Hillary's Op-Ed in the WSJ

No Crisis Is Immune
From Exploitation
Under Bush
By HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
August 6, 2008; Page A15

Tucked away on the Cayman Islands sits Ugland House, an unassuming, nondescript building of modest scale and size. However, according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), this five-story office building is home to more than 18,000 corporate entities, nearly half of which have U.S. ties.

In the past few years, the number of corporations flocking to places like the Cayman Islands to evade U.S. taxes has exploded. One of these companies, former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, has used offshore tax havens to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxes. To no one's surprise, instead of cracking down on KBR, the Bush administration has rewarded the company in April of this year with a 10-year, $150 billion contract in Iraq.

There appears to be no crisis, tragedy or disaster immune from exploitation under the Bush administration. The examples of the waste, fraud and abuse are legion -- from KBR performing shoddy electrical work in Iraq that has resulted in the electrocution of our military personnel according to Pentagon and Congressional investigators, to the firing of an Army official who dared to refuse a $1 billion payout for questionable charges to the same company. In another scam, the Pentagon awarded a $300 million contract to AEY, Inc., a company run by a 22-year-old who fulfilled an ammunition deal in Afghanistan by supplying rotting Chinese-made munitions to our allies.

But the fraud and waste are not limited to the war. In the weeks after Hurricane Katrina, for example, FEMA awarded a contract worth more than $500 million for trailers to serve as temporary housing. The contractor, Gulf Stream, collected all of its money even though they knew at the time that its trailers were contaminated with formaldehyde.

While touting fiscal responsibility, President Bush and his administration have lined the pockets of political cronies like Halliburton and Blackwater. While calling for earmark reform, the president has allowed no-bid and questionable contracting throughout the federal government to dwarf earmark spending by a 10-to-1 ratio.

If we're going to get serious about putting our nation's fiscal house in order, let's talk about putting an end to billions in no-bid contract awards to unaccountable contractors. Let's talk about the number of lucrative contracts and bonuses being paid for duties never performed, promises never fulfilled, and contracts falsely described as complete. And let's talk about reforming the federal contracting system so that we can take on the real waste, fraud and abuse in our federal government.

I've proposed a comprehensive overhaul to root out corruption in no-bid contracts and other shady deals. Reforms must include the following:

- Instead of rewarding companies that exploit tax shelters and incorporate in tax havens, let's ban the federal government from contracting with companies that hide profits offshore.

- We should put in place safeguards so that contracts are awarded to responsible companies that abide by the law and complete the work they're hired to do.

- Let's put a stop to the disgraceful practice of giving bonuses to contractors for work never performed, which has been allowed to happen in Iraq and throughout the federal government according to the GAO and inspectors general.

- We need to increase transparency and competition in the contracting system, and to stop the ideological privatization of critical governmental functions.

In 1941, as the U.S. mobilized and entered World War II, then Sen. Harry Truman proposed and chaired the Senate Special Committee to investigate the National Defense Program. Over the course of three years, Truman set about investigating a president of his own party in order to discover and eliminate wasteful and fraudulent spending. By some estimates, the "Truman Committee" saved the American people some $15 billion -- more than $165 billion in today's dollars.

Truman took on the war profiteers because he understood that when the lives of Americans hang in the balance, we cannot afford to misuse even a single dollar. In the Democratic Congress, we've proposed a new Truman Committee to address the waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan that has already taken place, a proposal stymied by the president and his allies. And my proposal would prevent waste, fraud and abuse in future contracting.

Of course, we need far more than a Truman Committee. We need the Truman spirit in the White House, where the buck finally stops.

McGovern's Advice for Hillary and Barack

I agree with this hopeful suggestion from McGovern.

Excerpted from NY Times Op-Ed, A Two-for-One Campaign, May 13, 2008:

To reduce the risk of creating the kind of divisions that afflicted Democrats during my campaigns, here is a proposal that I hope Senators Clinton and Obama and our party will consider.

After today’s vote in West Virginia, the two candidates should agree to make joint visits to the sites of the five remaining primaries (in Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota).

During these visits, Senators Clinton and Obama should agree not to criticize each other. They would simply state what each would do if elected president. They would also point out why President Bush’s policies have failed and why they would continue to fail under John McCain.

After each candidate speaks for 15 minutes or so, they would then be taken to a reception where citizens paying $50 a ticket would mingle with the two candidates. The money raised would go to the state Democratic Party to assist local and state candidates in the fall elections.

The two candidates should also visit the two disputed states, Michigan and Florida. No matter what happens to the delegations from those states, their voters are entitled to see and to hear these two historic candidates.

This is an agenda that could unite our party and prepare us for a successful convention with a big victory in November. It would also be a refreshing and welcome change for American presidential politics.

