PSoTD

The narrative mythicizes Gerald Ford further every day in the press.

Ford's decision to pardon Nixon, so divisive at the time that it probably cost Ford the 1976 election, was dealt with squarely in his funeral services by Dick Cheney, the current vice president who was Ford's chief of chief.

"It was this man, Gerald R. Ford, who led our republic safely though a crisis that could have turned to catastrophe," said Cheney, speaking in the Rotunda where Ford's body rested. "Gerald Ford was almost alone in understanding that there can be no healing without pardon."

The Washington portion of Ford's state funeral opened with a procession that took his casket from Maryland to Virginia. Then it was over the Memorial Bridge — adorned with flags and funeral bunting — and to the World War II Memorial. Next, the procession went past the White House and to the Capitol.

Although Ford's family planned the state funeral to emphasize Ford's long service in the House, Watergate quickly set the tone of the proceedings.

Said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.: "In 1974 America didn't need a philosopher-king or a warrior-prince. We needed a healer, we needed a rock, we needed honesty and candor and courage. We needed Gerald Ford."

I'm sick of this nation's politicians and news media transposing ignoring for healing, aren't you? Ford didn't heal the nation by pardoning Nixon. He just allowed the nation to ignore the issue of crimes committed by the Chief Executive by providing a blanket pardon. Our nation is no better off having not resolved Nixon's transgessions. We still have to deal with it. But it will be in the context of dealing with the transgessions of a different President. Might we not have had a better political system in place to deal with the improprieties of all following Presidents if Ford had just allowed the judicial system to proceed? Doctors don't ignore medical procedures in the treatment of tumors in their patients - that's the practice of faith healers. Gerald Ford ignored the judicial process intended to extract the criminals from our midst, and gave a little bit of faith healing mumbo jumbo, instead. It's thirty plus years later, and sorry, Dick, I don't have the faith to trust the executive branch, nor should we - that's what the founding fathers intended by the three branches of government. And the Republicans feel the same way - remember the impeachment assault on Clinton? Our nation should have gone through the painstaking work of defining Nixon's crimes, and by doing so, defining practices that get a President yanked out of office, instead of allowing a political quack absolve the cancer on the Presidency. Because it is now over 30 years later, and the patient - our nation - is still very sick.

Booman has excerpts of Dan Rather's last interview with Hussein.

And now that Saddam has been executed, is the world any better today? Didn't think so.

Fester has an important post up.

I can understand that calculation for impeachment is ultimately a political act so political considerations have overwhelming weight. Despite this knowledge, I still believe that American politics need to excise itself of the cancer of the imperial President who knows no boundaries set forth upon it by Congress or the Courts. We need to see what has been done in our name, and with out money in order to understand the consequences of George W. Bush and his coterie of cronies.

Interesting idea, and it's important to stop the younger blights within the Bush Administration from growing in a greater position of authority in a future administration.

From Bush's press conference today:

I'm going to talk to Congress — not only will I continue to reach out to Congress, but members of my team will do so, as well.

Previous recipients of the George W. Bush "reach out":

The way our nation remembers Gerald R. Ford in the next week will tell a lot about how we continue to see the Presidency. Yes, he was President, for a short, and ineffective, period of time. But he was President during perhaps one of the biggest surges of power from the Executive Branch to the Legislative Branch in our federal government's history. He was unelected to the executive branch. This combination of factors lead to perhaps the most public mocking of a President by the entertainment media, albeit gentle, ever - and clearly that mocking still has impact today. Even today, at his death, Ford is closely linked with Chevy Chase, who "portrayed" him on Saturday Night Live.

There won't be an intensity of remembrance for Ford like we saw for Reagan. But how Ford is remembered will be telling about our attitude at this time toward the Presidency in general. And perhaps it will get some considering the question of whether the office of the President is due to have power ebb from it, to the other branches, just as we saw during Ford's time in the office. And even more - if it desirable as well. Was it so bad to have a President - that the nation saw at times as buffoonish - that didn't have as much power as his predecessors?

And how being an atheist has been vilified.

George W. Bush is hoping to put more war in our stockings for the holiday.

Oh, and I'm sure for the long-term future, too. For your kids and my kids.

So...Bush Asserts That Victory in Iraq Is Still ‘Achievable’

I'm just putting this down as a marker for when we get to the following news stories:

Looks like it's Coleman the Goal Man.

We already made a major mistake in the United States by granting corporations similar legal status to a human being. I really cannot see why we'd want to expand on that by giving robots "rights". If it means holding off on robot development until the United States can come to some sort of understanding on what kind of entity deserves "rights", then so be it. But the idea that something that can be componentized has an entity that actually is identifiable with rights is ridiculous.

The reason is that rights aren't conferred due to intelligence. We recognize them due to species. Human beings recognize that others within their species have certain rights. There are disagreements about what those rights are, but in general, people recognize that other people have rights. Rights are held for the infant, for the infirm, for the unconscious, for the challenged, for those with only days left to live due to illness. The range of intelligence varies from comatose and nonfunctioning to genius, and it does not come into question on WHETHER a human being has rights.

