Sand in the gears, Where's the problem, the President or Congress?

SOMETIMES THE PROBLEM IS CONGRESS

. . . and the president needs to lead, e.g. on Israel/Palestine (though it’s a long shot that Obama will indeed lead)

The principals are in a stalemate, and the US has to get over its one-sidedness. There is a dance that takes place between the US and Israel when Israel says or does something that the US doesn't like -- usually when the US finally cannot ignore the conclusion of the rest of the world on some point.

At that point Israel trots out the declaration that, as a sovereign nation it will do whatever it thinks is in its sovereign interest regardless of what others, including the US, may think. At said point, the US figuratively nods its head in agreement, and claims that it has done all it could to register ‘disapproval’ of the said action, following up with the formulation that agrees that Israel is indeed sovereign and acts in its own.

This dance both seeks to get the [current] administration off the hook from the "left" (although that is not an entirely accurate term) which claims the administration can and should push the Israelis harder; and it mollifies the administration critics from the "right" (the neocons, and virtually the entire US political establishment) who want Israel 1) left alone to "act in its best interest”, when it wants the US to keep out, but also 2) want the US to provide all support and succor to Israel up to that point.

In this description of behavior, it is clear to me that only the US can make the behavioral changes needed to move the situation. Those who say there will be no peace until and unless the two parties want it just drive a stake through the heart of the possibility of effective diplomacy. To claim the US has no defacto power is patently absurd. Just absurd.

On the internal US political dynamics of the situation, I keep coming back to the need for Obama to lead because on the ME the Congress is a disgraceful impediment to change, and Executive leadership in this foreign policy area must be determined and strong to overcome Congress fronting for Israel.

SOMETIMES THE PROBLEM IS THE EXECUTIVE

. . . and Congress needs to lead, e.g., on the investigation of the U.S. attorney firing scandal under Bush; or the torture policy and cover up under Bush (though there is no guarantee Congress will lead):

Here is Obama’s OLC (office of legal counsel; previously held by Yoo) head Craig saying, essentially, the unitary executive theory might not be so bad sometimes;

"The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened," Craig said in a statement yesterday. "But he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021303093.html

Glen Greenwald nicely synthesizes some of the issues related to torture and executive secrecy as is emerging under Obama:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/18/savage/index.html

I find this whole schtick of not wanting to "weaken the institution of the presidency" incredible pablum, actually cynical and dismissive of what the Bush "presidency" has done to this country under the guise of "national security".

Obama may finesse these issues in the minds of most people, but if he fails to address, substantively, behaviors and policies much worse than Nixon, his appearance of wimpishness will turn out to have been true, at best.

It will be possibly left up to federal criminal prosecutions to blow the lid off the Bush corruption, and go around Obama's half stepping. (i.e., the federal grand jury looking into the attorney firings is so far on track). That might be a window into the DOJ and the WH. That is if Obama doesn't order Holder to pull the plug on the prosecution to protect the institution of the presidency.

http://murraywaas.crooksandliars.com/2009/02/18/nine-bush-era-officials-have-refused-to-cooperate-with-doj-probes/

Here's another brick in the Bush administration stonewall relating to the suppression of an internal DOJ report (related to DOJ attorney involvement in torture policy) that Mukasey himself initiated. Johnathan Turley is right on the case and will not let these scumbags off, and he is similarly critical of the Obama administration failure to lay down clear markers in any but easy, early actions to kick the can, remaining obscure on pursuing the trail of probable war crimes:

"The controversy, however, should serve to remind citizens that the Obama Administration has still not taken any action on widespread allegations of war crimes. There is clearly an effort to outlast any public interest in such an investigation. Delay will also serve to allow some statute of limitations to run — giving the Administration an excuse not to prosecute on some collateral crimes. However, there are no statutes of limitations for war crimes and the failure of the Administration to act is itself a violation of our obligations under these treaties."

