How to Lie and Win Using Outdated Economic Policy

The manufactured 'debate' over the 'public option' in health care and it's black crepe adornments announcing its intended purpose of handing America over to those millions of socialists who are just waiting behind the scenes to 'destroy the American way of life and free enterprise' has brought many discouraging challenges to liberals and progressives who favor nationalized health care. The most obvious point of dismay for the reform minded left has been the ease that traditionalist supporters of the status quo have gained been winning the public debate amongst the public by simply incessantly repeating that the public option would lead our nation into the irreversible grip of socialism.

Washington, despite the recent upswing of Democratic party control has been unable to throw of the yoke of Cons marching to the ideology of Reaganomics that accuses government activity in the marketplace as the problem and Reagan's 'ideological' belief in letting the private sector find it's own way as the solution.

What is most confounding to liberals and progressives is that Reagan's ideological reign should be over.

The most obvious reason being that the Cons use of Reaganomics never delivered what it promised. Their mantra that by lowering taxes on the highest incomes and by ending government checks and balances through deregulation would allow the 'magic of the marketplace to act as 'a rising tide of economic opportunity that would lift all boats' benefiting all Americans; no matter what their current financial situation might have been was a bald faced lie that only created greater and wider income disparities. Under the stewardship of the Cons, Reaganomics allowed the real incomes of the top .01 percent of Americans to rise by a factor of seven times over the course of almost forty years, 1980 and 2007. However, during the same period of time, actual income levels of middle class family's gained only about 22 percent which represented a real decrease in household income when compared to the previous nearly four decades, failing to keep pace with their upper income tax bracket fellow Americans.

It was only during the Clinton years that average Americans achieved any gain in income levels. Once Clinton left office after eight years of relative economic opportunity for all which had left a surplus for future generations to benefit from; George W. Bush, perhaps the greatest adherent to the Con adherence to Reaganism became president and immediately gave the federal government's surplus away in the form of grossly unnecessary tax cuts and and an unprovoked war against Iraq, and became the first American president since since Herbert Hoover to deprive the rapidly dwindling middle class of any economic advancement. And as an extra added bonus, Bush's laissez-faire brand of Reaganomics brought about the worse recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s

Bush 43 placed our nation in this precarious economic and financial position by a 'bold' backward looking adherence to Reagan-inspired Con ideology that systematically dismantled the New Deal financial regulations and economic checks and balances because the Cons fervently believed that Wall Street and the financial markets would be self-regulating through the magic of the 'invisible hand.' which guru Alan Greenspan preached.

The astonishing aspect of the Cons having succeeded in pushing the nation to the edge of an economic abyss is that Cons are still given a credible voice in being included as a part of fixing the mess caused by their by their own combination of inaction and neglect by the mainstream media. But this should really not hold any surprise; for the Cons are a part of the same controlling structure of American politics that the corporate media also finds itself a part of; as do many Democrats.

So the course of the 'debate' over the public option that has really only been an extended part of the campaign against government-run health care should be of no surprise to any clear minded liberals and progressives. The Senate's so-called gang of six consists of Democrats that are no different from their Republican 'opponents.' The Democratic Senators acknowledge in foreboding terms that given their druthers; most Americans would support the public option over private insurance which he casts as wrong-headed thinking, instead of stating the obvious and pushing the government plan because it is better than what the private insurance industry offers it's customers.

So why does such a publicly-needed quest for reform dying a slow and thought-numbing death? The answer is really quite simple, and it has little more to do than with the tremendously powerful control that money has over American politics. And to paraphrase Franklin Delano Roosevelt: It has never been a great secret that the thoughtlessness of greed leads to a total corruption of morals. We can also add to Roosevelt's summarized dictum to include the relevance of ill-conceived economics to Roosevelt's analysis, based on the Cons economic debacle of last fall.

