ADVICE ON FEDERALISM for Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani: "Giuliani and Thompson claim they want to reinvigorate discussion of the virtues of federalism. Terrific. But you can’t argue that states should be free to make their own policies without federal interference — except when you happen to disagree with them. You can be a federalist, or you can be an ardent drug warrior. But you can’t be both." Indeed.
I'VE WRITTEN BEFORE about Jeff Zaslow's reports of anti-male bigotry, but I have to say that this item in Slate's "Dear Prudence" column takes the cake:
My younger, 13-year-old sister is having a slumber party for her birthday, and invited three or so of her 13- to 14-year-old girlfriends to our house. Shortly after, "Sara's" mother suggested that my sister's party should be held at "Tammy's" house. Why? Because Tammy has a single mother. Sara's mother is concerned that my father will be in his house during the festivities. There is no reason to be concerned about my father doing anything inappropriate to any of the girls (all the parents have met each other), but she is just uncomfortable about the idea of her daughter sleeping in the same house with another nonfamily man. She has also convinced the other parents that a change of venue would be a good idea. Although Tammy's mother is willing to host the event, my family is offended that the situation has come to this. Since when is it a crime to have a happy two-parent household?
Only when one of the parents is a man. Prudence's response is excellent, though I'm not sure that anyone should even explain that they're "sensitive to such concerns." If this were a matter of race -- or of gender prejudice against women -- no one would be advising sensitivity.
UPDATE: Donald Sensing emails:
Glenn, regarding your post about the woman who objected to sending her daughter to a friend's home for a sleepover because the friend's father would be present, it's worth considering that at least 20 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by children against other children. In fact, reports StopItNow.com, "As much as half of all child sexual abuse is committed by children under the age of 18 (Hunter, J.A., Figueredo, A., Malamuth, N.M., & Becker, J.V. (2003). Juvenile sex offenders: Toward the Development of a Typology. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, (2003) Volume 15, No. 1.)."
I think an appropriate response by the original hosting parents to that mother would be to say, "I am uncomfortable with the idea of sending my daughter to spend the night in another house where only one adult is present," and put the shoe back on her foot.
Meanwhile, reader Richard Aubrey posits a PC meme-clash: "Suppose the husband/father in question were black. The SPIW (Self-Professed Incredibly Wonderful) would have a stroke trying to figure out which meme was stronger."
A ROUNDUP OF NORMAN HSU PUNS at Beltway Blogroll. Plus a poll!
My favorite: "Hsu-per California Donors Extradition Opus." If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious!
UPDATE: Reader Steve Galbraith emails:
I've seen this posted by several lefty posters - not bloggers - but posters. Apparently, your citation of puns on Hsu's name is racist.
Oy.
Because if he was a white American with the name of, let's say, Gene Shue, apparently you wouldn't have engaged in this wordplay. It's only because he's an Asian.
Doubly oy.
Methinks the real issue with these posters has nothing to do with the name but involves, let us say, other issues you and the Left have?
Just when you think you've seen everything on the internet.....
In Internet discourse "racist" -- like "fascist" -- is often a synonym for "someone who is winning an argument with a lefty." It's a term used with such abandon, and so little foundation, that it's largely lost its original meaning.
UPDATE: Ed Driscoll notes Pete Townshend's perspicacity -- and, in the process, may explain why the anti-nuclear movement isn't doing as well as it was in the 1970s.
THERE'S NOW A TRANSCRIPT UP, of our podcast interview with Jack Goldsmith.
At his signal, two volts of electricity, enough to power a wristwatch, course through the wires and radiate outward from the tip a few millimeters in every direction. Millions of neurons bask in the electricity, and the effect is fairly immediate. Hire feels warm at first, a bit flushed.
And then it happens. The room looks brighter to her. The faces, the big, circular lights overhead, the ceiling—they all seem clearer. Malone asks her how she feels. "I'm really happy," she replies, clearly surprised. "I feel like I could get up and do all sorts of things." But even more telling than her words is the look on her face. For the first time in 20 years, with a halo bolted to her head and two freshly drilled holes in her skull, Hire smiles. . . . When I meet with her six months after the surgery, she doesn't look like a person who spent 20 years trapped in a dark mental cave. She's energetic. She shakes my hand firmly and looks me straight in the eye—something she says she simply wouldn't have been able to do before. She laughs often (and my jokes aren't even really funny). She now walks 50 miles a week, talks to her family constantly, chats with strangers at the post office. And her smile is a regular, everyday thing, not a freakish, fleeting appearance in a crowded operating room.
Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."
Hmm. That sounds kind of like my GOP "premortem," doesn't it? ("Add to this the GOP leadership's failure to follow through on promised ethics reforms, and its addiction to pork-barrel spending, and you've got lots of reason to think that they don't stand for anything except stuffing their pockets.") Haven't read the book yet, but it sounds interesting. It's currently #2 on Amazon, so I guess a lot of people think so.
