Obama Lays Out Health Plan

Obama promises to create universal health care by the end of his first term. Every American would have “affordable, comprehensive, and portable” coverage. His plan (Overview Here, Full Plan Here) focuses on reforming the current system to make it more efficient while investing in prevention and management treatment to reduce the costs of catastrophic health issues. The savings from streamlining the health care delivery system will provide some of the funds needed to expand coverage universally. Additionally employers will be required to contribute to their employees’ health costs, either by providing insurance directly, or by paying for public coverage.

The plan provides a multitude of ways to cuts costs, but doesn’t offer any kind of assurance that these alone will pay for the program. Surely it is impossible to know exactly how the cost-saving measure will pan out and even harder to know what kind of employer contributions he could get through congress, but despite this he makes no mention of any use of public funds. No corresponding cuts in the national budget, or increases in taxes. Obviously this is a very early version of the plan, but it seems to me that national health care might require more than just increased efficiency to reduce patients’ costs so dramatically. I for one think this will end up requiring either a tax increase (maybe by repealing the Bush tax cuts and/or repealing the Reagan tax cuts), or shifting funding from another area of the federal budget (perhaps military spending).

CIA Warned Bush of Chaotic Iraq Post Invasion

It turns out the CIA had a pretty good idea of what Iraq might be like after we took the helm. The January 2003, report warned of sectarian violence, foreign powers near Iraq vying for influence, and a political culture antagonistic to democratization months before the invasion.

It makes one wonder why all these warning were not met with sound and comprehensive planning. Revelations like this make me question our leadership in multiple, over-lapping ways. Was this ignored? Downplayed? Thought to be unimportant? Or did they understand the costs but weighed the benefits as exceeding them? Perhaps the chaos achieved some end for Bush, if it serves some purpose it would make some sense. But what purpose could such egregious acts of violence hold except to their twisted perpetrators? I don’t know, but I do know that the only possibilities are that the Bush Administration is incredibly stupid, incredibly evil, or both.

New Twist to an Old Scandal

<- Lying Jackass

Apparently US Attorneys were not the only ones to have been politically screened for their jobs. Kyle Sampson, disgraced and resigned chief of staff for Alberto Gonzales, had his lawyer disclose that Federal Immigration Judges were also vetted by political affiliation. The revelation adds another charge against this administration, violation of civil service laws designed to preserve the independence of the Justice Department. This has been going on since early 2004. During Monica Goodling’s testimony (scroll down), she said that Sampson had told her that the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel said that immigration judges did no apply to the civil service rules that prevented taking political affiliation into account.

It’s a sad day when the department in charge of law enforcement goes out of its way to break laws. Unfortunately for us, that day happened years and years ago and we’re just finding out about it. Worst President in History!

Goodling Testifies, Says Next to Nothing

It wasn’t quite as juicy as I would have liked to be honest with you. She didn’t roll over on her old bosses, and only admitted to violating a statute designed to keep politics out of bureaucratic positions, a violation which she is protected from. She also indicated that she was not the one who the White House worked through, apparently, they only dealt with Alberto and Sampson …

Here are some highlights from the coverage.

CNN’s coverage emphasized Goodling’s lack of communication with the white house. The Washington Post’s coverage focused on Goodling’s politically bias hiring practices. Below is a series of quotes that sum up the important points from her day-long testimony.