The debate over the most momentous legislation proposed sice the 1960's civil rights legislation is being torn apart by such dim-witted fear-mongering tactics such as the assertion that one of the "hidden truths' of health care reform is the absolute lie that the American government will use health care reform to create 'death panels' that will arbitrarily condemn old people and the infirm to government sanctioned euthanasia.

The obvious question is how is this Con game being foisted upon the American people can be defeated and allow debate on health care reform to regain a more reasoned approach? The first thing liberals and progressives must understand is that the lies and disinformation being used by the Cons is the only line of attack that they have at their disposal, and correspondingly any hope to convince Cons to give up their irrational beliefs and instead meet the left on a battlefield governed by rational behavior and ideas is nothing short of a pipe dream.

It is also time for the left to give up their fear that a crucial opportunity to pass health care reform is being missed and instead just toughen up and use their superior numbers to push meaningful health care through Congress and get it signed into law. If their are no Republican supporters gained, then that is solely the problem of the GOP.

This is power politics, plain and simple, and the Democrats must recognize that all they need is a simple majority to pass health care, and pass it they must because the public demands it and because the idea has become so centrally attached to the future of both parties. Passage means the Democrats can declare themselves as the winners and the Republicans will have lost a key element that gives them party solidarity; so a loss severly damages the GOP for a very long time, and in addition, may finally push the GOP away from it's extremeist Con roots of Reaganism and more toward a more center-leaning party. And such an occurance will have political reprecusions for decades to come and change the face of American politics.

I would like to publically acknowledge the ideas and thought of Paul Krugman for this posting.

Bush Made Ideology of Candidates for Justice Department Posts Key to Hiring Practices

