Iran, Campaign Money, and the Masters

It appears that I was more prescient that I suspected when I speculated that the confrontation between Great Britain and Iran would be resolved shortly. Today brings news that Iran will be releasing the fifteen British sailors and marines that were captured some two weeks ago. While there was some inital confusion about when the British servicemembers would be released, it now appears that this particular crisis will be resolved by the weekend. Despite this good news, I could not help but notice Vice President Cheney’s comment in the story that I linked to. If anyone needs additional evidence that Cheney is a “glass half empty” kind of guy, I’d say that his comments on this story seal the case.

Today also saw Barack Obama, or at least his campaign, announcing that he raised almost as much money as Hillary Clinton during the first three months of 2007. While everyone agrees that fundraising is crucial to any presidential campaign, there seem to be as many takes on the early fundraising numbers as there are commentators. One point that seems to be attracting a fair bit of attention is whether the money the various campaigns is for the primaries or for the general election in 2008. Obama’s campaign says that most of the $25 million that is in its coffers is money that can be spent in the primaries, which may give him a leg up on Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

This weekend the Masters will be played in Augusta, Georgia. As an (extremely) sub-par golfer I’ll probably try to watch some of the tournament on television. But I would be at least as interested in learning more about the high tech, and apparently highly secretive, infrastructure of Augusta National. My guess is that I’m far more likely to watch the entire tournament than I am to learn about what goes on behind the scenes at Augusta National.

Tuesday’s Musings

Betwen Iraq and Iran today’s news sugests to me that one war of words is heating up while another is cooling off and headed toward a possible resolution.

To begin with the good news, it seems like the confrontation between Iran and Great Britian may be resolved peacefully. This morning Prime Minister Tony Blair indicated that the next forty-eight hours would be critical to resolving the crisis that was touched off when Iran captured fifteen sailors and marines more than a week ago. Hopefully, Blair will be proven correct. If Blair is correct and there is a resolution to the confrontation in the next couple of days, I cannot help but wonder whether the release of Iranian diplomat Jalal Sharafi was part of a tacit quid pro quo.

But enough with the good news, the White House and Congress appear to be headed for a showdown over Iraq. On the one hand, you have a president insisting that he will veto any legislation that includes deadlines for withdrawing troops from Iraq and on the other hand you have a Congress that is determined to hold Bush accountable for the debacle in Iraq. Both sides seem to be playing the same card, namely that if you don’t support our position, you don’t support the troops, but it seems to me that Congress has the better side of this argument, especially given the American public’s waning support for the war in Iraq.

The Supreme Court Giveth (and Taketh Away)

In an opinion sure to be welcomed by American citizens concerned about global warming, the United States Supreme Court held today that the EPA has the authority to regulate the emissions of greenhouse gasses. That’s the good news, the bad news is that the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the Constitutionality of the Detainee Treatment Act, thus ensuring that Guantanamo Bay will remain (at least for now) the legal black hole that Dick Cheney and others in the Bush administration wanted it to be.

Speaking of Dick Cheney, and with no offense intended, how low has Cheney’s popularity sunk when students at Brigham Young University are protesting Cheney’s invitation to speak at commencement? Perhaps I’m overestimating the conservatism of the BYU student body or underestimating its decency, but when a (very) conservative vice president’s invitation to speak at commencement is challenged by BYU’s student body, I can’t help but to speculate about a possible schism in the conservative movement.

Taking a step back from the blue-state/red-state divide that seems to lurk behind nearly every story in the news, I would like to applaud an article in Slate that points out that it is possible to cross an ideological divide to educate and inform the public. While may not be easy to discuss our differences with those who do not agree with us, this sort of dialogue is the only thing that will save us from those, both on the left and the right, who would divide us based on our political differences. Hopefully the next two years will see bipartisan approaches to the very real problems that are facing our nation.

Follow up to a post from a couple of days past, are the “peacemakers” in Northern Ireland worthy of our praise, or do they have too much blood on their hands? Do the ends justify the means in this case? I would say no, and it saddens me to think that even one innocent life was lost because political/religious leaders were unwilling to compromise.

