Republican Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, thinks exposing the identities of covert CIA agents is bad, generally, except when his party does it, and except in those cases in which the agent in question isn't on super duper double secret background covert status:
"You cannot be in the business of outing somebody" working under cover, Mr. Roberts said. He said, however, there were questions about the depth of Ms. Wilson's cover, because she had been based at the Virginia headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency at least since 1997.
"I must say from a common-sense standpoint, driving back and forth to work to the C.I.A. headquarters, I don't know if that really qualifies as being, you know, covert," Mr. Roberts said. "But generically speaking, it is a very serious matter."
Good God.
But have no fear, ye concerned about the Plame-Rove leak. There will be an official, approved, sanctioned investigation by the government--of how the CIA protects or doesn't protect its agents that are super duper double secret background probation covert operators:
The Senate Intelligence Committee will conduct hearings on American spy agencies' use of cover to protect the identities of intelligence officers, the committee chairman said on Sunday.
(snip)
Ms. Wilson's C.I.A. job was first revealed in a column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly accused the White House of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq and justify war. Mr. Novak used Ms. Wilson's maiden name, Valerie Plame, and attributed his information to "two senior administration officials." A special prosecutor is investigating whether anyone illegally leaked Ms. Wilson's status or lied to cover up the leak.
Two top White House officials - Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff - spoke to reporters about the Wilsons in the week before the publication of Mr. Novak's column. Both men have denied being the original source of the leak.
Some Republicans have minimized the significance of the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity, noting not only her working at C.I.A. headquarters but also the fact that she did not have an in-depth cover story: her purported employer, a shell company created by the agency, was little more than a Boston post office box. They have also questioned whether the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act applied to her, because the law applies only to officers who have served overseas under cover in the previous five years.
But agency officials apparently believe that the law does apply to Ms. Wilson, possibly because she took overseas business trips in the five years before 2003. The C.I.A. sought an investigation, and the Justice Department and Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, concurred in choosing to pursue the case.
A number of Ms. Wilson's former colleagues have spoken out in recent days, saying the exposure of her cover was a serious offense.
In a letter to Congressional leaders last week, 11 former intelligence officers said that even if the law was not violated, "we believe it is appropriate for the president to move proactively to dismiss from office or administratively punish any official who participated in any way in revealing Valerie Plame's status." The letter added, "Such an act by the president would send an unambiguous message that leaks of this nature will not be tolerated."
Larry C. Johnson, a former C.I.A. analyst who organized the letter, said in an interview that "there are lives on the line" in the leak of an operative's identity, because foreigners known to have met with the operative may come under suspicion.
But another former C.I.A. officer, Reuel Marc Gerecht, called Ms. Wilson's cover "very, very soft" and said cover "is the Achilles' heel of the agency." He said cover is too often easily penetrated by foreign intelligence agencies.
Michael from AmericaBlog says, "No duh!"
It hardly needs to be penetrated by foreign intelligence when Rove leaks the info to the press.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Russ Feingold, Progressive
Last week I talked about Evan Bayh's potential candidacy and his appearance on C-Span's Road to the Whitehouse. Although I think Bayh may offer Democrats a solid candidate in 2008, he isn't the progressive I'd prefer.
Perhaps Russ Feingold is. Over at Swing State Project, there have been a couple of good posts about Feingold along with a link to his PAC, all of which indicate of the potential 2008 field, Feingold would most likely be the strongest, if not the only real, progressive (besides Edwards) in the race. Just coming of his second divorce, Republicans will undoubtedly strive to make a big deal about his supposed character defects. And that could be a real barrier to his candidacy, although many Republicans themselves, including some who might try out in 2008 (Newt, I'm thinking of you) would also have some uncomfortable questions to answer about their marriage lives as well.
In any event, Feingold has some well-known progressive credentials; providing the only Senate vote against the Patriot Act, co-sponsoring campaign finance reform legislation, and most recently, it would appear, helping to lead what movement may exist for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
It may be modest, but it's about as good as it gets for progressives. As is the case with most of the other candidates, we will be in a better position to know who's running and how strong a contender they will be after the 2006 elections. For now, we'll stay tuned.
Note: HRC is on C-Span's Road to the White House this week.
Perhaps Russ Feingold is. Over at Swing State Project, there have been a couple of good posts about Feingold along with a link to his PAC, all of which indicate of the potential 2008 field, Feingold would most likely be the strongest, if not the only real, progressive (besides Edwards) in the race. Just coming of his second divorce, Republicans will undoubtedly strive to make a big deal about his supposed character defects. And that could be a real barrier to his candidacy, although many Republicans themselves, including some who might try out in 2008 (Newt, I'm thinking of you) would also have some uncomfortable questions to answer about their marriage lives as well.
In any event, Feingold has some well-known progressive credentials; providing the only Senate vote against the Patriot Act, co-sponsoring campaign finance reform legislation, and most recently, it would appear, helping to lead what movement may exist for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
It may be modest, but it's about as good as it gets for progressives. As is the case with most of the other candidates, we will be in a better position to know who's running and how strong a contender they will be after the 2006 elections. For now, we'll stay tuned.
Note: HRC is on C-Span's Road to the White House this week.
The New American Militarism
I've been chugging through Andrew Bacevich's book. Bacevich is a self-described social conservative, and probably could be considered a traditional conservative in the sense in which one is not a revolutionary, where one seeks to conserve something, a society that one believes to be valuable.
Which is perhaps why he is critical of the new ambitious militarism typified by the war on Iraq. And as our most recent escapade, the war on Iraq is the setting for the book and serves as the effect created by the cause of militarism. But the militarism Bacevich describes is one that can't be blamed on any particular administration, and isn't limited to the most recent quagmire. Rather, it is driven by a merging of forces inside and outside the government and military.
Some of the outside forces Bacevich identifies as leading to a greater American militarism are the conservative evangelicals, the Norman Podhoretz-led neo-conservatives, the new breed of game theorists and other Best and the Brightest, as well as the military itself. I'll save a discussion of Bacevich's view of the neo conservatives and the Best and the Brightest for another day. For now, I'll summarize what Bacevich has to say about the contribution to militarism of the evangelical leadership.
In his chapter on evangelicals, Bacevich provides a good introduction and summary to the movement as a whole as well as its military-glorifying aspects. He gives the movement's starting point as the formation of the National Association of Evangelicals in the 1940's. According to Bacevich, the NAE started as a response to the void existing between religion and politics because of the 1925 Scopes trial. But after WWII, the Cold War and perceived threat from communism provided the movement with an extra reason to be. It was of course around this time that Billy Graham first became famous, helping to create not only a new religious experience in America, but also to begin the process of radically changing the relationship between religion and politics. Then came the 1960's and the politics of resentment flowing from the sexual revolution, the Supreme Court decisions on school prayer, and the broader loosening in society of connections to family and authority. But of equal importance according to Bacevich was the evangelical concern for the nation's military standing and public attitudes toward the military.
Evangelical concerns with the military came from two primary issues. The first is with the evangelical vision of the role America is to play in end time events and in particular, in the support for Israel that America has provided and which according to much of the Evangelical world, is a necessary prerequisite for the coming of Christ's kingdom on earth.
The second reason for the embrace of the military by evangelicals was the belief that the military, as an institution obstensibly rooted in rules and respect for authority, was the type of organization that exemplified the values that evangelicals held dear and which the new movement thought could be used to reform society, correcting the apparent abuses and licentiousness that the 1960's had spawned.
So in contrast to other religious groups and traditional denominations (some of which disdained the military not only for its relation to war and carnage but also due to its reputation for encouraging liscentious and profane behavior), evangelicals embraced the military and supported American military endeavors in Vietnam and elsewhere as being a part of God's plan. Their support for the military and political leaders that embraced that view has been critical, according to Bacevich, for creating the new American militarism.
While I appreciate Bacevich's insight about the role evangelical elites play in influencing the political elite as well as shaping the political behavior of their own constitutients, Bacevich, like a lot of other conservatives, I believe understates (actually ignores) the impact of race and civil rights issues on the changes that came with the 1960's and which I believe created so much resentment among middle and upper class whites. And the evangelical movement was itself heavily influenced and motivated by the changes in society driven by civil rights.
Beyond this religious factor, Bacevich's book provides progressives with a balanced and nuanced perpective of the factors shaping the military and what opponents of the new American militarism can do (or what steps they can at least advocate) in reversing the development. In future posts I'll summarize his treatment of the neo conservatives and give an outline of what Bacevich recommends to deal with the problems presented by the new American militarism.
Which is perhaps why he is critical of the new ambitious militarism typified by the war on Iraq. And as our most recent escapade, the war on Iraq is the setting for the book and serves as the effect created by the cause of militarism. But the militarism Bacevich describes is one that can't be blamed on any particular administration, and isn't limited to the most recent quagmire. Rather, it is driven by a merging of forces inside and outside the government and military.
Some of the outside forces Bacevich identifies as leading to a greater American militarism are the conservative evangelicals, the Norman Podhoretz-led neo-conservatives, the new breed of game theorists and other Best and the Brightest, as well as the military itself. I'll save a discussion of Bacevich's view of the neo conservatives and the Best and the Brightest for another day. For now, I'll summarize what Bacevich has to say about the contribution to militarism of the evangelical leadership.
In his chapter on evangelicals, Bacevich provides a good introduction and summary to the movement as a whole as well as its military-glorifying aspects. He gives the movement's starting point as the formation of the National Association of Evangelicals in the 1940's. According to Bacevich, the NAE started as a response to the void existing between religion and politics because of the 1925 Scopes trial. But after WWII, the Cold War and perceived threat from communism provided the movement with an extra reason to be. It was of course around this time that Billy Graham first became famous, helping to create not only a new religious experience in America, but also to begin the process of radically changing the relationship between religion and politics. Then came the 1960's and the politics of resentment flowing from the sexual revolution, the Supreme Court decisions on school prayer, and the broader loosening in society of connections to family and authority. But of equal importance according to Bacevich was the evangelical concern for the nation's military standing and public attitudes toward the military.
Evangelical concerns with the military came from two primary issues. The first is with the evangelical vision of the role America is to play in end time events and in particular, in the support for Israel that America has provided and which according to much of the Evangelical world, is a necessary prerequisite for the coming of Christ's kingdom on earth.
The second reason for the embrace of the military by evangelicals was the belief that the military, as an institution obstensibly rooted in rules and respect for authority, was the type of organization that exemplified the values that evangelicals held dear and which the new movement thought could be used to reform society, correcting the apparent abuses and licentiousness that the 1960's had spawned.
So in contrast to other religious groups and traditional denominations (some of which disdained the military not only for its relation to war and carnage but also due to its reputation for encouraging liscentious and profane behavior), evangelicals embraced the military and supported American military endeavors in Vietnam and elsewhere as being a part of God's plan. Their support for the military and political leaders that embraced that view has been critical, according to Bacevich, for creating the new American militarism.
While I appreciate Bacevich's insight about the role evangelical elites play in influencing the political elite as well as shaping the political behavior of their own constitutients, Bacevich, like a lot of other conservatives, I believe understates (actually ignores) the impact of race and civil rights issues on the changes that came with the 1960's and which I believe created so much resentment among middle and upper class whites. And the evangelical movement was itself heavily influenced and motivated by the changes in society driven by civil rights.
Beyond this religious factor, Bacevich's book provides progressives with a balanced and nuanced perpective of the factors shaping the military and what opponents of the new American militarism can do (or what steps they can at least advocate) in reversing the development. In future posts I'll summarize his treatment of the neo conservatives and give an outline of what Bacevich recommends to deal with the problems presented by the new American militarism.
What do the (suicide) terrorists want?
I wanted to respond to this op-ed placed in the NYT on Friday from someone presumably sent out by the "war on terror" guardians to damper any interest the media might have in Robert Pape's book Dying to Win. I made some comments over at Steve's No More Mister Nice Blog perch but thought I would expand on those thoughts here.
The op-eder argues that the terrorists aren't attacking us (London, U.S., Spain) because of Iraq, but because they want to destroy western civilization. How does he know this? Why, because the terrorists attacked us on 9-11 before we were in Iraq. So there.
In Dying to Win, Pape argues that, based on empirical data from the terrorist attacks and the sucide terrorist attackers, suicide terrorism is about expelling western, democratic governments from the lands the attackers are from or identify with. Pape also argues that suicide terrorism is an instrument of last and limited resort, after or because other tactics are not working or accessible. The history of suicide terrorism also indicates that when occupying democratic governments withdraw their forces from the foreign land (either as a direct or indirect response to the suicide terrorist attacks), that the suicide terrorism against that government by that group ceases. Such was the case with the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah "pioneered" the use of suicide terrorism in the early 1980's and other diverse (i.e. some Muslim, some non-Muslim) groups adapted the same strategy. In the case of Lebanon, a suicide attack on U.S. Marine barracks in 1983 led Ronald Reagan to withdraw U.S. troops from that country. With no U.S. military presence remaining in Lebanon after the attack, Hezbollah had no further reasons to attack U.S. representatives there.
Meanwhile, Al Qaeda began its attacks on the West during the 1990's, AFTER the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to guard against any military aggression by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Al Qaeda has stated that the presence of military forces in their holy lands is one of, if not the primary basis for Al Qaeda's actions. So yes, Al Qaeda was attacking the west before Iraq, but primarily because of the U.S. military presence in that region.
So, would Al Qaeda withdraw its fatwa against the west and cease support for acts of terrorism directed at the West if the West withdrew its military? While we can't say for sure, the empirical evidence from Pape suggests that it would. Or at the least, that support for suicide terrorism would diminish.
