If the facts behind this story are half as awful as they sound… the word “treason” comes to mind. Bob Woodward’s latest book about the Bush administration reveals that the American government has conducted covert surveillance of many Iraqi leaders. Revealing this, understandably, pisses off Iraqi leaders – the type of thing you’d think we could maybe agree doesn’t benefit anyone. Oh wait, silly me; it benefits all the Defeat At Any Cost Democrats running for election this fall.

From The Washington Post (registration required):

Given Bush’s efforts to earn Maliki’s trust, the surveillance of the Iraqi prime minister caused some consternation among several senior U.S. officials, who questioned whether it was worth the risk, Woodward reports. One official knowledgeable about the surveillance “recognized the sensitivity of the issue and then asked, ‘Would it be better if we didn’t?’ “

Apparently Woodward had no such concerns when it came to publishing such a sensitive topic in his upcoming The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008. So what’s more important – the stability of an entire country, or Bob Woodward’s book sales? Everyone who’s anyone has been assuring themselves for years that Bush is a stubborn, clueless, grating leader, but where the surge is concerned I’m sure Bob Woodward figures His Obamaness could benefit from beating that dead horse. Truly the ego of the Western journalist knows no bounds.

From the Washington Post:

The House overwhelmingly rejected George W. Bush’s veto Wednesday of a $290 billion farm bill, but what should have been a stinging defeat for the president became an embarrassing episode for Democrats.

See, when you’re a Congressman, sometimes it’s hard to keep nagging details like legislation straight amidst your tight schedule of grandstanding and blowhardery. So occasionally you’ll send a bill to the President with, oh, 30-some odd pages missing (I don’t know which is worse – that nobody noticed an entire section missing, or that a “Farm Bill” can even be 34 pages short). But don’t fret, they’ll just pass the billions of dollars of obnoxiously unnecessary legislation again. And with the same overwhelming majorities, to be sure.

“We will have to repass the whole thing, as will the Senate,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. “We can’t let the farm bill just die.”

Collective sigh of relief. Wait, maybe “collective” is the wrong word to use here.

If you’re the type of person who cares to watch the President’s annual State of the Union Address, I think the most important thing to remember is to turn the TV off immediately after the closing “…and God bless America!” I care what the President has to say; I do not care what Katie Couric has to say about what he’s just said. If it were possible to un-care, that would be how I feel about it.

So here we are, with a few of the things that stood out for me. To begin with, it was cool to see a familiar (if not exceedingly tan) face entering behind the President. Having grown up in Boehner’s district, I’ve volunteered for a handful of his events and have met the Minority Leader a time or two. Probably as close to fame as I’ll ever come. I never expected to be so happy to see John Kerry sitting in the audience. And, if I were a Barack Obama supporter (I’m with Derb on this one), the sight of him chumming it up with Ted Kennedy would have me concerned.

My favorite line was probably:

We have other work to do on taxes. Unless Congress acts, most of the tax relief we’ve delivered over the past seven years will be taken away.

Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase.

Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who will see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders.

I’m glad the President was strong on earmarks, strong on entitlement programs, and strong on tax increases. If his actions through the rest of the year match his words from tonight, this will be a very productive lame duck year. I think he did a good job of highlighting successes and challenges in the Middle East – he’s probably too optimistic, but I guess somebody needs to be. All in all, the speech was strong at the beginning and end, with a little too much “compassionate conservative” mush in the middle.

Just got back from a debate on campus. The topic was Social Security and, of course, whether or not said system ought to be reformed. As is usually the case, I had several things to say and did not make the miniscule effort which standing up to share would have required. The moderator – Dr. Voth, faculty advisor for the University debate team – made it clear that the event was centered on audience involvement. As a result, much of the hour was spent with him looking at us and us looking at him and all the cool kids talking to their friends instead of making any attempt to pay attention. It was the people who contributed who made me happier than usual that I go to Miami.