Hillary Plays O'Reilly Like a Fiddle

See: http://www.democrats.com/hillary-plays-oreilly-like-a-fiddle

Open Letter to Geoff Garin

The reason I am for Hillary over Obama is because I remember the past 8 years of the Bush Administration, and I am not for making all sweet and nice with Republicans. PLEASE run a commercial reminding DEMOCRATS of the abuse over the past 8 years (maybe get Gore's permission to run a clip of him excoriating Bush for Abu-Ghraib...dragging this nation's name through the mud, the shame)...and then run Obama's compliments of Bush and calls for bipartisanship, how he plays right into the Republicans lines, over and over again. Take the Tina Fey moment and run with that, ride the wave of anger Dems supressed for the past 8 years. Hillary's "laugh" on Fox many months ago was genius for the CONTEMPT it displayed toward Fox News. PLEASE USE OUR COLLECTIVE ANGER AND CONTEMPT AT REPUBLICANS TO RALLY A MOVEMENT!

Why I Excuse Hillary for Her Vote on Iraq, part 2

Joe Wilson just posted an article on the Huffington Post scrutinzing Obama's stance:

Obama's Hollow "Judgment" and Empty Record

Obama plans to pick Republicans for cabinet

Oh dear, as I suspected:

Obama plans to pick Republicans for cabinet

Again, I have mixed feelings about this, having lived through Bill Clinton's attempt to reach across the aisle in the early '90's combined with the most blatant partisanship of the Republicans over the past 7, no 15 years.

Reaffirms the reason I sided with Hillary.

For a viewpoint from a similarly skeptical Obama backer, see: Sadly No.

Hillary Was Not Enthusiastic About NAFTA in 1993

According to an analysis I heard this morning, Hillary might be the choice over Obama for free trade skeptics. More on this as I research it, but from the analysis I heard, based on available biographies, Obama is a lot more accepting of free trade than Hillary is.

Democrat Who Will Fare Best Against McCain

One of my points below about electibility in my previous post is now obsolete. The Republicans pretty much as locked into McCain, so now questions of electibility are not as problematic; its no longer shooting a missile with a missile.

I still think that of all the years to be worrying about electibility in the general election, this is not the year. Folks, we are dealing not only with the vestige of one of the most unpopular and unsuccessful administrations here, but also the fatigue of 8 years with said administration. And then, there's the economy! If this isn't a perfect storm for a Democratic victory, I don't know what is.

With that caveat, I think a case can be made that Hillary would fare better versus McCain than Obama. My reasoning is based on the fact that year after year, McCain has one because of a single trump card, his military service. That's how he won his first election, and it has been easy sailing for him ever since. His famous quote in response to a challenge in his first debate was essentially, to paraphrase, "where were YOU while I was out fighting for our country?". The past 30+ years of strides in gender equality not-withstanding, the visceral reaction for non-Democrats is going to be kinder to a woman than a man, where neither has a record of military service. There might be an additional onus on Obama because so many African-Americans are in the military (not sure how that might figure into the calculus of public perception).

Plus, Hillary has a similarly pseudo moral smirky line with equal weight as McCain's. She was giving birth and raising a child.

There is another more subtle and abstract reason I think Hillary will fare better versus McCain. It follows from the fact that, however likeable McCain may seem to be, it is not because of his suaveness. He is not charming. In fact, he is a bit awkward, and carelessly speaks and then apologizes, and considers such gruffness a token of sincerity (or "straight talk"). When put next together someone who is almost the complete opposite, that is, charming and suave, as I consider Obama to be, it is going to likely highlight McCain's likeability. Maybe not, but I think there is considerable chance that McCain will be able to take advantage of this sharp contrast in demeanor.

Hillary, on the other hand, has the same awkward graces has McCain, but not on such a clumsy level. Next to Hillary, McCain just looks dumb. Next to Obama, McCain looks "authentic".

Democratic Primary: Choice Between Two Messages

My Thoughts on Primary Voting
1. I'm not a big fan of the primary season because I like to keep focused on the main goal, beating the Republicans. That being said...

2. Americans tend to underestimate the importance of political party. Whoever wins in November, no matter what their individual style may be, matters far less than what party they are in. Their party affiliation determines advisors, cabinet, and a zillion other things. Therefore, it used to make sense to me that the number one issue in a primary is....

3. Electibility. That was until 2004. I backed Kerry on ELECTIBILITY. So much for that notion. Actually, don't throw ELECTIBILITY out the window, but just realize that it is not a guarantee. Especially this year when the opponent is not known (and electibility is always RELATIVE to the other candidate), it is like trying to hit a misssile with another missile.