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/02/18/mukasey-delayed-torture-report-bar-charges-may-be-brought-against-bush-officials-like-john-yoo/

It seems that the issue of looking into torture policy more deeply is something the Obama administration would like to just wish away (per the assertion of Jonathan Turley, noted legal scholar, among many others), and preserve some of those unitary executive prerogatives for itself, even at the price of negotiating an accommodation with Rove instead of letting the subpoena process run its course, in order to avoid undercutting the (Bush) claim of executive privilege, leading to the OLC statement by Craig cited above on maintaining "the institution of the Presidency".

Even idea of having Rove willingly now testify before Congress is hardly credible. Questions abound: there would be some grant of immunity; would it be immunity for testimony only, or would it be transactional immunity baring later prosecution on evidence from independent sources? It’s hard to imagine Rove’s attorneys would not have sought to cut out and limit areas of testimony. Who really believes that Rove will say anything so incriminating, of himself or Bush/Cheney, that the scope of inquiry, hashed out in the ground rules for testimony, will not cover. (and of course, one presumes the testimony would be public).

It requires total naïveté to imagine Rove will throw Bush under the bus. The ONLY way to get information out of Rove will be via the threat of legal prosecution/incarceration, and then I wouldn't assume that Rove would not choose to go to jail.

I can only second those smarter than me who caution that the protection of our nation of laws requires that the legal process be used to the full to expose the damage and ongoing danger to the country that is done by covering up the Bush administration. Obama needs to think long and hard about the precedents he would be endorsing by finding neat nuances to avoid the unpleasant work to lancing the boil and undoing Bush’s constitutional excesses. Obama's feet cannot be held too closely to the fire here: excuses of damage to the presidency, or necessary secrecy, need to be rigorously questioned and opposed.Congress must do what is necessary, even in the face of the President's resistance and even, or especially, in the light of their own flagging reputation.

As is often the case, the substantive issues (e.g., torture, firing of US attorneys) are often intertwined with the procedural ones, allowing Executive appointee to respond to Congressional subpoena or not, and vice versa. Where a questionable or illegal procedure is invoked to uphold a questionable or illegal policy, the sum of stench is greater than its respecitve parts.

Accountablity -- What a concept!

In the heady early and self-conscious accommodation-seeking days of the Obama presidency, we seem to be dancing around the edges of the significant issue which, to my mind, is finding an appropriate way forward to publicly and officially document the abuses of power during the Bush era, whether that goes by the name of unitary executive theory, illegal information gathering, violation of Geneva Convention obligations, or some other.

To me, it's the elephant in the room; the huge sigh of relief that the Bush abomination is over, has given way to a seeming wilful amnesia about just how terrible and, probably illegal, in it's dimensions it was.

Books have begun the documentation, e.g., Jane Mayer's “The Dark Side”. But to have the “system” apply some corrective through public process is another, and potentially much needed and more cathartic and curative approach.

There are so many available avenues for finding a way into examination of the abuses -- with the resultant publication and repudiation of practices via developing massive incriminating material, and maybe jail sentences -- its not for want of targets that formal proceedings haven’t begun, somewhere.

It’s lack of will. Political will for sure. And lack of adequate appraisal of the ethical consequences for failure to act. Oh, and not to forget, setting of future precedent by failure to act.

Obama watching - early days

There are parallel and potentially competing story lines developing, with different constituencies. One line sees Obama struggling against the residual encumbrances of Bushgov, in which he might fail. The other story line sees Obama as simply a piece in the ongoing erosion of representative democracy in America. Obama himself is sending out mixed messages.

For instance, why is it necessary that "extraordinary rendition", a nefarious totalitarian practice, be retained in Obama's arsenal?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,4661244.story

The Europeans don't seem to need it. Does it go back to "911 changed everything", and that American lives and America’s "right" to be free from terror attacks are paramount to others in the world, including the Europeans?

Sometimes I just get the feeling Obama is trying to be too cute by half. It has long been my feeling that a statesman (not a politician) could succeed wildly by following ethical instincts. Now that may be a foolish assumption, probably is. But the more deviations a politician makes (in this case Obama in his new role, clean slate potentially) from the ethical, the harder it is to come back, to kick the habit. Like the little white lies the alcoholic starts with to cover his addiction that eventually come to define and control his every move.