The connection between suicide terrorism and foreign occupation that Pape makes is a critical one, for at least two reasons.
The first is that the NYT op-eder says the occupation-terrorist connection is false because terrorist plotters have been foiled in Spain since the deadly attacks in that country and after Spain has withdrawn its military from Iraq.
I'll leave it to the op-eder to provide more information on the foiled plots in Spain should he desire later, but his reference to them didn't specify whether the attacks were designed to be suicide attacks or not. From the Pape perspective this is a critical distinction. While there may be no way to eliminate all forms of terrorism, the data according to Pape suggest that suicide terrorism, being a last resort, would probably not continue in the absence of a recognized grievance. And with no military occupation, it would be difficult to enlist suicide attack participants and to maintain the community support necessary for such attacks. While its possible that Al Qaeda wannabes might continue to attack with less discretion, suicide terrorism is a strategy of obvious personal catastrophe for the participants. Without a clear purpose, suicide terrorism would be much harder to plan and less appealing for terrorist organizations.
The second point goes to what the suicide terrorists want. The NYT op-eder is vague as to what Al Qaeda's purpose is in its so-called global jihad, if it isn't removal of foreign troops from Islamic land. The closest he comes is this phrase:
They find it (their cause) in the dream of a virtual, universal ummah.
I'm not sure what this means, but again, suicide terrorism is not something one is going to take lightly or for some vague or highly unachievable goal. The "clash of civilization" terrorism theorists undoubtedly see in Al Qaeda's statements and strategies a mission to destroy the western world. But is this feasible? Does it make sense for Al Qaeda (or another terrorist group) to appeal for community support and self-sacrifice to attempt such an overwhelming task? If you consider the support needed in the community, and the continuous stream of recruits suicide terrorism requires, I would suggest that it does not.
But if the goal is smaller, more precise, such as expelling foreign troops from holy or treasured land, than support for and participation in suicide terrorism would be more attainable for the sponsoring organization.
It may be that Al Qaeda's references to U.S. military occupation of Islamic lands is a ruse, propoganda to recruit members for an anti-western jihad and global domination. But Pape's data, and a review of our history in the region would suggest that alternatives in the "war on terror" should be open for consideration.
The op-eder argues that the terrorists aren't attacking us (London, U.S., Spain) because of Iraq, but because they want to destroy western civilization. How does he know this? Why, because the terrorists attacked us on 9-11 before we were in Iraq. So there.
In Dying to Win, Pape argues that, based on empirical data from the terrorist attacks and the sucide terrorist attackers, suicide terrorism is about expelling western, democratic governments from the lands the attackers are from or identify with. Pape also argues that suicide terrorism is an instrument of last and limited resort, after or because other tactics are not working or accessible. The history of suicide terrorism also indicates that when occupying democratic governments withdraw their forces from the foreign land (either as a direct or indirect response to the suicide terrorist attacks), that the suicide terrorism against that government by that group ceases. Such was the case with the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah "pioneered" the use of suicide terrorism in the early 1980's and other diverse (i.e. some Muslim, some non-Muslim) groups adapted the same strategy. In the case of Lebanon, a suicide attack on U.S. Marine barracks in 1983 led Ronald Reagan to withdraw U.S. troops from that country. With no U.S. military presence remaining in Lebanon after the attack, Hezbollah had no further reasons to attack U.S. representatives there.
Meanwhile, Al Qaeda began its attacks on the West during the 1990's, AFTER the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to guard against any military aggression by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Al Qaeda has stated that the presence of military forces in their holy lands is one of, if not the primary basis for Al Qaeda's actions. So yes, Al Qaeda was attacking the west before Iraq, but primarily because of the U.S. military presence in that region.
So, would Al Qaeda withdraw its fatwa against the west and cease support for acts of terrorism directed at the West if the West withdrew its military? While we can't say for sure, the empirical evidence from Pape suggests that it would. Or at the least, that support for suicide terrorism would diminish.
The connection between suicide terrorism and foreign occupation that Pape makes is a critical one, for at least two reasons.
The first is that the NYT op-eder says the occupation-terrorist connection is false because terrorist plotters have been foiled in Spain since the deadly attacks in that country and after Spain has withdrawn its military from Iraq.
I'll leave it to the op-eder to provide more information on the foiled plots in Spain should he desire later, but his reference to them didn't specify whether the attacks were designed to be suicide attacks or not. From the Pape perspective this is a critical distinction. While there may be no way to eliminate all forms of terrorism, the data according to Pape suggest that suicide terrorism, being a last resort, would probably not continue in the absence of a recognized grievance. And with no military occupation, it would be difficult to enlist suicide attack participants and to maintain the community support necessary for such attacks. While its possible that Al Qaeda wannabes might continue to attack with less discretion, suicide terrorism is a strategy of obvious personal catastrophe for the participants. Without a clear purpose, suicide terrorism would be much harder to plan and less appealing for terrorist organizations.
The second point goes to what the suicide terrorists want. The NYT op-eder is vague as to what Al Qaeda's purpose is in its so-called global jihad, if it isn't removal of foreign troops from Islamic land. The closest he comes is this phrase:
They find it (their cause) in the dream of a virtual, universal ummah.
I'm not sure what this means, but again, suicide terrorism is not something one is going to take lightly or for some vague or highly unachievable goal. The "clash of civilization" terrorism theorists undoubtedly see in Al Qaeda's statements and strategies a mission to destroy the western world. But is this feasible? Does it make sense for Al Qaeda (or another terrorist group) to appeal for community support and self-sacrifice to attempt such an overwhelming task? If you consider the support needed in the community, and the continuous stream of recruits suicide terrorism requires, I would suggest that it does not.
But if the goal is smaller, more precise, such as expelling foreign troops from holy or treasured land, than support for and participation in suicide terrorism would be more attainable for the sponsoring organization.
It may be that Al Qaeda's references to U.S. military occupation of Islamic lands is a ruse, propoganda to recruit members for an anti-western jihad and global domination. But Pape's data, and a review of our history in the region would suggest that alternatives in the "war on terror" should be open for consideration.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Privacy's 9th Amendment
Craig Crawford:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-- Ninth Amendment, U.S. Constitution
For the sake of liberty, please read and contemplate the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Founders were speaking to us. They were saying they hadn't thought of everything, that they were, indeed, fallible. They were asking us to expand our rights when we see fit. Paying attention to what they said here is true strict construction. It is our salvation against imperious government. And yet, it has never been cited as the basis for a majority ruling in a Supreme Court decision. It is time to ground the right to privacy in the Ninth Amendment, as Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote in Griswold v. Connecticut.
I've been thinking about this, too, whenever conservatives who say they are for less government start foaming at the mouth with rage when anyone dares raise the spectre of the Right to Privacy.
If the founders initially hesitated putting a Bill of Rights in the Constitution in the fear that it would imply that any rights not specifically enumerated could be restricted, and if the burden to demonstrate what government intrusion into our private lives lies with the government and not with the individual, then why would the Right to Privacy need to be specifically enumerated?
Well, it doesn't. As Crawford alerts us, the 9th Amendment specifically says, in all its strict constructivist glory, that just because a right hasn't been identified by name doesn't mean the government can trample all over it.
The Right to Privacy has been pushed to the back of the room for far too long. Time it was brought out for everyone to see and debate.
Yes, conservatives will argue that (a) the Constitution doesn't specifically declare a Right to Privacy; and if failing that, bellyache that (b) like any other right, the Right to Privacy isn't absolute; or (b) that the Right to Privacy is hard to define.
But this is a case where simplicity is on the side of liberals. And it's an ABSOLUTE kind of thing that conservatives keep telling us they like so much and wish the rest of society did, too. Get conservatives and their candidates on record as supporting or opposing the Right to Privacy. I'd like to see them sweat as they suddenly try to discover and claim the notions of nuance, ambivalence, and, oh my, relativism.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-- Ninth Amendment, U.S. Constitution
For the sake of liberty, please read and contemplate the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Founders were speaking to us. They were saying they hadn't thought of everything, that they were, indeed, fallible. They were asking us to expand our rights when we see fit. Paying attention to what they said here is true strict construction. It is our salvation against imperious government. And yet, it has never been cited as the basis for a majority ruling in a Supreme Court decision. It is time to ground the right to privacy in the Ninth Amendment, as Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote in Griswold v. Connecticut.
I've been thinking about this, too, whenever conservatives who say they are for less government start foaming at the mouth with rage when anyone dares raise the spectre of the Right to Privacy.
If the founders initially hesitated putting a Bill of Rights in the Constitution in the fear that it would imply that any rights not specifically enumerated could be restricted, and if the burden to demonstrate what government intrusion into our private lives lies with the government and not with the individual, then why would the Right to Privacy need to be specifically enumerated?
Well, it doesn't. As Crawford alerts us, the 9th Amendment specifically says, in all its strict constructivist glory, that just because a right hasn't been identified by name doesn't mean the government can trample all over it.
The Right to Privacy has been pushed to the back of the room for far too long. Time it was brought out for everyone to see and debate.
Yes, conservatives will argue that (a) the Constitution doesn't specifically declare a Right to Privacy; and if failing that, bellyache that (b) like any other right, the Right to Privacy isn't absolute; or (b) that the Right to Privacy is hard to define.
But this is a case where simplicity is on the side of liberals. And it's an ABSOLUTE kind of thing that conservatives keep telling us they like so much and wish the rest of society did, too. Get conservatives and their candidates on record as supporting or opposing the Right to Privacy. I'd like to see them sweat as they suddenly try to discover and claim the notions of nuance, ambivalence, and, oh my, relativism.
When the Media Isn't Fox News
I don't know about you, but I'm about all broken up by the fact that Bernie Goldberg, he of the books, Bias, Arrogance, and now, The Top 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, went on some CNBC show the other day and got creamed for writing such piece of unintellible hackery for the Newsmax crowd. Even Jeff Jarvis from the Buzzmachine, who usually can be counted on to provide conservative talking points, blasted Bernie. Goldberg made matters worse by complaining about how his fellow panel members were receiving his book and then went on to tell the only female participant to shut up.
What a class act.
At least one of the panelists referenced Goldberg's stunning EIGHT appearances on Faux News to pimp his book. Eight appearances. That must be some kind of record. Anyway, after the shallacking he got from a non-Faux Nooz fair and balanced crew, I suspect he'll go running back to Faux for more book-promoting appearances to whine and be comforted.
For Faux regulars, the world out there can really be rough.
What a class act.
At least one of the panelists referenced Goldberg's stunning EIGHT appearances on Faux News to pimp his book. Eight appearances. That must be some kind of record. Anyway, after the shallacking he got from a non-Faux Nooz fair and balanced crew, I suspect he'll go running back to Faux for more book-promoting appearances to whine and be comforted.
For Faux regulars, the world out there can really be rough.
The Crock of Appeasement
Juan Cole:
Taken seriously, the doctrine of "no appeasement" on the right would mean we are stuck in perpetual war, always doomed to be on the offensive, always dedicated to gobbling up more of other people's territory and wealth even at the expense of living in constant dread of being blown up and being forced to give up the civil liberties which had made American civilization great.
It would never be possible to negotiate a truce with any enemy. That would be appeasement. It would never be possible to compromise. That would be appeasement. It would never be prudent to withdraw troops from a failed war. That would be appeasement. In other words, the right-wing doctrine of "no appeasement, ever" actually turns you into Hitler rather than into Churchill.
Just so.
Taken seriously, the doctrine of "no appeasement" on the right would mean we are stuck in perpetual war, always doomed to be on the offensive, always dedicated to gobbling up more of other people's territory and wealth even at the expense of living in constant dread of being blown up and being forced to give up the civil liberties which had made American civilization great.
It would never be possible to negotiate a truce with any enemy. That would be appeasement. It would never be possible to compromise. That would be appeasement. It would never be prudent to withdraw troops from a failed war. That would be appeasement. In other words, the right-wing doctrine of "no appeasement, ever" actually turns you into Hitler rather than into Churchill.
Just so.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Book Review: "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism"
In Dying To Win, Robert Pape challenges the conventional view about why suicide terrorists do what they do and to whom.
Using data on suicide terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2003, Pape argues that suicide terrorism is motivated primarily by the desire to coerce democratic states into withdrawing their military troops from the countries of the suicide attackers. The impact of Islam on the terrorists' motives derives not from Islam itself, but from the difference in religion between the occupying and the occupied country.
The book is organized into three sections: the first deals with the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. The strategic logic is to for weak actors (the terrorists) to coerce democratic states to abandon their foreigh occupation. Democratic states are targeted because they are viewed as being more susceptible to the coercision applied through suicide terrorism. But the primary driver is nationalism and rebellion against occupation, not religion or Islamic fundamentalism.
The second section discusses the social logic of suicide terrorism. The social logic of suicide terrorism is the broad support within the community the acts, and the willingness of the community to excuse the act of suicide and murder of innocents by virtue of the attacker's taking on the martyr's role. Significantly, suicide terrorists are not estranged from their community or isolated from society. Rather, they and the broader terrorist/oppositional organization is well emersed in the community and depends upon it for its support.
The third section examines the individual logic--why suicide terrorists are willing to sacrifice their lives to kill others. While the larger motive is nationalistic, the individuals that engage in suicide terrorism do so altruistically, a strange sounding concept considering the death their acts inflict on innocent civilians, but Pape argues that the issue here is how the suicide terrorists themselves view their acts.
channeling Emile Durkheim who wrote about suicides a century ago, Pape identifies three types of suicides: egotistical; altruistic; and fatalistic. Egoistic suicides are those most commonly associated with the causes of individual suicides today--depression, alcoholism, unwillingness to face to life's pains. Suicide terrorism, Pape argues, is not of this type.