Sunday’s Update

Sorry for the dely in updating, I’ll try to do better in the future.

I’ll go out on a limb and predict that Alberto Gonzales’ days as Attorney General are limited. Thursday saw Kyle Sampson telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that Alberto Gonzales’ statements that he was not involved in the firing of U.S. Attorneys were not accurate. While it was apparent that Mr. Sampson was not looking to sell Mr. Gonzales out, what with his repeated insistance that there was nothing improper about the firings, the reluctance of his testimony made it all the more damning. Between Mr. Sampson’s testimony and Mr. Gonzales’ eroding support on Capitol Hill, it’s hard to see how much longer he can hold on.

One more point on the Attorney General scandal. After watching Sampson testify on Thursday, I could not help but feel a little sorry for him. While Sampson clearly played a pivotal role in firing the U.S. Attorneys, it seemed clear to me, at least, that Sampson was merely implementing his bosses’ decision. This makes me wonder what happens to disgraced former chiefs of staff in Washington, is it a Hollywoodesque “you’ll never work in this town again” situation, or will Sampson land on his feet as a K Street lobbyist? Not sure how I want this one to work out, ideally Sampson would discover religion and spend the rest of his life ministering to the destitute, but I suppose that I would settle for anything that does not reward Sampson for his role in this scandal.

Iran continues to release video of the British sailors and marines who were captured more than a week ago. It seems apparent that this crisis will not be resolved soon and I’m still at a loss to understand what the Iranian government hopes to accomplish by releasing these videos. I can’t help but feel that these statements are coerced and that the Iranians are actually undermining their position by releasing these videos, but that’s just me.

Senate Hearings, Iran, and the Final Four

Well, tomorrow promises to be a big news day with Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales’ former chief scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. While it’s not clear exactly what Mr. Sampson will say, at least one source has opined that he will have to choose between “I was out of control” and “My boss is untruthful.” Hard to see how either option helps Gonzales or the Bush administration.

The confrontation between Great Britain and Iran appears to be heating up with the British Foreign Secretary announcing that Great Britain will suspend all bilateral talks with Iran except for those aimed at gaining the release of the detained sailors and marines and the Iranian government releasing a videotaped statement/confession from one of the British sailors apparently intended to show that the British military personnel were in Iranian waters when they were captured. Am I the only one who views these presumably coerced statements as further proof that the British servicemembers were captured in Iraqi waters? If I am, can anyone explain why statements such as this should be given credence?

Finally, the Final Four will take place this weekend, an event that fills me with apathy. Part of it is that I’m not a basketball fan (call me a heretic, but most of the time when I watch basketball all I see is a bunch of really tall guys running back and forth unable to stop the other team from scoring) but mostly I have serious qualms about the commercialization of college athletics. I won’t deny anyone’s right to root for their alma mater (though I will posit that when it’s been more than ten years since you graduated that diehard support (think facepaint, jerseys and all out parties on gameday) for your college or university’s athletic teams is somewhat pathetic; if you want to support your alma mater at that point, give cash) but it seems to me that NCAA Division I athletics is all about the money these days. Between the prospects looking to be drafted into the pros, the rich alums donating large sums to ensure that the best recruits wind up in the “right” program, the TV contracts, and merchandising efforts, it’s hard for me to believe that the “student-athletes” who will be playing in the Final Four this weekend will be doing so solely for school pride.

A Bad Week Continues

If the Bush administration was thinking that the weekend defection of several GOP Senators was the worst that would happen this week, it appears that they were wrong, and we’re not even to the point where Justice Department officials are due to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the firing of U.S. Attorneys.

FBI Director Robert Mueller was on Capitol Hill today, trying to convince members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that, despite the apparent inability of the FBI to use their newfound powers under the Patriot Act in anything approximating a responsible manner, that the FBI should retain those powers. I heard some audio of the hearing on the radio today and it was clear to me that ranking Republican Arlen Specter, for one, was not buying Director Mueller’s claim that the problem was with the FBI and not with the legislation. Given that the FBI can access a wide range of personal information without judicial oversight under the Patriot Act, I would argue that the FBI’s failure to use its new powers responsibly makes it clear that giving the Executive Branch untrammeled power is simply a bad idea.

