Giving Up the Ghost

According to an AP article, al-Zarqawi's wife gave an interview to the Italian paper La Repubblica where "she said al-Qaida leaders sold out al-Zarqawi to the U.S. in exchange for a promise to let up in the search for bin Laden". Seems pretty far-fetched, right? Maybe not.

Here is the Reuters headline for an article that came out on July 4th: "CIA disbands unit set up to hunt for bin Laden". Its notable that al-Qaida may have given up Zarqawi to the US for a slow down in the hunt for bin Laden, and even more so that the US would give up bin Laden for Zarqawi.

Obviously bin Laden is more important to al-Qaida than Zarqawi, so why should Zarqawi turn out to be more valuable to the Bush administration? The reason is two-fold.

1. Zarqawi was supposedly making life in Iraq very difficult for Iraqis and the coalition forces, though with his death not much has changed. To the average American the situation in Iraq is spinning out of control and with the White House blaming Zarqawi for much of the chaos, it could only improve polls and standings if he was eliminated.

2. If the US really does get rid of bin Laden, the 'War on Terror' would in most American's eyes be over or over enough to call it a day and bring the troops home. This would create a domestic and foreign policy vacuum for the Bush administration and the Republican bloc ramping up for the November elections.

Its arguable how much traction the Bush administration received in the polls for finally delivering some 'good news' from the frontlines - Zarqawi's death - but it was supposedly important enough that it may come at the cost of not getting the criminal responsible for 9/11, and who knows how much that may cost us in the years to come. Trading long term security for short term gains is a failed, dangerous and immoral policy every time.

Over, Above & Beyond: Bush Disregards Law

According to an AP story seen on MSNBC.com President Bush has been very liberal with his use of 'signing statements' to ignore, change or limit sections of signed law as he sees fit. President Bush is blatantly and dangerously disregarding 'the rule of law' to further his very partisan and unconstitutional agenda. Congress is distracted by every bone the Bush administration throws their way. Flag burning? Not important. Has anyone been down to the gulf coast lately? Very important. An aside, but our Government hasn't done the job, so they're bringing in Chinese firms.

President Bush knows he can get away with breaking the law because he enforces the law. That's why this is so important. Once the branch of the government that enforces the law is above the law, the other branches are irrelevant. Once they are irrelevant, the structure of the government shifts from a democratic system involving checks and balances to, in our case an elective dictatorship, which writes, interprets and executes the law. Congress is so embroiled in its own ethics issues and pointless partisan bickering that it has ignored the fundamental constitutional responsibility of holding the Executive Branch accountable to the American people. While Congress is away (unconscious), the President will play.

This brings to bear the Supreme Court decision in 'Clinton vs. City of New York' which found the line item veto power granted to President Clinton by Congress unconstitutional as it allowed the President to change law to fit his political agenda - surely this is a similar situation. Here is an excerpt from that Supreme Court decision:

In contrast, the Act at issue authorizes the President himself to effect the repeal of laws, for his own policy reasons, without observing Article I, sect;7 procedures. Second, the contention that the cancellation authority is no greater than the President's traditional statutory authority to decline to spend appropriated funds or to implement specified tax measures fails because this Act, unlike the earlier laws, gives the President the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes.

And here is Article 1, sect; 7

Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Go here full a full transcript of the Constitution from Cornell Law