• "I was not the primary White House contact for purposes of the development or approval of the U.S. attorney replacement plan."
• Referring to mastermind Karl Rove and Bush’s lawyer Harriet Miers she said,
• "And I'm certain that I never spoke to either of them about the hiring or firing of any U.S. attorney,"
• "I was responsible more for what happened after the plan was implemented rather than maybe the plan itself,"
• "I do acknowledge I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions, and I regret those mistakes."
• "Although I'm prepared to tell the committee what I know about the eight replaced U.S. attorneys, the truth is that I do not know why Kevin Ryan, John McKay, Carol Lam, Paul Charlton, Daniel Bogden, David Iglesias and Margaret Chiara were asked to resign in December of 2006."
• She also testified that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty lied to congress.
• "Despite my and others' best effort, the deputy's public testimony was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects, I believe the deputy was not fully candid about his knowledge of White House involvement in the replacement decision."
• Paul McNulty was the first Justice Department official to testify. He said the fired US Attorneys were let go for “performance reasons”.
• Obviously that’s been proven to be a sack of horseshit, the Justice Department’s internal review process found many of the fired attorneys rated excellent. In one example, shortly before Carol Lam was fired she had won a high-profile case against Republican Duke Cunningham for bribery.
• McNulty has been privately saying he was mislead by Goodling. Her testimony today refutes that position and casts McNulty and DOJ colleague William E. Moschella’s testimony in a criminal light.

Bush Wins, Troops Stay In Iraq Until September

The democratic leadership has stripped the withdrawal timetables from the war-funding bill. The move was ordered after Democrats failed to garner veto-proof margins for either their time-table or incremental war spending bills. Republican congressmen have been trying to hold off Democratic efforts to end the war until a progress report on the surge is given in September. Many say that they will reevaluate their options then, and abandon the war if progress remains slim...

Its interesting, by any measure the surge is failing, and why wouldn’t it. According to the militaries own literature on counter insurgency, a 1 to 40 ratio of soldiers to citizens is needed to properly quell an insurgent force. The Boston Globe describes what’s needed;

"The first chapter of [the] manual calls for a "force ratio" of 25 counterinsurgents (here meaning US, allied, and Iraqi soldiers and police) per 1,000 residents. In Baghdad that would require a total force of 120,000. But even with the additional 17,500 US troops President Bush has called for, and a reallocation of Iraqi troops from the North to Baghdad, the total force will be approximately 80,000, a full third less than what the manual prescribes."

You might wonder why the General leading the surge doesn’t follow these recommendations. Especially considering he’s the one who wrote them. That’s right, General Petraeus was the author of the US Military’s anti-insurgency doctrine and he isn’t following his own rules.

So in order for the war to go as Congressional Republicans would like, Petraeus has to tame the insurgency with an insufficient and battle-weary force by the end of summer. It is an impossible task, and the recent trend of violence should drive that point home. Unfortunately, Republicans need to see another season of carnage before they are willing to join with Democrats and end the war. They've won this battle and their prize is a bloody, IED-filled, death-squad ridden month. Way to go…

Gonzales Guilty of Perjury

A cadre of democratic heavy hitters sent the letter below to Gonzo today. It relates to some new testimony which contradicts Gonzales’s testimony from February regarding the NSA wiretapping program. Gonzo said there was no internal debate about the NSA wiretapping program, but this new testimony by ex-Deputy Attorney General James Comey says that Gonzo was part of an effort to “take advantage” of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was doggedly opposed to the program. Ashcroft was recovering from a gall bladder surgery when Comey, Andy Card, and Gonzo visited him. Comey had been made acting attorney general and refused to sign off on the NSA wiretapping program. So Gonzo and Card tried to persuade Ashcroft to sign off on the program. Ashcroft strongly resisted the men and expressed his distaste for the program.

The Program was authorized without justice department approval, Comey and Ashcroft resigned soon there after.

The testimony prompted Senators Kennedy, Feingold, Schumer and Durbin to write the following letter.

May 16, 2007

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

In very dramatic testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified that in March 2004, when you served as White House Counsel, you were involved in "an effort to take advantage of a very sick man," referring to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Specifically, Mr. Comey testified that you and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card went to Mr. Ashcroft's bedside at George Washington Hospital, where he was in intensive care, in an effort to get him to agree to certify the legality of a classified program that he and Mr. Comey, who was serving as acting Attorney General at the time, had concluded should not be so certified. Mr. Comey stated that when the Administration decided to go forward with reauthorizing this classified program without that certification, he and several other Justice Department officials, including possibly Attorney General Ashcroft himself, were ready to tender their resignations.