Further bad news for the Bush Administration came from the Senate as a whole, which approved a spending bill for the Iraq war which includes non-binding deadlines for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. While this bill has to be reconciled with a House bill that includes binding timelines for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, it seems clear that President Bush will soon be faced with a Catch-22 wherein he can either “support the troops” by signing a spending bill that provides money for the war in Iraq while setting a timeline for troop withdrawal or else veto a bill that provides funding for the war because it attempts to set a timeline for troop withdrawal. Whatever course President Bush takes, it will be interesting to watch the spin.

On an overseas note, 15 British sailors and marines are still being held by Iran. Not quite sure how this situation will play out, but if I were the head of a nation faced with international sanctions for failing to comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s efforts to inspect my nation’s nuclear power program I would not be doing anything to upset one of the five permanent members of the UN’s Security Council, but that’s just me.

Quick note on a story in yesterday’s paper reporting on a study that indicates that children who spend time in day care are more likely to be disruptive in school. My gut reaction, from the perspective of a father of three who has already sent two children to day care, is that this is another one of those studies that will be used as a bludgeon against those who, often out of necessity, have to put their children in daycare while they work. While it might be ideal for children to stay at home with their parent(s) until they are ready for school, I see no need to make working parents feel bad (or worse) about sending their kids to day care; especially if the choice is between day care and putting a roof over their child’s head.

Finally, it was reported today that White House Press Secretary Tony Snow’s colon cancer has recurred and spread to other parts of his body. Coming so shortly after Elizabeth Edwards’ announcement that her breast cancer has returned and spread, it seems apropos to note that whatever our political differences may be, we are all human and subject to the frailties of the flesh. May God bless Tony, Elizabeth, and all cancer patients.

A New Beginning

Pardon the Star Wars reference, but if the shoe fits, you might as well wear it. This past week I was on vacation and, even though I had more free time on my hands than ususal, it seems that I was no more successful in keeping my blog up to date than I was in doing any of the productive things I intended to do during my week off. On the plus side, I can recommend a biography of Horatio Nelson, for whatever that’s worth.

On to, or back to, if you prefer, the events of the day. It was a bad weekend for the Bush adminisration, with three Republican Senators (Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, and Lindsay Graham) publically questioning Gonzales’ account of his role in the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys (any suggestions as to a viable shorthand for “the eight U.S. Attorneys” are welcome. TEUSA, while playing on the government’s penchant for acronyms, seems a little unwieldly; I’m hoping for something along the lines of the “Keating Five,” but the “Gonzales Eight” doesn’t seem to fit). Seems that every time the Justice Department releases additional documents about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys the documents undermine what Attorney General Gonzales and/or his spokespeople have said about his role in firing the eight U.S. Attorneys. I will be the first to confess that I have zero experience in covering up governmental malfeasance, but were I put in charge of such an effort, rule number one would be to look at the paper trail before talking to the press. In spite of the newly damning documents, and increasing opposition to Attorney General Gonzales in his own part, President Bush remains supportive of his Attorney General. I’m not trying to be overly cynical, but when the statements that your own Attorney General has made are contradicted by internal documents and the liason between the Attorney General and the White House is refusing to testify to the Senate on Fifth Amendment grounds, it seems to me that President Bush’s confidence in Attorney General Gonzales is misplaced.

The first trial to be conducted by the military tribunals at Guantanamo resulted in a guilty plea today. Although some may view David Hicks’ guily plea as a vindication of the military tribunals set up by the Bush administration to try “enemy combatants,” the story leading up to Mr. Hicks’ guilty plea, including the fact that the presiding officer ordered Hicks’ two civilian attorneys to leave the hearing, leads me to conclude that these hearings are nothing more than kangaroo courts where the deck is stacked heavily in the favor of the prosecution. In light of the fact that the Common Law system of justice has always placed the burden of proof on the government, and provided safeguards to criminal defendants, I cannot view Mr. Hicks’ guilty plea as anything close to legitimate.