FREE IPHONE UNLOCKING FOR DUMMIES: Well, that's the kind I'd need, if I owned an iPhone.
MICKEY KAUS: "Maybe Murdoch Bid on the Wrong Company: New York Times stock falls below $20 a share, down from $50 in 2002. ... Soon even Ron Burkle will be able to buy the place!"
UPDATE: Reader George Zachar emails:
Shareholder equity in the New York Times company is roughly $825 million. That's about the value of the Times' interest in its new headquarters tower opposite the bus terminal. The implicit value of the Times newspaper and other properties is therefore zero.
I blame excessive ad-discounting.
WILL SALETAN on rigged studies. Similar result-oriented sloppiness on race/IQ research would get you drummed out of the academy. But maybe not sloppiness on other topics.
A SHOCKING AYN RAND DEVELOPMENT: "An article in the New York Times about Rand and Atlas Shrugged that is notable for the absence of the expected condescending sneering."
ANOTHER dumb McCarthyish political decision at the University of California. "After a group of UC Davis women faculty began circulating a petition, UC regents rescinded an invitation to Larry Summers, the controversial former president of Harvard University, to speak at a board dinner Wednesday night in Sacramento." First Chemerinsky, now this. People are going to be a lot slower to accept invitations from the University of California in the future, I think. To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, I could carve a better backbone out of a banana.
MASSACHUSETTS DECIDES THAT ROADS NEED more cowbell. Well, doesn't everything?
'I do not think that abrogating Second Amendment rights is a good idea,'' the Republican said at the Versailles restaurant in Little Havana.
Miami's pro-gun-control police chief is presumably too busy battling corruption charges to weigh in. But there's a lot of that going around.
CALL IT THE HSU SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH:Arkansas returns Hsu money, but New School doesn't. "Bob Kerrey -- head of the New School -- is considering a run for Senate in 2008. He ought to have the good sense to have returned the money already." Maybe he's not sure who it actually belongs to . . . .
JIM MORAN DOES IT AGAIN: “There are only so many mistakes he can make before it’s fair to call him an anti-Semite.” Are we there yet?
And this advice: "How should Democrats deal with this guy? Here’s a proposal: Ask Mark Warner."
More here: "Hillary Clinton doesn’t say anything by accident. "
CHEMERINSKY UPDATE: "Right-wing bogeymen" still unaccounted for. And possibly fictional, though that raises further questions.
THOSE LAYERS OF EDITORS AND FACT-CHECKERS fail again: "A former consultant to ABC's investigative unit admitted yesterday that he put his name on a purported interview with Barack Obama that he never conducted."
And there's more here: "The French Defense Ministry on Friday debunked the credentials of a former ABC News consultant who claimed to have worked as an adviser to the ministry, saying the man was just an intern for five months."
PVC pipe filled with homemade "low-grade explosive mixture'' and a videotape instruction for turning a remote-controlled toy car into a detonator were among the items found in the car driven by two University of South Florida students arrested in South Carolina and now facing federal explosives charges, according to a federal prosecutor. . . . They also found a laptop computer in the men's car. On the laptop they found a 12-minute video on which a man shows how to turn a radio-controlled toy car into a remote-controlled detonator, Hoffer said.
Mohamed admits that it is him in the video, although you cannot see his face, Hoffer said. In the video, Mohamed said that he was showing how to make such a device "to save one who wants to be a martyr for another battle,'' Hoffer said.
Mohamed also makes reference to a toy boat in the video.
The FBI seized a toy remote controlled boat in a box from Megahed's home.
UPDATE: A cautionary note. The point is well-taken. I suspect that If CAIR weren't defending them, people might be slower to assume their guilt. But given CAIR's track record, that's not entirely irrational.
MICKEY KAUS: "Thanks to a recent election that gave Mayor Villaraigosa's allies a majority on the L.A. school board, a large, poor-performing inner-city high school--Locke High--is being turned over in toto to a charter organization. Why isn't this the equivalent, for the education world, what the dynamiting of the Pruitt-Igoe towers was for New Deal public housing projects? Here is a unionized ghetto high school so beyond salvation by the traditional ed bureaucracy that a majority of its own teachers vote to go charter!"
THOUGHTS ON POLITICIANS AND HDTV: This was discussed here a while back.
Victor David Hanson says UC Irvine Law School should re-hire Chemerinsky.
Personally, I think they should re-hire him, and then re-fire him, just for kicks. It'll be like George Steinbrenner and Billy Martin for the ivory-tower set. Fun times all around!
Who says sports don't build character?
UPDATE: More here: "Can anyone explain why Drake should not resign? After nine months of searching for a dean and recruiting a man who is highly respected throughout the law school community, he turned around and fired him in a way that has undercut the whole project of founding a law school at UCI."