You testified last year before both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee about this incident. On February 6, 2006, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, you were asked whether Mr. Comey and others at the Justice Department had raised concerns about the NSA wiretapping program. You stated in response that the disagreement that occurred was not related to the wiretapping program confirmed by the President in December 2005, which was the topic of the hearing. The following is a transcript excerpt from that hearing:

Senator Schumer. Let me ask you about some specific reports. It has been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?

Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, here is a response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements. There has not been any serious disagreement, including - and I think this is accurate - there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the President has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into. I will also say -

Senator Schumer. But there was some - I am sorry to cut you off, but there was some dissent within the administration, and Jim Comey did express at some point - that is all I asked you - some reservations.

Attorney General Gonzales. The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we are talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we are not talking about today.

Senator Schumer. I want to ask you again about them, just we have limited time.

Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, sir.

Senator Schumer. It has also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School, expressed reservations about the program. Is that true?

Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, rather than going individual by individual—

Senator Schumer. No, I think we are - this is—

Attorney General Gonzales. By individual, let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories does not - did not deal with the program that I am here testifying about today.

Senator Schumer. But you are telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program. Is that right?

Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I want to be very careful here. Because of course I am here only testifying about what the President has confirmed. And with respect to what the President has confirmed, I believe - I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you are identifying had concerns about this program.

In addition, on April 6, 2006, in answer to a question from then House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner about the hospital visit, which had been reported in the press, you responded: "Mr. Chairman, what I can say - and I'm sure this will not be acceptable, but let me say it anyway - is that I have testified before that the disagreement that existed does not relate to the program the President confirmed in December to the American people."

We ask for your prompt response to the following question: In light of Mr. Comey's testimony yesterday, do you stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise it?

Sincerely,

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD United States Senator	CHARLES E. SCHUMER United States Senator
EDWARD M. KENNEDY United States Senator	RICHARD J. DURBIN United States Senator

Giuliani v. Paul

While watching highlights of the Fox News Debate that was held yesterday in South Carolina, I found a particular exchange very telling.

In the video Ron Paul, who voted against giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq, argues that the 9-11 attacks were “blowback” from interventional foreign policy. He says that we’ve had our noses in the Middle East for fifty years causing rampant hatred and anti-Americanism. Giuliani, responded the only way he knows how, by calling names. He didn’t argue the merit of the statement, he didn’t explain why he disagreed, he simply called it absurd and demanded Rep. Paul retract his comment.

Giuliani showed a lack of maturity and understanding regarding international relations. Like it or not, there are international consequences for American foreign policy. It is the nature of hegemony. Our actions affect the rest of the world and sometimes, even if motivated by irrationality and executed with supreme violence, our actions incur costs. Certainly America didn’t ask for 9-11, but we just as certainly didn’t demand that our foreign policy be benign or friendly. Giuliani is ignoring our part in our world’s problems, and using fear of continued attack, and hatred for our enemies as a catapult into demagogic power. We need a President who understand the complexity of international relations and the simplicity of revenge, not one who assumes the world to be our sandbox and its inhabitants our toys.

UPDATE: Fox News Viewers agree with me for once, Ron Paul beat out Giuliani by 6 points in a Fox News poll that asked, "who won the debate". Paul came in second to Romney, by 4 points.

Bush Backs Off Wolfowitz Support

The Bush administration shifted its attitude on President of the World Bank Paul Wolfowitz yesterday. Wolfowitz has been embroiled in a scandal regarding his long time girlfriend Shaha Riza. Apparently, Paul set her up for a series of promotions and pay-raises without informing the banks legal advisor. The bank’s executive board investigated the claims and issued a report stating that Wolfowitz broke ethics rules and endangered the reputation of the bank.

Until this point, The White House had fully supported Wolfowitz, this change in position is indicative of the precarious position the World Bank’s President is in. Wolfowitz has repeatedly said he will not resign and has made efforts to convince the bank’s executive board that he can remain at the helm of the institution. However the White House was among the last of Wolfowitz’s remaining allies. Since the White House has dropped support to keep him as president, The World Bank has no serious obstacles to get rid of him.