Altruistic suicide is that suicide done for the benefit of the group.
Finally, fatalistic suicide is that done out of fear, usually involving "brainwashing" and prior strict separation into a smaller group from the larger society.
Pape contends that suicide terrorism is most like altruistic suicide because it is not done out of depression, isolation, or fear. The key distinction between altruistic and fatalistic suicide is that the former is carried out in the interests of the larger society, while the latter is carried out in the isolation of a smaller group but disconnected from the larger community.
In fighting the war on terrorism, Pape identifies two goals of the west, two goals that are in some ways, and in particular the way in which the west is carrying out the war, in contradiction. The first goal is to eliminate the current suicide terrorists. The second is to prevent a new wave of suicide terrorists from emerging. The current western military strategy, aiming at reforming Islamic socieities may succeed at the former at the expense of the latter.
As Pape argues, since suicide terrorism is motivated by nationalism and driven by foreign occupation, the current western strategy will only serve to create more suicide terrorists and to increase support for suicide terrorism within the occupied states.
Since the problem of suicide terrorism is not inherently a problem of Islamic fundamentalism, western efforts to remake Islamic societies will not solve the problem. Instead, the west should in so much as is possible, remove its troops from Islamic countries, fortify its borders, increase its homeland security efforts and seek energy independence. Since as Pape notes, the placing of U.S. troops in the Arabian Peninsula--Osama bin Laden's chief complaint--was because of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the removal of Hussein from power renders the military's presence in Saudi Arabia of none effect.
What are the problems with Pape's analysis? Pape argues that Al Qaeda's aim is to rid the Arab world of U.S. and western military forces. At the same time, it is evident at least in the short run that the 9-11 attacks have resulted in greater U.S. and western military occupation in the case of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. How does this square with the evidence? Pape contends that Al Qaeda's attacks were designed to draw the U.S. into protracted guerilla warfare and thus to deplete the U.S.'s military and economic position through that effort. While these two contentions may not be intrinsically inconsistent, they do call for a more comprehensive theory as to Al Qaeda's motivations.
Another interesting point Pape makes is that suicide terrorism is limited in its ability to achieve certain goals. That is, its coercive power extends only to those western aims that are not essential to the west's survival. If western interests are peripheral to the suicide terrorist organization's goals, than suicide terrorism has been and may continue to be a successful tool for achieving the weaker actor's goals. However, if the goals of the west--such as the maintenance of access to oil supplies--are considered vitally important to the state's national interests, the limited coercive effect of suicide terrorism may not be successful in driving the west out of the suicide terrorists' homelands.
Pape's work is a much needed contribution to the "market place of ideas" regarding the war on terrorism that until now has been sorely lacking both an intellectual as well as a political alternative to the current administration's set of policies.
As is evident in Andrew Bacevich's The New American Militarism, Pape's analysis suggests that military power will be of limited use in combatting suicide terrorism. America's leaders should begin to address this reality rather than continue to make stale threats about bringing the fight to the terrorists and relying on ever overextended military resources. As Iraq is demonstrating, our presence is generating as many problems as it is designed to cure.
Using data on suicide terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2003, Pape argues that suicide terrorism is motivated primarily by the desire to coerce democratic states into withdrawing their military troops from the countries of the suicide attackers. The impact of Islam on the terrorists' motives derives not from Islam itself, but from the difference in religion between the occupying and the occupied country.
The book is organized into three sections: the first deals with the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. The strategic logic is to for weak actors (the terrorists) to coerce democratic states to abandon their foreigh occupation. Democratic states are targeted because they are viewed as being more susceptible to the coercision applied through suicide terrorism. But the primary driver is nationalism and rebellion against occupation, not religion or Islamic fundamentalism.
The second section discusses the social logic of suicide terrorism. The social logic of suicide terrorism is the broad support within the community the acts, and the willingness of the community to excuse the act of suicide and murder of innocents by virtue of the attacker's taking on the martyr's role. Significantly, suicide terrorists are not estranged from their community or isolated from society. Rather, they and the broader terrorist/oppositional organization is well emersed in the community and depends upon it for its support.
The third section examines the individual logic--why suicide terrorists are willing to sacrifice their lives to kill others. While the larger motive is nationalistic, the individuals that engage in suicide terrorism do so altruistically, a strange sounding concept considering the death their acts inflict on innocent civilians, but Pape argues that the issue here is how the suicide terrorists themselves view their acts.
channeling Emile Durkheim who wrote about suicides a century ago, Pape identifies three types of suicides: egotistical; altruistic; and fatalistic. Egoistic suicides are those most commonly associated with the causes of individual suicides today--depression, alcoholism, unwillingness to face to life's pains. Suicide terrorism, Pape argues, is not of this type.
Altruistic suicide is that suicide done for the benefit of the group.
Finally, fatalistic suicide is that done out of fear, usually involving "brainwashing" and prior strict separation into a smaller group from the larger society.
Pape contends that suicide terrorism is most like altruistic suicide because it is not done out of depression, isolation, or fear. The key distinction between altruistic and fatalistic suicide is that the former is carried out in the interests of the larger society, while the latter is carried out in the isolation of a smaller group but disconnected from the larger community.
In fighting the war on terrorism, Pape identifies two goals of the west, two goals that are in some ways, and in particular the way in which the west is carrying out the war, in contradiction. The first goal is to eliminate the current suicide terrorists. The second is to prevent a new wave of suicide terrorists from emerging. The current western military strategy, aiming at reforming Islamic socieities may succeed at the former at the expense of the latter.
As Pape argues, since suicide terrorism is motivated by nationalism and driven by foreign occupation, the current western strategy will only serve to create more suicide terrorists and to increase support for suicide terrorism within the occupied states.
Since the problem of suicide terrorism is not inherently a problem of Islamic fundamentalism, western efforts to remake Islamic societies will not solve the problem. Instead, the west should in so much as is possible, remove its troops from Islamic countries, fortify its borders, increase its homeland security efforts and seek energy independence. Since as Pape notes, the placing of U.S. troops in the Arabian Peninsula--Osama bin Laden's chief complaint--was because of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the removal of Hussein from power renders the military's presence in Saudi Arabia of none effect.
What are the problems with Pape's analysis? Pape argues that Al Qaeda's aim is to rid the Arab world of U.S. and western military forces. At the same time, it is evident at least in the short run that the 9-11 attacks have resulted in greater U.S. and western military occupation in the case of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. How does this square with the evidence? Pape contends that Al Qaeda's attacks were designed to draw the U.S. into protracted guerilla warfare and thus to deplete the U.S.'s military and economic position through that effort. While these two contentions may not be intrinsically inconsistent, they do call for a more comprehensive theory as to Al Qaeda's motivations.
Another interesting point Pape makes is that suicide terrorism is limited in its ability to achieve certain goals. That is, its coercive power extends only to those western aims that are not essential to the west's survival. If western interests are peripheral to the suicide terrorist organization's goals, than suicide terrorism has been and may continue to be a successful tool for achieving the weaker actor's goals. However, if the goals of the west--such as the maintenance of access to oil supplies--are considered vitally important to the state's national interests, the limited coercive effect of suicide terrorism may not be successful in driving the west out of the suicide terrorists' homelands.
Pape's work is a much needed contribution to the "market place of ideas" regarding the war on terrorism that until now has been sorely lacking both an intellectual as well as a political alternative to the current administration's set of policies.
As is evident in Andrew Bacevich's The New American Militarism, Pape's analysis suggests that military power will be of limited use in combatting suicide terrorism. America's leaders should begin to address this reality rather than continue to make stale threats about bringing the fight to the terrorists and relying on ever overextended military resources. As Iraq is demonstrating, our presence is generating as many problems as it is designed to cure.
Evan Bayh
This weekend, I watched C-Span's Road to the White House coverage of an appearance (I wouldn't call it a speech, exactly) by Indiana Senator Evan Bayh to New Hampshire over the 4th of July.
He wasn't visionary. Asked about Iraq he merely said (paraphrase): mistakes have been made, there're no easy solutions, but we need to stay the course.
He wasn't at all partisan or bombastic (which maybe is understandable at this stage and considering the small group he was visiting).
And he didn't present any 21-point plans.
He gently but firmly stated his opposition to the view by one of the attendies that the past two elections (at least the last one) had been "stolen". He said Democrats needed to do a better job at responding to people's needs and presenting a positive alternative.
In response to another inquiry, he calmly advocated that PBS remain non-partisan in its governing and professional in its coverage, skillfully weaving in a critique of the Republican policy of conservative political correctness.
A quick check of his voting record reveals that he has supported a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution but also voted against the gay-marriage amendment.
His vote on the bankruptcy bill was, if I remember correctly, bizarrely, no to the vote on closure (meaning the Dems couldn't maintain a filibuster), but ultimately no on the legislation (he voted for it before he voted against it).
He once and recently headed the DLC, comes from one of the most reddest of states, and as a consequence isn't near the progressive I'd prefer to see nominated.
Nonetheless, I liked him. He comes across well. He sounds and seems reasonable, measured and most important of all, genuinely genuine. Comfortable in his own skin. All that crap.
In my view, he stacks up rather well against the rest of the Democratic field. Of the other major contenders, his candidacy seems the less problematic. He doesn't have the baggage of HRC or Kerry. He doesn't have Richardson's DOE tenure to defend and wouldn't have to overcome any latent ethnic prejudices. He doesn't have Feingold's two divorces to justify. He doesn't have Joe Biden's plagiarism reputation. He's more experienced than Edwards. Although not charismatic in the usual sense, he's well spoken and authentic. He represents an important red state that were he to get the nomination he could conceivable win or at least make competitive.
And oddly enough, despite my previous post and usual ruminations about temperement and ideology, I like his demeanor and approach. I don't think Kerry campaigned as poorly as some on both the left and the right have made it seem, but the last election left a bad taste in my mouth. Bayh would in some ways represent the most marked departure from past campaigns and candidates. He's a fresh face that would help the party chart a new course.
Finally, he presents a measured and reassuring intelligent but non-partisan style that could be useful in a general election campaign and most importantly, in the presidency itself.
But he will need to come up with a more compelling vision and rationale for his candidacy if he is to get the nomination. And along with his calmness, he will need to demonstrate a strength of determination and ability to fight back to show he's up to the job. A difficult needle to thread for sure. But I'm willing to hear and see more.
He wasn't visionary. Asked about Iraq he merely said (paraphrase): mistakes have been made, there're no easy solutions, but we need to stay the course.
He wasn't at all partisan or bombastic (which maybe is understandable at this stage and considering the small group he was visiting).
And he didn't present any 21-point plans.
He gently but firmly stated his opposition to the view by one of the attendies that the past two elections (at least the last one) had been "stolen". He said Democrats needed to do a better job at responding to people's needs and presenting a positive alternative.
In response to another inquiry, he calmly advocated that PBS remain non-partisan in its governing and professional in its coverage, skillfully weaving in a critique of the Republican policy of conservative political correctness.
A quick check of his voting record reveals that he has supported a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution but also voted against the gay-marriage amendment.
His vote on the bankruptcy bill was, if I remember correctly, bizarrely, no to the vote on closure (meaning the Dems couldn't maintain a filibuster), but ultimately no on the legislation (he voted for it before he voted against it).
He once and recently headed the DLC, comes from one of the most reddest of states, and as a consequence isn't near the progressive I'd prefer to see nominated.
Nonetheless, I liked him. He comes across well. He sounds and seems reasonable, measured and most important of all, genuinely genuine. Comfortable in his own skin. All that crap.
In my view, he stacks up rather well against the rest of the Democratic field. Of the other major contenders, his candidacy seems the less problematic. He doesn't have the baggage of HRC or Kerry. He doesn't have Richardson's DOE tenure to defend and wouldn't have to overcome any latent ethnic prejudices. He doesn't have Feingold's two divorces to justify. He doesn't have Joe Biden's plagiarism reputation. He's more experienced than Edwards. Although not charismatic in the usual sense, he's well spoken and authentic. He represents an important red state that were he to get the nomination he could conceivable win or at least make competitive.
And oddly enough, despite my previous post and usual ruminations about temperement and ideology, I like his demeanor and approach. I don't think Kerry campaigned as poorly as some on both the left and the right have made it seem, but the last election left a bad taste in my mouth. Bayh would in some ways represent the most marked departure from past campaigns and candidates. He's a fresh face that would help the party chart a new course.
Finally, he presents a measured and reassuring intelligent but non-partisan style that could be useful in a general election campaign and most importantly, in the presidency itself.
But he will need to come up with a more compelling vision and rationale for his candidacy if he is to get the nomination. And along with his calmness, he will need to demonstrate a strength of determination and ability to fight back to show he's up to the job. A difficult needle to thread for sure. But I'm willing to hear and see more.
What We Get for Having Issue-less Campaigns
I won't go over all the details about John Roberts, which other bloggers are doing, except to say that all the concerns that are now being raised about him, and which would have been raised about any other nominee from my fellow liberal travelers, would have been better raised during the campaign. Republicans will argue, probably with some high degree of success, that since they have won the last several election cycles, the Democrats and their arguments don't warrant much of a hearing now.
Membership in the Federalist Society, abortion rights, the right to privacy, and the rights of individuals, consumers, french-fry eating metro riders, and military members versus the rights of corporations, law enforcement authorities, and the executive branch are all important issues and conflicts that it is the duty of opposing parties and especially their leading candidates during election time to raise.
The failure of the party system--particulary the Democratic Party since it is obstensibly committed to representing the less privileged--to raise issues of importance during campaigns is partly, if not considerably, the result of mass media influence, which decides which matters best serve their ratings, the accessibility needs and professional biases of their members, and, with Faux, their partisan interests.