4. Obama's message is UNITY among Republicans and Democrats. Some folks might have a short memory, but I recall how Bill Clinton had that message in the first years of his presidency. He was bending over backwards to include the Republicans (he put REPUBLICANS in his CABINET!!). How did they pay him back for this? I would squirm when he was attacked by Republicans and did not fight back (at least publically)...

5. Hillary's message is we have a lot of repair to do after the damage of the Bush years. This is the mood I am in.

UPDATE:
I swear, I had not read Paul Krugman's January 28 Op-Ed before I posted the above. Amazing coincidence, though. So, I encourage a reading of Lessons of 1992.

MoveOn's endorsement

Today MoveOn endorsed Obama. What irritates me about their announcement is their characterization of "Progressives" rallying to Obama...for what? Hillary is much more to the left in terms of rhetoric and domestic policy. There are two reasons why this endorsement makes sense*, but it reveals a shallowness and ignorance about domestic policy that saddens me.

*1) MoveOn was originated with the zeitgeist of "fogetting about Al Gore" and the '90's (hence the moniker MoveOn as a reaction to the other zeitgeist of challenging the 2000 election), and
2) The most extreme left of the party probably can be characterized as being a bit more idealistic (naive?) than the rest.

The fact that this is the first time MoveOn has endorsed a candidate in the primary is especially troubling, especially after the unity in the Democratic party so many have talked about after last night's debate.

Why I Excuse Hillary From Her 2002 Vote On Iraq

Update: Part 2

First, let me state that in terms of foreign policy, I was a Biden supporter. Given that he is now out of the primary, I want to explain why I don't hold Hillary's 2002 vote against her. I draw from John Dean's exposition on what went down with the Autorization bill in 2002. First, here are two summaries of his observation in Worse Than Watergate:

(from http://journals.aol.com/bmiller224/OldHickorysWeblog/entries/2004/08/16/iraq-war-what-did-congress-really-authorize/1657 )

Iraq War: What did Congress really authorize?


In responding to some comments in a previous post about Kerry and the 2002 war resolution, I recalled that John Dean in his Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush (2004) makes an argument that we don't hear much, even from antiwar bloggers. (I'm not at all surprised we don't hear it from the mainstream press.)

Leaving aside the more-or-less interesting politics of why it's not likely to be part of the election debate this year, Dean argues that Bush actually violated the war resolution in the way he went to war in Iraq.

The war resolution (Public Law 107-243, 10/16/02, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002) included some specific conditions. It didn't just give Bush an open-ended choice to go to war at his own discretion. As Dean summarizes it:

To avoid having to return to Congress for more debate on Iraq, Bush had pushed for and received authority to launch a war without further advance notice to Congress. Never before had Congress so trusted a president with this authority. But in granting this unprecedented authorization, Congress insisted that certain conditions be established as existing and that the president submit a formal determination, assuring the Congress that, in fact, these conditions were present. Specifically (and here I am summarizing technical wording; the actual language [is in section 3(b) (1) and (2) of PL 107-243]), Congress wanted a formal determination submitted to it either before using force or within forty-eight hours of having done so, stating that the president had found that (1) further diplomatic means alone would not resolve the "continuing threat" (meaning WMD) and (2) the military action was part of the overall response to terrorism, including dealing wtih those involved in "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." In short, Congress insisted that there be evidence of two points that were the centerpirce of Bush's argument for the war.

We now know, of course, that there were no nuclear weapons program and no WMDs in Iraq. And that the claimed connections of Saddam to al-Qaeda were bogus, and the notion that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks even more so. And,of course, UN weapons inspections were under way in Iraq in 2003, but they were halted by Bush's decision to go to war anyway.

It may seem to be no more than an historical footnote at this point, though these things can come back to bite the unsuspecting in surprising ways.

Dean takes a close look at the documentation Bush submitted to Congress to comply with their requirements for going to war. And he finds it badly deficient:

Bush, in essence, gave Congress only one purported fact to meet the requirement of making a congressional determination. He cited the information offered by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations. [Powell has since publicly acknowledged that his presentation contained inaccurate information, which damaged his international reputation badly.] Bush merely reminded Congress that Powell's report "revealed a terrorist training area in northeastern Iraq with ties to Iraqi intelligence and activities of [al Qaeda] affiliates in Baghdad." Bush added that "public reports indicate that Iraq is currently harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close [al Qaeda] associate," and that in the past Iraq had "provided training in document forgery and explosives to [al Qaeda]." He offered no governmental confirmation of this "public report."

... If there is a precedent for Bush's slick trick to involve America in a bloody commitment, where the Congress requires as a condition for action that the president make a determination, and the president in turn relies on a whereas clause (which he provided to Congress as suggested introductory language) and a dubious public report (which fails to address the substance of the conditions for war set by Congress), I am not aware of it and could not find anything even close.

