Donle

First Bush Veto Maintains Limits on Stem Cell Use

WASHINGTON, July 19 — President Bush on Wednesday rejected legislation to expand federally supported embryonic stem cell research, exercising his first veto while putting himself at odds with many members of his own party and what polls say is a majority of the public.

By defying the Republican-controlled Congress, which had sent him legislation that would have overturned research restrictions he imposed five years ago, Mr. Bush re-inserted himself forcefully into a moral, scientific and political debate in which Republicans are increasingly finding common ground with Democrats.

The president laid out his reasoning in a written message to the House of Representatives, then announced his decision in the East Room of the White House, surrounded by babies born through in vitro fertilization using so-called “adopted embryos.’’

As the infants gurgled and fidgeted in their parents’ arms, Mr. Bush said the bill violated his principles on the sanctity of human life by encouraging the destruction of embryos left over from fertilization procedures. Proponents of the measure have argued that such embryos would be destroyed anyway.

“I felt like crossing this line would be a mistake, and once crossed we would find it almost impossible to turn back,’’ Mr. Bush said. “Crossing the line would needlessly encourage a conflict between science and ethics that can only do damage to both, and to our nation as a whole.’’

Until Wednesday, Mr. Bush was among just seven presidents — all of whom served before 1881 — who had never vetoed a piece of legislation. Four served only partial terms; the other three were John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.

Within hours of the East Room ceremony, the House hurriedly took up a measure to override the veto, but the vote, 235 to 193, fell 51 short of the two-thirds majority required. Fifty-one Republicans, 183 Democrats and 1 independent voted to override, while 4 Democrats joined 179 Republicans in voting to keep the veto intact.

The vote put an end to the bill’s prospects for the year, but not to the stem cell debate, which has escalated into a major issue on Capitol Hill, with Democrats and Republicans alike predicting electoral repercussions in November.

“This is not some wedge issue; this is the soul of America,’’ said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, who sponsored the bill Mr. Bush vetoed. “And this is a colossal mistake on the part of the president.’’

But beyond the principles involved, the White House had clearly calculated that it would have been more of a political mistake to sign the bill. Social conservatives, the heart of Mr. Bush’s base, had demanded the president keep his promise to veto any measure that altered the careful compromise he articulated in 2001. With Mr. Bush’s approval ratings hovering at about 40 percent, conservatives are more critical than ever to the president, and he cannot afford to arouse their ire.

“This is a profound moral issue,’’ said Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, after the White House ceremony. “The issue is whether or not it is morally right to use the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans who find this research morally objectionable.’’

Yet the ground is shifting in the debate, and even Mr. Pence conceded that opponents of the research were ‘’losing the argument with the American people.’’ Republicans, even those like Mr. Bush who oppose abortion, are wrestling with whether embryos that are no bigger than a typographical period but regarded by some as human beings should be destroyed to save lives.

The issue reflects the complex nature of the politics of abortion and medical research in the United States today and is in some ways the flip side of the Democrats’ quandary over abortion. Just as medical advances like ultrasound imaging have spurred greater opposition to abortion, leading some Democrats to recalibrate their views, the promise of embryonic stem cell research has pushed some Republicans toward positions in which black-and-white beliefs about the sanctity of life have given way to more nuanced and ethically complex stances.

As baby boomers have aged, demanding the best medical treatments for themselves and their elderly parents, the public clamor for stem cell research has grown more intense. According to the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan polling organization that tracks the issue, roughly two-thirds of all Democrats and independents favor embryonic stem cell research, while nearly half of all Republicans do.

That leaves Mr. Bush — who has not used his veto partly because Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress for nearly all of his presidency — at odds with many leaders of his own party. They include staunch abortion opponents like Senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon and the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee. Already, some Republicans who opposed Mr. Bush on the stem cell issue are looking to the presidential elections of 2008.

“When there’s another election, another chapter of democracy opens,’’ Mr. Smith said in an interview. “Most of the candidates who have a shot at winning are in favor of stem cell research. This represents a delay en route, but I know where we’re going, and it’s where the American people want to go.’’

As the White House prepared for the East Room ceremony, advocates for patients who support stem cell research flooded the switchboard with calls urging Mr. Bush not to veto the bill.

“We were really hoping, because so many of the American people supported this research, that the president would take this opportunity to take a really big deep breath and reconsider,” said Kathy Lewis, president of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, named for the late actor who was an outspoken advocate for the science.