Partly, however, the Democratic Party and its candidates must bear some responsiblity for this situation. How helpful is talk about "moving to the center", and the need to connect with "values voters" now? Running away from the word "liberal", trying to speak in bland, non-partisan, third-way verbage, and continually being in a position of always having to respond to one supposed outrage or another doesn't help a party be successful when it is trying to defend important rights.
While televised committee room hearings have their place for informing the public and shaping opinions and outcomes, television and radio advertising, televised and high profile speeches at conventions, and surrogate "talking points" during a campaign can and should be used to let the public know what the party's stands and concerns are. To the extent that campaigns focus primarily on the candidate and his or her character (or war record), the less able will the party of the "have-nots" be able to promote and defend an ideology and agenda committed to protecting rights and creating opportunity.
Hopefully this nomination and any future ones will help awaken the party leadership to its obligation.
Membership in the Federalist Society, abortion rights, the right to privacy, and the rights of individuals, consumers, french-fry eating metro riders, and military members versus the rights of corporations, law enforcement authorities, and the executive branch are all important issues and conflicts that it is the duty of opposing parties and especially their leading candidates during election time to raise.
The failure of the party system--particulary the Democratic Party since it is obstensibly committed to representing the less privileged--to raise issues of importance during campaigns is partly, if not considerably, the result of mass media influence, which decides which matters best serve their ratings, the accessibility needs and professional biases of their members, and, with Faux, their partisan interests.
Partly, however, the Democratic Party and its candidates must bear some responsiblity for this situation. How helpful is talk about "moving to the center", and the need to connect with "values voters" now? Running away from the word "liberal", trying to speak in bland, non-partisan, third-way verbage, and continually being in a position of always having to respond to one supposed outrage or another doesn't help a party be successful when it is trying to defend important rights.
While televised committee room hearings have their place for informing the public and shaping opinions and outcomes, television and radio advertising, televised and high profile speeches at conventions, and surrogate "talking points" during a campaign can and should be used to let the public know what the party's stands and concerns are. To the extent that campaigns focus primarily on the candidate and his or her character (or war record), the less able will the party of the "have-nots" be able to promote and defend an ideology and agenda committed to protecting rights and creating opportunity.
Hopefully this nomination and any future ones will help awaken the party leadership to its obligation.
Friday, July 15, 2005
This Week in Iraq
Suicide bomb spree kills 20 inside Baghdad
In Baghdad [Friday], the military reported seven blasts, at least three of which were suicide car bombs. Reuters journalists saw the aftermath of five big explosions, all of which Iraqi police sources said were suicide car bombs.
(snip)
On Thursday, a man detonated an explosives belt he was wearing at the same time a car bomb went off near a police station in central Baghdad, wounding at least nine, police and hospital officials said. Police said they shot dead a third attacker wearing an explosive belt at the same location, just outside the Green Zone where the U.S. Embassy and government offices are located.
On Wednesday, a suicide car bomb exploded next to U.S. troops handing out candy and toys in a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad, killing up to 27 people, including 18 children and teenagers, and a U.S. soldier.
Hmmmm
The radio militia hasn't commented on this at all.
In Baghdad [Friday], the military reported seven blasts, at least three of which were suicide car bombs. Reuters journalists saw the aftermath of five big explosions, all of which Iraqi police sources said were suicide car bombs.
(snip)
On Thursday, a man detonated an explosives belt he was wearing at the same time a car bomb went off near a police station in central Baghdad, wounding at least nine, police and hospital officials said. Police said they shot dead a third attacker wearing an explosive belt at the same location, just outside the Green Zone where the U.S. Embassy and government offices are located.
On Wednesday, a suicide car bomb exploded next to U.S. troops handing out candy and toys in a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad, killing up to 27 people, including 18 children and teenagers, and a U.S. soldier.
Hmmmm
The radio militia hasn't commented on this at all.
Say It Ain't So, 'Beca
I'm not surprised at the usual cast of characters headlining Just Us II but I am sad to see Rebecca St. James being dragged into this.
Would that the articulate, photogenic, charismatic Christian elite would help shine the spotlight on, oh, I don't know, things like this:
Everyone's in a hurry, even those who have had enough. Iraq has been called "Vietnam on crack," and the similarities are plentiful, down to the buffed-up premises for war (the Gulf of Tonkin then, W.M.D. now), the body counts, the peekaboo enemy ("'Where the [expletive] are these guys?' Maj. Kei Braun exclaimed in frustration" Ellen Knickmeyer, reporting on Operation Matador), and the stale vocabulary ("quagmire," "winning hearts and minds," "cut and run").
But emotionally Iraq doesn't feel like Vietnam. It doesn't feel like anything. It's like a phantom limb that doesn't ache. There's little of the anguish and anger that boiled in the 60s, few protest marches, only minor agitation in Congress (which approves every supplemental-funding bill for a war that was supposed to be self-financing), no social fissures opening up between opponents and supporters; everyone inhabits the same gray zone of resignation to whatever the outcome may be.
Would that the articulate, photogenic, charismatic Christian elite would help shine the spotlight on, oh, I don't know, things like this:
Everyone's in a hurry, even those who have had enough. Iraq has been called "Vietnam on crack," and the similarities are plentiful, down to the buffed-up premises for war (the Gulf of Tonkin then, W.M.D. now), the body counts, the peekaboo enemy ("'Where the [expletive] are these guys?' Maj. Kei Braun exclaimed in frustration" Ellen Knickmeyer, reporting on Operation Matador), and the stale vocabulary ("quagmire," "winning hearts and minds," "cut and run").
But emotionally Iraq doesn't feel like Vietnam. It doesn't feel like anything. It's like a phantom limb that doesn't ache. There's little of the anguish and anger that boiled in the 60s, few protest marches, only minor agitation in Congress (which approves every supplemental-funding bill for a war that was supposed to be self-financing), no social fissures opening up between opponents and supporters; everyone inhabits the same gray zone of resignation to whatever the outcome may be.
The Republican Party of Moral Absolutes
Krugman
But Mr. Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant. For one thing, he knew he could count on the administration's supporters to obediently accept a changing story line.
Read the before-and-after columns by pro-administration pundits about Iraq:
before the war they castigated the C.I.A. for understating the threat posed by Saddam's W.M.D.; after the war they castigated the C.I.A. for exaggerating the very same threat.
Digby
Kevin Drum's got some interesting stuff up today. He is one of the blogosphere's resident experts on the Plame story --- he was the go-to guy when it broke and he seems to to remember a lot of details I've forgotton (or never knew.)
He reminds us today (via Mickey Kaus) of this Howard Fineman analysis from 2003 in which Fineman speculates that the leak was really an attempt to smear Wilson and his wife as being part of a "pro-Saddam" CIA cabal. Here's the relevant excerpt:
I am told by what I regard as a very reliable source inside the White House that aides there did, in fact, try to peddle the identity of Joe Wilsons wife to several reporters. But the motive wasnt revenge or intimidation so much as a desire to explain why, in their view, Wilson wasnt a neutral investigator, but, a member of the CIAs leave-Saddam-in-place team.
But Mr. Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant. For one thing, he knew he could count on the administration's supporters to obediently accept a changing story line.
Read the before-and-after columns by pro-administration pundits about Iraq:
before the war they castigated the C.I.A. for understating the threat posed by Saddam's W.M.D.; after the war they castigated the C.I.A. for exaggerating the very same threat.
Digby
Kevin Drum's got some interesting stuff up today. He is one of the blogosphere's resident experts on the Plame story --- he was the go-to guy when it broke and he seems to to remember a lot of details I've forgotton (or never knew.)
He reminds us today (via Mickey Kaus) of this Howard Fineman analysis from 2003 in which Fineman speculates that the leak was really an attempt to smear Wilson and his wife as being part of a "pro-Saddam" CIA cabal. Here's the relevant excerpt:
I am told by what I regard as a very reliable source inside the White House that aides there did, in fact, try to peddle the identity of Joe Wilsons wife to several reporters. But the motive wasnt revenge or intimidation so much as a desire to explain why, in their view, Wilson wasnt a neutral investigator, but, a member of the CIAs leave-Saddam-in-place team.
The Republican Party of Personal Responsibility
Josh Marshall
There's a point that's probably worth raising with our scofflaw Republican friends.
All of their arguments now amount to excuses, like those of a small child caught stealing cookies:
Joe Wilson's a liar.
Plame's covert status wasn't protected well by the CIA.
It was just a short phone call.
Rove really wanted to speak about welfare reform.
Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa.
Plame sent Wilson to Africa.
Rove leaked Plame's identity in the interests of good journalism.
Wilson went on too many TV shows.
On and on and on.
The salient point is not that each of these claims is false.
The point is that they're irrelevant.
It's the mid-life version of 'He hit me first!' or 'He called me a name!' or other such foolery.
There's a point that's probably worth raising with our scofflaw Republican friends.
All of their arguments now amount to excuses, like those of a small child caught stealing cookies:
Joe Wilson's a liar.
Plame's covert status wasn't protected well by the CIA.
It was just a short phone call.
Rove really wanted to speak about welfare reform.
Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa.
Plame sent Wilson to Africa.
Rove leaked Plame's identity in the interests of good journalism.
Wilson went on too many TV shows.
On and on and on.
The salient point is not that each of these claims is false.
The point is that they're irrelevant.
It's the mid-life version of 'He hit me first!' or 'He called me a name!' or other such foolery.
When All Else Fails
Scott McClellan, White House spokesman, to reporters on Monday, after repeated refusals to discuss the "ongoing investigation" of Karl Rove.
Again, I'm going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time. Dana, you all -- you and everybody in this room, or most people in this room, I should say, know me very well and they know the type of person that I am. And I'm confident in our relationship that we have. But I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that's once the investigation is complete. I'm not going to get into commenting based on reports or anything of that nature.
Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Republican member of Congress, on not seeking re-election.
"I fully recognize that I showed poor judgment when I sold my home in Del Mar to a friend [who took a $700,000 loss on the resale of my house but still allowed me to live for free on his yacht in DC] who did business with the government," he said. "I should have given more thought to how such transactions might look to those who don't know me like you do."
Again, I'm going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time. Dana, you all -- you and everybody in this room, or most people in this room, I should say, know me very well and they know the type of person that I am. And I'm confident in our relationship that we have. But I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that's once the investigation is complete. I'm not going to get into commenting based on reports or anything of that nature.
Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Republican member of Congress, on not seeking re-election.
"I fully recognize that I showed poor judgment when I sold my home in Del Mar to a friend [who took a $700,000 loss on the resale of my house but still allowed me to live for free on his yacht in DC] who did business with the government," he said. "I should have given more thought to how such transactions might look to those who don't know me like you do."
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Dying to Win
I've started reading Robert Pape's book, Dying to Win, which considers the phenomenon of suicide terrorism. Using empirical data on the attackers, their targets, and the timing of the attacks, Pape concludes that suicide terrorism is rational, usually part of an organized campaign, and targeted at democratic countries with the intention of driving out foreign occupiers. It is not, however, primarily religious in nature. Therefore, western campaigns designed to change Islamic society--especially through war--to combat terrorism are misdirected, and likely to generate more suicide attacks.
Having just started I can't say whether Pape's arguments are solid or questionable but I do think that suicide terrorism is rational at least to the attackers. Whether the role of religion and Islam in the Al Qaeda attacks is significant or minimal is something else. But I'm open to the idea that the conventional wisdom, such as it exists, about terrorism and suicide terrorists in particular, is pretty simplistic and deserving of greater scrutiny.
Which brings me back to the Karl Rove allegations of some weeks ago about the contrast between conservative and liberal approaches to terrorism. Liberals and Democrats have spent so much time demanding apologies and being outraged I think we've missed an important element in his remarks.
And that is that the instrument of war in fighting terrorism--especially suicide terrorism--is at best, an instrument very limited in its effectiveness and in the duration of its application.
I believe the wars launched against Afghanistan and Iraq are bearing this point out. Although the obstensible goal has been to remake these societies, our militaries are in control of only a portion of these states. The administration's stated desire to remake the states that sponsor terrorism, broadly speaking, is running up against the reality of the difficulties involved in occupying other countries and in thwarting the motives, not to mention the operations of, those who oppose our values or our presence and intervention in their lands.
And with both of these countries more or less in ruins (in Afghanistan, the Taliban is regrouping and the U.S. backed Karzai government is in practical control of only the capital and major cities), and with war being the administration's preferred instrument, where else is there to go? Who gets invaded or bombed next, and with what army?
For those of us who are suspicious of and fear the country's military industrial complex, one consolation is that the military as a tool of power is one that can be applied only sparingly. It's hard to imagine, for example, our maintaining the present forces in Iraq while turning to invade Iran (a bigger and better defended country than Iraq) at the same time.
All of this is to say that Rove's allegations about liberals (or Democrats as the case may be) as being soft on terrorism and squeemish about war, should give liberals and Democrats the opportunity to challenge the administration's "war only, war all the time" strategy of making the country safe.
The administration's war policy is a policy instrument of very limited application (not to mention it's blowback potential) and someone, preferably our party, should begin telling that to the American people.
Having just started I can't say whether Pape's arguments are solid or questionable but I do think that suicide terrorism is rational at least to the attackers. Whether the role of religion and Islam in the Al Qaeda attacks is significant or minimal is something else. But I'm open to the idea that the conventional wisdom, such as it exists, about terrorism and suicide terrorists in particular, is pretty simplistic and deserving of greater scrutiny.
Which brings me back to the Karl Rove allegations of some weeks ago about the contrast between conservative and liberal approaches to terrorism. Liberals and Democrats have spent so much time demanding apologies and being outraged I think we've missed an important element in his remarks.
