Key Republican joins Dems opposing Bolton nomination

Key Republican joins Dems opposing Bolton nomination - sure he's a lame duck just like Bush, but at least he's not just following party lines. I'd love to hear examples of Democrats voting for Republican issues too.

Even more than that, I'd love to feel like average citizens don't have to work so hard to hold our representatives up to a level of intellectual integrity while they get to earn the $150,000+ salaries. It's nice to see things are moving in that direction, and I hope everyone's eyes will stay on the ball until that becomes the norm rather than the exception.

A bigger note to me from the article isn't really focused on except this line: "Along with Bolton's nomination, Bush said he would like to move forward on legislation to retroactively authorize the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program."

I'm flabbergasted every time I read something like that. Am I right in reading it as that the NSA is already violating the law in wiretapping without warrants, and are now looking to Bush to say it was okay? Similar to the Military Commissions Act, saying what had happened in the past also was accceptable under the new umbrella (which hadn't been in place at the time)? I hope this proposal gets shot down quickly with Democrats having more power and with all sides hopefully voting with their heads instead of their party.

Three new voter tools added - famous documents

I added three important documents to the Voter Tools tonight: the United States Constitution, the United States Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.

Notice that I started at Wikipedia - while I don't think it's always the most factual, typically an effort has been made to present information in an impartial light. I wasn't looking for conspiracy theories or anything, but it gave me pause when I re-read more than the (famous) first line of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

While I don't lean far left, this naturally brings the current administration to mind. Imagine, then, when I came upon this: Bush Moves Toward Martial Law, Thursday, 26 October 2006 (a provision making it easier for the President to declare martial law, stripping state governors of part of their authority over state National Guard units in domestic emergencies).

Is this a reasonable move in avoiding a second major terrorist attack, or is it as over the line as it feels...?

Benchmarks for Iraq

Here is the full transcript of Bush's Iraq press conference. I had apparently missed this part:

Q: In the past, Democrats and other critics of the war who talked about benchmarks and timetables were labeled as defeatists, Defeatocrats, or people who wanted to cut and run.So why shouldn't the American people conclude that this is nothing from you other than semantic, rhetoric games and all politics two weeks before an election?

BUSH: There is a significant difference between benchmarks for a government to achieve and a timetable for withdrawal.You're talking about _ when you're talking about the benchmarks, he's talking about the fact that we're working with the Iraqi government to have certain benchmarks to meet as a way to determine whether or not they're making the hard decisions necessary to achieve peace.I believe that's what you're referring to. And we're working with the Iraqi government to come up with benchmarks.Listen, this is a sovereign government. It was elected by the people of Iraq. What we're asking them to do is, When do you think you're going to get this done? When can you get this done? _ so the people themselves in Iraq can see that the government is moving forward with a reconciliation plan and plans necessary to unify this government.

He was so close to a good answer - if he had just been able to give an example or two to give confidence in the benchmarks that might be set...

Cheney: Hillary Could Win In '08, Obama Is 'Attractive,' But Inexperienced

Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday he thinks Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton could win the presidency. He said voters might view Sen. Barack Obama as too inexperienced.

Full article here.

Bush: Timetable Means Defeat

President Bush said Wednesday that mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq are a "serious concern," but again refused to set a timetable for pulling out American troops.

Video here.

Bush's Iraq press conference

Just got done watching President Bush's press conference on Iraq - see some tidbits here (bias warning) and here.

I find myself at distinct odds with both the President and the Democrats on this issue, and I wonder if it's just me or not. From my personal experience in the corporate world, I have yet to see a project that doesn't have the potential to be managed well, but neither option I'm seeing considered at our highest levels is even close to ideal.

I completely disagree with the mass abandonment of Iraq that lots of Democrats seem to push for, but I also distrust Bush's refusal to put together a timeline, or at least the key deliverable gates that will determine when we shift into a next phase. And go one step further - detail how those deliverable gates fit into our overarching goals of stability and a phased withdrawal from Iraq, so that if an approach starts not to work well, we can consider adapting a different approach/timeline while driving in measurable ways toward the same consistent goal.

We deal with situations that are either decently structured or lead to dissatisfaction every day in the business world, and while that structuring does take work, it's not rocket science. If either party were to put forward a clear project plan on Iraq that meets our goals and shows how we'll measure success, they'd have my vote and the vote of everyone in my circle of influence.

On a related note, I think the members of the press that were there deserve some big kudos - I don't think I heard a single soft question. It was a refreshing alternative to other "correspondents" in the media.