The only remaining question is exactly how he will be replaced. I for one, don’t care, a Neo-Con out of a position of international power is good enough for me.

House Passes Second War Funding Bill, Bush Talks Compromise

Despite a presidential veto threat, and with less than ideal support in the senate, the House of Representatives passed the incremental funding bill.

Here the Washington Post explains the basics of the bill

“The first, $43 billion, would be released immediately, with new standards for resting, training and equipping troops and a slate of benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. Bush would be required to submit to Congress by July 13 three reports -- on Iraqi progress in relation to the benchmarks, on which of the goals had been met and on how many Iraqi combat units are ready to operate on their own. About 10 days later, the House would vote again, first on whether to cut off funding for further combat in Iraq and then on whether to release the remaining $53 billion.”

That same article reports that a much tougher bill that was voted on shortly before the incremental bill. The anti-war bill would have all US troops out of Iraq within nine months. The bill fell short of a majority but garnered unpredicted support. 171 members of the House voted to end the occupation of Iraq, about 40 votes short of passing. It is an encouraging sign.

This comes on the heels of Bush publicly announcing that he would allow a bill with benchmarks, so long as they weren’t binding. Pelosi and Reid fired back that a bill without penalties for failing to meet benchmarks is pointless.

It is unclear what this compromise means to the actual language of the final bill, some republicans favor tying rebuilding funds to political benchmarks. That’s right, if the piecemeal, illegitimate, occupied regime of Iraq cannot undue a two-thousand year conflict, rebuild a shattered infrastructure, and write an equable constitution, they don’t get the money to rebuild the shit we bombed. RIDICULOUS! The President could support that shitty plan or they could form a new plan in negotiations with senate Dems. Wait and see…

More US Attorneys Involved in Firings

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the House Judiciary Committee in a near repeat performance of his testimony in front of a similar Senatorial body at the end of last month. A sentiment Alberto didn’t feel ashamed to admit “My feelings and recollections about this matter have not changed,” he said.

He was questioned about the departure of an additional US Attorney. Todd P. Graves, was asked to step down in January 2006 by the Department of Justice (DoJ). He was never given a reason why, but he was already planning a return to private practice and thus felt no need to oppose the matter. His dismissal is drawing parallels to Bud Cummins firing, who was asked to leave in the same manner.

Graves appears to be the ninth US Attorney to have been replaced by the Justice Department as part of its bungled operation to politicize the federal bureaucracy. This comes after testimony from Gonzales and other DoJ officials that the firings were limited to the eight attorneys already known. If evidence can be found that there was a plan to oust all nine of these prosecutors and Gonzo lied about there only being eight, there could be perjury charges.

Graves was replaced by Bradley J. Schlozman who immediately went to work filling voter fraud indictments against Democrats weeks before the 2006 election. A case that Graves had refused to pursue and was later thrown out by a federal judge. Schlozman was scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Tuesday but had requested more time to practice his lies… errr testimony.

As a final note, Alberto Gonzales’s testimony included an interesting question and answer. Representative John Nadler (D-New York) asked Gonzo, “If most people believe that the United States attorney general has not told the truth about why these U.S. attorneys were fired, how can they have confidence in your job?” Gonzo responded, “I don’t believe that’s an accurate statement.” Like the rest of his testimony he was wrong.

An April 25 Washington Post – ABC News poll showed that 67% of respondents believed the firings were motivated by politics, essentially calling Gonzo’s reasoning for the firings a lie. Additionally, a majority of people (53%) who have an opinion on the matter believe he should resign. Step down Alberto, step down.

