How can any liberal, any individual who associates himself with the party of humanity, not count himself in this coalition of the willing?
Sunday, December 31, 2006
A Small Reminder of How We Got Here
Included in the excellent novel A Disorder Peculiar to the Country, by Ken Kalfus, was this quote from Leon Wieseltier:
A Number
And the 3000th member of the American military has died for the vanity of silly old men in Washington.
Hoping, but not optimistic, for a better year.
Hoping, but not optimistic, for a better year.
The End of the Year
Well, it's here. The Last Honest Man The Candidate said:
But, he's a very serious person to the Wise Men of Washington, because he's always wrong in the way that they are always wrong.
I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year we will being to draw down significant numbers of American troops and by the end of next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home.
But, he's a very serious person to the Wise Men of Washington, because he's always wrong in the way that they are always wrong.
Mysteries
Why people go to Times Square for New Year's Eve.
...adding, this isn't a cranky old man "why do people go outside and spend time with other people" post. What I mean is that it looks like a no booze/high security/no bathroom nightmare. Large gatherings of partying people make me happy.
...adding, this isn't a cranky old man "why do people go outside and spend time with other people" post. What I mean is that it looks like a no booze/high security/no bathroom nightmare. Large gatherings of partying people make me happy.
Sunday Bobbleheads
Document the atrocities.
Meet the Press" Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw; journalist Bob Woodward.
• "This Week" Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., presidential candidate, and his wife, Elizabeth Edwards.
• "Face the Nation" Alexander Haig, former White House chief of staff; journalists Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post and Tom DeFrank of the New York Daily News; Gerald Ford biographer James Cannon.
• "CNN Late Edition" . Feisal Istrabadi, Iraq's deputy ambassador to the United Nations; Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.
• "Fox News Sunday" Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., former Gov. Tom Vilsack, D-Iowa, presidential candidate.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Still Alive
Rick Wakeman on ice seems to have taken Sadly, No down. Just to make sure they're dead here's some Jon and Vangelis.
...oh, what the hell, here's a clip from Michelle Pfeiffer's greatest movie. We're escalating to chemical warfare.
...oh, what the hell, here's a clip from Michelle Pfeiffer's greatest movie. We're escalating to chemical warfare.
I Came Prepared for Battle
You really think you can beat Rick Wakeman's Myths and Legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table...
...ON ICE!
...ON ICE!
Terrorists
Sadly, it appears that ETA is back in business, setting a bomb at the Madrid airport.
Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Bomb disposal experts detonated a powerful truck bomb at Madrid airport today, damaging the arrivals lounge at the fourth terminal and destroying an entire floor of a parking lot. Two people are missing in the rubble.
``The information that we have leaves us with no shadow of a doubt that ETA is responsible,'' said Spanish Interior Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba at a Madrid press conference. The explosives were ``extremely powerful,'' he said.
The Social Event of the Season
His Irrelevancy and Saint McCain are the silliest people in the country, which makes them very serious indeed.
A Taxonomy of Annoying People
While I spend most of my time attacking the other side for their various misdeeds, I suppose it's only fair to point out some flaws by people "on our side" who annoy me at various times. So, here's a taxonomy of annoying people on our side:
The Defeatists - Doom and gloomers who know it is all hopeless, who know that we can't win elections, or that if we do win elections nothing will improve, and who think that people who bother to try are just wasting their time. Why these people spend so much time paying attention to this stuff if there's nothing to be done I do not know. If you really feel that way go do something else with your time, otherwise I expect you're just addicted to the sweet thrill of self-righteous outrage.
The Armchair Revolutionaries - People who are convinced that the only way to enable change is to take to the streets in mass protest movements, and that anyone who isn't taking to the streets is a big sellout wimp. Whatever the validity of this viewpoint, I say go ahead and do it and convince others to do so. There are, for example, small scale war protests all over the country which people attend every week. Are you attending them? Are you trying to organize more? Or are you just fantasizing about a noble struggle which you aren't really bothering to take part of.
Sock Puppeteers - People who think that I, and every other blogger, exist to give voice to your personal issues.
The Narcissists - People who think politicians exist to cater to them personally.
The Magical Thinkers - People who speak in semi-riddles, hinting at webs of understood secrets, conspiracies, and truth who actually are just spouting gibberish.
The Lazies - People who think its my job, or any other blogger's job, to spend time, effort, and money supporting candidates or causes even though they themselves aren't actually doing it.
The Demanders - People who demand that people agree with them, rather than thinking that maybe they should try persuasion instead.
The Forwarders - People who randomly add others to their personal email lists, forwarding every interesting thing and thought they have.
Assumers of Bad Faith - Those who think that people who disagree with them can't possibly have come to that opinion honestly, that they must be on the take, or have a hidden agenda, or be misrepresenting themselves, or whatever.
And, yes, this list sounds cranky but I'm really just having a bit of fun. More than that, while Time's Person of the Year was stupid and condescending, the internets do provide an easy way for people to get involved, persuade, and lead. You don't have to have a "big blog" like this to reach people. If nothing else, Daily Kos and other sites give anyone the potential to have, at least temporarily, a sizeable megaphone which you can use to reach a large audience. In meatspace there are numerous ways you can get involved in local or national politics, or join in with charitable works, or whatever. I'm not telling people they have to do these things, I'm just saying that as some guy once said, you have the power, and the tools are there for you to do so with minimal effort. We live in an age when any idiot on the internets can potentially have an impact on our national discourse, so if you have an issue, or a cause, or a candidate, or whatever, you can try to to organize and persuade and lead. Sitting around in a pool of defeatist narcissistic self-righteous fury while despairing about the grand truths only you understand is good fun, and we all do it at times, but ultimately it doesn't accomplish anything. If the world isn't to your liking, try to change it, and as some other guy suggested, you can start by being the change.
The Defeatists - Doom and gloomers who know it is all hopeless, who know that we can't win elections, or that if we do win elections nothing will improve, and who think that people who bother to try are just wasting their time. Why these people spend so much time paying attention to this stuff if there's nothing to be done I do not know. If you really feel that way go do something else with your time, otherwise I expect you're just addicted to the sweet thrill of self-righteous outrage.
The Armchair Revolutionaries - People who are convinced that the only way to enable change is to take to the streets in mass protest movements, and that anyone who isn't taking to the streets is a big sellout wimp. Whatever the validity of this viewpoint, I say go ahead and do it and convince others to do so. There are, for example, small scale war protests all over the country which people attend every week. Are you attending them? Are you trying to organize more? Or are you just fantasizing about a noble struggle which you aren't really bothering to take part of.
Sock Puppeteers - People who think that I, and every other blogger, exist to give voice to your personal issues.
The Narcissists - People who think politicians exist to cater to them personally.
The Magical Thinkers - People who speak in semi-riddles, hinting at webs of understood secrets, conspiracies, and truth who actually are just spouting gibberish.
The Lazies - People who think its my job, or any other blogger's job, to spend time, effort, and money supporting candidates or causes even though they themselves aren't actually doing it.
The Demanders - People who demand that people agree with them, rather than thinking that maybe they should try persuasion instead.
The Forwarders - People who randomly add others to their personal email lists, forwarding every interesting thing and thought they have.
Assumers of Bad Faith - Those who think that people who disagree with them can't possibly have come to that opinion honestly, that they must be on the take, or have a hidden agenda, or be misrepresenting themselves, or whatever.
And, yes, this list sounds cranky but I'm really just having a bit of fun. More than that, while Time's Person of the Year was stupid and condescending, the internets do provide an easy way for people to get involved, persuade, and lead. You don't have to have a "big blog" like this to reach people. If nothing else, Daily Kos and other sites give anyone the potential to have, at least temporarily, a sizeable megaphone which you can use to reach a large audience. In meatspace there are numerous ways you can get involved in local or national politics, or join in with charitable works, or whatever. I'm not telling people they have to do these things, I'm just saying that as some guy once said, you have the power, and the tools are there for you to do so with minimal effort. We live in an age when any idiot on the internets can potentially have an impact on our national discourse, so if you have an issue, or a cause, or a candidate, or whatever, you can try to to organize and persuade and lead. Sitting around in a pool of defeatist narcissistic self-righteous fury while despairing about the grand truths only you understand is good fun, and we all do it at times, but ultimately it doesn't accomplish anything. If the world isn't to your liking, try to change it, and as some other guy suggested, you can start by being the change.
On TeeVee
This FAIR article from over two years ago has a certain relevance for the events of today.
When Democrats Go On The Teevee
You'll have to scroll down to where the interview begins, but just take a look at yesterday's CNN interview with Edwards.
Give Us Your Tired
Senator Kennedy is absolutely correct that we must do more for Iraqi refugees, including letting them relocate to the U.S. I'm not optimistic on that front, however.
Stories
Link.
Don't trouble your beautiful mind, Spc. Sheck. No one knows why we invaded Iraq, and no one really knows why we're staying. Just stay safe.
U.S. troops cheered as news of Saddam's execution appeared on television at the mess hall at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in eastern Baghdad. But some soldiers expressed doubt that Saddam's death would be a significant turning point for Iraq.
"First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then when there were none, it was that we had to find Saddam. We did that, but then it was that we had to put him on trial," said Spc. Thomas Sheck, 25, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "So now, what will be the next story they tell us to keep us over here?"
Don't trouble your beautiful mind, Spc. Sheck. No one knows why we invaded Iraq, and no one really knows why we're staying. Just stay safe.
Meanwhile
Some other people are still dead:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - At least 46 Iraqis died in bombings Saturday, including one planted on a minibus that exploded in a fish market in a mostly Shiite town south of Baghdad.
...
The U.S. military announced the deaths of three Marines and two soldiers, making December the year's deadliest month for U.S. troops in
Iraq with the toll reaching 108.
The Marines, all assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5, died Thursday of wounds from fighting in western Anbar province, the U.S. military said. A soldier assigned to 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division and also died in combat in Anbar, and another was killed by a roadside bomb in northwest Baghdad, the military said.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Open Thread
While Bush waits for special DVD of what 700,000 lives and half-a-trillion dollars can get you nowadays. He must really love Iran.