A painstaking analysis of hiring practices carried out by the Bush Administration is reported on by Carrie Johnson, staff writer for the Washington Post. Ms. Johnson reports that: "Ideological considerations permeated the hiring process at the Justice Department's civil rights division, where a politically appointed official sought to hire "real Americans" and Republicans for career posts and prominent case assignments, according to a long awaited report released this morning by the department's inspector general. The extensive study of hiring practices between 2001 and 2007 concluded that a former department official improperly weeded out candidates based on their perceived ties to liberal organizations. Two other senior managers failed to oversee the process, authorities said." Ms. Johnson points out that: "The key official, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bradley Schlozman, favored employees who shared his political views and derided others as "libs" and "pinkos," the report said." The authors of the report, "Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility chief H. Marshall Jarrett said they would refer their findings to legal disciplinary authorities." In a statement issued concerning the investigation, Mr. Fine remarked: "The Department must be vigilant to ensure that such egregious misconduct does not occur in the future." Democratic Chairman Patrick J Leahy of Vermont was quick to add that the investigative report: "confirmed some of our worst fears about the Bush Administration's corruption of the Justice Department... Lying to Congress undermines the very core of our constitutional principles and blunts the American people's right to open and transparent government," Leahy concluded. The report found "that Schlozman had made "false statements" to lawmakers about his role in the affair." Ms. Johnson, elaborated that: "In June 2007, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Schlozman about his use of political factors in hiring decisions and the basis for bringing a voter registration case against a liberal group days before a local election. For example, Schlozman denied using political or ideological ties as a hiring criteria in response to questions from Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.)," Ms. Johnson added from statements made in the report. Ms. Johnson confirmed that: "Schlozman resigned from the department in 2007 and he is no longer subject to discipline there." Ms. Johnson continued by describing Schlozman's legal strategy: "William Jordan, a lawyer for Schlozman, said his client "testified fairly and accurately before the Senate" and provided investigators with a list of people he had hired who expressed liberal political views. Schlozman met with agents and took a polygraph exam, which he passed," Jordan added. Ms. Johnson adds that a prepared statement prepared by Schlozman's attorney's the lawyers complained that: "The report released today is inaccurate, incomplete, biased and unsupported by the facts." Ms. Johnson described the extensive nature of the report by explaining that: "Investigators interviewed more than 120 employees and reviewed 200,000 e-mails, according to the report. They also performed a statistical analysis of hiring practices during Schlozman's tenure, finding that "political and ideological affiliations did not appear to have been a factor when attorneys were hired without Schlozman's involvement." Ms. Johnson added that: "Key actors including Schlozman and four others declined to be questioned by the inspector general and the office of professional responsibility." Ms. Johnson adds that: "Uproar over changing priorities at the civil rights unit emerged more than four years ago, as longtime career officials departed or were reassigned into other spots. But during the past several months, current Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey moved to calm the waters. He engineered the return of several career lawyers into management roles and reached out to junior lawyers who had improperly been denied jobs on the basis of their political affiliation. Ms. Johnson reports that: "Peter Carr, a Justice Department spokesman, said that Schlozman had "deviated from that strict standard" to apply the Constitution. Carr said the unit has updated its hiring policies and strengthened the role of career lawyers in hiring." Ms. Johnson concludes her reporting by quoting Peter Carr's closing remarks: "As a result of these reforms, and the procedures already in place for evaluating the work and conduct of lawyers throughout the Department, we are confident that the institutional problems identified in today's report no longer exist and will not recur." The Fine and Jarrett report casts considerable light on a suspected practice that was employed by the Bush Justice Department to ensure that only certain individuals who expressed ideological beliefs that satisfied the Bush Administration were hired. It seems reasonable to conclude from the report that Bush fully intended to oversee the corruption of hiring practices that undermined the authority of the United States Constitution. This revelation must lead reasonable, law abiding minds to question whether similarly corrupt hiring practices were followed by other appendages of the executive branch of government; and even more importantly; reasonable, law abiding minds have now gained the right, in fact, the duty to question and investigate whether the authority of the United States Constitution was undermined or intentionally ignored to allow for the ideological agenda of the Bush Administration to be carried out. These two questions place a great deal of responsibility on the incoming Congress and Obama Administration. To fail to fully investigate the questions raised in this post, would, in my opinion, inescapably draw the incoming legislative and executive branches, now controlled by Democrats, into a position of culpability for aiding in the possible crimes of the outgoing Bush Administration and would truly render the authority of the U.S. Constitution to be null and void and would effectively end the rule of law in the United States. In point of fact, a significantly large number of Americans have gone to the incoming Obama Administration web site; CHANGE.GOV at http://change.gov/ to take advantage of proposing questions that will be voted on at the web site as a means to determine what Americans believe is the most important question facing the United States today. To date, the overwhelming response of Americans has been to make the number one question that Americans want answered was submitted by Bob Fertik of New York City which asked: “Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor (ideally Patrick Fitzgerald) to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?” This is the number one issue that Americans are demanding to have answered. It's obvious that Americans value the authority of the Constitution and the power it grants making the United States a nation ruled by laws and not men or political ideologies. Unfortunately, when President-elect Obama was asked to respond to the popularity of Mr. Fertik's question by George Stephanopoulos during the January 11th edition of ABC's news program "This Week," Mr. Obama was unprepared to give a definitive answer: "We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices and I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering [up]." It's obvious that the American citizenry must keep making their requests known to the Obama Administration and to the Congress for a full and complete investigation of "the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration." Our Constitution and our nation hang in the balance between the chaos of lawlessly left unpunished and the orderliness guaranteed by the supreme authority provided by the rule of law. We must choose the constitutional standard that guarantees the rule of law because nothing less can protect and defend the future health and stability of our United States of America.

