the Muslim world. Then the Post reveals its ignorance further in the very next sentence. To state that Pakistan was a "once-tolerant native land — founded in 1947 as a Muslim democracy" it to ignore a half century of history. The name of the country, "Pakistan", means "Land of the Pure" - there is nothing tolerant in that formulation. To be "pure" means to be a "Muslim", that is, to be a "Muslim" untainted by cultural or other local "impurities". This is not a theoretical matter. In 1971 the Pakistan military slaughtered, with support from the Nixon administration, up to 3 million Bangladeshis - a spasm of insanity and genocide that was made possible because Bangladeshis were viewed as "impure" and tainted by Hindu and Bengali culture.

The New York Times, meanwhile, explains how Washington is "captivated" by the current Pakistani strongman:

Washington is captivated by General Musharraf because he is a secular moderate, which is not to be confused with a civil libertarian. John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state who until late last year tracked the gathering Qaeda threat as the director of national intelligence, ended a trip to Pakistan a month ago convinced that General Musharraf’s government had, at long last, gotten the message about the tribal areas in the northwest officially known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. [Emphasis added by me.]

Washington is so captivated by the General that they fund him and his military to the tune of $2 billion a year, even though this money has resulted in failure after failure. Banking on Musharraf being a "secular moderate" is naive.

The New York Times continues:

Yet, when asked how the United States would respond if Al Qaeda were to plot a successful attack on the United States from the tribal areas, the answer from one intelligence officials was direct: “We’d go in and flatten it.” [Emphasis added by me.]

I hate to point out the obvious, but Al Qaeda did plot a successful attack on the United States from Pakistan on September 11, 2001. I am quite confident no "flatten"ing has occurred in Pakistan - in spite of the bravado.

Pakistan has been a breeding ground for Islamist extremists since its founding. The Pakistani Constitution itself institutionalizes religious persecution. The primary benefactor of Islamists in Pakistan has been the Pakistan military. The Pakistan military, through the Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), has consistently stifled democratic opposition in the country while at the same time used Islamist extremists to carry out its domestic and foreign policy goals - the organization and funding of genocidal Islamist extremists in Bangladesh, the funding of Islamists extremists in Kashmir, and the creation and backing of the Taliban are only a few of the extreme examples. Throughout, from the Pakistani dictator Ayub Khan to Islamist General Zia-ul-Haq to Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan military and the Islamist extremists have co-existed in a symbiotic relationship. The Islamists have acted as a support pillar for the military while the military has generously funded the Islamists and the growth of Islamist thought in Pakistan and beyond. Both groups share a common antipathy toward secular democracies. In this relationship, the Pakistani military is the dominant partner. An Islamist takeover of Pakistan is at best remote and certainly not necessary from the Islamist’s point of view. Islamists do not have to rule Pakistan to wield enormous power - many of their policy objectives are helped along by the Pakistan military, an institution that controls much of Pakistani society and is in no danger of collapsing. In this atmosphere, the occasional flexing of muscle by the military against extremists that go off the reservation is window dressing.

Pakistan was the birthplace of modern Islamist thought. The primary Islamist party in Pakistan, the Jamaat-e-Islami, has been, since its founding, at the forefront of political Islam, or Islamism. It is an ideology that is inconsistent with secular democracy and distinct from Islam, the religion that is practiced by me and more than a billion other adherents. It is also an ideology that cannot win the day in the Muslim world. However, it finds a home within military dictatorships as in Pakistan. The consequences of this coddling of Islamists by the military for Pakistan, South Asia, and now the world have been severe.

Yet, the United States has consistently supported military dictatorships in Pakistan at the expense of political freedom. It has done so while engaged in games of geo-political chicken, sacrificing wisdom for expediency. It has propped up Pakistan’s military dictatorship, and in doing so it has given aid to the very extremists it now hopes to combat. Dealing with Islamist extremism without first addressing its big brother in Pakistan is simply folly. Propping up the Pakistani military regime by sowing fear that Islamists will takeover otherwise is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

Fretting however is not the answer.

photo: Farjana K Godhuly, AFP

The Bangladesh military, which took power in a coup on January 11th this year, today in a pre-dawn raid arrested former Prime Minister and the leader of one of the two major political parties (the Awami League) in Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, on unspecified "corruption" charges. Hasina is the daughter of Bangladesh’s founding president and independence leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Thirty-two years ago Sheikh Mujib and most of his family were gunned down by members of the Bangladesh military in a bloody coup that plunged the country into 16 years of military rule. Hasina and her younger sister were the only members of the family who survived the massacre because they were out of the country at the time. Three decades later it is the daughter that is now in the military’s hands.

Since taking power on January 11th, the military has been steadily consolidating its control over the country by locking up senior leaders of the two major political parties in Bangladesh on charges of "corruption". Today they have gone for the jugular by trying to decapitate the Awami League by arresting its leader. Sheikh Hasina had been increasingly vocal in recent weeks in her criticism of the military. The Bangladesh military does not take criticism well.

The situation in Bangladesh is fluid. Reports are still sketchy. There are reports of rioting in parts of the country. It is likely to get bloody from here.

Blogs covering the story:

• Drishtipat
• Dhaka Shohor
• Addafication

Update (7/16/2007 2:53am): There are unconfirmed reports that Khaleda Zia, the immediate past Prime Minister and leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the other major political party in Bangladesh, either has been arrested or will be arrested in the very near future. There has been violence in Dhaka University where protesters have clashed with police. Police have reportedly fired rubber bullets and there are reports of people being taken to the hospital.