And that is that the instrument of war in fighting terrorism--especially suicide terrorism--is at best, an instrument very limited in its effectiveness and in the duration of its application.
I believe the wars launched against Afghanistan and Iraq are bearing this point out. Although the obstensible goal has been to remake these societies, our militaries are in control of only a portion of these states. The administration's stated desire to remake the states that sponsor terrorism, broadly speaking, is running up against the reality of the difficulties involved in occupying other countries and in thwarting the motives, not to mention the operations of, those who oppose our values or our presence and intervention in their lands.
And with both of these countries more or less in ruins (in Afghanistan, the Taliban is regrouping and the U.S. backed Karzai government is in practical control of only the capital and major cities), and with war being the administration's preferred instrument, where else is there to go? Who gets invaded or bombed next, and with what army?
For those of us who are suspicious of and fear the country's military industrial complex, one consolation is that the military as a tool of power is one that can be applied only sparingly. It's hard to imagine, for example, our maintaining the present forces in Iraq while turning to invade Iran (a bigger and better defended country than Iraq) at the same time.
All of this is to say that Rove's allegations about liberals (or Democrats as the case may be) as being soft on terrorism and squeemish about war, should give liberals and Democrats the opportunity to challenge the administration's "war only, war all the time" strategy of making the country safe.
The administration's war policy is a policy instrument of very limited application (not to mention it's blowback potential) and someone, preferably our party, should begin telling that to the American people.
Bringing back the 1780's
One of the essential conservative talking points that has evolved over the last several years is that of "original intent" and the absolute dedication to a "dead Constitution."
This committment to "original intent" and a "dead, unchanging Constition" doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution itself, but is the reactionary line from conservatives who don't like the expansion of individual liberties and civil rights that have come from the courts in the last 50 years.
It also feeds reactionary conservatism's desire to return to the golden age of patriarchy, hierarchy and class distinctions, such as that as is imagined to have existed at around the time of America's founding and for most of the century thereafter.
Conservatives don't like modernity and the freedoms it has spawned. So they want to go back in time to when the men were men and the sheep were scared.
By claiming as sacrosanct the notions of "original intent", "strict constructivism", and the "dead Constition" conservatives hope to lead a movement back in time. They want to roll back the rights of individuals and public efforts to balance the power of corporations.
They want us to go back to the 1780's.
The resignation of Justice O' Connor and the process to replace her on the SCOTUS has led, naturally, to the public trumpeting of competing Constitutional views by opposing ideological groups, individuals and cable TV networks.
Take Faux Nooz (please).
Pandagon's Jesse Taylor catches conservative commentator and Faux Nooz host Cal Thomas waxing poetic about the good old days and the need for a return to "original intent":
Cal Thomas wonders why we interpret laws with purposefully flexible meanings, but don't interpret objective quantitative measures.
The president and those who wish to see the Constitution restored to its "original intent" need to reteach it if they are to overcome the liberal orthodoxy expressed by the late Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and echoed recently by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that "the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Try that at the supermarket. Is a pound what the shopper says it is, or do scales, which rely on a standard, determine a pound's true weight? Would we get away with telling a police officer who pulls us over for speeding, "I decided that 70 miles per hour is 55 for me"?
Why, then, this constantly changing Constitution that is in the minds of liberals to be altered like a suit of clothes to fit the wearer, rather than a document to which all must conform if the general welfare is to be promoted?
Because the document is not a series of ironclad objective measures.
A mile is 5,280 feet. Freedom of speech is a troublesome yet important right guaranteed by the Constitution whose total parameters remain undefined and constantly challenged by new innovations in technology.
This committment to "original intent" and a "dead, unchanging Constition" doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution itself, but is the reactionary line from conservatives who don't like the expansion of individual liberties and civil rights that have come from the courts in the last 50 years.
It also feeds reactionary conservatism's desire to return to the golden age of patriarchy, hierarchy and class distinctions, such as that as is imagined to have existed at around the time of America's founding and for most of the century thereafter.
Conservatives don't like modernity and the freedoms it has spawned. So they want to go back in time to when the men were men and the sheep were scared.
By claiming as sacrosanct the notions of "original intent", "strict constructivism", and the "dead Constition" conservatives hope to lead a movement back in time. They want to roll back the rights of individuals and public efforts to balance the power of corporations.
They want us to go back to the 1780's.
The resignation of Justice O' Connor and the process to replace her on the SCOTUS has led, naturally, to the public trumpeting of competing Constitutional views by opposing ideological groups, individuals and cable TV networks.
Take Faux Nooz (please).
Pandagon's Jesse Taylor catches conservative commentator and Faux Nooz host Cal Thomas waxing poetic about the good old days and the need for a return to "original intent":
Cal Thomas wonders why we interpret laws with purposefully flexible meanings, but don't interpret objective quantitative measures.
The president and those who wish to see the Constitution restored to its "original intent" need to reteach it if they are to overcome the liberal orthodoxy expressed by the late Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and echoed recently by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that "the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Try that at the supermarket. Is a pound what the shopper says it is, or do scales, which rely on a standard, determine a pound's true weight? Would we get away with telling a police officer who pulls us over for speeding, "I decided that 70 miles per hour is 55 for me"?
Why, then, this constantly changing Constitution that is in the minds of liberals to be altered like a suit of clothes to fit the wearer, rather than a document to which all must conform if the general welfare is to be promoted?
Because the document is not a series of ironclad objective measures.
A mile is 5,280 feet. Freedom of speech is a troublesome yet important right guaranteed by the Constitution whose total parameters remain undefined and constantly challenged by new innovations in technology.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Plamegate
Count me among those who aren't convinced this will lead to Rove's firing or indictment, but there are several developments that are already promising.
1) The administration caught making contradictory and self serving statements regarding "this continuing investigation."
They commented on it before they wouldn't comment on it. Except when the RNC comments on it.
2) The rebellion of the press. ABC's Terry Moran openly identified Faux News as "friendly" to the administration. NBC's David Gregory calling McClellan's lame "no comment" defense as "ridiculous":
Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.
Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?
MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.
Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --
Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?
3) Wingnut calvary going bust. Right wing talking points sound coordinated and suspicious coming out as they have after McClellan said the administration wouldn't comment.
1) The administration caught making contradictory and self serving statements regarding "this continuing investigation."
They commented on it before they wouldn't comment on it. Except when the RNC comments on it.
2) The rebellion of the press. ABC's Terry Moran openly identified Faux News as "friendly" to the administration. NBC's David Gregory calling McClellan's lame "no comment" defense as "ridiculous":
Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.
Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?
MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.
Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --
Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?
3) Wingnut calvary going bust. Right wing talking points sound coordinated and suspicious coming out as they have after McClellan said the administration wouldn't comment.
Meet the Candidates (Revised)
MyDD listed these candidates in their July presidential poll:
Evan Bayh
Joe Biden
Wesley Clark
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Russ Feingold
John Kerry
Bill Richardson
Mark Warner
Politics1.com included all of the above but added these:
Tom Vilsack
Ed Rendell
Phil Bredesen
Dennis Kucinich
Janet Napolitano
Ben Nelson
What I find interesting is to think about how these names fit with the primary/caucus schedule. Which of these candidates does the primary/caucus schedule help?
Assuming that 2008 schedule replicates that of 2004, here are the states that would vote in January and the first two weeks of February.
With this list of candidates, and the results of the 2004 primaries (non-2008 contenders not listed), here are some ideas about how these first states would vote and how the nomination battle would shape up, with states in the predicted order and relative importance. Numbers in parentheses indicate week number in month.
January
Iowa
2004 results
Kerry 38%
Edwards 32%
Clark 0%
2005 predicted: Tom Vilsack
He's the governor there and I suspect that were he to run, or at least allow his name to be put on the ballot, then he would take this state, much in the way that Tom Harkin did when he ran in 1992, as a sort of favorite son. If might even be that, like 1992, the outcome in Iowa was regarded as preordained, none of the other candidates would mount much of an effort there, and the state's caucuses would not be given much weight in the nomination fight.
If Vilsack does not run, Iowa may opt for the front-runner, as it ultimately did in 2004. Or it might cast its lot with a candidate from a nearby state, as it did in 1988 when it sided with Gephardt over Michael Dukakis. On the other hand, Edwards ran surprisingly strong here last year and might have a leg up on some of the others.
New Hampshire
2004 Results
Kerry 39%
Clark 13%
Edwards 12%
2005 Prediction: Edwards/Clinton/Kerry
A hard state to figure. In the past it's given maverick (republican) candidates a chance to go on (Buchanan, McCain) but has been more conventional with its Democratic field. Kerry is of course in nearby Mass. but would also undoubtedly face stiff competition from Edwards and Clark, who ran here last year, and from Hilary, who would probably be the front runner. Of the other candidates, I think only Biden could be expected to finish strongly here. Biden's impact could be even greater if, as is likely, national security credentials weigh heavily on voter's minds of electable qualities.
In any event, NH will figure to be the break-out state, the one that will cause some also-ran candidates to drop out. The winner will be handed front runner status. Given what I think will be Kerry's problems arguing for an opportunity to run again, and Edwards' 2004 experience, as well as his campaign appeal and message simplicity, I think Edwards could win here.
February
South Carolina (1)
2004 Results
Edwards 45%
Kerry 30%
Clark 7%
2005 Prediction: Edwards
A state that would have already been heavily oriented towards either Edwards or Warner (or Breseden) would have an even greater impact should Edwards win here after NH, giving him the big MO. I suspect Warner will give Edwards a tight race here as Edwards comes under greater scrutiny. However, I still suspect Edwards to pull it out in his native state.
This would create a long road for the rest of the field. If the next states are Tennessee and Virginia, Warner could stay on with a win in either or both. Candidates Richardson and Bayh could stay in given the mid west and southwestern states that would vote soon after. Clark or Biden could do reasonably well on Super Tuesday, especially in the south. At the same time, if either Biden or Clinton don't win an early state, their support could dry up.
All in all, even if Clinton or Biden wins in NH, the block of southern states voting next could make things easier for Edwards or even Warner to capitalize on.
And Clinton, despite her assumed front runner status, would really need to win NH to maintain expectations and to deal with what will likely be losses in some of the states coming up afterwards.
New Mexico
2004 Results
Kerry 42%
Clark 21%
Edwards 11%
2005 Predicted: Richardson
Arizona
2004 Results
Kerry 43%
Clark 27%
Edwards 7%
2005 Predicted: Richardson/Napolitano
Delaware
2004 Results
Kerry 50%
Edwards 11%
Clark 10%
2005 Prediction: Biden
Missouri
2004 Results
Kerry 51%
Edwards 25%
Clark 4%
2005 Prediction: Toss Up
Oklahoma
2004 Results
Clark 30%
Edwards 30%
Kerry 27%
2005 Predicted: Clark/Edwards/Richardson/Warner
North Dakota
2004 Results
Kerry 50%
Clark 24%
Edwards 10%
2005 Prediction: Richardson/Clark
Michigan
2004 Results
Kerry 52%
Edwards 13%
Clark 7%
2005 Prediction: Edwards/Clinton
Washington
2004 Results
Kerry 49%
Edwards 7%
Clark 3%
2005 Prediction: Edwards/Clinton/Clark
Maine
2004 Results
Kerry 45%
Edwards 8%
Clark 4%
2005 Prediction: Edwards/Clinton
Virginia (2)
2004 Results
Kerry 52%
Edwards 27%
Clark 9%
2005 Prediction: Warner
Tennessee
2004 Results
Kerry 41%
Edwards 26%
Clark 23%
2005 Prediction: Breseden
So who survives and who goes home?
Of the more serious candidates I'd say Biden and maybe Clinton drop out. Vilsack also likely to be gone. The others may hang around and wait for Super Tuesday.
Evan Bayh
Joe Biden
Wesley Clark
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Russ Feingold
John Kerry
Bill Richardson
Mark Warner
Politics1.com included all of the above but added these:
Tom Vilsack
Ed Rendell
Phil Bredesen
Dennis Kucinich
Janet Napolitano
Ben Nelson
What I find interesting is to think about how these names fit with the primary/caucus schedule. Which of these candidates does the primary/caucus schedule help?
Assuming that 2008 schedule replicates that of 2004, here are the states that would vote in January and the first two weeks of February.
With this list of candidates, and the results of the 2004 primaries (non-2008 contenders not listed), here are some ideas about how these first states would vote and how the nomination battle would shape up, with states in the predicted order and relative importance. Numbers in parentheses indicate week number in month.
January
Iowa
2004 results
Kerry 38%
Edwards 32%
Clark 0%
2005 predicted: Tom Vilsack
He's the governor there and I suspect that were he to run, or at least allow his name to be put on the ballot, then he would take this state, much in the way that Tom Harkin did when he ran in 1992, as a sort of favorite son. If might even be that, like 1992, the outcome in Iowa was regarded as preordained, none of the other candidates would mount much of an effort there, and the state's caucuses would not be given much weight in the nomination fight.
If Vilsack does not run, Iowa may opt for the front-runner, as it ultimately did in 2004. Or it might cast its lot with a candidate from a nearby state, as it did in 1988 when it sided with Gephardt over Michael Dukakis. On the other hand, Edwards ran surprisingly strong here last year and might have a leg up on some of the others.
New Hampshire
2004 Results
Kerry 39%
Clark 13%
Edwards 12%
2005 Prediction: Edwards/Clinton/Kerry
A hard state to figure. In the past it's given maverick (republican) candidates a chance to go on (Buchanan, McCain) but has been more conventional with its Democratic field. Kerry is of course in nearby Mass. but would also undoubtedly face stiff competition from Edwards and Clark, who ran here last year, and from Hilary, who would probably be the front runner. Of the other candidates, I think only Biden could be expected to finish strongly here. Biden's impact could be even greater if, as is likely, national security credentials weigh heavily on voter's minds of electable qualities.