Bush's Nixonian-lite Exit Press Conference

Still-President Bush, with just about a week left in his eight year reign of errors and omissions, described his last press conference that lasted for about 47 minutes as "the ultimate exit interview" responded to a number of questions from the press corps. Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times summarized Mr. Bush's offerings that gave a defiant slant to his often contentious opinions regarding his presidency. Bush was quick to reject any blame for having caused world opinion to believe that he caused America's “moral standing" to have "been damaged” during his presidency. He assumed the role of a wise, elder statesman to issue a warning to President-elect Obama that the many economic difficulties America faces today should remain secondary to the conflict against “an enemy that would like to attack America and Americans again.” Bush showed the American people a range of complex emotions that Stolberg remarked on: "Looking back over the long arc of his turbulent presidency, Mr. Bush was by turns impassioned and defiant, reflective and light-hearted, even as he conceded that some things “didn’t go according to plan.” He confessed a litany of mistakes, refused to talk about pardons, cautioned the Republican Party to be inclusive and wondered aloud what it would feel like to make coffee for his wife, Laura, at their ranch in Crawford, Tex., on the morning after Mr. Obama takes his place." Bush even attempted to show a brighter side when Stolberg reported that: "He showed flashes of the humor that helped elect him, as when he said — without offering specifics — that he intended to get busy quickly after leaving office. I just can’t envision myself, you know, with a big straw hat and Hawaiian shirt, sitting on some beach,” the president said, adding, “particularly since I quit drinking.” Stolberg was most taken by what she described as: "the most striking moment ..., by far, was Mr. Bush’s rousing defense of his record on fighting terrorism. With human rights advocates accusing his White House of condoning torture and demanding an inquiry into its counterterrorism tactics, the departing president used his platform to admonish reporters, and by extension, his successor and the nation, not to forget the lessons of Sept. 11, 2001, and the climate of fear in which his policies were forged." Bush became impassioned and issued a rebuke to his critics when he said: “All these debates will matter not if there is another attack on the homeland,” he said, his voice rising as he leaned over the lectern for effect. You remember what it was like right after September the 11th around here?” he demanded, adding: “People were saying, ‘How come they didn’t see it? How come they didn’t connect the dots?’ Do you remember what the environment was like in Washington? I do.” On the subject of pardons; Bush refused to cooperate with the press's inquiry according to Stolberg: "Mr. Bush would not address the possibility, widely debated in legal and political circles, that he might issue so-called pre-emptive pardons to counterterrorism agents or administration officials who could face criminal prosecution for a range of activities, including harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding or the firing of United States attorneys." Bush quickly ended that lie of questioning by remarking: “I won’t be discussing pardons here.” Stolberg explained that: "It was the only question he refused to answer." Returning to a more reflective mood; Stolberg reported that: "Mr. Bush said he was not certain why he had become so divisive. “I don’t know why they get angry,” he replied to a question about those who disagreed with his policies so vehemently that it became personal. “I don’t know why they get hostile.” Stolberg added that Bush: "had learned not to pay attention." On looking to his departure from office and his return to his new residence in Dallas, Stolberg reported that Mr. Bush said of his success as president: “I don’t see how I can get back home in Texas and look in the mirror and be proud of what I see, if I allowed the loud voices, the loud critics to prevent me from doing what I thought was necessary to protect this country.” In assessing Mr. Bush's term, Stolberg commented that: "It has been nearly eight years since Mr. Bush arrived in Washington vowing to be “a uniter, not a divider,” with the idea that his presidency would focus on domestic issues like education, Social Security and immigration reform." Stolberg continued: "He leaves behind two unfinished wars and an economy in turmoil, and the wear and tear of the office shows. At 62, he is grayer and a bit more wrinkled now. Yet Mr. Bush said that he had “never felt isolated” during his time in office, and dismissed the idea of the presidency as a burden. Then Bush revealed a dark and stunning admission: “Even in the darkest moments of Iraq,” the president said, he and his staff found that there were times “when we could be light-hearted and support each other.” Stolberg reported that Bush returned to a topic he has often spoken of lately when he remarked: "that he believes history will be the judge of his presidency, and while he said so again on Monday, he did deliver his own assessment. Four years ago, he was asked if he had made any mistakes during his presidency, and struggled to come up with an answer, a moment that came to define him as unwilling to engage in critical self-analysis." Bush admitted: “Clearly, putting a ‘Mission Accomplished’ on an aircraft carrier was a mistake,” Mr. Bush began, referring to the banner displayed during his shipboard speech in May 2003 declaring that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. “It sent the wrong message,” he said, adding, “Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.” Mr. Bush said he had “thought long and hard” about Hurricane Katrina, which had become an iconic low point of his years in office. But he did not say what might have been done differently." Bush made news according to Stolberg when: "He also said, "for the first time, that he believed he should have pressed immigration reform — he had come to office calling it his first priority — instead of calling for an overhaul of Social Security after the 2004 election." Assuming the role of a party strategist; Stolberg added that Bush: "predicted Republicans would make a comeback but said he was “concerned that in the wake of the defeat that the temptation will be to look inward.” Stolberg said that: "Looking ahead, Mr. Bush has said he intends to write a book and to work on his library and public policy institute at Southern Methodist University in Dallas." Near the end of the press conference, Bush remarked that he no longer had any plans to make news, Bush seemed to slip into a Nixonian-lite styled persona that seemed to paraphrase Nixon's claim 'You won't have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.' Mr Bush explained that: “When I get out of here, I’m getting off the stage,.. I’ve had my time in the klieg lights.” A circumstance that might depend on whether he faces a future that could demand testimony for having committed illegal acts and war crimes while in office.