William Kristol continues to peddle his delusion today in the Washington Post. Kristol thinks that George W Bush will be remembered as a successful president. He cites "progress" in Iraq:

The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow.

I have to question whether Mr. Kristol’s definition of "progress" is the same as mine, or whether his definition of "progress" is in the national interest. However, whatever he is selling, its clear that George W Bush is buying. And to the detriment of the country and the presidency.

While the Democrats in Congress try once again to put muscle behind their words, Republican senators, most notably Richard Lugar of Indiana, are trying to lead the President toward a kinder gentler withdrawal by asking him to present a new strategy for Iraq in October. Neither strategy will work.

While it has been clear to many citizens from the very beginning, the Iraq Study Group report last December changed the conversation in Washington from how to win in Iraq to how best to salvage America from George W Bush’s blunder. George W Bush responded to the report like a petulant school boy - he did exactly the opposite of what was prudent and what was recommended. Instead of considering what was in the best interest of the country, he listened to the delusions of Fred Kagan and the amoral preachings of the likes of William Kristol.

Like his Secretary of Homeland Security, George W Bush sides with his gut over facts or evidence. In his defiant press conference earlier in the week in response to his own administration’s report of massive failure in Iraq, Mr. Bush laid to rest any notion that he was connected with reality:

I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.

This kind of thinking leaves little room for nuance, as the Republicans in the Senate are hoping for. Still I have much sympathy for Senator Lugar’s approach. The alternative, the Democratic approach of cutting off funding for the troops, will undoubtebly lead to a constitutional showdown between the president’s article II commander-in-chief powers and the Congress’s Article I war making and funding powers. There is very little doubt in my mind that in this constitutional crisis the presidency will be the loser. The result of George W Bush’s intransigence and his assertion of vast executive authority will ironically be a weakened presidency. Under a different president, faced with such an outcome, the president would avoid this game of chicken for the sake of the country and the office he holds. A more enlightened president would take the escape hatch provided by Senator Lugar and the Iraq Study Group. But not this president.

So, it seems to me that we have really two options. We can let George W Bush run out the clock of his presidency by remaining in Iraq and continuing this fiasco, or we - through our elected representatives in Congress - can bring this war to an end by exercise of constitutional authority over the executive’s actions.

Letting this president run out the clock means the deaths of over a thousand more American soldiers and many more Iraqis, a further destabilization of the region, a further increase in hatred toward America - a hatred that will inevitably manifest itself in attacks against the homeland, and lasting damage to the balance of power in government. Letting this president run out the clock without challenge from the other co-equal branches of government means setting a precedent for authoritarian usurpation of executive power. America will lose, not only the Iraq war, but its own identity and way of life. Osama bin Laden will no doubt approve.

Bringing this war to an end by Congressional action will cause damage to the institution of the presidency by tipping the constitutional balance and injecting the Congress into the exercise of foreign policy. This institutional damage may be avoided by declaring this presidency, the presidency of George W Bush, as an aberration. It should be argued that Mr. Bush has himself damaged the presidency and the national interest by his orchestration and execution of this war -a high crime and misdemeanor. The conversation should not only be about how we get out of this war, but must also include how we got into this war. The former should be the basis for Congressional action to end this war, the latter should be the basis for the Congressional exercise of its Article I powers to impeach and remove the president from office. To balance Congressional action to defund this war, impeachment proceedings must begin. Impeachment will confirm that Congressional intervention was necessary to reign in this president and not the presidency.

It is a sad day in America when we must talk about the impeachment of a president. But the presidency and the nation is far more important than the political legacy of George W Bush. So, while William Kristol and his ilk spin to salvage Mr. Bush’s legacy, we the citizens through our elected representatives must act to salvage the constitutional office of the presidency from this president. In doing so, we will have ended a senseless war and the unnecessary and avoidable deaths of thousands.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

- George Orwell, Animal Farm

Today the Federal Appeals Court for the District of Columbia rejected Lewis "Scooter" Libby’s request to delay his prison sentence until his appeals were heard. With that, Libby was set to begin serving his 30 month prison sentence. However, within hours the President of the United States commuted Libby’s sentence so that he would have to serve no jail time. George W Bush proclaimed:

WHEREAS Lewis Libby was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case United States v. Libby, Crim. No. 05-394 (RBW), for which a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, 2 years’ supervised release, a fine of $250,000, and a special assessment of $400 was imposed on June 22, 2007;

        NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, do hereby commute the prison terms imposed by the sentence upon the said Lewis Libby to expire immediately, leaving intact and in effect the two-year term of supervised release, with all its conditions, and all other components of the sentence.

        IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand and seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

In a statement released by the White House Mr. Bush said: "I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive." This coming from a man who oversaw more executions than any other governor in Texas history; this coming from a man who rejected without much thought clemency requests from death row inmates including one who was mentally retarded. Mr. Bush has an unusual understanding of the word "excessive".

Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Libby case, released the following statement after Mr. Bush commuted Libby’s "excessive" sentence:

We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative.

We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as ‘excessive.’ The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process. [Emphasis added by me.]

By acting today Mr. Bush has given further credence to the perception that he believes his administration is above the law - that his administration is accountable to none. Misdeeds and criminal activity for which regular citizens pay with jail time do not apply to those who carry water for this administration. Today, as Mr. Fitzgerald might put it, Mr. Bush threw sand into the umpire’s eyes. Today Mr. Bush made lying acceptable.

Throughout his presidency Mr. Bush has pushed the boundaries of his constitutional authority and of the law. Ironically, today, in exercising an authority explicitly given to him by the Constitution, he may have reached the low point of his presidency.