In any event, NH will figure to be the break-out state, the one that will cause some also-ran candidates to drop out. The winner will be handed front runner status. Given what I think will be Kerry's problems arguing for an opportunity to run again, and Edwards' 2004 experience, as well as his campaign appeal and message simplicity, I think Edwards could win here.
February
South Carolina (1)
2004 Results
Edwards 45%
Kerry 30%
Clark 7%
2005 Prediction: Edwards
A state that would have already been heavily oriented towards either Edwards or Warner (or Breseden) would have an even greater impact should Edwards win here after NH, giving him the big MO. I suspect Warner will give Edwards a tight race here as Edwards comes under greater scrutiny. However, I still suspect Edwards to pull it out in his native state.
This would create a long road for the rest of the field. If the next states are Tennessee and Virginia, Warner could stay on with a win in either or both. Candidates Richardson and Bayh could stay in given the mid west and southwestern states that would vote soon after. Clark or Biden could do reasonably well on Super Tuesday, especially in the south. At the same time, if either Biden or Clinton don't win an early state, their support could dry up.
All in all, even if Clinton or Biden wins in NH, the block of southern states voting next could make things easier for Edwards or even Warner to capitalize on.
And Clinton, despite her assumed front runner status, would really need to win NH to maintain expectations and to deal with what will likely be losses in some of the states coming up afterwards.
New Mexico
2004 Results
Kerry 42%
Clark 21%
Edwards 11%
2005 Predicted: Richardson
Arizona
2004 Results
Kerry 43%
Clark 27%
Edwards 7%
2005 Predicted: Richardson/Napolitano
Delaware
2004 Results
Kerry 50%
Edwards 11%
Clark 10%
2005 Prediction: Biden
Missouri
2004 Results
Kerry 51%
Edwards 25%
Clark 4%
2005 Prediction: Toss Up
Oklahoma
2004 Results
Clark 30%
Edwards 30%
Kerry 27%
2005 Predicted: Clark/Edwards/Richardson/Warner
North Dakota
2004 Results
Kerry 50%
Clark 24%
Edwards 10%
2005 Prediction: Richardson/Clark
Michigan
2004 Results
Kerry 52%
Edwards 13%
Clark 7%
2005 Prediction: Edwards/Clinton
Washington
2004 Results
Kerry 49%
Edwards 7%
Clark 3%
2005 Prediction: Edwards/Clinton/Clark
Maine
2004 Results
Kerry 45%
Edwards 8%
Clark 4%
2005 Prediction: Edwards/Clinton
Virginia (2)
2004 Results
Kerry 52%
Edwards 27%
Clark 9%
2005 Prediction: Warner
Tennessee
2004 Results
Kerry 41%
Edwards 26%
Clark 23%
2005 Prediction: Breseden
So who survives and who goes home?
Of the more serious candidates I'd say Biden and maybe Clinton drop out. Vilsack also likely to be gone. The others may hang around and wait for Super Tuesday.
Radio Militia "Tour" A Bust
There haven't been any updates on the Tour of Truth crusade for two days, although presumably the group has finally made it to the Green Zone.
At the same time, we recognize it hasn't been the best of weeks to be in Baghdad to trumpet the Good News of the U.S. led occupation of Iraq.
First, the infamous "fly paper" strategy got blown all to bits when four bombs were detonated in London last Thursday, killing (as of today) 52 people. So instead of being able to bellow about how the Iraqi invasion was giving us the option of fighting the terrorists "there" (the Middle East) instead of "here"(the West), the radio militia's tour of duty has been distracted by the events in London, and the collapse of yet another administration talking point forces its admirers to alter their rhetoric to fit the changed circumstances.
Second, the bombings in Baghdad have continued, most recently as 27 people, mostly Iraqi children, were killed by a car-bomber driving into the midst of American GI's distributing of candy. A previous attack by Iraqi insurgents in Baghdad resulted in the deaths of 25 people, mostly recruits to the Iraqi army at a recruiting center.
Finally, the American press has been all over Plamegate, peppering Scotty with all sorts of nagging questions about Karl Rove's involvement with the outing of CIA agent-operative Valerie Plame, in retaliation for her husband, Joe Wilson's calling the administration's Iraqi yellow cake allegations bogus.
So it hasn't been a good week for the conservative radio "delegation", who had not only to battle the fact that they were the D-list of conservative hate radio that probably wouldn't have gotten much attention anyway, but have had to contend with events in Baghdad, London, and DC that have not contributed positively to their view of the world and the rosy scenario they wished to project to their listeners and the wider American public.
UPDATE: Well, THIS is sure exciting, isn't it?
UPDATE: They've talked to the head of the Iraqi "army" over there and think they've got the scoop. But strangely, nothing about today's attacks in Baghdad.
Classic quotes:
In terms of raw numbers, there are now more Iraqi security forces in the country than coalition troops.
And I have a bridge to sell you.
(snip)
What will it take to overcome all these challenges? Courage. The Iraqi and Coalition forces have it in abundance. Tomorrow we will test our courage as we go out on patrol.
Yeah, boy.
At the same time, we recognize it hasn't been the best of weeks to be in Baghdad to trumpet the Good News of the U.S. led occupation of Iraq.
First, the infamous "fly paper" strategy got blown all to bits when four bombs were detonated in London last Thursday, killing (as of today) 52 people. So instead of being able to bellow about how the Iraqi invasion was giving us the option of fighting the terrorists "there" (the Middle East) instead of "here"(the West), the radio militia's tour of duty has been distracted by the events in London, and the collapse of yet another administration talking point forces its admirers to alter their rhetoric to fit the changed circumstances.
Second, the bombings in Baghdad have continued, most recently as 27 people, mostly Iraqi children, were killed by a car-bomber driving into the midst of American GI's distributing of candy. A previous attack by Iraqi insurgents in Baghdad resulted in the deaths of 25 people, mostly recruits to the Iraqi army at a recruiting center.
Finally, the American press has been all over Plamegate, peppering Scotty with all sorts of nagging questions about Karl Rove's involvement with the outing of CIA agent-operative Valerie Plame, in retaliation for her husband, Joe Wilson's calling the administration's Iraqi yellow cake allegations bogus.
So it hasn't been a good week for the conservative radio "delegation", who had not only to battle the fact that they were the D-list of conservative hate radio that probably wouldn't have gotten much attention anyway, but have had to contend with events in Baghdad, London, and DC that have not contributed positively to their view of the world and the rosy scenario they wished to project to their listeners and the wider American public.
UPDATE: Well, THIS is sure exciting, isn't it?
UPDATE: They've talked to the head of the Iraqi "army" over there and think they've got the scoop. But strangely, nothing about today's attacks in Baghdad.
Classic quotes:
In terms of raw numbers, there are now more Iraqi security forces in the country than coalition troops.
And I have a bridge to sell you.
(snip)
What will it take to overcome all these challenges? Courage. The Iraqi and Coalition forces have it in abundance. Tomorrow we will test our courage as we go out on patrol.
Yeah, boy.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Right-Wing Radio Militia's "Truth" Crusade Underwhelming
They're off to a terribly slow and boring start.
First, they waste time in Florida at a barbeque.
Then they travel to Kuwait.
Get on with it already.
First, they waste time in Florida at a barbeque.
Then they travel to Kuwait.
Get on with it already.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Cops
Uh oh.
The Brits are bringing in the po-lice to investigate yesterday's bombing.
It's been my impression that conservatives don't want this war on terra being thought of as a police type action, with laws and courts and stuff.
Conservatives, as Mr. Rove recently noted, wanna bomb shit. The only way to deal with the terrorists is with the fist.
So I'm sure once the munchkins at LGF and Powerline get a whiff of this there'll be no more "we're all Brits now" talk.
But it does raise the problem of what we're supposed to do in response to this, and perhaps future attacks, since I think we've just about bombed or invaded everybody we can for now. Sullivan says he's anxious for his old native country to "roar". But as Digby asks, "roar" at what? And where? And how?
That's the problem with shock and awe. You really only get one or at most two times to whip it out. Then it becomes expended. And whatever you do next is going to look decidedly wimpy, so pre-911.
I wonder if the project for a new american century and the other moral clarifiers have thought about this. What's next in the till?
The Brits are bringing in the po-lice to investigate yesterday's bombing.
It's been my impression that conservatives don't want this war on terra being thought of as a police type action, with laws and courts and stuff.
Conservatives, as Mr. Rove recently noted, wanna bomb shit. The only way to deal with the terrorists is with the fist.
So I'm sure once the munchkins at LGF and Powerline get a whiff of this there'll be no more "we're all Brits now" talk.
But it does raise the problem of what we're supposed to do in response to this, and perhaps future attacks, since I think we've just about bombed or invaded everybody we can for now. Sullivan says he's anxious for his old native country to "roar". But as Digby asks, "roar" at what? And where? And how?
That's the problem with shock and awe. You really only get one or at most two times to whip it out. Then it becomes expended. And whatever you do next is going to look decidedly wimpy, so pre-911.
I wonder if the project for a new american century and the other moral clarifiers have thought about this. What's next in the till?
The Daily Word
From a commenter at Hughes for America:
For good or ill -- and each passing day it seems to be for ill, I am sad to say -- it is the media and other powers that be that shape our thinking and our outlook on the world.
On days like today and in the days to come, we are constantly being conditioned to think of western, Christian lives as being more valuable than the lives of the rest of the habitants of the world.
It is no wonder there is a constant and possibly never-ending war going on between these worlds. It is a clash of cultures, and a conflict between the haves and have nots.
I can only hope that we will be able to regard the casualties of all innocent civilians as equally tragic, newsworthy and the object of our contant condemnation.
John McGowan:
As Tony Blair said it today: We will not allow violence to change our societies and our values. How we will send our message? By imposing our will on theirs. We shall prevail and they shall not. Their initiatory act of violence calls forth our responding acts of violence.
What differentiates our violence from theirs? Three things: 1) our aims are moral; theirs are not; 2) they kill innocent people; we do not; and 3) their actions are gratuitous; ours are necessary. (Lurking behind all three is the old schoolboy standard: he started it.)
(snip)
You cannot preserve a way of life through violence; once you take up arms, kiss your old way of life good-bye. The attacks of September 11th did change America, not through what the terrorists did, but through what we did in response.
(snip)
But, at least, pacifism calls our attention to the fact that violence, to say the least, is a very uncertain means to accomplish anything. So if the end is something we care about deeply, we will be well advised to consider other means. Violence has a nasty habit of proving indiscriminate in its destruction.
(snip)
I turn now from pacifism's pragmatism (the focus on instrumentality) to what I think of as its realism. Of course, in matters of violence, the manly rhetoric of determination, will, prevailing, and necessity is considered realistic and is opposed to the namby-pamby, pie-in-the-sky idealism of the pacifist who refuses to face facts.
I beg to differ.
The most abiding lesson I have learned in the four years since September 11th is the persistent inability of humans--as a species? Who knows? But certainly in many instances--to call a spade a spade. The rhetorics of violence divert our attention away from the maimed and suffering and dead bodies that are violence's most real product.
Think of the ways that sacrifice and victory were deployed in Bush's recent speech about the Iraq War. Was there any connection offered between these terms and the dead bodies our war is producing daily? Pacifism calls us to the fact that violence means killing and maiming; it means inflicting physical harm and pain on humans. It tells us to be suspicious, very suspicious, of the words in which we cloak violence, in which we justify it, and in which we avoid apprehending its real effects on the ground. Get real.
By jumping away to the message violence sends about our resolve or to the desired results we imagine it will produce, we cultivate a blindness that renders our claims to be realists delusionary.
Pacifism also calls us to get real about the justificatory distinctions made between innocent and non-innocent victims. Ever since the Blitz of 1940, warfare has pretty much obliterated the distinction between combatants and non-combatants.
(snip)
To think that our violence can be so surgical that only the non-innocent will feel its brunt is another delusion, one that the Pentagon has developed a whole new vocabulary to create and preserve.
I guess I must add here, since liberals are so often willfully misunderstood on this score, that I condemn and abhor todays bombings. I am only saying that pacifism has some very solid reasons for saying that once you begin making distinctions between 'good' violence and 'bad' violence, or between 'acceptable' violence and 'criminal' violence, or between 'surgical' violence and 'indiscriminate' violence, the consequences, more often than not, are lamentable, and the rhetorics deployed to make those distinctions prove a means for not even seeing the consequences.
Pacifism's realism also extends to a candid look at the joy humans can take in destruction. Since violence has proven so unreliable throughout history, our attraction to it can't be simply its instrumental efficacy. Push aside the rhetorics of necessity and/or of moralism and it's not hard to see the glee of the teenager who throws a brick through a plate glass window or the child who stomps on the sand castle.
The last four years have also taught me how bourgeois I am. I love the life that I have constructed painstakingly over fifty years and the people with whom I share that life. I am enormously grateful to the peace and stability that has made that act of construction possible and that makes its continuation likely. Contempt for all things bourgeois runs deep within modernity from both the right and the left. Having thrown my lot in with the arts early in life, I have gone through my own anti-bourgeois phases. And, even today, my understanding of the bourgeois virtues is carefully distanced from the ethos of capitalism. I will spare you an articulation of my bourgeois loyalties at this time and place.