So what criteria do human beings use to determine "rights"? Some might argue it is a determination of "soul", but I won't. I'll just say it this simple - human beings recognize rights of human beings. That's what we do, and if we're going to consider giving rights to something else outside of the species, we should think about our species predecessors, not on our mechanical creations.

George W. Bush is pushing harder and harder on a point to the American people - he does not have much capacity to learn, particularly from the American people. Whether this is by mental limitation or choice I can't say. But IMHO, he constantly misinterprets the sense of the American people, and many times seems to actually framing America's majority consensus into something that's near 180 degrees from what the polls say. Some might call it ignorance, some may call it deviance, but it's definitely continuing to be a tumor on this country's future and image.

The American people only have a few ways to reign in a sitting President that ignores the will of the people. Americans have tried to hamper Bush's efforts with a change of party power in Congress, but at this point, it doesn't appear to have set in. If Bush continues to defy Americans, he's going to run into greater pressure for impeachment even though he only has two years of clock to run out at this point. The "surge" talk is really a last straw, and should come with extremely high consequences for Bush - failure to succeed with a "surge" will ramp up desires to be rid of Bush once and for all, and that means impeachment. I don't think Bush understands that. I'm not sure the Democrats understand this, either. But I'm pretty sure the American people are not willing to put up with an incompetent War President that defies the majority's opinion at almost every turn for another two years.

It's one I wish other bloggers would take as well - I'm taking a vow that I'm not going to blog here about the 2008 Presidential horserace - the polls - until the first Tuesday in November in 2007 at the earliest. I realize there's a reality that those poll numbers are important, and they say something about positioning of candidates, and blah blah blah... I am so sick of the front-runnering already, and I don't want to add fuel to something that disgusts me. I'll be happy to blog about candidate positions, policy ideas, etc. But the Clinton/Obama/Edwards/Wild Card polling story won't be seen here. The regular media covers that up the wazoo because it's easy to report and to consume - but it comes at a cost - a lack of effort to discuss important political positions that aren't so easy to report and to consume. Blogs can do that, and should. They should leave the shallow stuff to the CNNs and USA Todays of the communication marketplace.

Within today's politics, it seems that we'll not be able to leave Iraq until:

1) Some completely watered-down standard of "victory" is met, which will take years if not decades for American politics to reach consensus of this standard; or

2) Some completely-accepted reason for "defeat" is determined which is unforgiving and demonstrated to the consensus of American politicians. Again, this will take years if not a decade.

Democrats need to figure out how to speed up this process. I recommend establishing some watered-down expectations for victory and push them to the American public. So figure out some quickly reachable benchmarks, and start selling them as "victory", and let's send Bush back to Texas and the U.S. military back to our country. And let's try to figure out some sort of asylum process for the poor Iraqis that want to get out of the hellhole we've made out of Iraq - unless, of course, we don't want to be responsible for creating those hellish conditions for innocent Iraqis.

We cannot afford to let Bush and the neocons define "victory" or "defeat" in Iraq, or we'll never get out of there. Wiser heads must prevail.

Wow! The National Conference of State Legislatures has their own blog. And they allow comments...

The Republican Presidential Primary... Isn't it an annointment and not a duly considered choice? Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Reagan, Ford... when was the last time there was really a surprise winner of the Republican primary process? For Democrats, it can be argued that Clinton and Carter were both surprises. Perhaps Dukakis as well. But the Republicans? Anything?

There's little drama and little interest by Republican voters in their primary process. McCain is set to win the whole thing, I don't believe for a second that Giuliani or any other Republican has a chance unless McCain implodes with a scandal. Republicans won't have a choice for somebody to vote for by the time they get to their 10th primary.

So... why not shake things up a bit? This is a suggestion to one Michael Moore, filmmaker and pot-stirrer deluxe. I have a suggestion. Change your party affiliation to Republican. Run for the 2008 Republican primary. Force McCain into some debates. Force Republicans to consider what policies they are adopting as they buy the '08 model of the Republican brand. Make fun of McCain and the Republicans on their dime - and make a movie during the process.

Is there something better you're doing in 2008? If not... think about it.

Apparently not in style.

Hard to believe that so many people think she could be a profit opportunity in t-shirts, but according to CafePress, there are 3,720 designs on 60,800 products relating to Hillary Clinton. On closer review, a lot of these products are keyworded that way but are more generically political, but still, there's quite a few designs.

Barack Obama has 1,310 designs on 18,100 products. John Edwards? 504 designs on 5,320 products. And surprisingly, for John McCain, only 367 designs on 5,410 products. Is it because fat old guys and ladies don't wear t-shirts for show very much?

The Army's top general said the Army "will break" under the strains of Iraq unless it gets more manpower. Gen. Peter Schoomaker told planners that the size of the regular Army should be increased, and that the Army should have the power to tap into the National Guard and Reserves more frequently than is currently allowed.

Afterward, Schoomaker told reporters a request for a temporary troop surge into Iraq could be met, but he doesn't want a surge "without a purpose." Those comments put Schoomaker in the ranks of those who don't see the advantage of adding troops in Iraq.

