Not knowing what democracy will bring (the surprise Hamas election victory)

The Bush Administration is adamant that spreading democracy -- particularly in the Middle East -- will lead to a more stable and safer world. But what happens when people, given the chance to vote, vote for a group the Administration doesn't believe is in the best interest of a more stable, safer world? And what happens when we learn that the US government had no idea that outcome would occur?

To be safer and more secure starts with an understanding of world events, an understanding that enables the US to craft the best strategy given reality. So it is extremely unnerving when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admits the US did not see the Hamas victory coming.

"Well, I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas' strong showing. Some say that Hamas itself was caught off guard by its very strong showing. But I think it speaks to the volatility in polling and in that kind of analysis in a place where there are -- where it's a very transitional and volatile political environment. I think what was probably underestimated was the depth of resentment of the last, really, decade of the corruption and the old guard and the like.

But certainly I've asked why nobody saw it coming and I hope that we will take a hard look, because it does say something about perhaps not having had a good enough pulse on the Palestinian population, as opposed to elites in Ramallah and the like. Now, to be sure, it's hard -- with the security situation it's hard to get people around -- but I've been long concerned and one of the things that I said in the repositioning was that we probably needed to get more people into places like Jerusalem, into places like Ramallah, so that we could have a better pulse. But sure, I'm concerned about it and we'll try to get an analysis of what we might have known better. But I want to emphasize, I don't think we were alone in being surprised."

On one hand, it is refreshing to hear Secretary Rice simply admit an intelligence and analysis failure instead of trying to spin the story. On the other hand, it is disturbing to hear that we -- and apparently all of our intelligence-gathering allies -- had no clue a Hamas victory was coming.

The surprise Hamas victory should be viewed as yet another wake up call to improve our intelligence and analysis capabilities. We cannot make effective decisions while making so many errors or overlooking possible outcomes. The Secretary of State should never be caught this off guard. It certainly makes you wonder about how good our intelligence and analysis in other areas, such as Iran and North Korea. Let's hope we get better -- and fast.

Bush states he can interpret torture ban law his way

Despite signing the recent appropriations bill (H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006") that included the McCain-sponsored amendment to ban the use of torture, President Bush doesn't feel that the new law binds his hands -- or those of his interrogators -- from using any interrogation techniques deemed necessary.

After signing the law, the White House released a statement that noted how the Administration viewed certain provisions. Buried in this document, Bush states:

"The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch."

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, "construe" means:

"...to understand or explain the sense or intention of usually in a particular way or with respect to a given set of circumstances."

The language of the Bill is rather clear. For example, it states:

"In General- No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation."

"In General- No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."

Having fought to have this amendment left out of the appropriations bill (even hinting at vetoing the bill), Bush finally caved in and signed the law. But in doing so, he noted that he will view these restrictions only in terms of his view on Presidential authority. In short: He will ignore the law if he wants to.

Senators McCain and Warner noted this, and while powerless to challenge a Presidential letter, did release a statement that said they would be watching:

"We believe the President understands Congress's intent in passing by very large majorities legislation governing the treatment of detainees included in the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations and Authorization bills. The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our Committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the Administration's implementation of the new law."

So, as with recent no-warrant wire tap issue, the Administration is ignoring legislative branch authority and making decisions regardless of existing law and based on its view of executive authority, particularly its authority in times of conflict (not "war," as no war has been declared, despite the frequent use of that term).

Both parties need to stand up and fight this type of interpretation and action. Republicans have just as much to lose if the Administration is not put in its Constitutional place. First, they are enabling a trampling of basic rights, processes, and procedures that are part of how this country is supposed to operate. Second, they will be held responsible for not taking action, both historically and in the '06 mid-term Congressional elections. And third, if the Democrats regain the White House in 2008, they will find themselves on the wrong end of a new power structure.