President Bush made another recess appointment:
President Bush on Tuesday again bypassed the Senate and appointed Peter Cyril Wyche Flory to be assistant secretary of defense for international security policy.
Why the hold-up? The usual, these days:
Bush’s nomination of Flory had languished in the Senate since June 2004, held up by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan in his fight with the Pentagon over the release of documents mainly related to the Iraq war.
Kimmitt
As the President often notes, things would be easier if we lived in a dictatorship. I guess he’s doing his little part to make things easier.
matt
I haven’t been following these various appointments as close as I probably should be, so I don’t know the answer to this, but all these requests for documents from the democrats, is that them busting balls, or is it the Bush admin busting balls by denying them access?
John Cole
As far as I can tell, both. This administration appears to be more obstinate than usual in providing documents, while the Senate Democrats (see Energy bill, etc.) have elevated document requests to an art form.
Rome Again
The level of secrecy in this White House is also an artform – thus giving a reason for the plethora of document requests, so John, please tell me, what are they hiding?
Maybe if this administration was more forthcoming, you would see less requests for information.
Joseph Biden (Senator from my home state in which I no longer live, and whom I no longer consider a champion of my party) once stated on CNN that this administration doesn’t even talk to the Senators, why?
Rome Again
Kimmitt, I enjoy your posts and have visited your site. I have to ask though, did you place that word OFTEN in the wrong order in your first sentence? I’ve seen the president note ONCE that it would be easier living in a dictatorship, and I’ve seen others (bloggers) often note that one instance where he stated it, but when else has he said it himself? Am I missing something?
matt
I don’t hold anything against Bush for saying that cause obviously he was just joking around, but..
I’ve seen the president note ONCE that it would be easier living in a dictatorship
I almost spit my soda out!
Rome Again
How many times has he said it then? I’ve only seen him say it once. I asked if I’m missing something, am I?
I’m fully aware that he is not joking, the sea change coming out of this administration makes that perfectly clear to me. Furthermore, the idea that bringing up the word “dictatorship” by a president being nothing more than a joke is a very hot potato that could have backfired on him tremendously (and just might still). Any president who takes the American people seriously shouldn’t know better.
Rome Again
Any president who takes the American people seriously should know better.
Sorry, cat on my lap makes it hard to keep my typing straight.
matt
Rome Again, no no, I just thought it was funny that he said it at all, even once. And the way you framed it was hilarious.
Rome Again
matt, glad I could accomodate :)
ppGaz
Uh, may I say … Al D’Amato.
KC
The White House has always been clear about its goals. It wants to expand executive privilege and limit congressional oversight and judicial inquiry into its “sphere” of power. It’s called the “bright line” theory of government or strict separation of powers, and Dick Cheney has been a proponent of it since the administration took office. Thus, more standard or traditional practices of sharing information based on branch courtesy or coordinate sharing of powers are limited to none. Rather, sharing is based on the will of the president, Congress and the judiciary have no determinative effect or control over information in or from the executive branch (Congress and the Judiciary, of course, can control information within their separate spheres of power and limit the information they share with the president.).
Perhaps the Dems are a little dramatic at times with respect to their need for information, but frankly, this administration has done more to limit inquiry and expand executive powers than any other administration I know of. Inevitably, I think they’ll overstep their bounds if they haven’t already. Sometimes it takes the American people time before they realize things are not quite right, but usually they realize it in the end. We’ll see.
Pan Pan anon...
Come now. Bush has certainly said it often, but only once publicly. The president has a private, backroom existence, you know! I’d bet it’s a reoccuring theme in his daily, casual dialogues with Cheney and Rove. If I were president, I would definately get frustrated feeling the heat of the congressional opposition, and I would be interested in things I could do to avoid checking my power, but as a citizen, I’d rather see breaks on the wheels of the president, especially if I have questions about his judgement. I think his public comments were unfortunately revealing. Contrary to what John might say in his counter-counter-reactionary fits, President Bush does not own the executive branch and is not entitled to complete control over all parts of the executive machine.
It is also true that the staffing of departments, embasies, and offices with partisans of similar views to the president does not necessarily lead to better governance. On the contrary, it produces ‘group think’, causes the breaks to be removed, and can lead the executive branch, and with it the country, crashing into a ditch. This produces all the more reason for democrats in congress to insist on making themselves heard, even if it means using the constitutional instrument that, shockingly, is designed to let the minority party hold some clout.
Rome Again raises an excellent point. This administration has been called the most secretive since Nixon. Some will find this an extreme remark by a wild-eyed MoveOn liberal, but can they name another president who was more inclined to withhold information from congress, to hide the reasoning behind their decision making, and to diminish public access to information about their government. Hint: there are only six to choose from! Some might pronounce the administration entitled to higher secrecy during ‘wartime’, but our foreign policy is hardly at a more critical state than during the cold war, and the administration has obviously used secrecy and deception for more than protecting national security.
If John finds it odd that democrats keep filibustering for the sake of accessing documents, has he ever considered that the denial of access to the workings of the executive branch may be a significant factor? If he can’t find an example of a previous senate that has so often used the filibuster to secure information, can he point to another administration that has remained so closed to ideologically disparate eyes, and refused to provide documents to those few congressmen who are clearly entitled to seem them when requested?
My question is: does John Cole actually care strongly about ‘good governance’ or is he is he content to play referee and blow his toy whistle at various rhetorical and tactical faux pas, positioning himself as the thoughtful moderate while quietly making thoughtless remarks?