New Iraq Funding Bill Promised Veto Before Being Finalized

In their second war-funding bill, democrats are looking to incrementally finance the action in Iraq. Their new bill, which might not be ready for a vote until next week, funds the war for 2 months. This means that mid-summer Bush will have to go back to congress and look for the reminder of the funds. This move is meant to give Congress time to look for veto-proof margins to end the war, while supporting the troops that are in harm’s way. Bush wants at least until September, which has become the Republican timeline fore their support. They have indicated that if things are still looking grim, they’ll be looking for a ‘plan b’.

President Bush said this morning that the bill, that isn’t done, hasn’t been passed, and nearly no-one knows about, isn’t good enough and would be vetoed. Clearly he is looking for the congress to capitulate to his demands and fund another war-torn summer in Iraq. His early dismissal of this bill is designed to assert his agenda while hoping to kill the bill before the public becomes aware of it. Increasingly, the democrats need to make the case for this bill to the American public. Ultimately, they are the ones who will motivate Republicans to cross sides and support he bill. Congress as a whole is polling just as low and George W. and it is uncertain which party will get the blame for delaying funding if Bush and Congress can’t cooperate. Republicans, at least so far, aren’t certain they will pay a political price for not ending the war. When the American people change the party’s mind about that, this war will end.

Come September Republicans are Going to get a Whole Lot More Cooperative

With all their postering and opposition, republicans loyal to the President, bought the surge about five months. Increasingly Republicans are saying that September is the do or die month. It's then that Petraeus has said he'll be able to tell if the surge is working, and its then that John Boehner (R - Ohio) said that his party will be looking for "plan b".

This appears to be a combination of two Republican forces that usually remain in their own domains, but in Iraq, require reconciliation.

The first force, more like a commandment, is to stay loyal. This means that they support the President no matter how stupid his plan is. This is what we've seen during the debate for the war-funding bill and its subsequent failure to get veto-proof margains.

The second force, similarly as important to the right, is winning elections. This war, as the republicans are keenly aware, is incredibly unpopular. Combine that with an election year and you've got a recipe for republican turn around on Iraq. Voters have ranked Iraq as their formost issue and you can bet republicans on the chopping block in '08 will have to defend it. If caskets drapped in american flags are still flowing out of Iraq, that will be all the more difficult.

So, Republicans are poised to be in the cruical voice in ending the Iraq War. Hopefully democrats are wise enough now to paint this 'flip-flop' as a hypocritical and self-serving political move, as opposed to the Republicans taking the credit for ending the war.

Obama Lays Out Automotive Strategy, Reinforces Health Care Hints

In a speech to the Economic Club of Detroit, Obama rated American Automakers as deficient in creating energy efficient vehicles. He said Japanese Automakers have done more to advance efficient technologies and to curb the industry's thirst for oil. Obama criticized the automobile lobbies for impeding efforts to make cars more efficient.

“For years, while foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology for their vehicles, American automakers were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars, and whenever an attempt was made to raise our fuel efficiency standards, the auto companies would lobby furiously against it, spending millions to prevent the very reform that could’ve saved their industry."

As part of his plan, Obama proposed high fuel economy standards, increased tax credits for buying green cars, and government subsidies so automakers can pay health care expenses.

His health proposals are in line with previous comments regarding his soon to be proposed health care plan. So far he has said that his plan would utilize federal subsidies for uninsured Americans, like autoworkers, and provide universal health care by 2012.

Tyranny and Oppression

We live in a tyrannical police state. Watch the LAPD use force to disrupt the non-violent May-day protest in LA's MacArthur Park. A number of journalists were injured and many protesters got rubber bullets in the back. Check out the following videos, one is by the local Fox News team, who was roughed up in the conflict, and the other is by a blogger. Enjoy.

Target Obama?

According to CNN Presidential candidate Barack Obama has been put under secret service protection. The Obama Campaign says that there was no credible, specific threat, but that greater security was necessary given his increased campaign schedule. However the Washington Post's coverage on the same story mentions "some racist chatter on white supremacist Web sites" as a possible motive for the increased protection.

