Setting a Deadline

I'm not sure I understand the objection to setting a target for withdrawing from Iraq to strategic outposts. We are not going to be there forever, and planning is required for this difficult redployment. Asking for a contingency plan for whenever that occurs certainly seems reasonable.

The objection from some is that setting a deadline will just cause the bad guys to just sit back and wait until we leave. Why is that a bad thing? Haven't we all said that the surge is supposed to bring stability and some calm to allow the government to consolidate its position? If so, then the waiting that accompanies our setting of a deadline is just what the doctor ordered. The bad guys sit back and wait, the US Army moves to nearby positions, and the Iraqi government can take advantage of the relative calm that ensues.

The political solution Iraq needs must be the priority, not a military solution. Maybe we need to give the deadline a try. At the end of the day, how can we allow those who have made consistent missteps in Iraq make the call anymore?

Citizen's Manual

In their wisdom, the founders of our nation anticipated many situations with which their new nation would be challenged. The Federalist Papers and Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention make clear their concerns, the views of the participants and the rationale for each important decision.

They were not conducting a philosophy seminar - they were creating the structure for a government like no other before it. What they put in place had to work or their struggle of nearly 14 years against England would be for naught. And they abhorred partisanship.

For the remedy to deal with a president who was failing on the job, they installed impeachment. They set out the process which handed the decision over to the representatives of the people - the House and Senate. They gave reasons which could justify this action - not a destructive act but a restorative act - including "high crimes and misdemeanors" This referred in their time to actions by a president that were incompetent, unwise or contrary to the interests of the nation. There is no implication that an actual crime need be committed - just that the president was discharging his duties poorly, and against the will of the people.

At present, we have several sound reasons to remove Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney from office. It is not necessary to recount them here. Why the Congress does not act is troubling at least. The war in Iraq and its selling by the administration on its own is sufficient to take action.

Bill Moyers show this weekend offered a tart lesson in the wisdom - the need - for impeachment in our present circumstance. Lack of action by Congress now can only be due to the partisanship that our founders detested, and warned against. And, partisans are not patriots. The republic is at risk.

Commutation? Pardon me.

Scooter's sentence has been commuted by the President, as is his constitutional right. It appears that Bush did not follow normal process - like consulting with Patrick Fitzgerald or the Justice Department - before announcing his decision. This should not be a surprise, but he is not required by law to do so. His statement about the excessive nature of the sentence does not square with the fact that Judge Walton's decision apparently fits within federal sentencing guidelines.

Naturally, there is a great deal of sturm and drang about this, by those who object to the commutation and by those who believe Libby deserves a pardon post haste.

A more careful look at the President's action reveals a scenario that may cast light on what is really going on here. First, Libby does not face jail, and therefore has no incentive to fess up about the Veep to Fitzgerald to avoid time in the slammer. Second, since Libby has appealed his case, he is barred from testifying before Congress should hearings proceed - unless Congress immunizes him. Thus, any matters about the Veep or President's role in this case, and the larger issue of the selling of the war, are foreclosed by Bush's action.

What really rankles me is that the President commutes the sentence of someone who might implicate his office, or him personally, in a federal crime. That's the one big distinction between the Clinton pardons and this commutation. And, Bush can still pardon Libby before the Prez goes off into the Texas sunset.

How much more are we going to take?