The Money Primary
John Edwards has pulled in $220,000+ since announcing on Act Blue, which he's using for his online donation system. When your favorite candidate enters the race, if you have one, I recommend donating early and often, unless your favorite candidate is a sitting senator who can roll their existing campaign stash into their presidential fund.
The Grand Iranian Conspiracy
I've tried not to trouble my beautiful mind too much lately with the question which will, I think, be with us forever:
For a time I was leaning in a not-entirely-tongue-in-cheek way in the direction of thinking that it was, ultimately, a product of a massive Iranian intelligence agency operation to dupe us into doing it. Still, whatever the unknown and unknowable motives of the people who decided to take us there it is the case that if there's been a winner in all of this it has been Iran.
So, as Anonymous Liberal rightly points out,if Iran is, as His Irrelevancy says, the Great Evil lurking in the desert, then that just makes his support for the Stupidest Fucking War Ever that much more evidence of his bad judgment.
Still, he's a very serious person. Really. He is.
Why did we invade Iraq?
For a time I was leaning in a not-entirely-tongue-in-cheek way in the direction of thinking that it was, ultimately, a product of a massive Iranian intelligence agency operation to dupe us into doing it. Still, whatever the unknown and unknowable motives of the people who decided to take us there it is the case that if there's been a winner in all of this it has been Iran.
So, as Anonymous Liberal rightly points out,if Iran is, as His Irrelevancy says, the Great Evil lurking in the desert, then that just makes his support for the Stupidest Fucking War Ever that much more evidence of his bad judgment.
Still, he's a very serious person. Really. He is.
Happy CD Alston Day!
Indeed! Raise a glass and celebrate!
Cheers!
(via lg&m)
Insurgents in Iraq are showing little capacity to keep up numerous and persistent attacks, a senior U.S. general in Baghdad says.
At a briefing December 29, Air Force Brigadier General C.D. Alston said there are three reasons for the diminishing capability of the insurgents to keep up attacks. The ability of insurgents to wage sustained combat is a key indicator closely watched by U.S. military forces to determine the enemy's effectiveness.
Cheers!
A modest proposal for other bloggers, if anyone feels like playing along: On Dec. 29, highlight the one-year anniversary of this confident pronouncement from a high-ranking U.S. military spokesman in Iraq that (as the government summary I link to characterized his remarks at the time), "Insurgents in Iraq are showing little capacity to keep up numerous and persistent attacks."
Better yet, from the same Dec. 29, 2005 government faux-news story: "Because of this improvement among Iraqi security forces, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said during recent appearances in Iraq that the United States would reduce the number of combat troops there by approximately 7,000 in 2006."
(via lg&m)
His Irrelevancy
Rosenfeld:
Lieberman is a truly silly person, which in Washington makes him very serious. One couldn't invent such a perfect parody of High Broderism.
The out-of-the-blue insertion of Iran as our central threat not only in Iraq but in the global war on terror, the non sequitors, the comic book stylings and language, the assertion that "vision, will and courage" is all that we've been lacking and all that we need to secure victory -- it all serves to make the very idea that this writer has staked his political career partly on perceived foreign policy expertise and gravitas truly absurd. The lowlight: Lieberman insists that the troop surge should have "a clearly defined mission." Elsewhere Lieberman describes that mission as defeating "the extremists." Clear as a bell!
Lieberman is a truly silly person, which in Washington makes him very serious. One couldn't invent such a perfect parody of High Broderism.
Dennis Kucinich Is a Very Silly Person
We all know this to be true. He's very very silly. His silliness has nothing to do with whether he's right or wrong. I don't know if he's really been right about everything, but he's certainly been right about more important stuff in recent years than most of the people on Tim Russert's rolodex. Still, he's a phenomenally silly person, so silly that when he's covered in the media there's tangible eye rolling by the reporters in the copy.
Since his silliness doesn't have much to do with his judgment on important things, it's worth exploring why he's so silly. As we know, you can be wrong about absolutely everything and still be a Very Serious Person Who Is Not Silly At All. Still, poor Dennis. He's very very silly.
He's silly because he talks outside the bounds of acceptable discourse which have been established by The Serious People. He doesn't try to work within these clear boundaries, but instead steps outside of them.
Howard Dean was also branded a very silly person by the Wise Old Men of Washington. He had the temerity to suggest crazy things which were not supposed to be said - the Iraq war was a bad idea, the capture of Saddam Hussein wouldn't make us safer, etc... etc...
Since his silliness doesn't have much to do with his judgment on important things, it's worth exploring why he's so silly. As we know, you can be wrong about absolutely everything and still be a Very Serious Person Who Is Not Silly At All. Still, poor Dennis. He's very very silly.
He's silly because he talks outside the bounds of acceptable discourse which have been established by The Serious People. He doesn't try to work within these clear boundaries, but instead steps outside of them.
Howard Dean was also branded a very silly person by the Wise Old Men of Washington. He had the temerity to suggest crazy things which were not supposed to be said - the Iraq war was a bad idea, the capture of Saddam Hussein wouldn't make us safer, etc... etc...
Human Rights Organizations are Always Wrong
Following up the post below, one little rhetorical trick used by our Oh So Wise opinion leaders is the invocation of a position of some human rights organization or another as a means of elevating the Wisdom and/or Morality of the pundit by contrasting themselves with the Always Wrong human rights organization.
It's a neat trick because it can be used for almost any reason, especially if the pundit is willing to just make stuff up. You can blast the organization for not paying enough attention to your pet issue, making you a very good person and them very bad. You can blast them for caring too much about a particular issue, either because your issue is more important or because it makes them very unserious. It's extra fun when you pretend that they are organizations with infinite resources and power instead of, you know, not. And always the pundit is Wiser and More Good than the human rights organizations who are very silly and don't really care about human rights, at least not the stuff that matters.
Whatever the motives of the individual pundits, the net effect is, of course, the complete undermining of these organizations. I'm not suggesting all such institutions are perfect or above criticism for their emphasis or actions, but that's not the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm talking about the criticizing-organization-as-means-of-self-aggrandizement which is a very common thing.
It's a neat trick because it can be used for almost any reason, especially if the pundit is willing to just make stuff up. You can blast the organization for not paying enough attention to your pet issue, making you a very good person and them very bad. You can blast them for caring too much about a particular issue, either because your issue is more important or because it makes them very unserious. It's extra fun when you pretend that they are organizations with infinite resources and power instead of, you know, not. And always the pundit is Wiser and More Good than the human rights organizations who are very silly and don't really care about human rights, at least not the stuff that matters.
Whatever the motives of the individual pundits, the net effect is, of course, the complete undermining of these organizations. I'm not suggesting all such institutions are perfect or above criticism for their emphasis or actions, but that's not the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm talking about the criticizing-organization-as-means-of-self-aggrandizement which is a very common thing.
Simple Answers to Simple Questions
Yglesias asks:
They do not.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
Do these guys not understand the concept of principles?
They do not.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
The Last Honest Moron
So, in his WaPo editorial Lieberman truly reveals that he knows absolutely nothing about what's going on in Iraq. He asserts it's a conflict between bad guys sponsored by Iran and everyone else, which is a more ignorant analysis of the situation than even Glenn Reynolds usually manages to come with up.
And this is who is supposed to be "serious" about foreign policy.
Lord help us all.
Of course, no one will bother to ask the Last Honest Man why a year ago he said everything was working and 6 months ago he said we'd be able to start substantial troop withdrawals by now.
And this is who is supposed to be "serious" about foreign policy.
Lord help us all.
Of course, no one will bother to ask the Last Honest Man why a year ago he said everything was working and 6 months ago he said we'd be able to start substantial troop withdrawals by now.
Tradition
Apparently it's an enshrined tradition that former presidents don't criticize current ones. I've been hearing that a lot lately.
Somebody forgot to tell Ronald Reagan, who wrote this in the New York Times about a month after Clinton took office;
Technorati Profile
Somebody forgot to tell Ronald Reagan, who wrote this in the New York Times about a month after Clinton took office;
SECTION: Section A; Page 23; Column 4; Editorial Desk
LENGTH: 1009 words
HEADLINE: There They Go Again
BYLINE: By Ronald Reagan; Ronald Reagan, President from 1981 to 1989, heads the Reagan Center for Public Affairs.
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES
BODY:
Less than one month ago, our nation showed the world the strength of our democratic system with the peaceful transfer of Presidential power from one elected citizen to another and, incidentally, from one political party to another. While it is no secret that I would have preferred a different scenario that day, I have great respect for our constitutional system and would like to support our new President.
I had every intention of holding back any comments on the new Administration until it was well in place and its policies became clear. Unfortunately, the policies are already becoming alarmingly clear. With campaign promises dropping like autumn leaves, I can't refrain any longer.
"First, we're going to raise the taxes on the people that did well in the 1980's," the Clinton Administration says. Did I hear that right? I'm afraid so! Do they really believe that those who have worked hard and been successful should somehow be punished for it? Is success in the 1980's, or any time for that matter, supposed to be something we as Americans are to be embarrassed about?
I hate to confuse their economic thinking with a few facts, but if they were to look at the 1980's, they would find that America experienced its longest period of peacetime economic expansion in our history. They would find that America led the world out of a global economic recession and that our economy was the envy of virtually every other nation. They would see that we created nearly 19 million new jobs for Americans of all income levels. And it may shock the Clinton Administration to discover that most of the economic gains of the 1980's were made by low- and middle-income citizens, not the wealthiest Americans.
Earlier this week, President Clinton said, "I know we have learned the hard lessons of the 1980's." I didn't realize they were so hard to learn. The fundamental lesson of the 1980's was that when you cut taxes for everyone, people have the incentive to work harder and invest, to make a better life for themselves and their families.
If the new Administration doesn't want to look back as far as the 1980's, maybe it will at least look back at the summer of 1992. Candidate Bill Clinton was promising that, if elected, he would provide a tax cut for the middle class. Now, in less than one month of his Presidency, that promise of a tax cut has not only been broken but it has been reversed into a tax increase for middle-income workers.