In a sense, the issue has come full circle for Mr. Bush. The president devoted his first prime-time television address to the issue, becoming the first president to open the door to federal financing for the science.

Under the policy, which Mr. Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, the federal government pays for studies on stem cell colonies, or lines, created before that date, so that the government does not encourage the destruction of additional embryos. Mr. Bush said Wednesday that his administration had made more than $90 million available for such work.

The bill Mr. Bush vetoed would have allowed taxpayer-financed research on lines derived from embryos slated for destruction by fertility clinics. Mr. Bush also signed a “fetal farming” measure, barring trafficking in embryos and fetuses with the intent of harvesting body parts.

“These boys and girls are not spare parts,” the president said in a speech that was interrupted repeatedly by hoots of applause, and twice by standing ovations. “They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research.’’

In one respect, the veto plays to Mr. Bush’s personal strengths, reinforcing the perception that he is someone who makes up his mind and sticks to it, ignoring the polls. But Democrats are determined to make the veto a central theme of their fall election campaigns, hooking it in with another hugely divisive medical issue — the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case — to argue that Republicans are beholden to the religious right.

Within hours of the veto, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, sent out a fund-raising letter asserting that Mr. Bush had decided that curing diseases “was not as important as catering to his right-wing base.” Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, put it this way: “This will be remembered as a Luddite moment in American history.”

Even Republicans concede the president’s action could hurt their candidates, particularly moderates like Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, who face tough re-election contests.

“It paints us in a corner as more and more single issue, and more and more unreasonable,” said Ed Rollins, a Republican strategist. “This is the line that the president certainly doesn’t want Republicans to cross, but I think an awful lot of Republicans say this goes across common sense, this research has the potential of saving my father, my mother, or a friend, or curing cancer.”

Nigerian Official Denies Congressman Bribed Him

WASHINGTON, July 19 — The vice president of Nigeria angrily denied Wednesday that he accepted bribes or had a business relationship with Representative William J. Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who is the target of a federal corruption investigation that is threatening to complicate American relations with that oil-rich West African nation.

In a statement made available by his Washington lawyers, Vice President Atiku Abubakar, a leading candidate in Nigeria’s presidential election next year, insisted that Mr. Jefferson had never “suggested — in any way — providing any personal economic benefits” to him.

Mr. Abubakar said he had “no relationship with Mr. Jefferson, personal or private, other than the usual diplomatic courtesies” extended to an American official promoting development in Nigeria, a major exporter of oil to the United States. One of Mr. Abubakar’s lawyers, Edward Weidenfeld, said that “there is nothing linking the vice president with Congressman Jefferson except Mr. Jefferson’s own false, self-serving statements.”

Mr. Weidenfeld said his client was entitled to a statement from federal prosecutors that he was “an innocent victim.”

Abu Ghraib Rewarded

William Haynes II, the Pentagon’s general counsel, has been closely involved in shaping some of the Bush administration’s most legally and morally objectionable policies, notably on the use of torture. The last thing he is suited to be is a federal judge, but that is just what President Bush wants to make him. The Senate has been far too willing to rubber-stamp the president’s extreme judicial nominees. But there is reason to hope that strong opposition to Mr. Haynes, including from the military, may block this thoroughly inappropriate choice.

Mr. Haynes has been nominated for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., a court that has heard some of the most important cases about the constitutional limits on the war on terror. This is a subject on which Mr. Haynes has no business posing as an impartial jurist. He has for years been part of a small group of insiders who have mapped out the Bush administration’s policies on questioning detainees and declaring American citizens to be “enemy combatants.” The administration’s policies in this area have been indecent and lawless, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly had to step in to rein them in.

Mr. Haynes was by many accounts a key player in the administration’s development of its shamefully narrow definition of “torture,” which gave the green light for a wide array of abuses. The decisions made in Washington cleared the way for abusive treatment of the detainees being held in Guantánamo Bay, and created the environment necessary for the Abu Ghraib torture scandal to occur. It is disturbing that while low-level soldiers have been convicted for their actions at the Iraqi prison, Mr. Haynes has been rewarded with a coveted judicial nomination.

The administration likes to blame opposition to its judicial nominees on “liberal activists,” but Mr. Haynes’s most high-profile opposition comes from the military itself. Twenty retired military officers, including a retired Army colonel who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, wrote to the Senate to express their concern that the policies Mr. Haynes helped develop “compromised military values, ignored federal and international law and damaged America’s reputation and world leadership.” The officers expressed their “deep concern” about his fitness for the court.