This brings up an interesting issue for Obama, is this campaign survivable? Obviously some portion of the American electorate is not ready for a Black president like Obama. The question is, does that portion contain elements that would seek to end his candidacy with a bullet? It is really a test of our nation, can a serious black presidential candidate get through a campaign? Previous black candidates have received credible death threats, however, they were never considered serious contenders for the nomination. Obama's popularity sets him alone in history. He has a serious chance at the White House, but the question is, does that popularity bring with it attention from rednecks and racists who don't have any qualms about using violence to enforce their political beliefs? I would like to think America is past that.

Another Piece in the Obvious, Tragic Puzzle

George Tenet, CIA director during the buildup to and subsequent invasion of Iraq, released a book criticizing the Bush administration. The claim that is getting the most coverage has to do with the assumption of WMD in Iraq. In his book Tenet claims,

"There was never a debate about whether the threat was imminent from Iraq. There wasn't a debate about other options besides invasion."

Oh my!

I can’t believe it!

Listen people, I hate to break it to you, but this isn’t news. It is a FACT that this administration lied us into war. Of course they didn’t debate it; they planned it from the start. 9-11 was a justification to exert U.S. power, and ensure American oil interests. But they had to build the case for the war, and that case was not based on reality. George Tenet's claim is just another piece of evidence pointing toward the tragic truth, we were willfully lied into war.

A short list of evidence:

-Niger Claims (and ensuing outing of CIA agent to discredit detractor)

Use of known false intelligence to scare public into Iraq War. Bush claimed in his 2003 state of the union, that Saddam had sought uranium “yellowcake” from Niger. Which never happened.

-Bush-Blair Memo

Memo of a meeting 2 months before invasion, indicating that US was set to invade and UK was firmly behind them. In it Bush replies to a concern poised by Tony Blair. Blair is worried Saddam may cement ethnic conflict on his way out of power. Bush “thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups”. WHOOPS!

-Downing Street Memo

Leaked minutes of a meeting with Tony Blair.

“C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

-Office of Special Plans

This was Donald Rumsfeld’s intelligence factory at the CIA. The OSP created the “fixed” pre-war intelligence that lead America to war with Iraq.

The Gaurdian Says

“The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.”

-Al-Qaeda and Saddam Link

None Found

-Weapons of Mass Destruction

None Found

At this point, discounting a purposeful plan of deception to sell the war is utterly ludicrous. It is on par with discounting evolution, or global warming. Get used to it, we can’t trust our politicians.

Murtha Threatens Impeachment

With the war funding bill being vetoed tonight, congress is going to have to look for a new strategy to get the troops out of Iraq. The White House is standing firm on its claim that it will not accept any bill with a timetable, as a result, congressional democratic leaders are being forced to work with their republican counter-parts to get a bill with veto-proof margins.

At the moment however, the democrats have begun to show support for a proposal that Barack Obama actually mentioned in the MoveOn.org debate. He wants to give the troops the money they need but in 60 day increments. While the money is used, democratic leaders can rally support for veto-proof margins for a real pullout bill, all the while, the war will continue on its trajectory of anarchy, violence and chaos, rendering Bush’s “Baghdad Security Plan” a fresh example of continued mismanagement. With failure from Iraq, and elections looming over the horizon, Democrats are hoping that Republicans will try and distance themselves from Bush and the war while avoiding the claim that they are holding back needed funds for the troops. I just hope republicans in the house and senate come to their senses quickly. With the new surge, American casualties are the highest they’ve been in months, over 100 in April, and nobody wants to be the last person to die in a failed war.

Democrats are beginning this second stage of negotiations with a flurry. In an interview yesterday, John Murtha a Democrat from Pennsylvania and a veteran brought up impeachment as a possible means by which to influence the president.

Murtha brought this message to Meet the Press.

He’s the highest ranking Democrat to say the “I” word and it should be interpreted as a shot across the bow of this administration. It’s a negotiation tactic above all. Congress is reminding the president that they do have power over him and they may use it if he continues to ignore their recommendations and the American people who elected them last fall.