During the campaign, Bill Clinton said he would tax only the very rich. Last week, he defined this category as those making $200,000 a year. On Monday, the definition came down to $100,000 and now the "very rich" seems to be anyone making $30,000 a year.
Somehow, as the Administration raises everyone's taxes, it wants us to take comfort in knowing that others are getting theirs raised even more. Unfortunately, that kind of "comfort" doesn't put food on the table of the hard-working middle class, buy new shoes for the kids or make it easier to pay the mortgage, let alone put some money aside for savings. The fact is, every dollar the politicians take back to Washington means less spending power for average Americans and more opportunity for the Federal bureaucracy to waste money.
We must also listen for the sound of the other shoe to drop: the Clintons' health program. This will almost certainly involve proposals for another round of taxes later this year, and you can bet those won't be levied on a handful of millionaires.
In the Middle Ages, it was believed that alchemists could turn base metals into gold. Now it appears that alchemists in President Clinton's Administration hope to turn a huge tax increase into economic growth. Alchemy didn't work then and it won't work now. Taxes have never succeeded in promoting economic growth. More often than not, they have led to greater economic downturns.
In his campaign, candidate Clinton described himself as a "new Democrat," implying that there would be no more tax-and-spend dogma, no social engineering, no class warfare pitting one group against another. This week, however, he has begun to sound like an "old Democrat." That's the kind who does not understand one simple fact: the problem is not that the people are taxed too little, the problem is that the Government spends too much.
Until President Clinton and the liberals in Congress accept that principle and act accordingly, I'm afraid we are headed for a repeat of the late 1970's. And that is something we can all live without.
No one can dispute that the enormous budget deficit is a major threat to the economic security of our country. But let us remember that deficits are caused by spending. By the very terms of our Constitution, only Congress has the power to spend.
For more than four decades, one party, the Democratic Party, has controlled the House of Representatives. The solution to the deficit problem is not to ask heavily taxed working Americans to "sacrifice" even more.
It's the big-spending liberals controlling the Congress who need to show some restraint and "sacrifice" a few of the pork-barrel measures they've been slipping past the taxpayers for far too long. Only when the Clinton Administration and Congress summon the will to put the brakes on Federal spending will they get the deficit under control.
While I'm flattered that President Clinton admits to taking a page out of my communications plan, I wish he'd use it to sell an economic program of growth and expansion, not the failed liberal policies of the past.
Just as positive signs of economic recovery are appearing, Mr. President, please don't blow it. Although it goes back well before the 1980's, may I offer you the advice of the 14th century Arab historian Ibn Khaldun, who said: "At the beginning of the empire, the tax rates were low and the revenues were high. At the end of the empire, the tax rates were high and the revenues were low."
And, no, I did not personally know Ibn Khaldun, although we may have had some friends in common!
Technorati Profile
Thursday, December 28, 2006
If Only We Had Something For Them To Do...
Yglesias:
This is it in a nutshell. Leaving is losing. "Stay the course" is no longer a possibility. So, that leaves... more troops!
It's not that the president has some policy initiative in mind whose operational requirements dictate a surge in force levels. Rather, locked in the prison of his own denial he came to the conclusion that he should back an escalation, prompting the current search for a mission.
This is it in a nutshell. Leaving is losing. "Stay the course" is no longer a possibility. So, that leaves... more troops!
Real Live Journalism
Kudos to the AP for actually talking to soldiers in Iraq to get a rough gauge of their opinions on escalating the war. We were recently treated to multiple news reports about Gates meeting with troops who supported escalation without any exploration of whether that opinion was in any way representative or if instead they had been hand-picked for their views for propaganda purposes. It seems more likely it was the latter, so great job all who reported unskeptically!
Whiny and Creepy
Bush just gave a brief talk which consisted mostly of his usually blather, but he almost seemed frightened. It was weird.
"Obsequious Irritant"
Strib:
According to Lieberman, "over the course of the war in Iraq," discussions on the right approach have taken place in partisan "dueling press conferences" that ignore the common national interest. That's a grotesque reading of the past three years. Congressional Democrats -- and Republicans as well, to only a slightly lesser extent -- have been reduced to making their points in press conferences for two obvious reasons: President Bush the decider has steadfastly refused to consult with anyone outside his close circle of advisers on the best way forward in Iraq, and the Republican-led Congress, under strong White House control, shamefully forfeited its constitutionally prescribed oversight duties.
Although Lieberman, who still strongly supports Bush's original decision to invade Iraq, has become an obsequious irritant with his "war cabinet" idea, the need for greater bipartisanship on Iraq and other foreign-policy issues is real. But it must start with a reasonable reading of recent Washington history and a recognition that White House behavior needs to change.
Sen. Carl Levin, incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, got it exactly right in response to Lieberman. More bipartisanship would be terrific, he said, but what is really needed is for the Bush administration to finally initiate "real consultation" with Congress. Levin even pointed the way Bush should start: by meeting with both Republican and Democratic congressional leaders before he announces his "new direction" for Iraq in January. Now there's a good, reasonable idea.
"The Level of Whitewater"
Really, just kill me.
The Washington press gang has never come to terms with the fact that Whitewater was a fake scandal from beginning to end, from the fraudulent reporting by Jeff Gerth to the panty sniffing of the Starr Report.
It's really depressing.
The Washington press gang has never come to terms with the fact that Whitewater was a fake scandal from beginning to end, from the fraudulent reporting by Jeff Gerth to the panty sniffing of the Starr Report.
It's really depressing.
Simple Questions
Josh Marshall:
My guess is Bush's only real elite support for escalation comes from the Quiet Americans toiling away in think tanks (Brookings, at least O'Hanlon, AND AEI support it! What a great range of debate we have in our elite discourse), and of course Darth Cheney. Still, I doubt they'll be able to talk him down either. What they might do is throw a bunch more troops into "the region" generally so they can tell him he's got his little escalation, and a few more thousand troops in Baghdad specifically, and then a year from now we can convene Iraq Survey Group II: The Nightmare Isn't Over, and do it all over again.
Gates is either not in favor of the troop build-up or he is guilty of one of the great flip-flops in recent DC history. Where is he on this? Is he going along with a policy that the last year of study of the situation has actually convinced him is bound to fail. Is he silently trying to upend the policy from the inside? Certainly the Post and Times reporters can tell us more on this, right?
My guess is Bush's only real elite support for escalation comes from the Quiet Americans toiling away in think tanks (Brookings, at least O'Hanlon, AND AEI support it! What a great range of debate we have in our elite discourse), and of course Darth Cheney. Still, I doubt they'll be able to talk him down either. What they might do is throw a bunch more troops into "the region" generally so they can tell him he's got his little escalation, and a few more thousand troops in Baghdad specifically, and then a year from now we can convene Iraq Survey Group II: The Nightmare Isn't Over, and do it all over again.
Movement
Ezra, who was there, probably has the right take on Edwards' announcement speech, at least what I saw before CNN cut away to Heidi Collins' inane babbling, and plans going forward. I'm intrigued by the campaign-as-creative-movement-building. There are people who really want to be plugged into something associated with politics but don't really have a sustained outlet for doing so and a presidential campaign which tried to harness that would accomplish something. I would hope that if that is indeed Edwards' real plan that thought is given to creating something which continues after the presidential campaign, however it turns out, is over. That'll be the key difference between a movement which is all about the candidate, and a movement which is about a broader agenda.
And, I suppose this is as good a time as any for my occasional reminder as we enter the silly season. Ads appearing on this site by candidates are paid ads and do not imply any support or endorsement by me. I actually don't expect to get behind one candidate or another, though that could change, especially if suitcases filled with money appear on my doorstep. I'll try to do my best to avoid at least some of the food fight once it begins, though I'm human and have opinions and happen to write a blog about politics, so I imagine I'll get sucked in at times.
I'll definitely give my opinions about the policies candidates support and the way they try to deliver their message. And, of course, I'll be busy trying to push back against unfair media smears of any of the candidates. But, again, the fact that I praise or defend candidate X does not mean I've joined their team.
And, I suppose this is as good a time as any for my occasional reminder as we enter the silly season. Ads appearing on this site by candidates are paid ads and do not imply any support or endorsement by me. I actually don't expect to get behind one candidate or another, though that could change, especially if suitcases filled with money appear on my doorstep. I'll try to do my best to avoid at least some of the food fight once it begins, though I'm human and have opinions and happen to write a blog about politics, so I imagine I'll get sucked in at times.
I'll definitely give my opinions about the policies candidates support and the way they try to deliver their message. And, of course, I'll be busy trying to push back against unfair media smears of any of the candidates. But, again, the fact that I praise or defend candidate X does not mean I've joined their team.
Front Paged
Ford's comments to Woodward about Iraq were given the giant font front page treatment on the Inquirer today, which I found rather odd, and they're getting more play on cable news than I expected. No other broader point to make.
Wisdom from The Wise Old Men
Brookings Michael O'Hanlon, who seems to define the left flank of acceptable opinion on Iraq in this country, is on the local NPR show. Things I've learned:
- 2007 is the "make or break year" during which we need "one last gasp" and "one last try"
- He supports escalation, but only if a bunch of things which aren't going to happen do happen, but on balance he supports escalation
- We were never able to implement the "clear, hold, and build" strategy which I know is a lie because The Last Honest Man told me he saw that it was working.
- I turned it off, so maybe he said it, but I didn't hear what we should do if two F.U.s from now things are still FUBAR.
Great Moments in Cable News
CNN on Edwards:
Ken Rudin: Given the fact that John Edwards from day 1 has been talking about the two Americas, the fact there's been a disparity among - with economics in this country.
Heidi Collins: Ken, forgive me, do you want to position yourself as the opposition to Bush or do you want to be the person who says hey, this is all about bipartisan. Do you really want to be talking about two different Americas because of how close that sounds to, you know, two different worlds in Washington even? And getting things done.
Meanwhile
The McCain-Lieberman war goes on:
BAGHDAD - Three bombs killed 23 Iraqis in Baghdad on Thursday, and the U.S. military announced the deaths of three American soldiers.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Embargoed
I can understand why there are short term embargoes on things at times, but... 2+ years?
Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush had launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.
...
Ford had faced his own military crisis -- not a war he started like Bush, but one he had to figure out how to end. In many ways those decisions framed his short presidency -- in the difficult calculations about how to pull out of Vietnam and the challenging players who shaped policy on the war. Most challenging of all, as Ford recalled, was Henry A. Kissinger, who was both secretary of state and national security adviser and had what Ford said was "the thinnest skin of any public figure I ever knew."
"I think he was a super secretary of state," Ford said, "but Henry in his mind never made a mistake, so whatever policies there were that he implemented, in retrospect he would defend."
In 1975, Ford decided to relieve Kissinger of his national security title. "Why Nixon gave Henry both secretary of state and head of the NSC, I never understood," Ford said. "Except he was a great supporter of Kissinger. Period." But Ford viewed Kissinger's dual roles as a conflict of interest that weakened the administration's ability to fully air policy debates. "They were supposed to check on one another."
Blitzer/May Flashback
Blitzer had this say about Cliff May, who has taken to posting years-old emails of indeterminate origin.
Of course, not all that long ago May wrote:
As for Blitzer, recently he said of Kissinger:
BLITZER: Well, why would Clifford May say that he knew about it?
JOHNSON: Clifford May has been wrong on a whole variety of things.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: But he's a respected guy, Clifford May.
JOHNSON: Well, he's respected by some people. I don't respect him, because I...
BLITZER: I have known him for many years...
JOHNSON: I...
BLITZER: ... going back to when he was a reporter for the "New York Times."
Of course, not all that long ago May wrote:
There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The mystery is what Saddam Hussein did with them.
As for Blitzer, recently he said of Kissinger:
And, in our next hour, one of the world's wise men on international affairs comes right here, into THE SITUATION ROOM, with words of advice for President Bush.
It's All Good!
Disastrous war, poll numbers in the 30s, which in the pre-Bush era were considered to be "low," and no plan to fix things. Needless to say, all this is good for Bush!
American Aristocracy
As Yglesias says, the only alternative to a full and blanket pardon wasn't putting Nixon in chains, though that was a possibility. The important thing was to find out the truth. Our elites repeatedly redefine "getting past it" as "sweeping it under the rug" based on their apparent opinion of themselves as necessary moral and spiritual leaders for the riffraff. If they are revealed to be greatly flawed then without them as a shining beacon to light the way the riffraff will go astray and the country will collapse.
They are our betters and we need them they think, and so their class must be preserved even if the occasional unpleasantness must be swept under the rug.
They are our betters and we need them they think, and so their class must be preserved even if the occasional unpleasantness must be swept under the rug.
Gotta Wait For the Decider To Decide
According to the White House, no one is allowed to comment on hypothetical plans for Iraq until the Decider has Decided.
We are ruled by children.
We are ruled by children.
Getting So Much Better All the Time
Except it's getting worse.
Never fear, though, the very serious Joe Lieberman (CFL-CT) said this in July:
Never fear, though, the very serious Joe Lieberman (CFL-CT) said this in July:
BRIDGEPORT — U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman believes the U.S. will withdraw a "solid' contingent of its military forces in Iraq by the end of the year because of gains made by the Iraqi armed forces.
"There really has been progress made by the Iraqi military," Lieberman said Tuesday during a meeting with the Connecticut Post's editorial board. "Two-thirds of it could stand on its own or lead the fight with our logistical support."
The three-term U.S. senator said he believes a complete withdrawal is possible by late 2007 or early 2008.
Ford and the Wise Old Men of Washington
As we all know, because everybody on the teevee will keep repeating it, Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon was perhaps the wisest and awesomest thing anyone has ever done in the history of presidenting. Never mind that it wasn't popular at the time. Never mind that it set an awful precedent which led to the pardoning of the Iran Contra figures and transformed corrupt Nixonites into distinguished elder statesmen and Bush administration officials.
We are told again and again that what they nation needed was "to heal." That "the turmoil" needed to be over. That it was necessary to move on.
But these are the Wise Old Men talking, not of the country but of their beloved Washington. The turmoil was in their city, not in the country. While they speak as if they know what's best for us, in truth they simply know what's best for them.
We are told again and again that what they nation needed was "to heal." That "the turmoil" needed to be over. That it was necessary to move on.
But these are the Wise Old Men talking, not of the country but of their beloved Washington. The turmoil was in their city, not in the country. While they speak as if they know what's best for us, in truth they simply know what's best for them.
Iraq Forever
Frederick Kagan wants to send a lot of other people to go fight his war for an even longer time. Huzzah!
In 2004 he wrote:
Kagan's been consistent on his basic desire to expand our military, to increase deployment in Iraq, and generally lengthen our commitment there. He's been less than consistent with his arguments to get us there, and very wrong with his predictions.
I liked this one from 2005:
In 2004 he wrote:
is likely, therefore, that a significant American military presence in Iraq will be necessary for some time.
So the question becomes how much pain can the Army stand before breaking? There is no obvious answer, for America has never tried to sustain its armed forces for so long without dramatically increasing their number. And the armed forces have been holding up amazingly well. But, eventually, the toll of separation from families for more than a year at a time, of back-to-back rotations that make the separation even longer, and of seemingly endless duty at the front lines of a complicated and dangerous insurgency, will likely damage the Army's morale.
With no relief in sight and a force too small for the current mission, the probability that the Army will break under the pressure increases day by day. Rumsfeld's callous and flippant responses to serious questions raised by troops in Iraq could bring that day ever closer. If it arrives, skilled and experienced officers and senior NCOs will begin to leave the force. Recruiting for the active force will go down. The National Guard and Reserve will wilt under the strain. The result will be a serious erosion of American combat power at a critical time, and the consequences could last for decades.
Kagan's been consistent on his basic desire to expand our military, to increase deployment in Iraq, and generally lengthen our commitment there. He's been less than consistent with his arguments to get us there, and very wrong with his predictions.
I liked this one from 2005:
The Bush administration is making it clearer day by day that it intends to withdraw American troops from Iraq rapidly and roughly in step with the increase in the number of Iraqi troops deemed capable of taking over security responsibilities. Even while denying rumors of a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces, President Bush has declared that "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
Round and Round We Go
I get more than a little frustrated with "pro-life" people who don't explicitly advocate outlawing abortion but nonetheless don't ever quite come out and say what policy position they advocate. I'm all for improving marketing, so if that's all we're talking about it isn't a big deal. But for years we've been hearing for the likes of Lord Saletan about how there's some grand compromise to be found between anti-choice people and pro-choice people which involves keeping abortion legal but supporting policies which nonetheless reduce the number of abortions. Of course, no matter how many times it is explained to them that the compromise position - which involves reducing unwanted pregnancies through comprehensive education and access to health care, along with perhaps economic aid and health care for mothers/children - has long been the very liberal position of everyone in the reproductive health and choice movement, they continue on as if they've discovered a Pony.
I believe there are people whose opposition to abortion is deeply felt and sincere, and understand that legal abortion is troubling for them. But there are two ways to translate that opposition into policy. One is to erect legal barriers which make it more difficult for poor women to get abortions. The other is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Since the latter is the liberal position, what the hell are we fighting about?
And, one more issue - in any relatively close election you can generally credit almost any subgroup as providing the marginal votes.
I believe there are people whose opposition to abortion is deeply felt and sincere, and understand that legal abortion is troubling for them. But there are two ways to translate that opposition into policy. One is to erect legal barriers which make it more difficult for poor women to get abortions. The other is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Since the latter is the liberal position, what the hell are we fighting about?
And, one more issue - in any relatively close election you can generally credit almost any subgroup as providing the marginal votes.
Coward
Regarding our wingnutty judge, if he'd had any courage he'd just have used the word "feminazi" instead of "femifascist," which was undoubtedly what was in the first draft.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Joementum II: When Nature Calls
Because we all need a presidential candidate to kick around.
...still, credit where credit is due: he is telling his good friends McCain and Lieberman to go stuff it.
...still, credit where credit is due: he is telling his good friends McCain and Lieberman to go stuff it.
"Overseas Recruiting Stations"
Operation Yellow Elephant has been a failure, so CNN informs me that we're going to start recruiting foreigners into our military.
And, yes, plenty of foreigners already serve but they're currently legal US residents.
And, yes, plenty of foreigners already serve but they're currently legal US residents.
1, 2, 3, What Are We...
Iraq'd:
BAGHDAD: A military action against a police station in the southern city of Basra found prisoners being held in conditions that a British military spokesman, Major Charlie Burbridge, described as "appalling."
More than 100 men were crowded into a single cell, about 9 meters by 12 meters, or 30 feet by 40 feet, he said, with two open toilets, two sinks and just a few blankets spread over the concrete floor.
A significant number showed signs of torture. Some had crushed hands and feet, Burbridge said, while others had cigarette and electrical burns and a significant number had gunshot wounds to their legs and knees.
Hundreds of British and Iraqi soldiers assaulted the police station on Monday, killing seven gunmen, rescuing 127 prisoners from what the British said was almost certain execution and ultimately reducing the facility to rubble.
Because
Yglesias wonders why a pretext for going to war with Iran is seen as a good thing by Glenn Reynolds. I really don't have an answer.
Health Care
Billionaire Mort Zuckerman is hardly a liberal icon, though his concern for middle class economic issues isn't new, so it's encouraging to see him join the club on health care:
If there is one single source of risk our policymakers must tackle, it is health insurance. We must not muddle on, a band-aid here and a band-aid there. We must find some way to provide universal health insurance, especially to cover all children. This is one of the critical reasons that Americans are nervous and no longer believe that the next generation will be better off.
The deep disquiet in this newly anxious American nation was evident in last month's midterm elections. Whichever party better focuses on healthcare will do a world of good for itself and the country.
Meanwhile
Over there:
BAGHDAD - Three simultaneous car bombs exploded in southwestern Baghdad, killing 16 people and wounding 70, Interior Ministry and police sources said.
* BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed five people and wounded 15 others in a crowded area in central Baghdad, police said.