On a less depressing note, it was announced today that the major Protestant and Catholic parties in Northern Ireland have reached a power sharing agreement which will allow an Irish government to govern Northern Ireland instead of the British government. Let’s all hope that this agreement paves the way for a reconciliation between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Is a future reuniting of Ireland in the future? Only time will tell.

Slow News Day

Well, I’ve figured out the Achilles’ heel of a current events blog and it is a slow news day. When your local paper leads with an article about highway construction that won’t begin until next month, it’s hard to believe that you will find much to blog about in the day’s news, so I may be touching on a couple of items today that are a day or two old.

The Palestinian parliament recently approved a new government, albeit a government that refuses to renounce violence or recognize the right of Israel to exist. While the fact that the Palestinians seem to have overcome their internal differences to form a new government might be seen as encouraging, the overall situation does not seem improved by the approval of a new Palestinian government. Most western governments, including the EU (yes, technically not a government, but still a member of the “Quartet” charged with crafting a lasting peace in the Middle East) and the U.S., refuse to give aid to the Palestinian government until the Palestinian government renounces violence and recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist. While some, including the EU, have recently indicated that there may be some flexibility with regard to these conditions, even if the new Palestinian government is accepted by the rest of the world and receives foreign aid, a continued refusal to recognize the right of the State of Israel seems to me to be a complete deal breaker regardless of whatever else happens. I’m neither a diehard Zionist, nor a member of the Intifadah, but I am at a loss to understand why Israel should negotiate with an entity that denies its right to exist, or why the Palestinians would want to negotiate with an invalid entity (if I have just effectively explained why there has been no lasting peace in the Middle East to date, I won’t be shy about accepting credit). Bottom line, I don’t think there can be a meaningful peace in the Middle East unless the Palestinians (and to a lesser degree, the rest of the Arab world) accepts that Israel has a right to exist.

At the end of a slow news day, signs of a future post bonanza! Apparently, while President Bush will allow White House aides, including Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to “testify” (those are deeply sarcastic quotation marks, for those keeping score at home) about the firing of U.S. Attorneys he will allow then to do so only “in private, ‘without the need for an oath’ and without a transcript.” Forgive my cynicism, but what good are private, unsworn, and untranscribed statements? While the AP article I’m commenting upon indicates that those giving statements to Congress would be obligated to tell the truth even if they are not under oath, it seems to me that this obligation is meaningless if there is no permanent record of what Rove, et al. said. In the end, this article raises two questions for me: 1) presuming that the White House has the authority to dictate the circumstances under which White House aides can testify to Congress (Count me as a skeptic; can a party to a lawsuit dictate the terms under which a witness called to testify in court will testify? No, and for good reason, allowing a party to dictate the conditions under which a witness will testify undermines the fundamental purpose of a trial, which is to discover the truth about what happened. While I have to acknowledge that Congressional testimony is not the same as courtroom testimony, I belive that the end is the same and that the President (not just George W.) should not be able to deny the American people the truth by trotting out a hackneyed separation of powers argument.), does that authority to dictate the circumstances under which former White House aides (i.e. Miers) can testify; and 2) is there no limit to George W. Bush’s hubris?

Sorry if the structure is was a little awkward this evening, I’ll aim for more clarity tomorrow.

Catching Up

My apologies for the two day delay in updating my blog, but whatever bug was making its way through my kids the past week kicked my butt for most of the past 48 hours. In order to make up for lost time, I’ll be running through the recent headlines, as opposed to commenting in depth on particular stories.

Let’s see, what has happened in the world since I last shared my thoughts with the world at large?

On Friday, Valerie Plame was on Capital Hill, testifying about the leaking of her identity to the press. From what I have read about her testimony, it’s not clear that her testimony added anything to what is already known about how and why her name was leaked to the press, but it seems clear that while Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation is over, the Congressional investigation into this matter has just begun.

