In the history of the Bush Administration, Jack Goldsmith will go down as a footnote, as the Legal Counsel who put the brakes on some of their most aggressive policies in the so-called "War on Terror." He was the guy who replaced John Yoo, the Office of Legal Counsel head who wrote opinions basically rubberstamping whatever Bush and Cheney wanted to do: torture, wiretapping, you name it. Goldsmith came in and realized Yoo's opinions were deeply flawed and insisted they be rescinded and revised. He also seems to have had a role reigning in Bush's warrentless wiretapping program in 2004.

Goldsmith (who lasted all of about eight months as the counsel before quitting) has written a book about his experiences combined with a sort of history of presidential power and pushing the legal limits of the Constitution. While he may be a hero of the liberals for standing up to Alberto Gonzales and David Addington (Cheney's right-hand man), Goldsmith was and is a conservative lawyer and still a Bush supporter, even though he's long gone from government. In his book he takes great pains to give everyone in the Bush administration (people who presumably came to loath him) a pass or excuse for everything they did. Oh, it was just after 9/11, they were trying to do the right thing, they simply made well-intentioned mistakes in a climate of fear. It doesn't quite hold up, really, and you can read between the lines that perhaps Goldsmith isn't quite so happy with the Bush people as he lets on. Still, Goldsmith insists he acted as he did to preserve the independence and integrity of the Office of Legal Counsel and to be as legally accurate as possible.

Beyond his own experiences with Bush (whom he met only twice and never really talked to), Goldsmith also mixes in a history of presidents pushing the limits of power in crisis situations, specifically exploring Lincoln during the Civil War (suspended Habeas Corpus) and Franklin Roosevelt during World War II (Japanese internment camps, lend lease, etc.) He makes a pretty convincing case that unlike Bush, both Lincoln and Roosevelt took great pains to consult Congress and powerful members of the opposing political party and bring them into the decision making progress on risky, bold decisions. Lincoln in fact never hid what he was trying to do and asked Congress to uphold what he did or reverse him (they generally went along).

Bush on the other hand pretty much from day one has said, "I'm the president, I can do whatever I want if I think it's an emergency, in secret." Bush made few efforts to explain his actions, simply insisting "I think American lives are at stake so I can do it, period" and thumbing his nose at Congress. This is the so-called "unitary executive" theory whereby the president can go it alone and ignore whatever law he wishes. Goldsmith points out that using this tactic cost Bush a lot later in terms of terrorism policies and had to go to Congress anyway, in a weaker position.

If there's any sort of villain in Goldsmith's story, it's David Addington, Cheney's now chief-of-staff and longtime lawyer. Addington from the start pushed the "unitary executive" theory and refused to budge from his "screw Congress" stance (which presumably was Cheney's). Why talk to Congress when that might give up some of the president's power? Goldsmith points out that by ignoring the Congress, Addington/Cheney may have wound up weakening, not strengthening the office of the presidency down the road.

Goldsmith's book will never be a best-seller (perhaps in part because it's not a Bush-bashing book) and it's not the most exciting book you'll read, but it's interesting to read about a one-time insider's perspective inside the Bush government.

Andrew

Lets make it official. This forum is now called Bush and other things.

Dont ask me what those other things are, the only recent topic not about Bush was something about shaving..

But even thats only a matter of time...

Mc74, have you ever read a book? Besides a comic book?

Andrew

When Bush leaves office, what will pdxradio.com have to talk about?

This forum is now called Bush and other things.

Just like back in 2000 YOU and YOURS were bashing the living shit out of Clinton as YOU did for his ENTIRE 8 year term.

But even thats only a matter of time...

Like Herbocrite turning 93.875% of the threads into Abortion and Clinton bashing.
Mc...
If your going to cuddle up to your neo-CONer friends that cool just don't play yourself off as anything but that.

Hey, I took the time to write a thoughtful (if labored) review of a book I just read. How about a comment or two on it instead of continued asinine comments? I still have an hour, I can delete the whole damn thing.

Andrew

This late at night you shouldn't expect many people to be around.
chill.

I can't wait for the Bush insiders to start putting the crayon to the paper once he is out of office. I think this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Interesting parallels with Lincoln and Roosevelt. FDR was in a lot of Constitutionally gray areas with Lend-Lease and the fact that our ships were providing cover and support for the convoys, and the fact that he had troops based in Iceland that were indeed engaging the Germans before Hitler declared war on us. (Remember that kids, THEY declared war on US.) That said, Roosevelt also oversaw a country still largely mired in the Great Depression, and still well in memory of World War I. We were a very isolationist group. He just had the foresight to see what was going to happen before it did.

Now we have Bush. He had the support of the entire world aftrer 9/11. He had global support for the actions in Afghanistan and the search for bin Laden. The only foresight he had in invading Iraq was to "honor daddy's name" and get Saddam. He didn't have the foresight of his father, whom 12 years before that said that there was no reason to march to Baghdad and it would be catastrophic for the American military and the Iraqi civilians, and a big money and social drain.

Dubya should have listened to daddy.

I'm glad you didn't delete it Andrew. I didn't get to this thread until past your hour. I found a cheapo copy and ordered it.

I'm wondering who is gonna write a tell-all after the Bush presidency ends? Libby? Powell?

Thanks for posting such a thoughtful review Andrew. It is good to see that the inside of the machine is being shown to a broader audience. I'm also glad you chimed in Brianl. Putting the crayon to the paper sounds like an tntroduction to a book from the shrub himself.

Skep, I would bet on Colin Powell, but any number of other officials could come out with confirmation of what many already suspect about this administration. I am very curious about what other Generals -- like Fallon -- have to say when they finally get an opportunity.

Me too. I enjoy the reviews.

Oh I am SURE Colin Powell would be about the first one. He left in disagreement with the Bush administration, and I am guessing he didn't leave on his own accord. Bush wants nothing but yes men (and women) around him, and anything less gets pushed aside. Even someone as esteemed, respected, and well versed in world affairs and diplomacy as Gen. Powell is.

Look at some of the people the Administration has rid itself of, and look who they've replaced them with. That tells you all you need to know about the state of affairs in the White House.