* BAGHDAD - Three U.S. soldiers looking for roadside bombs were killed northwest of Baghdad, the U.S. military said. One soldier was wounded.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Default
Because everyone likes a bit of econ-related reading on Christmas, you can go read this about the new reality of Latin American borrowing.
When countries default on debt, one expects "the market" to punish them - that is, require much higher rates for any future lending - the same way you're not going to get a good mortgage rate if your credit rating sucks. But the international financial gods didn't really leave it there, but put a system in place to try to make it so that defaulting countries wouldn't just be punished by "the market" but would actually experience a kind of superpunishment, which they describe as "a powerful creditors' cartel headed by the IMF" which "had a credible threat of punishing a defaulting country by depriving it of credit from most sources." This is changing, and that's good.
When countries default on debt, one expects "the market" to punish them - that is, require much higher rates for any future lending - the same way you're not going to get a good mortgage rate if your credit rating sucks. But the international financial gods didn't really leave it there, but put a system in place to try to make it so that defaulting countries wouldn't just be punished by "the market" but would actually experience a kind of superpunishment, which they describe as "a powerful creditors' cartel headed by the IMF" which "had a credible threat of punishing a defaulting country by depriving it of credit from most sources." This is changing, and that's good.
Meanwhile
The McCain/Lieberman war goes on.
Still, there's always the chance we're "winning." Heh. Indeed.
*BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. patrol in southern Baghdad, killing one soldier and wounding two, the U.S. military said in a statement.
*ANBAR - Two U.S. soldiers were killed in action in Iraq's western Anbar province on Sunday, the U.S. military said in a statement.
BAGHDAD - A car bomb killed at least 10 people and wounded 15 when it exploded on a busy commercial street in the mainly Shi'ite New Baghdad district of the Iraqi capital, police said.
...
BAGHDAD - A total of 29 bodies were found shot dead, with most showing signs of torture, in different districts of Baghdad on Sunday, an Interior Ministry source said.
Still, there's always the chance we're "winning." Heh. Indeed.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Grave Threats
This isn't just insulting to our intelligence but insulting to the people who lived and died in very grave situations. In the second world war Londoners experienced a sustained bombing campaign which killed about 40,000, with one especially nasty day killing close to 1500.
Sunday Bobbleheads
Document the atrocities, including the atrocity of a guest list:
- Guests: the Rev. Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life"; Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham.
• "This Week" Sens. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C; U.N. Secretary-General-designate Ban Ki-moon; former President Bush and his wife, Barbara.
• "Face the Nation" Guests: -- First lady Laura Bush.
• "CNN Late Edition" : Repeats of past interviews with President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others.
• "Fox News Sunday" Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney; Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl; Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of evangelist Billy Graham.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Wrong
I'm sympathetic to Kevin's thinking about this stuff, but it just doesn't work this way. There has been no grand bargain between war supporters and the rest of us such that they get their "one last shot" and if things don't work out then, you know, the dirty fucking hippies will finally be put in charge of things. As we've seen with both neoconservative hawks and liberal hawks, they're never wrong and the mess they've created will always justify the continued mess. Brookings' Michael O'Hanlon has informed us that "2007 will be make or break time in Iraq." Actually, that's not true, as tends to happen with this issue he informed us that it will "very likely" be "make or break time." A year from now we'll find out that no, 2008 is Pony Time. And O'Hanlon also tells us that if 2007 leans towards break instead of make, there are some wonderful New Ideas to try like, say, "a plan to help people to where they feel safer within the country." Which, once you run that through the Quiet American decoder ring, actually means "forced ethnic partition and mass relocation." Because once we do that there will surely be nothing to fight about anymore. Whatever.
And this is the Left Flank of acceptable elite discourse on the subject, almost 4 years after the dirty fucking hippies were proved fucking right.
And this is the Left Flank of acceptable elite discourse on the subject, almost 4 years after the dirty fucking hippies were proved fucking right.
Primaries
Regarding this, I think there are a few basic reasons. First, I think most of us are rather annoyed that vapid presidential primary talk already dominates the coverage of politics and don't wish to contribute to it (though it's easy to get sucked in). Second, WE WON! and, you know, there are opportunities to actually try to accomplish some stuff instead of having mostly pointless conversations about presidential primaries. Third, there's no clear issue/candidate like Iraq/Dean to highlight how They're Getting Everything Wrong.
All that will change eventually, especially as we get beyond the personality primary and candidates actually start to differentiate themselves on meaningful issues that Tim Russert doesn't care about, but for the moment there just isn't much point.
Meanwhile, pass the popcorn and watch the wingnuts tear each other apart. Here's an entertaining slice of online wingnut history.
All that will change eventually, especially as we get beyond the personality primary and candidates actually start to differentiate themselves on meaningful issues that Tim Russert doesn't care about, but for the moment there just isn't much point.
Meanwhile, pass the popcorn and watch the wingnuts tear each other apart. Here's an entertaining slice of online wingnut history.
The Amnesia War
One benefit of the media-industrial complex's complicity in this endeavor is that they're generally happy to not notice when people get everything wrong.
We're doubling down on 20, as McCain/Lieberman said we should.
We're doubling down on 20, as McCain/Lieberman said we should.
Open thread
Have at it, me hearties!
(And don't forget, there are still people on the blogroll who are posting away.)
(And don't forget, there are still people on the blogroll who are posting away.)
Friday, December 22, 2006
Indeed
Rahm Emanuel:
CHICAGO, IL - Today Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) issued the following statement in response to Representative Virgil Goode's (R-VA) continued efforts to undermine the First Amendment by condemning Keith Ellison's (D.-Minn.) right to take his oath of office on the Koran.
"Tolerance for different religions speaks to the very character of this country and the precepts on which it was founded," said Emanuel. "President Bush has reminded us time and again that freedom of religion is a fundamental American value. As such, I call on President Bush to be consistent and denounce Congressman Goode's intolerance."
Gergen
On CNN yesterday:
WHITFIELD: Let's begin with Secretary Gates. He says that he won't be shaped by politics. Is that possible when already the president is saying one thing, the generals are saying another.
GERGEN: That's -- isn't that the question of the hour. Thank you for asking that. The president has contended all along in this war that politics would not drive decisions, that his decisions on how many troops and how to deploy them in Iraq would depend upon the commanders on the ground, upon the top military officials and the government. Now he has staked out a position, at least his aides are staking out a position in favor of a strong surge of American troops into Baghdad. A decision with which the joint chiefs and the commanders on the ground disagree. So here we have not just the commander in chief but the politician in chief and the president who has to ask himself the question, does he want to override the wishes of his own generals? That's a big, tough call.
...
GERGEN: I agree with that. And, you know, the process has become extremely messy from his point of view. The White House's point of view. When you're in the White House, you want to convince people you have things sort of under control. You have a thoughtful, logical, coherent process of making decisions. That people sort of reach a consensus and then you go. And here we've got a process that started 15 days ago when the Baker Hamilton Commission report came out. This had gotten extremely messy, lots of leaks, lots of disagreement within the administration. I think it makes it much, much tougher for the president to go forward in January with people having confidence that what he's saying represents a consensus. If there's so much disagreement right now, this is going to be very, very difficult to bring coherence within his own government before he goes to the public.
Drafty
My opinion on the draft is that it's pretty much the [Insert Political Party Which Supports it] Suicide Bill, which is another way of saying it won't happen. No matter what.
Housekeeping
Posting will be light, on and off, throughout the holiday season.
A few people have written in to ask whether the New Blogger is worth switching too. I don't know. They failed to migrate my blog over so they just switched it back to the old one. Personally, at least from what I know about what the new features are, I can do without them. I like that Blogger is simple. I really don't need tags and all the other stuff that people think are cool.
A few people have written in to ask whether the New Blogger is worth switching too. I don't know. They failed to migrate my blog over so they just switched it back to the old one. Personally, at least from what I know about what the new features are, I can do without them. I like that Blogger is simple. I really don't need tags and all the other stuff that people think are cool.
Gang of 14
I was feeling quite a bit of sympathy for Lincoln Chafee, softy that I am, until I heard him on Terry Gross's show yammering on and on about how noble and wonderful the Gang of 14 were, and how that bipartisan moment was one of his best times in the Senate, yadda yadda...
Look, what the Gang of 14 did was endorse the notion that the Republicans in the Senate had the right to cheat, to amend Senate rules by using a bit of trickery which no one actually believes. So, what these wonderful and noble bipartisan senators did was endorse Republican cheating. Truly these are Gods among Men.
So, any Democrats who trumpet the gang of 14 - endorsing right to cheat - are truly awful people.
Look, what the Gang of 14 did was endorse the notion that the Republicans in the Senate had the right to cheat, to amend Senate rules by using a bit of trickery which no one actually believes. So, what these wonderful and noble bipartisan senators did was endorse Republican cheating. Truly these are Gods among Men.
So, any Democrats who trumpet the gang of 14 - endorsing right to cheat - are truly awful people.
Meanwhile
The McCain/Lieberman war continues.
Ghouls.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Five more American troops have died from combat wounds in western Iraq and Baghdad, the military said Friday, pushing the U.S. death toll since the war began closer to 3,000.
In December, 76 American troops have been killed; at the current rate, the number of U.S. combat deaths this month could meet or exceed the previous monthly record for 2006.
At least 2,964 American troops have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told The Associated Press on Thursday that Iraq was ''worth the investment'' in American lives and dollars and said the U.S. can still win a conflict that has been more difficult than she expected.
Ghouls.
Passive Voice
Even now there seems to be a remarkable degree of Not Blaming The Guy In Charge for all of the reasons he's unpopular. Katrina, Iraq, the Social Security debacle, the midterm elections are all sort of things that happened to poor George Bush, instead of, you know, stuff he was responsible for.
I know nothing is ever George Bush's fault, according to George Bush, but its rather miraculously how much that view has been universally adopted.
I know nothing is ever George Bush's fault, according to George Bush, but its rather miraculously how much that view has been universally adopted.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Ooh! Ooh!
The Krugster writes the column I've been waiting for to provide the foundation for my Really Exciting Post.