At Mr. Haynes’s confirmation hearing, some of the most pointed questioning came from Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Mr. Graham, who has served as a military lawyer, takes the law of combat seriously, and he seemed to be genuinely offended by Mr. Haynes’s record. Democrats are, quite properly, talking about filibustering Mr. Haynes’s nomination if it comes to that, but it should not. This is one judicial nomination that moderate, and even independent conservative, Republicans should join Senate Democrats in defeating.

Jonathan Chait: Is Bush Still Too Dumb to Be President?

You can't run a country on horse sense.

Jonathan Chait

July 16, 2006

WAY BACK when he first appeared on the national scene, the rap against George W. Bush was that he might be too dumb to be president. As time passed, questions about Bush's mental capabilities faded away.

After 9/11, his instinctive rather than analytical view of the world seemed to be just what we needed, and Americans of all stripes were desperate to see heroic qualities in him. (As Dan Rather announced at the time: "George Bush is the president; he makes the decisions; and, you know, as just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where.")

On top of that, Democrats decided it was politically counterproductive to attack Bush's intelligence. Bruce Reed of the Democratic Leadership Council said in 2002, for instance, that calling Bush dumb "plays directly into Bush's strength, which is that he comes across as a regular guy." And so, for most of the last six years, the question of Bush's intelligence has remained off the table.

Oh, sure, a few of us have brought it up from time to time, but we have generally been dismissed out of hand as wacky Bush-haters. By 2004, the question had been turned around completely. Democrats had almost nothing to say about Bush's lack of intellect, while Republicans joyfully and repeatedly attacked John Kerry as an egghead. Anti-intellectualism was triumphant.

Yet it is now increasingly clear that Bush's status as non-rocket scientist is a serious problem. The problem is not his habit — savored by late-night comedians — of stumbling over multisyllabic words. It is his shocking lack of intellectual curiosity.

Ron Suskind's new book, "The One Percent Doctrine," paints a harrowing picture of Bush's intellectual limits. Bush, writes Suskind, "is not much of a reader." He prefers verbal briefings and often makes a horse-sense judgment based on how confident his briefer seems in what he's saying. In August 2001, the CIA was in a panic about an upcoming terrorist attack and drafted a report with the title, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." When a CIA staffer summed up the memo's contents in a face-to-face meeting with Bush, the president found the briefer insufficiently confident and dismissed him by saying, "All right, you've covered your ass, now," according to Suskind. That turned out to be a fairly disastrous judgment.

Bush loyalists like to dismiss Suskind's reporting, but it jibes with the picture that has emerged from other sources. L. Paul Bremer III's account of his tenure as head of Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority depicts Bush as uninterested in the central questions of rebuilding and occupying the country.

Video of a presidential meeting that came to light this year showed Bush being briefed on the incipient Hurricane Katrina. His subordinates come off as deeply concerned about a potential catastrophe, but Bush appears blase, declining to ask a single question. And of course there was the famous 2001 incident in which Russian President Vladimir Putin conveyed to Bush a story of being given a cross by his mother. Bush invested deep significance in the story. "I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy," he told reporters. "I was able to get a sense of his soul."

Bush's supporters have insisted for the last six years that liberal derision of the president's intelligence amounts to nothing more than cultural snobbery. We don't like his pickup truck and his accent, the accusation goes, so we hide our blue-state prejudices behind a mask of intellectual condescension.

But the more we learn about how Bush operates, the more we can see we were right from the beginning. It matters that the president values his gut reaction and disdains book learnin'. It's not just a question of cultural style. The president's narrow intellectual horizons have real consequences, sometimes cataclysmic ones.

It's true that presidents can succeed without being intellectuals themselves. The trouble is that Bush isn't just a nonintellectual, he viscerally disdains intellectuals. "What angered me was the way such people at Yale felt so intellectually superior and so righteous," he told a Texas Monthly reporter in 1994.

When I went to college at Michigan, I occasionally played pickup basketball with varsity football players. They obviously felt athletically superior to me. I didn't resent them for it — because they were.

Indianapolis

Baghdad

Caracas

Tehran

AfterDowningStreet.org

We Can't Make It Here Anymore - by James Mcmurtry

First Bush Veto Maintains Limits on Stem Cell Use

Nigerian Official Denies Congressman Bribed Him

Abu Ghraib Rewarded

JONATHAN CHAIT

Jonathan Chait: Is Bush Still Too Dumb to Be President?