Poll Finds Bush Job Rating at New Low By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane, Washington Post Staff Writers

Political reversals at home and continued bad news from Iraq have dragged President Bush’s standing with the public to a new low, at the same time that Republican fortunes on Capitol Hill also are deteriorating, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 38 percent of the public approve of the job Bush is doing, down three percentage points in the past month and his worst showing in Post-ABC polling since he became president. Sixty percent disapprove of his performance.

With less than seven months remaining before the midterm elections, Bush’s political troubles already appear to be casting a long shadow over them. Barely a third of registered voters, 35 percent, approve of the way the Republican-led Congress is doing its job — the lowest level of support in nine years. …

Bush’s job approval rating has remained below 50 percent for nearly a year. Perhaps more ominous for the president, 47 percent in the latest poll say they “strongly” disapprove of Bush’s handling of the presidency — more than double the 20 percent who strongly approve. It marked the second straight month that the proportion of Americans intensely critical of the president was larger than his overall job approval rating. In comparison, the percentage who strongly disapproved of President Bill Clinton on that measure never exceeded 33 percent in Post-ABC News polls. …

[M]ore than four in 10 Americans — 45 percent — favor censuring or formally reprimanding Bush for authorizing wiretaps of telephone calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects without court permission. Two-thirds of Democrats and half of all independents, but only one in six Republicans, support censuring Bush, the poll found.

All the President’s Leaks By E. J. Dionne Jr.

What’s amazing about the defenses offered for President Bush in the Valerie Plame leak investigation is that they deal with absolutely everything except the central issue: Did Bush know a lot more about this case than he let on before the 2004 elections? …

In its issue of Oct. 13, 2003, Time magazine quoted Bush as saying: “Listen, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information.” Then the magazine’s writers made an observation that turns out to be prescient: “Bush,” they wrote, “seemed to emphasize those last two words as if hanging on to a legal life preserver in choppy seas.”

The key words here are classified information. Did Bush at the time he made that statement know perfectly well that Cheney and Libby were involved with the leak, but that it didn’t involve “classified information” because the president himself had authorized them to act? Talk about a legalistic defense.

Could it be that Bush — heading into what he knew would be a difficult election — was creating the impression of wanting the full story out when he already knew what most of the story was?

Which leads to another question: What exactly did Attorney General John Ashcroft know when he recused himself from the leak investigation? Did he know the investigation was getting dangerously close to Bush, Cheney, Libby and White House senior political adviser Karl Rove?

Warrantless Wiretaps Possible in U.S. By Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writer

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales left open the possibility yesterday that President Bush could order warrantless wiretaps on telephone calls occurring solely within the United States — a move that would dramatically expand the reach of a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program.

Tom DeLay is done-for. Lashing out at “liberal Democrats” to the bitter end, his reign is over. And just as his bully tactics helped expand Republican control, so, too, does his demise play a role in theirs. With his tax provided life-time pension (don’t expect him to renounce that), he’ll stay busy as a talking-head in conservative media — unless they shun him for a while, in which case, he still may return like Newty Gingrich.

I’m chortling and trying not to crow too loudly. I despise DeLay. But, current scoundrels have lead many of us to say semi-seriously, “I miss Nixon,” so, one day, I may miss this vile pissant, too. It should be a good long time before that happens. mjh

Search this blog for DeLay

After DeLay, a New Approach? By David S. Broder

Symbolically as well as practically, the departure of Tom DeLay from Congress signals the end of an era of Republican dominance. The question now is whether the retreat that clearly has begun will turn into a rout. …

It is almost as if [Republicans] hope that by sacrificing their erstwhile commander, they can appease the public demand for change.

As much as Newt Gingrich embodied the aggressive strategy that enabled Republicans in 1994 to break the Democrats’ 40-year grip on the House, DeLay was the man who showed them how to consolidate — and use — their new power. As whip and then as majority leader, he built the GOP fundraising and policy alliance with the business lobbies and social conservative movements, then used that leverage to impose party-line discipline on almost every key vote. …

With DeLay’s departure, the Democrats lose their most convenient symbol of abuse of power by the Republican majority — but they have not lost the issue. …

The old game of muscling bills through by rounding up Republican votes through a combination of political and financial force — the game at which Tom DeLay excelled — is over.

I reached the following article through Tim McGivern’s blog. McGivern wrote: “[A]nywhere there is need for sensible, competent U.S. leadership … what we get is Dubya, Dick and Rummy, and it just ain’t even worth the sarcasm anymore.” mjh

‘Unit’s’ military expert has fighting words for Bush By David Kronke, TV Critic

Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military’s elite covert counter-terrorist unit.

Q: What’s your assessment of the war in Iraq?

A: “Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and … pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That’s why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.

“We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies. …

“For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. … And I say “we,” because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they’re going to have from now on.

“Our military is completely consumed, so were there a real threat – thankfully, there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world, but were there one, we couldn’t confront it. Right now, that may not be a bad thing, because that keeps Bush from trying something with Iran or with Venezuela.

“The harm that has been done is irreparable. … Their lies are coming home to roost now, and it’s gonna fall apart. …

“The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It’s about vengeance, it’s about revenge, or it’s about cover-up. You don’t gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It’s worse than small-minded, and look what it does. …

“This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I’m saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don’t do it. It’s an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, “Well, they do it to us.” Which is a ludicrous argument. … The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what’s legal and what we believed in. Now we’re going to throw it away.“

In a sense, it’s no surprise what John Dean of the Nixon Administration thinks of the Bush Administration; he wrote Worse Than Watergate a couple of years ago. But now he is speaking with even more evidence at hand and more people are listening.

I have to say I’m impressed by Arlen Spector (again). Of course, his fellow Republicans dispise him. mjh

John Dean says to censure Bush By Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau

Former White House Counsel John Dean, a central figure in the Watergate scandal who served time for his involvement in the Nixon administration cover-up, told a panel of senators yesterday that President Bush should be censured for authorizing the government to eavesdrop on Americans’ international phone conversations. …

“I think I have probably more experience first-hand than anybody might want in what can go wrong and how a president can get on the other side of the law,” Mr. Dean said. “Had a censure resolution been issued about some of Nixon’s conduct long before it erupted to the degree and the problem that came, it would have been a godsend.”

Mr. Dean said wiretapping by the Bush White House was “a part of a very consistent, long-term, early-announced policy of this presidency that they are seeking to build presidential power for the sake of presidential power.” And he said censure was appropriate to restore the balance of power.

Rolling Stone : John Dean on Censure

No presidency that I can find in history has adopted a policy of expanding presidential powers merely for the sake of expanding presidential powers…. It has been the announced policy of the Bush/Cheney presidency, however, from its outset, to expand presidential power for its own sake, and it continually searched for avenues to do just that, while constantly testing to see how far it can push the limits. I must add that never before have I felt the slightest reason to fear our government. Nor do I frighten easily. But I do fear the Bush/Cheney government (and the precedents they are creating) because this administration is caught up in the rectitude of its own self-righteousness, and for all practical purposes this presidency has remained largely unchecked by its constitutional coequals….