Well, not that exciting, but maybe a little bit. So, tomorrow it'll happen.
Well, not that exciting, but maybe a little bit. So, tomorrow it'll happen.
Stop It
Really. You're either far more stupid than I think or you're just happy to be an arm of the government. CNN's running with the "soldiers want there to be more troops in Iraq" story. As I said I imagine some do. Maybe most do. I don't know. But Secretary of Defense Gates didn't talk to a bunch of random soldiers, he talked to a hand-picked group of soldiers whose hand-picked quotes just happened to jive with the president's message of the day. Those views may be representative, they may not, but I don't know, you don't know, and most importantly CNN doesn't know.
No Shame
Indeed. It's true that liberal columnists make errors, cite facts a bit selectively (easy to do in 730 words), or give some arguments more weight than they deserve, I know of none who clearly see themselves as propagandists. Meanwhile, it's pretty standard on the right. What they're doing is fairly transparent. But, nobody cares.
Escalation
This is where the McCain/Lieberman war is going:
It now looks like the administration has adopted the surge strategy as its mantra. Simply put it means no new political road map for Iraq in place of the “national unity government” formula that has so far failed (has not delivered on the insurgency but has managed to alienated the Shias, and has actually caused more rather than less sectarian violence since the U.S. adopted it); going it alone (ignoring ISG’s recommendation to talk to the neighbors); and putting more boots on the ground. This last item deserves special attention. The language of the administration suggests that the surge will be used to fight radical groups and sectarian militias—Sunni ones and especially Shia militias and death squads associated with Muqtada al-Sadr. But listen closely; what they mean is that surge is in fact meant to finish off Sadr. And there lies the danger.
New troops will be in Iraq not to police the streets and hold the line against the creeping violence, but to expand the war by taking on the Shia militias. This is an escalation strategy. Will it work; maybe, maybe not. But it runs the risk that it may very well provoke a Shia insurgency—something Iraq has not so far witnessed. Thus far the U.S. has faced a Sunni insurgency (which by most estimates continues to account for 80% of U.S. casualties), and sectarian violence in which Shias and Sunnis are killing each other. Shia militias are violent, destructive and radical, but Shia militias are a very different problem from the Sunni insurgency. Shia militias, unlike te insurgency, are not targeting American troops. But it looks like the administration is set to change that. Over the past year Washington and its Baghdad embassy have alienated the Shia and undermined the authority of the more moderate Ayatollah Sistani. Anti-Americanism has grown in Shia ranks as they accuse U.S. of favoring Sunnis by focusing on Shia militias rather than Sunni insurgency. By going to war with the increasingly popular Sadr Washington runs the danger of losing the Shia altogether.
Afternoon Gypsy Shit
Because my blog was bloggered after the show last night.
Gogol Bordello performs Manu Chao's Mala Vida.
Gogol Bordello performs Manu Chao's Mala Vida.
Notable Quotables
Chris Matthews, Tuesday:
I think it‘s not always so obvious to the cretins that got us in this war that real people are paying the price for their mistake.
Thanks
to Gilliard
Think Progress
Firedoglake
Mydd
TPM
Kos
Greg Greene
Taylor Marsh
Ntodd (now what are you going to whine about you WATB)
First Draft
And everyone else who I may not be aware of who linked to the temporary site. Had I known blogger would've fixed things so quickly I wouldn't have bothered, and I also wouldn't have bothered if I didn't want to make sure the community had a place to go. The world can live without my ramblings for a day or two.
And, for those who love to harsh on blogger, everyone has tech problems. Blogger's free, works most of the time, and though it fails spectacularly and stupidly on occasion, their gnomes usually come through and fix things.
Think Progress
Firedoglake
Mydd
TPM
Kos
Greg Greene
Taylor Marsh
Ntodd (now what are you going to whine about you WATB)
First Draft
And everyone else who I may not be aware of who linked to the temporary site. Had I known blogger would've fixed things so quickly I wouldn't have bothered, and I also wouldn't have bothered if I didn't want to make sure the community had a place to go. The world can live without my ramblings for a day or two.
And, for those who love to harsh on blogger, everyone has tech problems. Blogger's free, works most of the time, and though it fails spectacularly and stupidly on occasion, their gnomes usually come through and fix things.
Young Patriots
Fred Kaplan:
But why limit it to the president? Why doesn't, say, Bill O'Reilly or Fred Kagan or Kenneth Pollack or Rush Limbaugh or Hugh Hewitt or Jonah Goldberg or any of these other people "call for young Americans to volunteer to defend the nation in a time of crisis." Why isn't Sean Hannity touring the country with military recruiters to sign up his fans? Why aren't any of the RedStaters, who spend their days drooling over LOTR war porn, signing up?
One thing this latest conversation has done is acknowledge that there aren't enough troops. So why aren't all of these patriotic Americans enlisting or calling on their fellow travelers to do so?
(via lgm)
Kagan writes, "The President must call for young Americans to volunteer to defend the nation in a time of crisis." Given the unpopularity of the president, and of this war, this seems unlikely. After the Sept. 11 attacks, when Bush was at peak popularity, and when the country was experiencing a surge of patriotism, Congress passed a bill expanding the size of the Army by 30,000 troops. Five years later, the Army has actually expanded by just 23,000 troops. It's still 7,000 troops short of that target. How does Kagan expect to attract 30,000 more in just one year, much less to do so two years in a row?
But why limit it to the president? Why doesn't, say, Bill O'Reilly or Fred Kagan or Kenneth Pollack or Rush Limbaugh or Hugh Hewitt or Jonah Goldberg or any of these other people "call for young Americans to volunteer to defend the nation in a time of crisis." Why isn't Sean Hannity touring the country with military recruiters to sign up his fans? Why aren't any of the RedStaters, who spend their days drooling over LOTR war porn, signing up?
One thing this latest conversation has done is acknowledge that there aren't enough troops. So why aren't all of these patriotic Americans enlisting or calling on their fellow travelers to do so?
(via lgm)
Journamalism
One thing I've tried very hard to do on this blog is never presume to speak for the soldiers who are serving in Iraq. An obvious reason for this is that they of course don't speak with one voice or one mind. Still, how credulous can a reporter be who writes this up without pointing out the obvious:
I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of the people on the front lines felt this way. Hell, maybe most of them. How would I know? But implicit in this news report is the idea that this hand-picked small group of soldiers was somehow just some random representative group of soldiers instead of, you know, a hand-picked group chosen for their... oh, I don't know, maybe for their views on the situation in Iraq.
I'm not impugning the integrity of these people. They may believe these things sincerely. That isn't the issue. The issue is pretending that when the new Secretary of Defense shows up to talk "to the troops" that those people chosen for that talk are a representative random group.
FRONT-LINE TROOPS WANT REINFORCEMENTS
Gates had breakfast with U.S. soldiers to hear their views.
"Sir, I think we need to just keep doing what we're doing," Specialist Jason Glenn told Gates.
"I really think we need more troops here. With more presence on the ground, more troops might hold them (the insurgents) off long enough to where we can get the Iraqi army trained up."
None of the soldiers present said U.S. forces should be brought home, and none said current troop levels were adequate.
A senior defense official in Baghdad said U.S. commanders were concerned a surge in the number of troops would make the Iraqis feel less under pressure to take full responsibility for security.
"Look, the Iraqis are smart. They see what we do, and if we surge, they can step back," the official said.
Gates said it was not surprising troops wanted reinforcements. "We have to take into account the views of the Iraqi government the views of our own leadership, the views of our own military leadership in taking that into account."
I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of the people on the front lines felt this way. Hell, maybe most of them. How would I know? But implicit in this news report is the idea that this hand-picked small group of soldiers was somehow just some random representative group of soldiers instead of, you know, a hand-picked group chosen for their... oh, I don't know, maybe for their views on the situation in Iraq.
I'm not impugning the integrity of these people. They may believe these things sincerely. That isn't the issue. The issue is pretending that when the new Secretary of Defense shows up to talk "to the troops" that those people chosen for that talk are a representative random group.
Pony Hunters
The "liberal" Brookings is hosting a debate between those who think we need to keep hunting for ponies, and those who think we need to kill a few more ponies before we find the One True Pony. Or something.
Left out of the Serious Debate in this country is, of course, the views of the majority of the country.
...adding, the self-parody quote:
Fine. AND THEN WHAT? Two more Friedmans from now, I expect to read:
Left out of the Serious Debate in this country is, of course, the views of the majority of the country.
...adding, the self-parody quote:
Although it has been said before about previous new years, it seems very likely that 2007 will be make or break time in Iraq.
Fine. AND THEN WHAT? Two more Friedmans from now, I expect to read:
Although it has been said before about previous new years, it seems very likely that 2008 will be make or break time in Iraq.
Turkee for Digby
Since blogger at my blog right after I posted this last night, here's a repeat. Go give lots of money to Digby, who, unlike George Will, is smart, writes well, has something unique to contribute to the discourse, and thankfully rarely if ever resorts to awful baseball metaphors to make a point.
Heroes of the Revolution
Since my blogging days began we've been treated to various rounds of "WHY AREN'T LIBERAL BLOGGERS SUPPORTING IRANIAN STUDENT PROTESTERS." The first reason is obvious - furiously typing away at my keyboard about events and people does not in fact make me a hero of the revolution and more than that has absolutely zero impact on the events over there. Second, I don't know much about internal Iranian politics but I know enough to know that the issues are a bit more nuanced than the warbloggers, who see everything as a referendum on Glorious Leader Bush, seem to think. Third, to the extent that such a things have an impact, American support in whatever form doesn't exactly help the cause of reform movements in the Middle East. And, finally, while I appreciate it when the dirty fucking hippies of any country take to the streets, I also remember quite well the last time there was as major student uprising in an authoritarian country. That didn't end so well.
Lying for Years
In the Post:
Liar.
he internal struggle over troop levels in Iraq has exposed a schism between civilian and military leadership 45 months into a war that, at the moment, has no end in sight. Testifying before a Senate committee Nov. 15, Abizaid bluntly rejected the surge option, saying: "I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem. I believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are." Other generals have been equally resistant in public and private comments.
