Waste of Time?

The House Judiciary Committee will stage a hearing tomorrow on Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. The witness list is here.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

But Clinton...

Unsurprisingly, after flack about Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence ("yes, he's guilty, but he shouldn't have to go to jail"), the typical knee-jerk response from the right (including the White House) has been, "But Bill Clinton!" for (at least) his pardon of Marc (Very) Rich.

I'd like to make two points.

The first is that Scooter Libby himself was one of three people Bill Clinton claimed influence his decision to pardon Rich (Libby was Rich's attorney until early 2000). They're all playing in the same game. (Update: Rudy Giuliani was the prosecutor in the Rich case.)

And the second point is this: He has been gone from office for almost 8 years, for Pete's sake; can we just get over The Clinton already?

For everything that Bush does, we hear, "But Clinton!", or "Well, Reagan..." as if these were the only two presidents in the history of our nation, and as if they are the standards by which we judge right or wrong actions on the part of the current presient. No matter what he did or didn't do, Bill Effing Clinton is not the national presidential standard. We have a Constitution to lay it out. The question is not whether Bush is better or worse in relation to Bill Clinton (or any other president). It's whether he measures up to the Constitutional requirements and standards for his office. And he's falling far, far short of that.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Commuter Investigation

For what it's worth, the House Judiciary Committee will take up the question of "The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials."

My guess is that it's not worth much.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Where Was the Press?

On October 17, 2006, when George W. Bush signed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007—a $538 billion military spending bill—he enacted into law a section called “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.” In the view of many, this Act substantially changed fundamental laws of the United States, giving Bush—and all future U.S. presidents—new and sweeping powers to use the U.S. military anywhere in the United States, virtually as he sees fit—for disaster relief, crowd control, suppression of public disorder, or any “other condition” that might arise.

News coverage of these significant changes in the law has been virtually nonexistent.

[...]

[Under these provisions], the president could order the Guard of any state into any other state—even if the governors of both states objected. Or the president could choose to use any element of the U.S. military—the Army, Air Force, Navy or Marines—to suppress a protest or carry out practically any kind of domestic action the president desired.

[...]

The law is so vague and far-reaching that numerous, normally conservative military and law enforcement groups, including the National Guard Association, the National Sheriffs’ Association and the Adjutants General Association, have publicly come out against it, pledging their support for a new, bipartisan Senate bill, S. 513, from senators Leahy and Christopher Bond (R.-Mo.) that would overturn all the changes in law that occurred this past October. (There’s an identical, bipartisan companion bill in the House as well.)

It’s striking that even with the National Guard Association itself opposing Bush in this matter, there’s been next to no news coverage.

[...]

The National Governors Association is displeased as well. In rare unanimity, the association called, on February 2, 2007, for the new law to be overturned, saying that it “unnecessarily expanded the president’s authority to federalize the National Guard,” a change “drafted without consultation with the governors and without full discussion or debate.” All 50 U.S. governors have signed on to the association’s letter of opposition—including all 22 Republican governors.

The Adjutants General Association, which represents officers responsible for National Guard training and readiness, also stands in opposition to the Act.

[...]

The National Sheriffs’ Association declared itself (2/20/07) gravely concerned that such empowering language, as well as ambiguity of the new language, particularly its reference to the “other conditions” under which the president can invoke the Act, creates the likelihood that the Act will be invoked more frequently and hastily during such emergencies.

[...]

What does it say about the fourth estate that such significant changes occur in our laws without news media coverage and without the intelligent and vigorous public debate one would hope for in the world’s oldest democracy?

  FAIR

That we're a democracy in name only?

Apparently, this was one of those middle-of-the-night bill additions. Well, to be fair, we really don't need to know about the details of governance, do we?