The current point is that, for many, peace is boring, constraining, complex, and frustrating. They accept gleefully the opportunity to flee domesticity and the difficulties of getting along with others. (Much of the frustration on the ground in Iraq is that it is a political war, really more a policing action than combat, the kind of action for which our soldiers are poorly trained and equipped. Many of them would feel a whole lot better if it was no-holds-barred, shoot-em-up simple.)
Politicians love making those resolve speeches. It offers them their Churchillian moment and puts the messy compromises of politics and the entangling details of enacting policy on the back burner. Violence as destruction offers a clear field for action.
Pacifism asks us to cast a cold eye on this human capacity to take joy in violence, irrespective of its consequences or its legitimacy. We need to devise ways to push a leash on or divert such capacities and we should be wary of the high-minded or instrumental rhetorics that often mask a love of violence for its simplicity and the heady sense of vitality it affords.
For good or ill -- and each passing day it seems to be for ill, I am sad to say -- it is the media and other powers that be that shape our thinking and our outlook on the world.
On days like today and in the days to come, we are constantly being conditioned to think of western, Christian lives as being more valuable than the lives of the rest of the habitants of the world.
It is no wonder there is a constant and possibly never-ending war going on between these worlds. It is a clash of cultures, and a conflict between the haves and have nots.
I can only hope that we will be able to regard the casualties of all innocent civilians as equally tragic, newsworthy and the object of our contant condemnation.
John McGowan:
As Tony Blair said it today: We will not allow violence to change our societies and our values. How we will send our message? By imposing our will on theirs. We shall prevail and they shall not. Their initiatory act of violence calls forth our responding acts of violence.
What differentiates our violence from theirs? Three things: 1) our aims are moral; theirs are not; 2) they kill innocent people; we do not; and 3) their actions are gratuitous; ours are necessary. (Lurking behind all three is the old schoolboy standard: he started it.)
(snip)
You cannot preserve a way of life through violence; once you take up arms, kiss your old way of life good-bye. The attacks of September 11th did change America, not through what the terrorists did, but through what we did in response.
(snip)
But, at least, pacifism calls our attention to the fact that violence, to say the least, is a very uncertain means to accomplish anything. So if the end is something we care about deeply, we will be well advised to consider other means. Violence has a nasty habit of proving indiscriminate in its destruction.
(snip)
I turn now from pacifism's pragmatism (the focus on instrumentality) to what I think of as its realism. Of course, in matters of violence, the manly rhetoric of determination, will, prevailing, and necessity is considered realistic and is opposed to the namby-pamby, pie-in-the-sky idealism of the pacifist who refuses to face facts.
I beg to differ.
The most abiding lesson I have learned in the four years since September 11th is the persistent inability of humans--as a species? Who knows? But certainly in many instances--to call a spade a spade. The rhetorics of violence divert our attention away from the maimed and suffering and dead bodies that are violence's most real product.
Think of the ways that sacrifice and victory were deployed in Bush's recent speech about the Iraq War. Was there any connection offered between these terms and the dead bodies our war is producing daily? Pacifism calls us to the fact that violence means killing and maiming; it means inflicting physical harm and pain on humans. It tells us to be suspicious, very suspicious, of the words in which we cloak violence, in which we justify it, and in which we avoid apprehending its real effects on the ground. Get real.
By jumping away to the message violence sends about our resolve or to the desired results we imagine it will produce, we cultivate a blindness that renders our claims to be realists delusionary.
Pacifism also calls us to get real about the justificatory distinctions made between innocent and non-innocent victims. Ever since the Blitz of 1940, warfare has pretty much obliterated the distinction between combatants and non-combatants.
(snip)
To think that our violence can be so surgical that only the non-innocent will feel its brunt is another delusion, one that the Pentagon has developed a whole new vocabulary to create and preserve.
I guess I must add here, since liberals are so often willfully misunderstood on this score, that I condemn and abhor todays bombings. I am only saying that pacifism has some very solid reasons for saying that once you begin making distinctions between 'good' violence and 'bad' violence, or between 'acceptable' violence and 'criminal' violence, or between 'surgical' violence and 'indiscriminate' violence, the consequences, more often than not, are lamentable, and the rhetorics deployed to make those distinctions prove a means for not even seeing the consequences.
Pacifism's realism also extends to a candid look at the joy humans can take in destruction. Since violence has proven so unreliable throughout history, our attraction to it can't be simply its instrumental efficacy. Push aside the rhetorics of necessity and/or of moralism and it's not hard to see the glee of the teenager who throws a brick through a plate glass window or the child who stomps on the sand castle.
The last four years have also taught me how bourgeois I am. I love the life that I have constructed painstakingly over fifty years and the people with whom I share that life. I am enormously grateful to the peace and stability that has made that act of construction possible and that makes its continuation likely. Contempt for all things bourgeois runs deep within modernity from both the right and the left. Having thrown my lot in with the arts early in life, I have gone through my own anti-bourgeois phases. And, even today, my understanding of the bourgeois virtues is carefully distanced from the ethos of capitalism. I will spare you an articulation of my bourgeois loyalties at this time and place.
The current point is that, for many, peace is boring, constraining, complex, and frustrating. They accept gleefully the opportunity to flee domesticity and the difficulties of getting along with others. (Much of the frustration on the ground in Iraq is that it is a political war, really more a policing action than combat, the kind of action for which our soldiers are poorly trained and equipped. Many of them would feel a whole lot better if it was no-holds-barred, shoot-em-up simple.)
Politicians love making those resolve speeches. It offers them their Churchillian moment and puts the messy compromises of politics and the entangling details of enacting policy on the back burner. Violence as destruction offers a clear field for action.
Pacifism asks us to cast a cold eye on this human capacity to take joy in violence, irrespective of its consequences or its legitimacy. We need to devise ways to push a leash on or divert such capacities and we should be wary of the high-minded or instrumental rhetorics that often mask a love of violence for its simplicity and the heady sense of vitality it affords.
An Inauspicious Start
I was a little worried that yesterday's bomb attacks in London might disuade the radio militia's crusade of truth tour.
But my worries appear to have been for naught because it looks like the gang has embarked to its first destination--central command headquarters in Tampa, FL, where it looks like they spent their first night in rather plush surroundings.
Nonetheless, yesterday's attacks in London did get me to thinking again, not just about the infamous "fly paper" strategy advanced by the administration and its shoe-shiners in the press, but also about the whole "we will go after the states that sponsor terrorism" rhetoric that was unvailed after 911.
Because while the argument has a certain logic to it, it also seems obvious that America's attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq have not produced stable states in either. In the former, if the U.S. military was in control, it would undoubtedly be able to locate Osama bin Forgotten, where he is likely hiding out (we certainly can't assume he's in Pakistan or else we would be required to make the same demands of our man in Islamabad that we made of the Taliban before we invaded their country), in the latter, the American occupation barely controls a walled off section of Baghdad.
So it would seem that not only is the flypaper strategy of "fighting the terrorists over there instead of over here" argument rather lame, but the notion of suppressing terrorism by conquering and controlling the states that sponsor it also seems equally fallacious.
If the strategies of Al Qaeda and its offshoots indicates anything, it is that conventional military responses are not going to address the challenge they present. But paradoxically, because overwhelming conventional military force is precisely the area in which the U.S. enjoys an advantage, it will likely be the case that the "shock and awe" military response is what the U.S. will continue to reach for, at the same time that such a strategy will be what continues to reveal our weakness and continue to inflame the ideals of those who would do us harm.
Which brings us back, in a way, to the right-wing junket mission to Baghdad, where a handful of nationalistic and militaristic shock jocks will be setting up shop for a week. Without, it seems, quite realizing what they're demonstrating, the radio militia will be bunkered down in the Green Zone, under the protection of the military, isolated from the rest of the country we are obstensibly "liberating", and not in contact with any of the natives enduring our "liberation", all the while parroting talk of how "we're winning in Iraq" and in the "global war on terra".
After seven days, the gang will be gathered together and chauffered back to some form of military transport, and returned to the states, to which they will return as equally bamboozled and ready to bamboozle as before. To return to the same audience that already thinks "we're winning" over there.
But my worries appear to have been for naught because it looks like the gang has embarked to its first destination--central command headquarters in Tampa, FL, where it looks like they spent their first night in rather plush surroundings.
Nonetheless, yesterday's attacks in London did get me to thinking again, not just about the infamous "fly paper" strategy advanced by the administration and its shoe-shiners in the press, but also about the whole "we will go after the states that sponsor terrorism" rhetoric that was unvailed after 911.
Because while the argument has a certain logic to it, it also seems obvious that America's attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq have not produced stable states in either. In the former, if the U.S. military was in control, it would undoubtedly be able to locate Osama bin Forgotten, where he is likely hiding out (we certainly can't assume he's in Pakistan or else we would be required to make the same demands of our man in Islamabad that we made of the Taliban before we invaded their country), in the latter, the American occupation barely controls a walled off section of Baghdad.
So it would seem that not only is the flypaper strategy of "fighting the terrorists over there instead of over here" argument rather lame, but the notion of suppressing terrorism by conquering and controlling the states that sponsor it also seems equally fallacious.
If the strategies of Al Qaeda and its offshoots indicates anything, it is that conventional military responses are not going to address the challenge they present. But paradoxically, because overwhelming conventional military force is precisely the area in which the U.S. enjoys an advantage, it will likely be the case that the "shock and awe" military response is what the U.S. will continue to reach for, at the same time that such a strategy will be what continues to reveal our weakness and continue to inflame the ideals of those who would do us harm.
Which brings us back, in a way, to the right-wing junket mission to Baghdad, where a handful of nationalistic and militaristic shock jocks will be setting up shop for a week. Without, it seems, quite realizing what they're demonstrating, the radio militia will be bunkered down in the Green Zone, under the protection of the military, isolated from the rest of the country we are obstensibly "liberating", and not in contact with any of the natives enduring our "liberation", all the while parroting talk of how "we're winning in Iraq" and in the "global war on terra".
After seven days, the gang will be gathered together and chauffered back to some form of military transport, and returned to the states, to which they will return as equally bamboozled and ready to bamboozle as before. To return to the same audience that already thinks "we're winning" over there.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Ass Clowns, Thy Names are Paul Harvey and John Gibson
Paul Harvey, who is 86 and senile, but still popular in Christian dominionist, anti-immigrant, and war mongering circles, thinks we should nuke, um, somebody:
So, following the New York disaster (911), we mustered our humanity.
We gave old pals a pass, even though men and money from Saudi Arabia were largely responsible for the devastation of New York and Pennsylvania and our Pentagon.
We called Saudi Arabians our partners against terrorism and we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and we kept our best weapons in our silos.
Even now we're standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive, because we've declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies -- more moral, more civilized.
Our image is at stake, we insist.
But we didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy.
Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and across this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. That was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever."
And we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."
Yeah, we should drop the Bomb on, um, Afghanistan. Maybe Saudi Arabia. And Iraq. Yeah that would be good. What an ass-clown.
But Paul Harvey has competition in the race to be top ass-clown.
I give you Big Story John Gibson of Fox "news" (also popular, by the way, with American fascists everywhere):
All day long people have been saying to me, "Wasn't it great they didn't pick Paris?" And I've been saying, "No, no, no."
Paris was exactly the right place to pick and the Olympic committee screwed up.
Why? Simple. It would have been a three-week period where we wouldn't have had to worry about terrorism.
First, the French think they are so good at dealing with the Arab world that they would have gone out and paid every terrorist off. And things would have been calm.
Or another way to look at it is the French are already up to their eyeballs in terrorists. The French hide them in miserable slums, out of sight of the rich people in Paris.
So it would have been a treat, actually, to watch the French dealing with the problem of their own homegrown Islamist terrorists living in France already.
What would the French have done about rounding up their own citizens?
Would they have afforded their own terrorists the rights they insist we give the detainees at Gitmo? Not a chance. They'd throw them in the clink, or ship them off to North Africa pronto.
Would they have blocked terrorists at the border with unreasonable search and seizure ? precisely what they say we should not do? Of course they would. Anybody looking faintly Arab would have had the gendarmerie on them in a flash.
It would have been a delight to have Parisians worried about security instead of New Yorkers. It would have been exquisite to watch.
John Gibson, you ignorant slut.
The president you admire so much says we're different than "them". This morning he said:
On the one hand, we have people here who are working to alleviate poverty, to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS, working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill -- those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.
Are you different from "them"? 'Cause you sound a lot like the terrorists you claim to want punished.
So, following the New York disaster (911), we mustered our humanity.
We gave old pals a pass, even though men and money from Saudi Arabia were largely responsible for the devastation of New York and Pennsylvania and our Pentagon.
We called Saudi Arabians our partners against terrorism and we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and we kept our best weapons in our silos.
Even now we're standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive, because we've declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies -- more moral, more civilized.
Our image is at stake, we insist.
But we didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy.
Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and across this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. That was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever."
And we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."
Yeah, we should drop the Bomb on, um, Afghanistan. Maybe Saudi Arabia. And Iraq. Yeah that would be good. What an ass-clown.
But Paul Harvey has competition in the race to be top ass-clown.
I give you Big Story John Gibson of Fox "news" (also popular, by the way, with American fascists everywhere):
All day long people have been saying to me, "Wasn't it great they didn't pick Paris?" And I've been saying, "No, no, no."
Paris was exactly the right place to pick and the Olympic committee screwed up.
Why? Simple. It would have been a three-week period where we wouldn't have had to worry about terrorism.
First, the French think they are so good at dealing with the Arab world that they would have gone out and paid every terrorist off. And things would have been calm.
Or another way to look at it is the French are already up to their eyeballs in terrorists. The French hide them in miserable slums, out of sight of the rich people in Paris.