Republican Whiners Must Accept the Consequences of Their Many Failures

Paul Krugman comments in the New York Times that: "As the new Democratic majority prepares to take power, Republicans have become, as Phil Gramm might put it, a party of whiners... But most of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration’s failure was simply a matter of bad luck — either the bad luck of President Bush himself, who just happened to have disasters happen on his watch, or the bad luck of the G.O.P., which just happened to send the wrong man to the White House." Its really a matter of the GOP's decision during the Nixon campaign in 1968 to develop a "Southern strategy" that gained electoral dominance by hatching a clutch of wedge issues, including the topic of "racial backlash" that set the party on a forty year course to where it happens to be today - facing the consequences of a "shrinking base." Krugman rightly points out: "If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.” Krugman calls out the Republicans; who then went on to trump their: "Contempt for expertise, (which) in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well?" During their four decade run the GOP worked hard to diligently maintain a certain level of discreetness as they advocated the electoral benefits of racism. Anyone who dared to even infer that racism and republicanism formed significant chapters in the GOP's political playbook were shouted down with all the ferocity that the party and its corporate overlords could bring to bare. Even when Republicans were caught in obviously racist remarks or policies they praised their own moral superiority and never, ever admitted any wrong doing; it was that old public relations adage of deflect and deny that kept the GOP on the high moral ground. But now, as the most ideologically committed collection of conservatives attempt to assume control of the Republican National Committee, unapologetically stated, blatant racism is leading the way. It has to do with the efforts of "Chip Saltsman, currently a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, (who) sent committee members a CD including a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — and according to some reports, the controversy over his action has actually helped his chances... So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process... That’s why the soon-to-be-gone administration’s failure is bigger than Mr. Bush himself: it represents the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation." The GOP stands today as a party without ideas and dominated by a small group of southerner conservatives who have "lost the rest of the country" because they believe they were not conservative enough. They believe bailouts and public works plans to infuse the economy with capital and jobs represent a turn to socialism that cannot be tolerated. It has come to the point that the conservative-dominated RNC; as demonstrated by a recent resolution penned by conservative constitutional law attorney and national vice chairman of the RNC, James Bopp, is now issuing direct orders warning its elected officials to toe the party platform to the letter by allowing bankruptcies to occur and stand for the free market to return the economy to greater prosperity. In fact, as Krugman explains, the GOP has achieved nothing more than leading itself into a political "cul-de-sac." It is not Krugman's intention to bury the GOP as he observes: "Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy." And I can't argue with the Nobel Laureate's observations.