But the Bush administration has been precedent-setting in more ways than one.

Here is Dean summarizing to Amy Goodman:
(from: http://www.democracynow.org/2004/4/6/worse_than_watergate_former_nixon_counsel )

When [Bush] went to Congress in October of 2002 to get a resolution to go to war in Iraq, he wanted something that the Congress had never given before, which was a delegation of a power that he wouldn’t have to go back to Congress to get war powers when he actually went to war. The Congress had never granted such a power. So, the Congress said, all right. We’ll take the two—we’ll do this with conditions. The two conditions are—really the premise that he had been arguing for war. So, when they granted the resolution, they said, we want a formal Presidential declaration from you that, one, there is no diplomatic way to resolve the problems of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That was the first condition. The second condition was that going to war in Iraq would be consistent with the war on terrorism, which was his second point, that there was an Al Qaeda connection with Saddam Hussein, was the implicit rationale. Bush, in a secret deal with the House of Representatives, agreed to that. The resolution was written, passed and signed by the President. No one really paid any attention to this resolution, and the President in March of 2003 goes to war. 48 hours after, under the resolution, he had to report that he had done that, and he had to submit his formal declaration. His declaration is one of the most—I can’t really find the right word for it, Amy. It’s just—I use all of the modifiers I can think of in the book. It’s a fraud. It is a deliberate, misleading resolution the President himself asked for. It’s a violation of trust to the Congress who granted him very unusual powers. It’s a violation of the trust of the American people. His declaration is phony. His determination, excuse me, is phony. It’s actually bizarre.

Now some nice context, namely an excerpt from the Senate floor debate. Here is discussion on the Byrd ammendment to the bill which further clarified the limitations of the authorization:
Byrd Ammendment to Iraq War Resolution Bill


Also, the actual wording in question from the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

....

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the

exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force

the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter

as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising

such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of

Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his

determination that—

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic

or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately

protect the national security of the United States against the

continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead

to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council

resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent

with the United States and other countries continuing to take

the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist

organizations, including those nations, organizations, or

persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist

attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(src: http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf )

And, finally, Hillary's speech before voting:
Hillary Clinton's Statement on the Iraqi War Resolution.

My only complaint is that she did not read the full intelligence report and relied on briefings. See: NY Times on Hillary's Vote

As she had always done, Clinton prepared for her decision on the war vote by doing her homework, or what she has called her ''due diligence.'' This included, she said, attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill concerning intelligence on Iraq. Indeed, Clinton was far more prescient than many of her Senate colleagues about the potential difficulty of rebuilding the country. In a number of private meetings with top Bush officials, according to people in the room, Clinton asked pointed and skeptical questions about how the administration planned to deal with the inevitable challenges of governing Iraq after the invasion.

But it's not clear that she was equally diligent when it came to the justifications for the war itself. So far, she has not discussed publicly whether she ever read the complete classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, the most comprehensive judgment of the intelligence community about Iraq's W.M.D., which was made available to all 100 senators. The 90-page report was delivered to Congress on Oct. 1, 2002, just 10 days before the Senate vote. An abridged summary was made public by the Bush administration, but it painted a less subtle picture of Iraq's weapons program than the full classified report. To get a complete picture would require reading the entire document, which, according to a version of the report made public in 2004, contained numerous caveats and dissents on Iraq's weapons and capacities.

According to Senate aides, because Clinton was not yet on the Armed Services Committee, she did not have anyone working for her with the security clearances needed to read the entire N.I.E. and the other highly classified reports that pertained to Iraq.

She could have done the reading herself. Senators were able to access the N.I.E. at two secure locations in the Capitol complex. Nonetheless, only six senators personally read the report, according to a 2005 television interview with Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia and then the vice chairman of the intelligence panel. Earlier this year, on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire, Clinton was confronted by a woman who had traveled from New York to ask her if she had read the intelligence report. According to Eloise Harper of ABC News, Clinton responded that she had been briefed on it.

''Did you read it?'' the woman screamed.

Clinton replied that she had been briefed, though she did not say by whom.

The question of whether Clinton took the time to read the N.I.E. report is critically important. Indeed, one of Clinton's Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, the Florida senator who was then the chairman of the intelligence committee, said he voted against the resolution on the war, in part, because he had read the complete N.I.E. report. Graham said he found that it did not persuade him that Iraq possessed W.M.D. As a result, he listened to Bush's claims more skeptically. ''I was able to apply caveat emptor,'' Graham, who has since left the Senate, observed in 2005. He added regretfully, ''Most of my colleagues could not.''

Nonetheless, I excuse her. She is not Biden. She had to deal with realpolitik, and I don't hold that against her. If you lived through 2002, and are honest with yourself, you know full well what the political situation was.