According to Schoomaker, one solution is to change Department of Defense policy that requires the reserve forces to get five years off in between deployments. Cutting into that time would make more units available for future rotations in Iraq.

I really don't know what to say anymore. The government of America is going to break under the strains of Iraq unless it gets more brainpower. The 2006 election result is going to be a mere hiccup compared to the mighty electoral Fuck You that is coming in 2008 to all that empower moves to increase troops in Iraq. Hear that, Hillary, hear that, McCain. This country has to be run smarter than what we're doing. I feel very badly for Iraq and the Iraqis, I really do. And I do believe that our country owes them some concept of asylum. But at some point we have to decide to save our own country from the morons that have been ruining it for six years. Putting more troops on the ground in Iraq for them to chew up isn't going to help anyone.

It is a shame that such useless data - the 2008 Presidential campaign polling done at the end of 2006 - will will be trotted out as meaningful during the next few months' campaign contribution activity. This is a name recognition poll and not much more.

One of Bush's many personal downsides for his disastrous management of the country is that he's created an unknown number of people with strong hatred towards him, at a level outside the United States that hasn't been seen since at least Vietnam and perhaps before. Right now and for the foreseeable future he is to be protected from that hatred, but there's a limit:

The FY1995 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act (108 Stat. 2413) amended 18 U.S.C. 3056 to limit protection to 10 years for former Presidents who begin serving after January 1, 1997, and for their spouses. A spouse's 10-year protection ends upon divorce, remarriage, or the former President's death.

Following the death of an acting President (see Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution), a spouse receives protection for one year. The Secretary of the Treasury can also authorize temporary protection at any time. Protection for a former President's children is available to them until the age of 16 or for a period not to exceed 10 years, whichever occurs first.

Bush is a relatively young man still, and in 12 years will be turning 73. It's quite possible he'll still be active - take a look at his parents as examples. But his protection will run out at this point.

In 2018, this law can apply to only one person at this point - George W. Bush. There's plenty of time to consider this issue, but it does seem pretty arbitrary to establish a timeframe for any protection of a former President. Either it is in the nation's interests to protect former Presidents from harm, or it isn't. Perhaps a cafeteria plan, based on a budget that is allowed to grow at the rate of inflation but which also establishes limitations for total expenditure, is more appropriate. Relying on time to heal all wounds takes lifetimes, not a decade.

In any case, if Bush survives to 2018, we will be revisiting this issue. Bank on it.

Next year is the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Falklands War. Does anyone really remember a good reason for it being started?

Good for Dennis Kucinich. His campaign will once again be a valuable public service.

Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who unsuccessfully ran for president in 2004, said Monday he is planning another bid because his party isn't pushing hard enough to end the Iraq war.

The liberal, anti-war Ohio congressman said he was inspired to run because he disagrees with the way some of his fellow Democrats are handling the war, including approval of a proposal to spend $160 billion more on the conflict.

When being compared to a U.S. President might be seen as a compliment for another nation's leader. Today, it is a shame: to be accused of acting too much like George W. Bush:

The government's fight against terrorism is threatening human rights and due legal process in the country, activists in Jakarta said Monday.

Opening a two-day hearing of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counterterrorism and Human Rights, lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis said the government was taking too many cues from the regimes of U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the fight against terror.

"The global war on terrorism has inevitably weakened our human rights foundations," he said at the Hotel Santika in Central Jakarta.

There is a possibility of a bit of hopeful international news the past few days, and it's making its way to the U.S. papers. Pakistan's interesting move:

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said Tuesday that Pakistan is willing to give up its claim to Kashmir if India reciprocates and agrees to self-governance in the disputed Himalayan region they have fought over for decades.

The comments, in an interview aired by India's NDTV network, were among Musharraf's strongest yet to encourage a settlement in the bitter, 58-year dispute since the South Asian rivals began peace talks nearly three years ago.

Musharraf has been doing some backtracking since then, and the militants operating in Jammu and Kashmir have rejected this statement, but both the Indian and Pakistani newspapers have published reports of these comments somewhat positively. Perhaps there is now some ground for progress.

But I might be more likely to be convinced if it also becomes George W. Bush's eventual retirement home...

There are times when a candidate for President should run for the nomination of a major party because of the issues that he or she brings to the race - issues that can't be separated from the candidate, and because of that, force a subject or issue into an election campaign, particularly the primary.

Because of that, I'd like to see the blogosphere discuss the value of a campaign in 2008 for the Democratic Presidential nomination by one Kathleen Blanco, Governor of Louisiana.

It's not that I see her as being a particularly good candidate, or a candidate that can win, or as a candidate that brings anything in particular to the campaign other than Louisiana, 2005 to date. There are a lot of issues relating to NOLA, Katrina, FEMA, state and federal responsibilities and coordination, land use planning, the disconnect between wealth and poor, etc., etc., that she could force into the primary debate in a way that most other candidates cannot. I think the Democrats need to have that debate, and that the Gulf Coast deserves that debate.

So why shouldn't Blanco run?

Fester has a couple of theories about the plan to send four combat engineer battalions of reserves to Iraq early next year to boost security in Baghdad.