MORE ON THE MICROSOFT stealth update issue. "I know that this is a bitter pill for Microsoft to have to swallow, but no matter what spin is being put on the PR, updating files on systems where users have specifically stated they want to have the final say on what’s installed is a serious betrayal of trust, and this isn’t the first time."
A-list bloggers who rose to prominence by fighting the establishment are quickly becoming the new establishment -- and as such they are being forced to do battle with a new generation of intraparty peasants with pixel-forks.
The Blogway Elite versus the New Netroots (need a better name for them): It's all very interesting to watch.
SENATOR KEN SALAZAR PRODUCES the world's quietest Sister Souljah moment, by denouncing the MoveOn "Betrayus" ad, but in a newspaper with a smaller readership than many political blogs.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Gary Harmon of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel emails:
Prof. Reynolds: Here I sit, damned with faint praise re Salazar’s Sis Souljah? Did you have to mention the size of the readership? Now I feel like the freshman on the first day in the locker room with the seniors. Again.
Actually, we won’t apologize for the size of our readership. It’s actually growing and not many can say that in this business. What is interesting is that the comments were made in a phone conference involving almost all Colorado media, including the big dailies and AP.
That it made it to our paper might explain why we’re growing and, well, they’re not.
As Webb Wilder says: "You're never too small to hit the big time!"
When Bill Clinton received an award at a gala dinner honoring the late Robert F. Kennedy last year, the former president expressed his thanks before an audience that included a Nobel Prize winner and a glittering array of show business celebrities and Wall Street titans. Yet the second sentence of his remarks expressed special gratitude to a man almost no one there had heard of: "our friend Norman Hsu."
The story of Hsu, the major Democratic fundraiser who turned out to be a fugitive from justice, is a tangled one that stretches back more than 15 years. But more recent developments in the world of campaign finance helped create the environment in which a man like Hsu could be welcomed into the company of people like the Kennedys and Clintons.
Thanks, campaign finance "reform"! (Via NewsAlert, which notes: "To Bill Clinton Norman Hsu was a bundler of joy.")
MORE WRONG-HOUSE RAIDS IN PHILADELPHIA: And the cops even admit that they weren't sure they had the right house, and broke in anyway.
We need federal legislation stripping sovereign immunity in these cases.
INDEED: "It is the view of this column that the Times should be able to sell ads to whomever it wishes under whatever terms it wishes. But we live in an era of heavy regulation of campaign speech, thanks in part to the persuasive efforts of the New York Times. It does not seem too much to ask that the New York Times Co. adhere, with transparency and integrity, to the high standards its editorialists seek to impose by law on everyone else."
UPDATE: A message convergence. "But I think the real lesson here is for MoveOn: sure, you got a great discount, but if you'd waited a day you could have gotten the same message out for free."
SO I FINISHED JOE HALDEMAN'S The Accidental Time Machine last night. It was okay -- not in his top tier, but reasonably amusing. As one of the reader reviews says: "pleasant, although shallow."
BUY A SPORT-UTILITY VEHICLE: It's for the children! "America's car culture may be giving childbearing a big boost. Dragging a child around a city, even a family-friendly Canadian or northern European city, is a major hassle, especially since after you get home, all worn out and cranky from the expedition, chances are your urban apartment forces you to be in closer proximity to your child than is ideal for maintaining an even temper."
MAKING THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF BLOWHARDS: The new Corn & Miniter Show is up!
DAVID BERNSTEIN: "Anyone who is reasonably familiar with the history of U.S.-Israel relations knows that the pro-Israel community (and the organized Jewish community writ large, for that matter) has despised Brzezinski for at least thirty years. And it wasn’t just Brzezinski’s policies, deemed by many to be anti-Israel, it was the way he promoted them, and the way he interacted with Jewish community activists who sought to engage him."
OUT-TRUTHING THE TRUTHERS: Mary Katharine Ham at Ground Zero.
HSU-LEATHER EXPRESS: Well, he's already demonstrated that he's a flight risk: "A Colorado judge set bail at $5 million in cash for Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu on a grand theft charge, but that wasn't enough to satisfy a prosecutor who had asked for an unprecedented $50 million bail."
CHINESE PIRATES PRODUCE AN IPOD NANO CLONE, and get this stiff warning: "Just remember guys, you're taking food off of Steve Jobs' table... which is made of diamond-studded platinum."
BOMBINGS BY THE "POPULAR REVOLUTIONARY ARMY" IN MEXICO have idled a number of automobile plants. Show your solidarity with the workers -- put them out of a job!
What do you think the chances are that this ultimately traces back to Hugo Chavez?
LEE SMITH REVIEWS WALT AND MEARSHEIMER: "If it weren’t for its support for Israel, the United States would have gotten along just fine with Saddam Hussein and have warm ties with Iran and enjoy popularity across the Middle East… right?"