Bush has traditionally paid public deference to the generals, saying any decisions on moving U.S. forces in the region would depend on their views. At a Chicago news conference in July, for instance, Bush said he would yield to Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Iraq commander.
"General Casey will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there," Bush said, adding: "He'll decide how best to achieve victory and the troop levels necessary to do so. I've spent a lot of time talking to him about troop levels. And I've told him this: I said, 'You decide, General.' "
By yesterday, however, Bush indicated that he will not necessarily let military leaders decide, ducking a question about whether he would overrule them. "The opinion of my commanders is very important," he said. "They are bright, capable, smart people whose opinion matters to me a lot." He added: "I agree with them that there's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before I agree on that strategy."
A senior aide said later that Bush would not let the military decide the matter. "He's never left the decision to commanders," said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so Bush's comments would be the only ones on the record. "He is the commander in chief. But he has said he will listen to those commanders when making these decisions. That hasn't changed."
Liar.
"Not Just the Jesse Helmses"
Poor Mitt Romney. He was Joe Lieberman back when it was still cool to be Joe Lieberman.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Meanwhile
In the McCain/Lieberman war:
If only there'd been an item:
Then Stanley Kurtz would believe it.
*BAGHDAD - Iraqi police found 76 bodies around Baghdad, all with gunshot wounds and most with signs of torture, the Interior Ministry said.
*BAGHDAD - Two U.S. soldiers were killed in two separate roadside bomb attacks in southern Baghdad, the U.S. military said in a statement.
*MOSUL - Police said they found 11 bodies, all with gunshot wounds, in the northern city of Mosul.
BAGHDAD - Gunmen killed university professor Muntathar Mohammed Mehdi in his car, along with his brother and cousin, relatives and hospital sources said. Relatives said Mehdi was a member of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's political movement.
If only there'd been an item:
*Mosul - 3 schools received new coats of paint.
Then Stanley Kurtz would believe it.
Wingnuttery
Apparently Barack Obama has Muslim genes, which means he might try to destroy America. Or something.
Schlussel, of course, is a fairly regular contributor to our mainstream media discourse, appearing on Fox and MSNBC multiple times over the past year.
The mainstreaming of bigotry and racism has been one of the more depressing developments over the past few years.
But, liberal bloggers use bad words sometimes so I guess it all evens out.
Schlussel, of course, is a fairly regular contributor to our mainstream media discourse, appearing on Fox and MSNBC multiple times over the past year.
The mainstreaming of bigotry and racism has been one of the more depressing developments over the past few years.
But, liberal bloggers use bad words sometimes so I guess it all evens out.
Escalation
Reid:
Leaving is the only plan which makes any sense. The details of leaving aren't so simple, but the premise is. Get out.
I do not support an escalation of the conflict. I support finding a way to bring our troops home and would look at any plan that gave a roadmap to this goal.
It's been two weeks since the Iraq Study Group released its plan to change the course and bring our troops home. Since then, the President has been on a fact finding tour of his own administration -- apparently ignoring the facts presented by those in the military who know best. The President needs to put forth a plan as soon as possible, one that reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq and that withdraws our troops from the middle of this deadly civil war.
Leaving is the only plan which makes any sense. The details of leaving aren't so simple, but the premise is. Get out.
Baby Steps
Rich Lowry says maybe things are bad in Iraq. And Stanley Kurtz blames the media for his failure to believe all the bad news they were reporting like, you know, casualty counts and stuff.
Listening to the Commanders
It was always an absurd little fiction that the press played along with, the question is will they note that he's now likely to overrule them.
More than being an absurd little fiction, it was just wrong. I really don't want Commander CooCoo Bananas running things, but the fact is he does. He is the civilian commander, and for years he's been hiding behind their uniforms blaming them for decisions he has made.
More than being an absurd little fiction, it was just wrong. I really don't want Commander CooCoo Bananas running things, but the fact is he does. He is the civilian commander, and for years he's been hiding behind their uniforms blaming them for decisions he has made.
Don't Do It
Social Security is a lovely program. It's fine. There's nothing wrong with. There is no problem. Don't mess with it. There's no reason to. I know if a bunch of you get a room and cut a deal, any deal, David Broder will be very happy. But there's no reason to mess with the program. At all. Stop it.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Chris Bowers is the Problem
HE MUST BE DESTROYED!
More seriously, I think something we all need to come to terms with is the fact that the Democrats actually have power now. And while most of us probably remember when Clinton was president, the Democrats have essentially not had the power to pass legislation since 1994.
Especially since 2002 all the Dems have had is message. So, we're quick to jump on that when they screw it up. Messaging is still important, and they still shouldn't screw it up. But it isn't the only power they have now, and it isn't the most important power they have.
So, yes, they should speak smarter when they go on the Sunday shows. But the sky isn't falling when they don't.
More seriously, I think something we all need to come to terms with is the fact that the Democrats actually have power now. And while most of us probably remember when Clinton was president, the Democrats have essentially not had the power to pass legislation since 1994.
Especially since 2002 all the Dems have had is message. So, we're quick to jump on that when they screw it up. Messaging is still important, and they still shouldn't screw it up. But it isn't the only power they have now, and it isn't the most important power they have.
So, yes, they should speak smarter when they go on the Sunday shows. But the sky isn't falling when they don't.
Not So New
I'll leave it to wider read sci fi fans (it's been years since I've read much) to provide the evidence, but right wing dystopianism in sci-fi isn't a new thing, though its emphasis has changed. My memory is that over the 80s-90s it was generally directed at environmentalism or lefty Ludditism (real or imagined), or occasionally nanny-state stuff run amok, and courageously armed right wingers would save the day then too. What is new is the equation of leftyism with radical violent (or even nonviolent) Islamism, which is of course absurd given that, you know, we tend to be all about the guilt free sex and gay marriage and religious freedom and whatnot.
Not Going to Happen
Greg Sargent reminds us that McCain, at one time, said the policy he was courageously advocating wasn't going to happen.
It's the McCain/Lieberman war now.
It's the McCain/Lieberman war now.
Critical
Three months ago today, ISG commissioner Lee Hamilton:
But, unsurprisingly, those things haven't happened. So now what?
The next three months are critical. Before the end of this year, this government needs to show progress in securing Baghdad, pursuing national reconciliation and delivering basic services.
But, unsurprisingly, those things haven't happened. So now what?
They Control The Country
While I appreciate Ezra's observations, I actually think something else is going on here. There's a permanent class in Washington, various orbits of power centers, who really believe they run the town and by extension the country. Politicians come and go, but the permanent ruling class is always there. Its members shift a bit over time, and there are those higher up in the perceived power structure than others, but the class remains. It's what Broder meant when he said "it's our town." of Clinton, "it's not his place." They set the rules, define the parameters of debate and acceptable conduct, and every now and then step in and Make a Decision which they assume Will Be Listened To. Once the Wise Old Men finally got around to realizing that Iraq was a disaster, they assumed They Would Be Heeded, especially if they did it in a nice way which didn't blame anybody for anything and let Bush off the hook.
This is the true High Broderism - not just a belief in the ultimate rightness of the club of bipartisan technocrats, pundits, and other elites, but a belief in their actual power.
While Clintonites have now entered into the ruling class, they weren't there in the 90s. The Wise Old Men hated Clinton in part because he upset the existing social order and forced a lot of their friends to find new jobs (see Travelgate for a trivial example) after 12 years of Republican rule. They had been dancing in a well-orchestrated dance for some time and didn't appreciate it being changed. Then they hated him because he refused to obey their call for him to resign after the Lewinsky revelations. They hated him even more because they recognized how out of touch they were with mainstream public opinion.
The Wise Old Men of Washington believe they run the place. It's their town, after all. They thought Bush would have to listen to them.
...adding, as I left off my final point - so, yes, their failure to understand Bush has to do with their failure to simply listen to Bush the Man instead of Bush the Imagined Man, but I think a big reason for that failure is the belief in their own rightness and power. They are right, they are powerful, so of course Bush should agree, and Bush should listen.
This is the true High Broderism - not just a belief in the ultimate rightness of the club of bipartisan technocrats, pundits, and other elites, but a belief in their actual power.
While Clintonites have now entered into the ruling class, they weren't there in the 90s. The Wise Old Men hated Clinton in part because he upset the existing social order and forced a lot of their friends to find new jobs (see Travelgate for a trivial example) after 12 years of Republican rule. They had been dancing in a well-orchestrated dance for some time and didn't appreciate it being changed. Then they hated him because he refused to obey their call for him to resign after the Lewinsky revelations. They hated him even more because they recognized how out of touch they were with mainstream public opinion.
The Wise Old Men of Washington believe they run the place. It's their town, after all. They thought Bush would have to listen to them.
...adding, as I left off my final point - so, yes, their failure to understand Bush has to do with their failure to simply listen to Bush the Man instead of Bush the Imagined Man, but I think a big reason for that failure is the belief in their own rightness and power. They are right, they are powerful, so of course Bush should agree, and Bush should listen.
I Don't Think Rudy Gets It
Movement social conservatives are all about obsessing about and controlling who is putting what where.*
Conservative Episcopalian churches just put themselves under an African Archbishop who advocates putting gay people in jail.
Something tells me Rudy doesn't get out much.
*not necessarily all self-described social conservatives, but it's what animates the movement.
Conservative Episcopalian churches just put themselves under an African Archbishop who advocates putting gay people in jail.
Something tells me Rudy doesn't get out much.
*not necessarily all self-described social conservatives, but it's what animates the movement.
Punish the Dirty Drunken Whore
All this media coverage of the "misbehavior" of a Miss USA (CNN said there were "serious allegations"), who no one other than AssRocket had probably heard of until yesterday, is absurd. And, yes, I know all the contractual obligations that these people have, but really this is ridiculous.
Done. Ruined. Wrecked
William Arkin:
More than that, it's quite possible to fail even more than we already have.
Will anyone get beyond the view that "we have to succeed" to actually ask the question as to whether it is possible or likely?
