Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But surely it doesn’t mean all laws. Just the ones he likes. That’s one of the perks of being The Decider.

Presidents back to Monroe have attached notes to the bills they signed—disputing, qualifying, refining. But the current occupant of the office has elevated the practice to an art. The Boston Globe reported that Bush “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.” That’s one in ten. His default reason: protection of the “unitary executive”—a nifty way of saying that his branch trumps. Rather than vetoing bills he dislikes and risking an override, Bush signs then simply exempts himself and his inner circle.

When Congress required the DOJ to say how the Patriot Act is being used to search homes and seize documents, the president decreed that he can order Justice to withhold any information he deems damaging. He’s also signed himself permission to waive the torture ban, stated that only the commander in chief can place constraints on the use of the military, and decided that an inspector general for U.S. activities in Iraq cannot disclose anything that would interfere with “national security or executive branch operations”—which, conveniently, can cover most anything.

Enter Walter Jones, the gutsy North Carolina congressman who went from christening “freedom fries” to being one of the war’s most outspoken opponents. (Jones just trounced a hawkish primary challenger by 19 points—in a district that houses three Marine bases.) He accepts that the presidential prerogative will continue—Clinton was actually more prolific than Bush, though with lower stakes. But he’s calling for an unprecedented level of transparency. His new bill, the Presidential Signing Statements Act, would

• require that copies of the signing statements be sent to Congress within 3 days
• require signing statements to be published in the Federal Register
• require executive staff to justify signing statements at the request of the House or Senate Judiciary Committee
• provide that no money be spent to implement any law accompanied by a signing statement if any provision of the act is violated

Seems pretty obvious—to anyone who isn’t a congressman. Jones has just begun to solicit cosponsors, but he faces an uphill climb. Republicans won’t be keen to rein Bush in, and Democrats have their eye on the prize, complete with all the trimmings.

And even if Jones overcomes those odds, wouldn’t the president just attach a signing statement declaring that the Signing Statements Act violates national security or affronts the unitary executive or is printed in ink that clashes with his tie?

I don’t know Robert Malley, though I did hear him speak once. It was at a panel at the New America Foundation, and he was making the argument that there really was an opportunity to move forward to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. This was late last fall, when Bush and Condi Rice were talking about finally breaking the logjam.

Now Malley has been sacked from some small advisory panel with the Obama campaign. Apparently his job with the International Crisis Group involved some contact with representatives of the dreaded Hamas, the fundamentalist group that won rather decisively the elections held in occupied Palestine over two years ago.

At this point one wonders whether the people who deny the dramatic influence of the Israel lobby on American politics feel a little bit silly. Malley’s position is that one might at least talk to Hamas. It’s not the majority position in Israel, but it’s not out of the ballpark either. It’s the view of former Israeli intelligence chief Efraim Halevy. It’s the position of Israeli Meretz party head Yossi Beilin. Who knows whether it’s correct. Hamas now claims formally that Israel has no legitimacy, which means there wouldn’t be much for Israel to talk about. But it also has sent out various feelers for a truce, and may well be in the process of climbing down from an untenable stance. People who know far more about the Mid East than I think negotiations with Hamas could be fruitful.

Anyway, Rob Malley’s positions were hardly so extreme that he couldn’t be a useful and valued member of Bill Clinton’s Mid-East staff. Is he really too much for Obama? Or are we simply seeing the first stage in the breaking of Barack Obama, that constant and unrelenting drumbeat of questions and smears and whispers about whether he is sufficiently pro-Israel, at the end of which he can maybe, just maybe, demonstrate himself to be just as accommodating to Israel as any Democratic nominee is supposed to be.

How accommodating is that? Clinton adviser Ann Lewis recently said that the role of the American president in essence, is to do whatever the Israeli leadership wants, so the bar is set pretty high.

Michael Barone resurrects the notion that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified because of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs:

One such narrative is, “Bush lied; people died.” The claim is that “neocons,” including Feith, politicized intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction. Not so, as the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Silberman-Robb Commission have concluded already. Every intelligence agency believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the post-invasion Duelfer report concluded that he maintained the capability to produce them on short notice. There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. Given Saddam’s hostility to the United States and his stonewalling of the United Nations, American leaders had every reason to believe he posed a grave threat. Removing him removed that threat. (emphasis added)

Baloney. Even if you ignore the absurd notion that a hyperpower armed to the teeth with B2 bombers, submarines, ICBMs, nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, etc. is actually threatened by a tinpot dictator with plans to manufacture mustard gas; that’s not the threat that rushed Americans to into a disastrous war.

I have repeatedly noted that the country went to war because of the grave and gathering threat that Saddam was going to nuke the United States if we didn’t invade Iraq immediately. It was so absurd–as if I went around telling people that I was a split end for the 68 Jets–that you have to blame the people who bought the story as much as the ones that sold it.

I was at a benefit last night for an organization called “Best Friends” which has the difficult mission of encouraging teens to remain chaste until marriage. It was founded by Elayne Bennett, Bill Bennett’s wife, and Alma Powell. I don’t know them, but friends had tickets for us, so we went.

It’s been around for twenty years, and early in the festivities they showed some video of the principals vamping about on stage during the first annual benefit. There was Colin Powell, in shades, pretending to rap, and AOL’s Steve Case, and a more svelte Bill Bennett, along with the women who run the organization. A striking triumvirate, these three. In 1988 and for several years after, Bill Bennett was probably the person I most wanted to run for president of the United States. Colin Powell, a top NSC aide, was only months away from his triumph in Gulf War I (the magazine I then worked for, The National Interest, titled its post- war essay “All Rise for Chairman Powell.”) And Case and his AOL was relatively unknown, but if you invested in his first-to-exploit-the-internet company then, you would have done very very well.

America in 1988 was on the verge of winning the Cold War, and one could sense that. The country was years away from its massive 90’s technology based boom, its most prosperous decade since the 1950’s. I’m sure some things looked gloomy at the time, but who today wouldn’t want their problems instead of ours?

Look at the three men in the video. Case of course is now very rich, but no longer of the cutting edge of anything. Bill Bennett has become a not terribly important neocon talking head, a good deal less influential than Ann Coulter. After his gambling escapades, his virtue talk gives off the Spitzerian odor of hypocrisy.

Powell is the most tragic of all–the one man in the Bush administration who fully understood what a disaster Iraq would be, and yet out of a horribly misplaced sense of loyalty (never reciprocated in his case) kept silent. His public resignation would have slowed march towards war and changed the debate in Washington. Instead he sold the invasion wholeheartedly, putting his hard won integrity on the line in the service of various lies concocted by the neocons in the administration. Now we have the quagmire from hell, and with little prospect of it ending soon. As Thomas Powers says in the current New York Review of Books, “Invading the Middle East is the kind of imperial overreach that breaks the spine of great powers.” Who could not not look at that video from twenty years ago without feeling wistfulness and regret at the possibilities of a past now beyond recovery?

There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants.  The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action.  The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation.  The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran.  The US demanded that Iran admit that it has been interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end the support of various militant groups.  There was also a warning about interfering in Lebanon.  The Iranian government reportedly responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss the matter until the US ceases its own meddling employing Iranian dissident groups.  The perceived Iranian intransigence coupled with the Lebanese situation convinced the White House that some sort of unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership, presumably in the form of cruise missiles.  It is to be presumed that the attack will be as “pinpoint” and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods and avoid civilian casualties.  The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final.  The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made.