MEGAN MCARDLE: "I'm so proud to have voted for a party that thinks that retroactive taxes on 'excess' profits are a good way to deal with high prices. After all, it worked terribly well in the 1970's and 1980's. I bet that will teach those nasty oil companies that there are penalties for producing a highly desireable product!"
The X Prize Foundation saw the new contest as one of “the grand challenges of our time that we can use to move people forward,” said Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, chairman and C.E.O. of the foundation.
The prize for reaching the moon and completing the basic tasks of roving and sending video and data will bring the winner $20 million, according to the contest rules. An additional $5 million would be awarded for other tasks that include roving more than 5,500 yards or sending back images of artifacts like lunar landers from the Apollo program.
Carnegie-Mellon is already in the game, and more will follow. But not everyone is excited. Rand Simberg writes: "I just can't get as excited about it as I was supposed to be, based on all the pre-announcement hype. I'm just not that into space science, or robots on other planets. I was hoping that it would be something that would further drive down the cost of space passenger travel. But hey, it's Google's money." He rounds up a lot of other reactions.
Meanwhile, David Nolan wonders who, if anyone, will play the Burt Rutan role this time around.
APPARENTLY, NOT JUST ANYONE can get the enviable treatment that MoveOn got from The New York Times' advertising department.
Meanwhile, Extreme Mortman offers this question: "Who would have thought John Kerry would remain the sole marquee Democrat with the courage to denounce MoveOn?"
THIS SOUNDS LIKE GOOD NEWS: "The federal deficit is running sharply lower than last year even though spending in August set an all-time high, the government reported Thursday. The Treasury Department said that the deficit through the first 11 months of this budget year totaled $274.4 billion, down 9.8 percent from the same period a year ago. Analysts believe the deficit for all of 2007 will actually be even lower because they are forecasting a sizable surplus in the final month. . . . The administration is projecting that the government's books will be in surplus by 2012 if Congress follows Bush's recommendations on spending restraint. However, the Democratic-controlled Congress is pushing for higher spending for the budget year that begins Oct. 1. Bush has pledged to veto spending bills that exceed his requests."
VIA EMAIL, the full text of Bush's speech. Click "read more" to read it.
UPDATE: So I watched the speech. It was okay -- an average performance for Bush, not especially good or bad -- but I'm not sure it really added much, post-Petraeus. It will, however, probably pull a response from MoveOn, which based on this week's experience can only help the Bush Administration.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Okay, I watched the Democratic response from Sen. Jack Reed, which seemed calculated to make Bush's speech seem lively by comparison. Not much there, either. I'm pretty sure political oratory is at a historical low point.
MORE: The Democrats in a box? "The real interesting thing to watch for in the coming months is how the Democrats will act as they are clearly unable to force a withdrawal. What further fissures will we see between the anti-war radicals and the Democrats?"
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people.
We are now at such a moment.
In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq’s young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.
Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.
The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.
Since the surge was announced in January, it has moved through several phases. First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq, especially Baghdad and Anbar Province. Once these forces were in place, our commanders launched a series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds. Finally, in areas that have been cleared, we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life.
Anbar Province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.
To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and Coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers. Today, a city where al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our Provincial Reconstruction Teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.
These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day, local Sunni leaders thanked me for America’s support. They pledged they would never allow al Qaeda to return. And they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar Province put it this way: “Our tomorrow starts today.”
The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out. They show al Qaeda that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they show the world that ordinary people in the Middle East want the same things for their children that we want for ours – a decent life and a peaceful future.
In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly. Earlier today, one of the brave tribal sheikhs who helped lead the revolt against al Qaeda was murdered. In response, a fellow Sunni leader declared: “We are determined to strike back and continue our work.” And as they do, they can count on the continued support of the United States.
Throughout Iraq, too many citizens are being killed by terrorists and death squads. And for most Iraqis, the quality of life is far from where it should be. Yet General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report that the success in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country.
One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today, most of Baghdad’s neighborhoods are being patrolled by Coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.
One year ago, much of Diyala Province was a sanctuary for al Qaeda and other extremist groups, and its capital of Baqubah was emerging as an al Qaeda stronghold. Today, Baqubah is cleared. Diyala Province is the site of a growing popular uprising against the extremists. And some local tribes are working alongside Coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their communities.
One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up, and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.
These gains are a tribute to our military, they are a tribute to the courage of the Iraqi Security Forces, and they are a tribute to an Iraqi government that has decided to take on the extremists.
Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks – and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.
Yet Iraq’s national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They are allowing former Ba’athists to rejoin Iraq’s military or receive government pensions. And local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.
Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January. Yet ultimately, the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains. According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable, although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the National Police. Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations. And this is improving their ability to hold areas that have been cleared.
Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 Marines scheduled to leave Anbar Province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas.
And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.
General Petraeus also recommends that in December, we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces.
I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national security team, Iraqi officials, and leaders of both parties in Congress. I have benefited from their advice, and I have accepted General Petraeus’s recommendations. I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq, so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly. I have also directed them to deliver another report to Congress in March. At that time, they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet our national security objectives.
The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is “return on success.” The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.
Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.
The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.
This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my Presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship – in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.
The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror – and that will make us safer here at home.
Realizing this vision will be difficult, but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.
If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare. Democracy movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world. And as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people.
Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.
So tonight I want to speak to Members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for.
To the Iraqi people: You have voted for freedom, and now you are liberating your country from terrorists and death squads. You must demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation. As you do, have confidence that America does not abandon our friends, and we will not abandon you.
To Iraq’s neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.
To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation. We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy. We encourage all nations to help, by implementing the International Compact to revitalize Iraq’s economy, by participating in the Neighbors Conferences to boost cooperation and overcome differences in the region, and by supporting the new and expanded mission of the United Nations in Iraq.
To our military personnel, intelligence officers, diplomats, and civilians on the frontlines in Iraq: You have done everything America has asked of you. And the progress I have reported tonight is in large part because of your courage and hard effort. You are serving far from home. Our Nation is grateful for your sacrifices, and the sacrifices of your families.
Earlier this year, I received an e-mail from the family of Army Specialist Brandon Stout of Michigan. Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was killed while serving in Baghdad. His family has suffered greatly. Yet in their sorrow, they see larger purpose. His wife, Audrey, says that Brandon felt called to serve and knew what he was fighting for. And his parents, Tracy and Jeff, wrote me this: “We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win … even if it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free.”
This country is blessed to have Americans like Brandon Stout, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us safe from harm. They are doing so in a fight that is just, and right, and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun.
Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.
TRYING TO PREVENT FURTHER HSUNANIGANS: "The political and legal demise of major Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu is casting attention beyond Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, which earlier this week made the decision to return all of the $850,000 Hsu raised this year, even as he was a fugitive from a 15-year-old criminal case in California. At least two of Clinton's rivals have also been dealing with questions about their fundraising but have stopped short of Clinton's dramatic remedy so far. Shortly before Hsu's controversial efforts came to light last month, trial lawyer Geoffrey Feiger, one of the big bundlers for John Edwards' past presidential campaign, was indicted on federal charges he conspired to route more than $125,000 in illegal contributions to Edwards' 2004 bid ."
And Paul Kiel of TPM Muckrakerobserves: "The going suspicion in Washington has always been that politicians are not prone to ask too many questions of contributors as long as the checks keep coming. But never has a contributor's hidden past blown up in a campaign's face quite like it has for the Clinton campaign in the case of Norman Hsu. . . . Despite all the scrutiny of Hsu, a number of mysteries remain, the main one being what Hsu was after, another being where all this money came from. Hsu managed to raise the staggering sum of $850,000 in just the last eight months for Clinton from some 260 contributors, and that's not counting the money he's delivered for a long list of other Democrats since 2004."
So are there more guys like him out there, or was he flying Hsulo?
"RETURN ON SUCCESS:" Just got an email from the White House with excerpts from Bush's speech. Click "read more" to read them.
EXCERPTS FROM THE PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS TO THE NATION
As Prepared for Delivery
Tonight President Bush will address the Nation from the Oval Office to lay out his plan for the way forward in Iraq.
On keeping us safe here at home:
In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home.
This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future – and also threaten ours.
On the success of the surge:
The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress… The goal of the surge is to provide that security – and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.
On political progress:
Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks – and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.
Yet Iraq’s national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces… And local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.
On the principle of “Return on Success”:
The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is “return on success.” The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.
On coming together as a Nation to support this mission:
Americans want our country to be safe, and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.
The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.
On an enduring relationship with Iraq that requires many fewer American troops:
This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my Presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship – in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.
On why we must succeed:
The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States.
Realizing this vision will be difficult – but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.
Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.
So tonight I want to speak to Members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made, and the troop levels he has asked for.
On the gains we are making in Iraq:
Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.
###
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release September 13, 2007
"Return On Success" Guiding Principle For Troop Levels In Iraq
President Bush Accepts Recommendations To Maintain Security Gains With Fewer U.S. Forces
Tonight, President Bush Will Announce That He Has Accepted General David Petraeus' Recommendations To Reduce The American Presence In Iraq And Begin Transitioning In December To The Next Phase Of Our Strategy. Before reaching this decision, the President consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of his national security team, Iraqi officials, and leaders of both parties in Congress. The principle guiding his decisions on troop levels in Iraq is "return on success" – the more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.