As far as college campuses go, Miami University is a very conservative place. Which means most of our liberals are either mainstream enough to make reasonable arguments, or outnumbered enough to sit quietly. No tirades about King Chimpy’s plans to fill the wallets of his fatcat friends, and surprisingly neutral references to the Iraq war. But that’s enough of an introduction…

The debate team speakers used stage names in addition to their own names, so I’ll use the stage names. “Tennille” argued in favor of Social Security reform, and “Captain” (charming, I know… one of several cheesy jokes lost on us this evening) argued against. Neither gave an overwhelming presentation or crushing counter-arguments, but the underlying themes were basically what you would expect from each side. Tennille provided facts and predictions indicating that Social Security would run out of money by midway through the century and should be overhauled; Captain countered with assertions that Social Security’s predicted lifespan was increasing all the time and should be left alone.

The problem with both sides of this argument – for me, at least – is that economists are one of few groups I trust less than politicians. Both politicians and economists are motivated by agendas which are at least partially hidden from the general public; economists deal in “facts” where a quarter-percentage error can amount to forecasts being off by hundreds of millions of dollars over the period in question. Assuming some of the economists on both sides have erred in one direction or the other, what could we hear behind and in addition to the numbers?

Tennille spoke first, adding some depth to the notes the President played in his most recent State of the Union address. Mainly he attempted to prove that the current Social Security system will eventually go bankrupt unless reformed. On this front he used the aforementioned approach of providing numbers and economist forecasts. The fact that individuals would have more control over a greater percentage of their income was a statement that he mentioned but did not trumpet as loudly as he could have – this would have gone a long way towards covering his lack of explanation as to how a reformed system would not go the way of the dinosaurs, too.

On pure delivery, Captain (a senior member of the debate team) was a bit more impressive. In terms of content, however, Captain warned us of outcomes including: 1) domestic stock market crash which would create disaster internationally, creating an environment similar to that which the Great Depression caused in Germany, leading to the rise of Hitler 2) weaking of the dollar which would lead to increased foreign investment in the Euro and other alternatives 3) decrease in benefits paid by Social Security.

This could be too much simplicity, but don’t (1) and (2) at least partly cancel each other out? If they invest in other countries based on the prediction that Social Security reform will put America dangerously deeper in debt, how could their markets be crushed by America’s predicted tumble? One argument or the other might be supported, but using both left Captain with a pair of hobbled warnings. Not to metion I was pretty sure Germany fell under the Nazi spell mostly due to getting her tail end handed to her in World War I. As to (3), a temporary decrease would probably be necessary during the transition period. Nothing this big is handed off without a little jostling.

The issue, as I see it, boils down to just that: how much jostling should we accept, and how long might we expect the transition to last? I have an understanding of government and economics that is limited at best, but I can see how giving Social Security-paying workers a variety of index funds to choose from would provide greater returns, thus limiting the amount of money we would expect from the traditional Social Security vault. Not to mention I’d like the government to have as little of my money as possible. Assuming the logic behind the impending funding crisis is sound, this is a switch that should be put into motion now and not later.

Tonight’s debate – and the one currently taking place across the country – makes it clear that many people do not share this assumption. However, none of the anti-reform arguments posed by Captain or audience members convinced me to change my mind. The vocalized anti-reform consensus was that Social Security would not go bankrupt for “a long time,” maintenance fees would eat up the benefits from the proposed reforms, and that the federal government needs all the 12% that it currently takes in order to stay afloat. Basically, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. And if it’s in the process of breaking, leave it alone until it actually busts.

The only concession offered (by a guy who also said the problem was too far away for him to care about… a scary truth in a room full of college kids) was that we could fix the current system with very small adjustments – specifically, a slight increase in taxes. Forgive me for being less than excited when fellow students say that we should not worry about problems several decades away, and for being even LESS excited at the mention of tax increases to blow air into an old, stretched out system.

A link on Hugh Hewitt‘s site points out something funny: a NY Times article by Al Gore about how to debate Dubya. You’re not the only one who finds this ironic, Hugh.

Imagine some of the ingenious things Al might say. A shining example:

“…notwithstanding the president’s political skills, his performance in office amounts to a catastrophic failure.”

Thanks, Al. We all know that you would be doing so much better.

Then there’s this:

“A clear majority of Americans believe that we are heading in the wrong direction. The reasons are obvious. The situation in Iraq is getting worse. Osama bin Laden is alive and plotting against us.”