Katrina Was Just One of Many 'Tipping Points' for Bush

Editorials, commentaries, and articles are appearing during the final days of the Bush Administration that Katrina was the tipping point that signaled the public's loss of trust in the administration. The main source of the theory comes from writer, Todd Purdum's ""oral history" of the Bush administration included in the February issue of Vanity Fair magazine." Mr Purdum is a fine writer whose diligent research has provided gainful insights into the inner workings of the Bush Administration. James Oliphant writes in the Chicago Tribune that it was "(t)hree years ago, (when)Hurricane Katrina and its chaotic aftermath produced a collage of indelible images. Among those was a photo of President George W. Bush, viewing the devastation below from the comfort of Air Force One as it jetted to Washington. Now, some of Bush's closest advisers say his administration's response to the disaster marked a turning point in what has become the most unpopular presidency in modern history. After Katrina (Bush's) tenure entered a downward spiral from which he never recovered." The problem with this analysis is that Bush only held significant popular support from the World Trade Center attack of September 11th, 2001 to the declaration of "Mission Accomplished" on May1st, 2003 . Before and after that short period of time Bush struggled to achieve popular consensus. He was not significantly popular during the elections of 2000 or 2004; barely eking out highly contested and controversial victories. The public never fully embraced Bush; they were deceived into supporting his administration through the strategic use of misinformation, outright lies and unchallenged deceit, the maintenance of fear of imminent terrorist attacks, the outright rejection of constitutional rights, the politicization of the Justice Department, the abrogation of international law and treaties, cronyism in the awarding of government monies, contracts and lands; the list goes on. Bush built his presidency on deception from the very beginning of his stay in office. Purdum's analysis suggests that Bush had a decent streak that somehow turned unresponsive to the needs of the American people. Bush never cared about the sanctity of the Office of the President, the Constitution or the American people. Purdum's contention that a 'tipping point' existed proves too gentle a manner to analyze Bush. Bush took office filled with a taint of corruption and a brazenness that Bush fully took advantage of as he operated the levers of American power to suit his deceitful needs.

Bush Just Never Gave a Damn About His Responsibilities as President of the united States

BOB HERBERT asks in his commentary: "Does anyone know where George W. Bush is? You don’t hear much from him anymore. The last image most of us remember is of the president ducking a pair of size 10s that were hurled at him in Baghdad. We’re still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is thrashing the Palestinians in Gaza. And the U.S. economy is about as vibrant as the 0-16 Detroit Lions. But hardly a peep have we heard from George, the 43rd." Herbert suggests that when Bush leaves office: "There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he’s done to this country." Herbert suggests that Bush's legacy amounts to nothing but eight years of "deceit." Herbert concludes his assessment of Bush: "The catalog of his transgressions against the nation’s interests — sins of commission and omission — would keep Mr. Bush in a confessional for the rest of his life. Don’t hold your breath. He’s hardly the contrite sort. He told ABC’s Charlie Gibson: “I don’t spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history. I guess I don’t worry about long-term history, either, since I’m not going to be around to read it.” Herbert points out Bush's incredible lack of remorse for all he has done to bring ruin to the United States: "The president chuckled, thinking — as he did when he made his jokes about the missing weapons of mass destruction — that there was something funny going on." This writer believes that somehow, someway, someday Bush fully deserves to be held accountable for his complete failure to abide by his oath to the Constitution. Let Bush be remembered for all time as the deceitful scoundrel that he has proved himself to be.

Bush's Bubble of Unreality Suddenly Bursts

Steve Chapman, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune comments in the Baltimore Sun: "When President George W. Bush had to duck a pair of shoes thrown at him by an irate Iraqi journalist at a news conference in Baghdad, the depressing part was not just that his administration has managed to alienate many Iraqis. It was also that the president of the United States had to go to Iraq to find himself face-to-face with anyone who openly rejects his policies. Here in the land of the free, that is almost unheard of. When Mr. Bush ventures into contact with ordinary Americans outside the White House, his aides do their best to keep him from realizing that many of his constituents regard him as a disaster...maybe Barack Obama will take a different approach and accept the fact that occasionally seeing people express dissenting views is just part of the president's job. And not just on visits to Baghdad."