Ø The Way Forward The President Will Describe Will Make It Possible For People Who Have Been On Opposite Sides Of The Difficult Debate About Iraq To Come Together. Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.
Ø General Petraeus Believes We Have Now Reached The Point Where We Can Maintain Our Security Gains With Fewer American Forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 Marines scheduled to leave Anbar Province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade – for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas. And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.
Ø General Petraeus Recommends That In December, We Begin Transitioning To The Next Phase Of Our Strategy In Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces.
Ø The President Has Directed General Petraeus And Ambassador Crocker To Update Their Joint Campaign Plan For Iraq, So We Can Adjust Our Military And Civilian Resources Accordingly. President Bush has directed them to report to Congress in March. At that time, they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet our national security objectives.
Our Nation's Moral And Strategic Imperatives In Iraq Are One: We Must Help Iraq Defeat Those Who Threaten Its Future – And Also Threaten Ours
The Success Of A Free Iraq Is Critical To The Security Of The United States – If We Withdraw Prematurely, Violent Extremists Would Be Emboldened, And We Would Leave To Our Children A Far More Dangerous World. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq, an ally that has placed its trust in the United States, could face a humanitarian nightmare, and democracy movements throughout the region would be violently reversed.
Ø Realizing The Vision Of A Free Iraq That Is A Partner In The Fight Against Terror Will Be Difficult – But It Is Achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.
Ø Congress Should Come Together On A Policy Of Strength In The Middle East. The President thanks members of Congress for providing crucial funds and resources for our military, and asks them to join him in supporting the recommendation General Petraeus has made – and the troop levels General Petraeus has asked for.
The Principle Guiding The President's Decision Is "Return On Success"
Our Success In Meeting Surge Objectives Allows Us To Begin Bringing Some Of Our Troops Home. The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. This week, General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress and made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.
Ø Anbar Province Is A Good Example Of How Our Strategy Is Working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we should cut our losses and pull out of Iraq. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local population was tired of suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al Qaeda and asked for help. So the President sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge.
* Today, A City Al Qaeda Once Considered A Stronghold Is Beginning To Return To Normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our Provincial Reconstruction Teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.
Ø For Most Iraqis, The Quality Of Life Is Far From Where It Should Be – Yet General Petraeus And Ambassador Crocker Report That The Success In Anbar Is Beginning To Be Replicated In Other Parts Of The Country. These gains are a tribute to our military, to the courage of the Iraqi Security Forces, and to an Iraqi government that has decided to take on the extremists.
· Baghdad: One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Today, most of Baghdad's neighborhoods are being patrolled by Coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening, citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence, sectarian killings are down, and ordinary life is beginning to return.
· Diyala Province: One year ago, much of Diyala Province was a sanctuary for al Qaeda and other extremist groups, and its capital of Baqubah was emerging as an al Qaeda stronghold. Today, Baqubah is cleared, Diyala Province is the site of a growing popular uprising against the extremists, and some local tribes are working alongside Coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their communities.
· Shia Extremists And Militants: One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up, and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.
Ø Ultimately, The Way Forward Depends On The Ability Of Iraqis To Maintain Security Gains. According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable, although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the National Police. Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations, and this is improving their ability to hold areas that have been cleared.
The Iraqi Government Must Now Bring The Same Determination It Has Demonstrated Taking On Extremists To Achieving Reconciliation
Iraq's Government Has Not Yet Met Its Own Legislative Benchmarks – And President Bush Has Made It Clear That It Must – But Iraq's National Leaders Are Making Political Progress. For example, they have passed a budget, they are sharing oil revenues with the provinces, and they are allowing former Ba'athists to rejoin Iraq's military or receive government pensions. In addition, local reconciliation is taking place, and the key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.
Meanwhile, Uncle Jimbo files a complaint with the FEC. I disapprove of McCain-Feingold, etc., but the New York Times really wanted these laws, so I say let them get what they want, good and hard.
And Bob Owens, who noticed this first, does some well-modulated gloating.
OUCH: "Almost immediately after the launch of Fred Thompson's long anticipated presidential candidacy, important neutral Republicans decreed privately that it had crashed and burned on takeoff. Many of these critics had wanted to board the Thompson campaign but were repelled by his 'gatekeepers.' That helps explain their attitude now, and not merely because of bruised feelings caused by their exclusion." I don't think he's crashed and burned, but I agree that the campaign has sometimes seemed curiously isolated.
Ann Althouse, however, isn't so sure about these criticisms: "It's possible that he knows what he is doing."
Meanwhile, Wired says: "It's official: Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson's media strategy for his campaign launch was a success. Thompson's web site Fred08.com was the most visited presidential candidate web site last week, according to Hitwise, a Web site traffic and search trends analysis firm."