More than that, it's quite possible to fail even more than we already have.
Journamalism
At least Newsday covers it:
And laugh at this statement:
Right. The poll numbers regarding how receptive voters were to Clinton and Obama were not pertinent to a cover story "which focused on whether Americans were receptive to black or female presidential candidates."
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton beats John McCain and ties Rudolph Giuliani in a new Newsweek national poll, a stunning counterpoint to recent surveys showing the former first lady trailing the GOP's dueling presidential frontrunners.
The poll, taken earlier this month, shows Clinton besting McCain 50 to 43 percent among 1,000 registered voters nationwide. It also showed her in a dead heat with McCain among independents, a group that has proven stubbornly resistant to her centrist message.
And laugh at this statement:
The Newsweek numbers on the head-to-head presidential matchups were not publicized by the magazine. They appeared in a press release on the magazine's Web site but weren't included in a Clinton-Barack Obama cover story, which focused on whether Americans were receptive to black or female presidential candidates. A Newsweek editor said the poll matchups were not pertinent to the cover story.
Right. The poll numbers regarding how receptive voters were to Clinton and Obama were not pertinent to a cover story "which focused on whether Americans were receptive to black or female presidential candidates."
Monday, December 18, 2006
LISTEN TO ATRIOS, DAMNIT
I'm not one to hit the caps lock or refer to myself in the third person, but this just about caused a meltdown:
How is that little old me, one of the blogosphere's most disreputable rabid lambs, understands what's going a hell of a lot better than The Wise Old Men of Washington? Really, I'm just aghast at this. Bush has made it quite clear for months and years that leaving is losing. My brilliant insight isn't based on my ability to look deep into his soul, it is based on my ability to hear what he has said over and over again. It's possible the ISG could've provided cover for Bush to shift from "stay the course!" to something slightly different, but only if that slightly different thing didn't involve, you know, leaving. Bush has made that perfectly clear repeatedly. Leaving is losing. Staying is winning. It's that simple.
...adding, the main issue is that there was no way the ISG was going to achieve desired change simply by "providing cover." To the extent that they could they had to try to force his hand. If they'd had the 6 weeks+ of media hype with Broderella and the gang falling all over themselves to praise their brilliance, and then they'd laid the nuclear "get the fuck out NOW you goddamn moron!" smackdown (in slightly more diplomatic language) on Bush, then maybe, just maybe, they'd have caused a big enough earthquake to force a sensible change.
WASHINGTON — Iraq Study Group member Leon E. Panetta believed that his panel's unanimous bipartisan recommendations about a new way forward in Iraq would give President Bush the political cover needed for a dramatic policy shift. So the former chief of staff to President Clinton has watched with alarm as Bush this week signaled that he may reject suggestions about diplomacy and withdrawing most US troops from Iraq by 2008.
Bush has even criticized the idea that the group was providing a "graceful exit" from the war — which is what Panetta and other panel members figured Bush most wanted.
How is that little old me, one of the blogosphere's most disreputable rabid lambs, understands what's going a hell of a lot better than The Wise Old Men of Washington? Really, I'm just aghast at this. Bush has made it quite clear for months and years that leaving is losing. My brilliant insight isn't based on my ability to look deep into his soul, it is based on my ability to hear what he has said over and over again. It's possible the ISG could've provided cover for Bush to shift from "stay the course!" to something slightly different, but only if that slightly different thing didn't involve, you know, leaving. Bush has made that perfectly clear repeatedly. Leaving is losing. Staying is winning. It's that simple.
...adding, the main issue is that there was no way the ISG was going to achieve desired change simply by "providing cover." To the extent that they could they had to try to force his hand. If they'd had the 6 weeks+ of media hype with Broderella and the gang falling all over themselves to praise their brilliance, and then they'd laid the nuclear "get the fuck out NOW you goddamn moron!" smackdown (in slightly more diplomatic language) on Bush, then maybe, just maybe, they'd have caused a big enough earthquake to force a sensible change.
12%
I can't find it at CNN anywhere, but I've seen people comment on it and Joe Scar just repeated it - only 12% support the McCain/Lieberman plan for sending more troops to Iraq.
...ah, it was LA Times/Bloomberg, not a CNN poll it seems.
...11% in CNN.
...ah, it was LA Times/Bloomberg, not a CNN poll it seems.
...11% in CNN.
Attacks at Record High
This is a year after The Last Honest Man said our plan was working, about six months after Operation Forward Together and then Together Forward and then Together Forward II: Electric Boogaloo was supposed to be our one last shot at this very critical juncture blahblahblah...
One Last Shot
It was six months ago today that Joe Klein said that the Democrats need to give Iraq "one last shot." He didn't specify a time frame, so I allocated a Friedman.
Over that time period, about 430 U.S. troops have died in Iraq. On November 25, Joe Klein kinda-sorta said it's time to go.
Over that time period, about 430 U.S. troops have died in Iraq. On November 25, Joe Klein kinda-sorta said it's time to go.
Saint McCain Beaten By A Girl
I bet this poll won't get any coverage. In fact, I couldn't even find coverage of it in Newsweek itself, aside from the linked press release.
Clinton's up 50-43 over McCain, 48-47 over Three Wives Giuliani, 58-32 over Mitt Romney.
McCain beats Obama 45-43, Giuliani beats Obama 47-44, Obama beats Romney 55-25.
Early polls like this don't really mean much but they do drive news coverage. Unless they're just ignored of course.
...Bowers has more on how Newsweek is ignoring its own poll.
Clinton's up 50-43 over McCain, 48-47 over Three Wives Giuliani, 58-32 over Mitt Romney.
McCain beats Obama 45-43, Giuliani beats Obama 47-44, Obama beats Romney 55-25.
Early polls like this don't really mean much but they do drive news coverage. Unless they're just ignored of course.
...Bowers has more on how Newsweek is ignoring its own poll.
Effective
I miss the good old days when conservatives would freak when someone made a Vietnam comparison.
Wonk'd
I suppose it'll be time to shift gears soon. I've long said on this blog that much public discussion of wonkery was largely wankery, as with Democrats out of power and with the way Republicans treated the minority party, especially in the House, None Of It Was Actually Going To Happen.
But, now, that's going to change. There's some slight chance we can start having grownup conversations about real policies. I'm not super optimistic that much good can happen over the next couple of years, between bare control in the Senate, obstinate blue dog Democrats in the House, and of course Bush's inevitable newfound love of the veto. However, at the very least some decent legislation - both small and big - can at least be proposed, discussed, and taken seriously.
I've spent some time looking over Ron Wyden's health care proposal. I think it's pretty good, though not perfect. It seems like a reasonable starting point for a discussion at least. Most importantly it puts a marker down to presidential wannabes and motivates them to either support it or come up with their own.
Sadly, the 2008 election will, once again, be largely about Iraq, but there are opportunities for other things. I for one wouldn't mind the various candidates spending some time arguing about who has the awesomer universal health care plan.
But, now, that's going to change. There's some slight chance we can start having grownup conversations about real policies. I'm not super optimistic that much good can happen over the next couple of years, between bare control in the Senate, obstinate blue dog Democrats in the House, and of course Bush's inevitable newfound love of the veto. However, at the very least some decent legislation - both small and big - can at least be proposed, discussed, and taken seriously.
I've spent some time looking over Ron Wyden's health care proposal. I think it's pretty good, though not perfect. It seems like a reasonable starting point for a discussion at least. Most importantly it puts a marker down to presidential wannabes and motivates them to either support it or come up with their own.
Sadly, the 2008 election will, once again, be largely about Iraq, but there are opportunities for other things. I for one wouldn't mind the various candidates spending some time arguing about who has the awesomer universal health care plan.
Some Notes on Primary Season
1) Your favorite candidate is the only one who can win.
2) Your favorite candidate is the only one who will truly get behind a progressive agenda.
3) Other candidates are part of some nefarious conspiracy to destroy your candidate.
4) Supporters of other candidates are motivated by groupthink.
5) Supporters of other candidates are operating in bad faith and arguing dishonestly.
6) "Powerful" bloggers shouldn't be "biased."
7) Primary season is the silliest season of all.
2) Your favorite candidate is the only one who will truly get behind a progressive agenda.
3) Other candidates are part of some nefarious conspiracy to destroy your candidate.
4) Supporters of other candidates are motivated by groupthink.
5) Supporters of other candidates are operating in bad faith and arguing dishonestly.
6) "Powerful" bloggers shouldn't be "biased."
7) Primary season is the silliest season of all.
Appalling
Indeed it is. Note to self: next time you go to a casino, use someone else's money. Much more fun that way.
Journamalism
I wanted to highlight what I think is a pretty good example of how the current obedience to the odd conventions of modern journalism creates some really crappy writing. So, in the middle of the article about the American detained in Iraq, we get this:
Now, the reporter lets this comment stand without any response. The smart reader, of course, will note its Kafkaesque absurdity. They didn't have access to attorneys. They were placed in solitary confinement. They were in cold cells, with fluorescent lights left on all night.
And First Lt. Lea Ann Fracasso is suggesting she checked with the Complaints Department, and found nothing, so there's nothing to see here.
Overall it's an excellent well-reported story, and the smart reader who reads all the way through will understand what an absurd statement this is. Still, later today, if Rush Limbaugh decides to talk about this story he'll say "But they guy didn't even complain!!!"
A spokeswoman for the Pentagon’s detention operations in Iraq, First Lt. Lea Ann Fracasso, said in written answers to questions that the men had been “treated fair and humanely,” and that there was no record of either man complaining about their treatment.
Now, the reporter lets this comment stand without any response. The smart reader, of course, will note its Kafkaesque absurdity. They didn't have access to attorneys. They were placed in solitary confinement. They were in cold cells, with fluorescent lights left on all night.
And First Lt. Lea Ann Fracasso is suggesting she checked with the Complaints Department, and found nothing, so there's nothing to see here.
Overall it's an excellent well-reported story, and the smart reader who reads all the way through will understand what an absurd statement this is. Still, later today, if Rush Limbaugh decides to talk about this story he'll say "But they guy didn't even complain!!!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)