David
A Contrarian view on Bolton’s Nomination
“Its the Senate 06 Stupid, Not John Bolton and the U.N. 05”
KC
I hear you Pan. Oh, did anyone see this? It’s O’Reilly on ID in schools.
Trevor
Weren’t we just talking about leaks coming from the Senate? Can anyone really blame the white house for not wanting to release anything classified to anyone in congress? For all the bytes wasted on Plame, the flow of supposedly classified intel historically has mostly come from both sides of the aisle in the Senate.
Rome Again
So what you’re saying Trevor is that you don’t care about the truth, just making sure that this president has smooth sailing throughout his term? Yeah, thought so!
Oh for you to be reincarnated into the body of a CIA operative who was outted by their executive officers over a political payback, I would bet then you’d be howling over it… but since it won’t happen to you, who cares, right?
Defense Guy
Presidential administrations involved in major wars are often very tight lipped, so no one who lives here should be surprised at this. It is a tough pill to swallow for those who like to watch the government closely, but is not being done with malice or evil intent IMO. I have little doubt that there will be no such thing as smooth sailing for any president from here on in, as long as our enemy continues to murder civilians as a form of political speech.
Sojourner
This doesn’t explain why the Bush administration extended the time period for keeping previous administration documents from being released. It also doesn’t explain Cheney’s secret energy meetings. Although a quick look at the energy policy tells us alot.
The bottom line is these guys don’t think the American people have a right to snoop in their business. They’ve forgotten that their business is America’s business.
Rome Again
Oh that’s right, I forgot, we haven’t murdered anyone ourselves. Get real. By the way, there were no WMD in Iraq, nor was it a major terrorist hideout, so the fact that we’re now fighting terrorists in Iraq is OUR FAULT, thus making every civilian who dies there our fault as well. Our executive officers chose the playing field, our nation is accountable.
Rome Again
“WE THE PEOPLE” apparently doesn’t exist anymore, so why do I still have to pay taxes? This administration thinks it is accountable to no one. Our leaders have, seemingly, turned this place into the beginnings of a dictatorship with no checks and balances, while Republicans (who used to care about smaller government and honest dealings) act as if they don’t seem to care. We are being screwed because so many citizens of this country just don’t seem to want to be a part of that group called “WE THE PEOPLE” anymore.
Isn’t it sad that while we talk about forming democracies abroad, we care so little about maintaining the one we already have here?
Marcus Wellby
I hope everyone is keeping good notes about all these issues. Will be an interesting study in hypocracy when some future Dem president uses the same secretive practices and the right wing defenders of Bush cry and scream for an “open government” and those attacking Bush suddenly see the “value” of presidential secrecy.
For a current example, note how Rush and his ilk have no problem with Bush’s enormouse amount of vacation time but would froth with rage every time Clinton took some time off.
We are all being played by fools — defending politicians “on our side” as if each comment aimed at them was a personal insult to us. Meanwhile, nothing gets done in Washington, by EITHER party, that doesn’t come around and bite all of us in the ass sooner or later. But as long as we aim our anger at the “other side” instead of the corporate-owned government at large the game goes on.
Can we get another thread about TV shows instead?
Defense Guy
Which civilians have we intentionally murdered for political motives?
Don Surber
KC hate to admit it but I heard O’Reilly last night. Finger-in-the-wind conserve
Don Surber
HE is a finger-in-the-wind conserve
Stormy70
Saddam paid off the families of suicide bombers who murdered Israelis, and he sheltered Abu Nidal the most wanted terrorist in the world for a while. There was a terrorist camp with double decker buses and airplane fuselages found. He used chemical WMD on the Kurds. What a sweet guy. I like the moral equivalence you got going there, comparing Americans to a crazy dictator. No wonder the left is not trusted to protect anything but terrorists’ rights. I hope your party runs on that in 2006.
neil
How dare the Congress tell the President that he needs to consult with them about his war? That’s not what the Constitution says!
Defense Guy
neil
Nice snark, and on principal I agree. It is the way it is until the time the USSC decides that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.
Rome Again
No, he isn’t and wasn’t a sweet guy, BUT, he had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 and we took our eye off the terrorists of 9/11. Where is Osama?
You go ahead and defend your president Stormy, it’s obvious you’ll be one of the last few to understand what actually is happening here.
When we went to Iraq, there were very few “terrorists” there. We have made terrorists out of ordinary people who lost their families. I’m sure if someone came here and killed members of your family, you’d do the same thing they have done, pick up a gun and try to get your country back or support someone who would.
Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Rome Again
I never said we intentionally killed anyone, you are putting words in my mouth. Although it may be true that the ones who died in Abu Ghraib at the hands of torture specialists were possibly intentionally killed.
There are also civilians (including children) who died in the streets at Fallujah, it’s very possible that they were “intentionally” killed. As I understand it, oldiers were given orders to shoot anything that moved. Of course, you’ll say “but we told them to get out and they didn’t”… well let me ask you, if some forces from another country invaded your country and then told you to leave or die, would you leave? You might, then again, you might decide to stay and possibly even defend your homeland, city, and people.
Kimmitt
Rome Again — Bush said it twice in public, but Fleischer mentioned way back in the day that it’s something Bush said reasonably often. I suppose that I can’t support the thesis that he still says it reasonably often, but the President appears to be a creature of habit.
Thanks for the compliment, by the way.
Sojourner
Stormy’s just a Bush whore.