KEEPING HIS MOUTH HSUT: "John Edwards isn’t exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to criticizing Hillary Clinton, or bringing up the Clintons’ past scandals – recall his 'the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent' speech. In fact, that speech came on the 23rd of August, just a few days before the whole Norman Hsu mess exploded on the nation’s front pages. Yet John Edwards hasn’t yet commented on the Norman Hsu matter."
NORMAN HSU = Oh Man! Runs. At the Anagram Genius site.
FROM FEDERALISM TO FREDeralism. But Rand Simberg has a question. But he finds something else to like about Fred: "Fred Thompson doesn't go to church regularly, and isn't afraid to say so. I've nothing against church goers in general, or even church-going politicians, but I'd much rather have one who doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve. Particularly compared to hypocrites like Bill and Hillary Clinton, who primarily went as a photo op, Bible in hand, usually when trying to tamp down a scandal."
DESPITE ALL THE TALK, Senate chooses pork over bridge repair. By a huge margin. And next time you fly, think of this: "Want to know what had to be cut from the bill in order to get the North Dakota Peace Garden? Oh, just a silly little project that would have updated technology in air-traffic control towers." Bravo for Bob Corker, anyway, who voted with Coburn.
AN OBSCURE MUSCLE CAR: "When people reminisce about classic General Motors muscle cars, the Buick GS455 isn't often the first car to come to mind. . . . Torquey and smooth, with aggressive but restrained lines (a restraint that quickly vanished with the GSX appearance package), the GS455 is one of the great overlooked hero cars from the late 1960s." IowaHawk probably has three.
UPDATE: IowaHawk himself emails:
Funny you should mention that... I've never had a Stage I (let alone three) but do have another 60s Buick of similar brute force and Rat-Packy elegance: 1966 Riviera, 425 ci Nailhead (360 hp, 465 ft-lbs torque). It's currently for sale, so someone else will be slapping Gaia around with it soon.
SOMETHING ELSE TO HSU ON: "Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson and a host of congressional candidates from both parties accepted cash from Oscar S. Wyatt Jr. and his wife, Lynn,since the federal government accused the Texas oilman of paying millions of dollars in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein. Wyatt was indicted in 2005 on charges related to illegal payments for oil contracts from the Hussein-led Iraqi government under the United Nations’ oil-for-food program. And since then, the Wyatts have found willing recipients for nearly $22,000 in political donations." This doesn't seem to be a field where "willing recipients" are hard to come by.
LIBERTARIANS AND CULTURE: More responses to Kay Hymowitz, here and here.
"SO IT'S 'PUBLISH AND PERISH?'" That's the question asked in the L.A. Times regarding the bungled Chemerinsky deanship hire. And there's a big roundup at the WSJ Law Blog.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Jack Goldsmith on Law, Terror and Politics
The sixth anniversary of September 11 is just past, and it's a good time to look at where we are, and what to do in coming years. We spoke to Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, whose new book, The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration, tells the story of his experience working at the Defense Department and as head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, and also looks at how the decisionmaking process relating to terror is being "strangled by law." Goldsmith talks about his experiences, his book, and what the next President and Congress should do.
You can listen directly -- no downloading needed -- by going here and taking advantage of the gray Flash player. Or you can download the file and listen at your leisure by clicking right here.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Jack Goldsmith Interview on Law Terror and Politics
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
The sixth anniversary of September 11 is just past, and it’s a good time to look at where we are, and what to do in coming years. Glenn Reynolds and Helen Smith spoke to Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, whose new book, The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration, tells the story of his experience working at the Defense Department and as head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, and also looks at how the decision making process relating to terror is being “strangled by law.” Goldsmith talks about his experiences, his book, and what the next President and Congress should do.
Transcribed for use only by PAJAMASMEDIA
By Pnina Eilberg
eScribers, LLC
(Music Intro)
GLENN: Hi and welcome to another episode of the Glenn and Helen Show. We're just passed the anniversary of 9/11 and today's guest will be talking about its legacy for George W. Bush and for future presidents.
HELEN: Today we're talking to Jack Goldsmith, author of the Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration.
GLENN: Jack Goldsmith is a law professor at Harvard and the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. His new book says that the war on terror is being strangled by lawyers but that the Bush administration's approach made things worse. We'll talk about the response to 9/11, the detainee and torture disputes, the Bush administration's theory of executive power and what the next president needs to know.
HELEN: So stay tuned.
GLENN: This podcast is brought to you by Volvo Automobiles. Visit your Volvo retailer to drive the new 2007 Volvo XC90, the best selling European luxury SUV with over 50 international awards just got better with 3.2 liter inline six-cylinder engine, roll stability control, MP3 capability, satellite radio preparation and available active Bi-Xenon headlights. Learn more at volvocars.us.
(Music)
HELEN: We've got Jack Goldsmith on the phone now. Hi, Jack.
JACK GOLDSMITH: Hi Helen, how are you?
HELEN: Good.