The usual mainstream media bleakness, stretched to an entertaining degree. And don’t forget the obligatory mention of “Mr. Bush’s colossal tax break for the wealthy,” as well as some less-than-good-natured ribbing about Bush’s problem with alcohol 30 years ago.

The entire column is completely factual, well-cited, and not the least touch hatefully bitter, might I add. Read the gloriously insightful Gore op-ed piece on the New York Times website.

I don’t know if many people have been following the whole CBS-Bush-Nat’l Guard-memos fiasco as closely as I have… as in, checking the most involved sites (LittleGreenFootballs.com and Power Line, to name a couple) about 6 times a day. If you have, you know just as much as I do and have no reason to read this entry, unless you’re banking on the off chance that I’ll say something funny. If not, I’m in the mood for some summarizing right now — it’s been done better, I’m sure, but that’s rarely stopped me before.

First, I’m a Republican. I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it on the site before, but if not… it was bound to get out eventually. So yes, I am biased, and yes, I like George W. Bush. I don’t think he’s perfect, but I also don’t think he’s an incompetent conspiratorial dictator with world domination in his twisted heart. And the sad thing is, there seem to be a lot of Americans who feel there is no room for in-between: either you are an adoring lapdog, or a valiant opposer of Dubya’s fiendish schemes. I understand that people hate the President – part of being a leader is being unable to please everyone – yet I continue to be baffled by the degree to which this hatred overshadows any hint of reason.

But, there’s the ultra-concise version of our current political environment, in case you’ve been in Canada for the last 3 years. Bush “stole” the election in 2000, and there are plenty of people who still insist Al Gore is our rightful leader. Thank the Lord that Dubya is such a wily “thief,” because have you been paying attention to Al for the last few years? He’s gone from odd and creepy to clinically, violently out of control (just look for any recent Al quote at Yahoo! News or anywhere else). His supporters either share in his out-of-check anger, or choose to overlook it.

This, ultimately, is the point: no leader is perfect, but how do we as individuals decide which aspects to focus on and which to overlook? President Bush’s Texas National Guard service comes to mind, and although I am not confident about his service (probably as a result of hearing about it from every major network since 1999) I am confident in his recent decisions and current abilities. More importantly, the Bush campaign has not made this an issue… the Guard story had its run, and petered out once before, and simply is not relevant. CBS had to bring out their newest “Bush Is A Liar” story nonetheless, and while they should be hiding at this point they are instead using the publicity to push their accusations ever onward.

The foundation for CBS’s story? Memos allegedly from the files of Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian, deceased, support the media’s pre-2000 election assertions that George W. Bush shirked his Guard responsibilities and received preferential treatment. Within a day, a handful of online journals posted evidence indicating that the memos were not written in 1972, but with Microsoft Word. Faced with mounting evidence that either 1) they had been fooled by a novice fraudster or 2) they had knowingly used fraudulent documents, CBS lashed out at the online community while refusing to apologize for an obvious mistake.

Finally, after most of their supporting cast of “experts” had distanced themselves from the mess, CBS admitted that the documents might have been forged. They have not given their source. They insist that the content was still accurate, now shoring up their story with the feelings of an anti-Bush elderly woman. If this is the best the liberal media can do at painting a negative picture of President Bush, Nov. 2 should not even be close: It is an election year, and a major news network rushed out a story that would make the President look bad, and although the story’s basis has been proven false they use its momentum to continue bumbling along. Too many people will still see only the 60 Minutes side and take it at face value, assuming Bush is in fact a man who cannot be trusted (funny how the Swift Boat Vets stories didn’t get as much consideration), and this is unfortunate.

Nonetheless, I am cautiously optimistic about the sitation. I don’t think anyone important will be fired over at CBS, but the floodgates have been opened. So long as there are competing networks and online experts utilizing their free speech, dishonestly motivated stories like this will be similarly shot down in the future. Stupid people will continue trusting Dan Rather and Co., and crazy people will continue believing that every little thing is a Republican conspiracy. It is my hope… if maybe too wishful of a hope… that the spread of truth will ever marginalize the lunatics who refuse to see it, however loud said lunatics might be.

Update: Terry McAuliffe is an ass.