Speaking of Congressional investigations, the brouhaha over the firing of seven U.S. Attorneys shows no signs of abating. Not only has the White House changed its story about Harriet Miers’ role in the firings, but at least three GOP lawmakers have now publically called for Attorney General Gonzales to resign, including Representative Dana Rohrabacher of California, who called for the appointment of an Attorney General with “more professional focus rather than personal loyalty” to President Bush. With such public criticism of Gonzales from Republicans, it’s easy to suppose that Gonzales will be domino number two to Scooter Libby, but only time will tell. One sure bet is that with Senator Patrick Leahy telling NBC that any White House officials called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committe will have to do so under oath, the remaining years of the George W. Bush presidency will be long ones for Karl Rove, et. al.

Three New York City Police Department detectives were indicted for their roles in the shooting death of Sean Bell. I will confess that, in no small part because I don’t live in New York City, I have not been following this story closely, but it seems to me that presenting this case to the grand jury was probably the best way for the District Attorney deal with the public outrage that followed the shooting. If the D.A. had declined to press charges, some segments of the population would no doubt have seen that decision as part of a cover up intended to protect New York City police officers who shot an unarmed black man. By presenting the case to the a grand jury made up of the public, the D.A. effectively put that decision in the hands of the public, which makes the charging process more transparent. At the same time, the old saw about a prosecutor being able to convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, has some truth (inasmuch as only the prosecutor presents evidence to the grand jury), so I don’t think that there will be any resolution to this matter until the trial(s) are over, and I believe that trial(s) are forthcoming because I don’t see any of the indicted officers entering into a plea agreements.

This coming Tuesday marks the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and, as expected, this past weekend saw public demonstrations in opposition to, and in support of, the war. I’ll stay off of my soapbox this evening but there were a couple of interesting articles in Slate today about the Iraq war. Christopher Hitchens’ article defends our actions, but only by viewing the events that lead up to the invasion from through a “what we knew then” lens. While it may be possible to justify the decision to invade Iraq using that lens, the evident lack of planning for how to govern or manage a post-invasion Iraq, the issue that sticks in my craw more than anything else at this point, can’t be explained away by saying that civil war was not predictable.

For those who are wondering whether reality has reached the upper levels of our government, the answer is apparently no. In spite of this, I was pleased, and genuinely touched, to read an AP story today about how Secretary of Defense Robert Gates makes a point of adding three or four handwritten lines to the letters that are sent to the families of our servicemembers who have died in the line of duty.

Quick Thoughts for the Day

Going to keep it quick today since I feel as though the cold that has been making its way through my children has me in its sights.

Item number the first. While it did not appear to attract much attention at the time, President Bush signed a bill into law this past October that is intended to protect members of the military from being taken advantage of by financial institutions. Among other things, the new(ish?) law caps the interest that can be charged to members of the military at 36% APR. In other words, this law limits creditors to charging close to 40% of the balance as interest each year. While I suppose that 36% APR beats, say 75% APR, it seems somewhat disingenuous to suggest (if anyone has) that limiting interest to 36% represents a major victory for our men and women in uniform.

On a semi-related note, I’ve come across a number of articles recently chronicling bad news in the subprime mortgage business. Apparently, with interest rates rising and home values failing to keep pace, more and more subprime lenders (i.e. lenders who lend money to people who ordinarily would not be able to borrow) have been having problems. While some articles seem to focus on the fact that those who speculated on this housing bubble are now reaping their just desserts, I can’t help but wonder about the “subprime” borrowers who have remained current with their mortgages. Are people who borrowed from these companies at risk of losing their homes if their lender goes under even if they are current with their payments? I hope not, but does anyone know what happens to borrowers when the lender goes bust?

Final note for the evening. It seems like every time a presidential election comes around there is a fair bit of handwringing about how the media covers the election as a horserace and does not pay enough attention to “real issues.” Should we expect extra handwringing this time around, given that the 2008 horserace seems to have begun late in 2006?