GLENN: Hi Jack, glad to have you here.
JACK GOLDSMITH: Hi Glenn, thanks for having me.
HELEN: So Jack, you went from the University of Chicago to the Defense Department to the OLC at Justice, how did that happen?
JACK GOLDSMITH: Well, I was at the University of Chicago and I was a fairly well-known scholar of, I suppose, of terrorism and war powers and the like. And I had views consonant with the Defense Department and the General Counsel of the Department of Defense called me one day and asked me if I would like to work for them. Asked me if I would like to interview with him and then he asked me if I would like to work for him.
And then I was at the Department of Defense for about eight or nine months and I was on my way out the door when the chance for working in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, sort of, fell into my lap. I didn't really put my hat in the ring, but through a series of circumstances that ended up being offered to me.
GLENN: Now, you've written a book based on your experience, of course, called The Terror Presidency. Can you, sort of, summarize the basic thrust of the book for the listeners who may not have read it?
JACK GOLDSMITH: Sure. The book draws on my experience in the Justice Department. And it really tries to recreate and convey to a public, that I think doesn't understand, the, sort of, profound pressures, contradictory pressures, that come to bear on the president and the counter-terrorism officials decisions related to the war on terror.
And there are basically two pressures that were -- that were -- I mean two fears that were always fighting with one another when I was in the government. On the one hand is -- and I really can't exaggerate this enough, this really profound worry and fear of another attack. When you -- when you have the job of reading these horrible threat reports every day and when you respons -- and when you -- it's easy to imagine horrible things happenings and when there's credible threats of horrible things happening, you're the person or institution responsible for keeping people safe.
And also, on top of that, this is an enemy that even though we know it's out to get us it's hard to find, it's hard to have the information to stop it. All those factors lead officials to -- to be under real pressure to do everything they can every hour of every day to stop the next attack; to be as aggressive and imaginative as possible.
And this is, of course, also the imperative that the public wanted, the 9/11 commission said that the pre-9/11 we were too risk averse, too complacent. Congress said this. So that pressure is always present. But that pressure, to prevent another attack, was always bumping up against the second and countervailing pressure and that was this very extraordinary array of criminal laws, especially, but laws that had grown up since the '70s largely. And that touched on just about -- many, many aspects of presidential power. So, everywhere the president looked and went in trying to the aggressive things he thought were needed to prevent the next attack and to keep us safe, he found himself bumping up against laws and lawyers.
The book is really about trying to give a sympathetic account of those pressures and why the presidency -- why this is a real problem for the presidency. It tries to explain how some of the errors that were made by the Bush Administration, in my opinion, resulted from these pressures. And it tries to, you know; hopefully provide a roadmap for learning from our mistakes.
HELEN: So what, exactly, does the Office of Legal Counsel do?
JACK GOLDSMITH: It's an office -- it's a small office with twenty-two lawyers in the Justice Department and it does a lot of things. But as relevant to this book, it basically is the part of the government that when the government wants to do something, a counter-terrorism operation, an important counter-terrorism operation, it's the, sort of, agency in the government that decides and determines whether the action is lawful or not.
There's tens of thousands -- hundreds of thousands of lawyers in the executive branch, actually, who -- whose job is to do nothing more than to make sure the executive branch complies with the law. And that's what my office does, sort of, at the top of that pyramid. And it's subject to review. The OLC's decisions are subject to review by the Attorney General and the President and can be overruled by both of those men. But other than that -- except for those circumstances, the Office of Legal Counsel's decisions are binding on the executive branch and determine, basically, what's legal for the executive branch.
GLENN: And those have the effect both of being a way to make something stop, by virtue of it being held illegal by OLC, or of being -- almost like a get out of jail free card for people if you opine that something's legal because that would put the Justice Department in the position of prosecuting somebody for following the justice department's advice, is that right?
JACK GOLDSMITH: Right. Basically when the office of legal counsel looks at a proposed action and -- and examines its legality and determines that it is lawful and then an agency relies on that, it's almost inconceivable that the Justice Department, on whose behalf OLC was speaking, could turn around and prosecute those agencies for relying on the Department of Justice advice. So,
when -- you know when the president faced this -- these concerns about criminal law, and I want to emphasize that no one was trying to break the law. I mean, everyone was trying to comply with the law but people were nervous because the law was vague and it was going to be interpreted -- a lot of the times it was vague. And it was going to be interpreted in -- and it was worried, in a different milieu with different, sort of context of threat by different institutions.
And so, the Office of Legal Counsel gave a lot of comfort, I think, to the bureaucrats who were asked to do things for the country to keep us safe but who were worried about criminal law. Because basically the
Bring it on!
Do Muller's horror tales from World War II indicate that America is bad, or that war is hard and leads to lots of bad things? Watch for reviewers to insert various war-on-terror spins.