So it would have been a treat, actually, to watch the French dealing with the problem of their own homegrown Islamist terrorists living in France already.
What would the French have done about rounding up their own citizens?
Would they have afforded their own terrorists the rights they insist we give the detainees at Gitmo? Not a chance. They'd throw them in the clink, or ship them off to North Africa pronto.
Would they have blocked terrorists at the border with unreasonable search and seizure ? precisely what they say we should not do? Of course they would. Anybody looking faintly Arab would have had the gendarmerie on them in a flash.
It would have been a delight to have Parisians worried about security instead of New Yorkers. It would have been exquisite to watch.
John Gibson, you ignorant slut.
The president you admire so much says we're different than "them". This morning he said:
On the one hand, we have people here who are working to alleviate poverty, to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS, working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill -- those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.
Are you different from "them"? 'Cause you sound a lot like the terrorists you claim to want punished.
But What Will Nancy Say?
If, like me, you've grown sick up and fed with cable tv "news" industry's 24/7 attention to missing white women, missing kids, sex offenders, and Aruba (Greta Van Sustern from Fox "news" has been camped out in Aruba doing her whole show on Natalie Holloway all week) and its refusal or inability to, oh, I don't know, bust their asses and investigate real news, than tonight may be your night.
No, Nancy Grace and Aaron Brown aren't going to morph into real journalists today, but I suspect they may for once have to divert their attention to something out of Bobo America's comfort zone.
Unfortunately, I also suspect that tonight and maybe even the next night's cable "news" coverage will revert back to the immediate post-911 and pre-Iraq invasion days and we'll be bombarded with the usual suspect calls to militantism, nationalism, fear and hate.
Because we don't learn anything.
No, Nancy Grace and Aaron Brown aren't going to morph into real journalists today, but I suspect they may for once have to divert their attention to something out of Bobo America's comfort zone.
Unfortunately, I also suspect that tonight and maybe even the next night's cable "news" coverage will revert back to the immediate post-911 and pre-Iraq invasion days and we'll be bombarded with the usual suspect calls to militantism, nationalism, fear and hate.
Because we don't learn anything.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Follow the Lying
The Iraqi debacle claims its first political-punditry casualty. Judy's going to the slammer.
What's that you say? She's not being imprisoned because of her Iraq reporting?
Technically and directly, I suppose that that's true.
But if you follow the lying, you might notice that Judy's departure to jail has its origins in the "yellow cake" mendacity that Ambassador Joe Wilson unearthed and tried to report before our ill-fated war on Iraq, which was followed by the Cheney administration's reprisal against the Ambassador's wife, which has now led to the current Judy saga .
True, Judy's not who should be getting the jail ticket. But it's a start.
What's that you say? She's not being imprisoned because of her Iraq reporting?
Technically and directly, I suppose that that's true.
But if you follow the lying, you might notice that Judy's departure to jail has its origins in the "yellow cake" mendacity that Ambassador Joe Wilson unearthed and tried to report before our ill-fated war on Iraq, which was followed by the Cheney administration's reprisal against the Ambassador's wife, which has now led to the current Judy saga .
True, Judy's not who should be getting the jail ticket. But it's a start.
Sending the D-List to the Green Zone
I hope you've had time to look over the list of Green Zone "delegates" the wingnuts are preparing to send over next week (see previous post).
Well, I must say I find the list incredibly disappointing. It is without question the D-List of hate radio/Internets.
Of the seven, only retired colonel "Buzz" Patterson has generated any notoriety.
The rest are bums.
Why can't Moving America Forward-FrontPage Mag-RightTalk.com offer up some real meat?
I've already mentioned Rush Limbaugh, Michael "Savage" Wiener, and Glenn Beck as suitable representatives. To these I'd like to add:
Michael Medved
Sean Hannity
Bernard Goldberg
L. Brent Bozell III
Michael Reagan
Ann Coulter
Bill O'Reilly
Charles Krauthammer
Bill Bennett
Mark Hyman
Armstrong Williams
Dr. Professor Michael Adams, PhD
"Pastor" Doug Giles
Jonah Goldberg
Dennis Prager
David Bossie
They all love this war. They all think we're winning. And I've heard of them. They should get to go.
All what's this business about them staying only one week? What wussies. They should stay for the duration until we finally, conclusively "win" this war and the one in Afghanistan.
Well, I must say I find the list incredibly disappointing. It is without question the D-List of hate radio/Internets.
Of the seven, only retired colonel "Buzz" Patterson has generated any notoriety.
The rest are bums.
Why can't Moving America Forward-FrontPage Mag-RightTalk.com offer up some real meat?
I've already mentioned Rush Limbaugh, Michael "Savage" Wiener, and Glenn Beck as suitable representatives. To these I'd like to add:
Michael Medved
Sean Hannity
Bernard Goldberg
L. Brent Bozell III
Michael Reagan
Ann Coulter
Bill O'Reilly
Charles Krauthammer
Bill Bennett
Mark Hyman
Armstrong Williams
Dr. Professor Michael Adams, PhD
"Pastor" Doug Giles
Jonah Goldberg
Dennis Prager
David Bossie
They all love this war. They all think we're winning. And I've heard of them. They should get to go.
All what's this business about them staying only one week? What wussies. They should stay for the duration until we finally, conclusively "win" this war and the one in Afghanistan.
Who's Who on the Baghdad Green Zone "Truth" Tour
After some very hard work, I have uncovered the names of the radio warrior "delegates" who will be flying to Baghdad, Iraq's Green Zone sometime next week to "get the news straight from our troops".
They are:
Melanie Morgan
Howard Kooligian
Mark Williams
"Buzz" Patterson
Martha Zoller
Michael Graham
Brad Maaske
Now, I am sure you are all disappointed, as I am, that Rush Limbaugh is not currently scheduled to be a part of the "tour". And I imagine you may be feeling letdown that Michael "Savage" Weiner won't apparently be making the trip either. And I'll admit I'm disappointed that Glenn Beck isn't joining them as well. I don't know. Seems to me, that if you can sell books, as Limbaugh, Savage, and Beck have, surely you could pony up the bills for the trip over there.
So overall, a pretty depressing list of squawkers. Perhaps others will be added later. You never know. Given the security and anonymity needs of the operation over there, maybe the powers that be don't want to risk reprisals if the names of more prominent folks are identified ahead of time.
It is interesting, however, that the delegates recognize the scope of their mission. If you'll notice, their comments center on talking to the "troops". I didn't get the sense from the MAF webpage or the Fox "news" article, that these radio "journalists" will be doing any talking to actual Iraqis, not to mention, doing any traveling in the Iraqi countryside.
Who knows. Maybe they will give us some fine reports about how the building and securing of the Apartheid-like Green Zone wall is going.
I'm looking forward to it.
They are:
Melanie Morgan
Howard Kooligian
Mark Williams
"Buzz" Patterson
Martha Zoller
Michael Graham
Brad Maaske
Now, I am sure you are all disappointed, as I am, that Rush Limbaugh is not currently scheduled to be a part of the "tour". And I imagine you may be feeling letdown that Michael "Savage" Weiner won't apparently be making the trip either. And I'll admit I'm disappointed that Glenn Beck isn't joining them as well. I don't know. Seems to me, that if you can sell books, as Limbaugh, Savage, and Beck have, surely you could pony up the bills for the trip over there.
So overall, a pretty depressing list of squawkers. Perhaps others will be added later. You never know. Given the security and anonymity needs of the operation over there, maybe the powers that be don't want to risk reprisals if the names of more prominent folks are identified ahead of time.
It is interesting, however, that the delegates recognize the scope of their mission. If you'll notice, their comments center on talking to the "troops". I didn't get the sense from the MAF webpage or the Fox "news" article, that these radio "journalists" will be doing any talking to actual Iraqis, not to mention, doing any traveling in the Iraqi countryside.
Who knows. Maybe they will give us some fine reports about how the building and securing of the Apartheid-like Green Zone wall is going.
I'm looking forward to it.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Happy Iraq
I don't suppose I could have avoided commenting on this.
Sigh.
But I am interested in who exactly is going to be a part of this "delegation".
The Fox "news" piece says that the delegation will consist of "seven to 10 conservative" media people.
Two radio warriors named in the piece were Melanie Morgan and Mark Williams, neither of whom have I ever heard of.
In addition, two "writers" from David Horrorwitless's Frontpagemag will be making the trip. I made a short peruse of the FPM website but didn't see anything on the trip or their association's participation in it.
In any event, the Fox "news" piece goes on to quote from several conservatives who, it seems, don't appear to recognize the irony of what they're saying.
For example, while they claim that the "mainstream media is biased" in their coverage and err by emphasizing the "negative", it turns out that the delegates will have a pretty constricted itinerary while they're there.
They will be broadcasting from U.S Central Command headquarters in Baghdad's Green Zone (search) and will be traveling with the troops daily.
(snip)
They will be flown from there [Tampa, FL] to Iraq via military transport and will be sleeping in tents inside the secured Green Zone.
So they'll be traveling by "military transport" to Iraq.
If Iraq is doing well, why can't they just take a commercial flight?
So they'll be broadcasting from and sleeping in the Green Zone.
Why can't they broadcast and sleep somewhere else?
If Iraq is doing so well, why can't they just stay at a bed-and-breakfast somewhere?
So they'll be "traveling with the troops".
Why can't they just rent an SUV or a couple of cars and just drive around?
Why couldn't they just pack their own heat and venture off on their own? As right-wingers I imagine they must like and already own an enviable cashe of weaponry.
The dope is, that until people can travel freely in Iraq (even WITHIN the capital city would be nice), than no amount of right-wing propaganda is going to change the fact that conditions in the country are bleak.
Sigh.
But I am interested in who exactly is going to be a part of this "delegation".
The Fox "news" piece says that the delegation will consist of "seven to 10 conservative" media people.
Two radio warriors named in the piece were Melanie Morgan and Mark Williams, neither of whom have I ever heard of.
In addition, two "writers" from David Horrorwitless's Frontpagemag will be making the trip. I made a short peruse of the FPM website but didn't see anything on the trip or their association's participation in it.
In any event, the Fox "news" piece goes on to quote from several conservatives who, it seems, don't appear to recognize the irony of what they're saying.
For example, while they claim that the "mainstream media is biased" in their coverage and err by emphasizing the "negative", it turns out that the delegates will have a pretty constricted itinerary while they're there.
They will be broadcasting from U.S Central Command headquarters in Baghdad's Green Zone (search) and will be traveling with the troops daily.
(snip)
They will be flown from there [Tampa, FL] to Iraq via military transport and will be sleeping in tents inside the secured Green Zone.
So they'll be traveling by "military transport" to Iraq.
If Iraq is doing well, why can't they just take a commercial flight?
So they'll be broadcasting from and sleeping in the Green Zone.
Why can't they broadcast and sleep somewhere else?
If Iraq is doing so well, why can't they just stay at a bed-and-breakfast somewhere?
So they'll be "traveling with the troops".
Why can't they just rent an SUV or a couple of cars and just drive around?
Why couldn't they just pack their own heat and venture off on their own? As right-wingers I imagine they must like and already own an enviable cashe of weaponry.
The dope is, that until people can travel freely in Iraq (even WITHIN the capital city would be nice), than no amount of right-wing propaganda is going to change the fact that conditions in the country are bleak.
Armstrong Williams At It Again: Now Just Making Stuff Up
In their continued rape of American history, more winguttery of what Lincoln supposedly said.
And oh, yeah, Williams flunks math, too.
And oh, yeah, Williams flunks math, too.
Republicans Singing a Tune
Not that it will matter much, but before you're tempted to swallow the Republican line about not asking judicial nominees any actual questions, remember this:
Here's Orrin Hatch questioning Ruth Bader Ginsburg back in July 1993 about the death penalty:
"But do you agree with all the current sitting members of the Court that it is constitutional? Is it within the Constitution?"
Indeed, Hatch had berated Ginsberg endlessly trying to get her to pop her Constitutional cherry on offing criminals.
(snip)
Ginsburg responded that one must never ask a judge how she may vote on a case that might come before her.
Hatch barked back, "But that's not what I asked you. I asked you is it in the Constitution?"
which is precisely what she'd have to judge if she became a Supreme Court justice.
Indeed, when Ginsburg continued to refuse to be drawn into a discussion of whether or not capital punishment is "cruel and unusual," Hatch was exasperated and demanded, "I think you ought to tell us where you really come down."
In other words, a Republican Senator, in the minority, demanded to know how Ginsburg would judge capital punishment cases.
When Republican Senator William Cohen asked Ginsburg about discrimination based on sexual orientation, she again declined to answer because it was a possible case that she may have to decide. Ginsburg was more than willing to talk about decisions she had written, as in her frank discussion of abortion rights and women's rights in general. Cohen also pressed Stephen Breyer in 1994, when Breyer was a nominee, asking him directly for the future justice's personal opinion on the death penalty.
Here's Orrin Hatch questioning Ruth Bader Ginsburg back in July 1993 about the death penalty:
"But do you agree with all the current sitting members of the Court that it is constitutional? Is it within the Constitution?"
Indeed, Hatch had berated Ginsberg endlessly trying to get her to pop her Constitutional cherry on offing criminals.
(snip)
Ginsburg responded that one must never ask a judge how she may vote on a case that might come before her.
Hatch barked back, "But that's not what I asked you. I asked you is it in the Constitution?"
which is precisely what she'd have to judge if she became a Supreme Court justice.
Indeed, when Ginsburg continued to refuse to be drawn into a discussion of whether or not capital punishment is "cruel and unusual," Hatch was exasperated and demanded, "I think you ought to tell us where you really come down."
In other words, a Republican Senator, in the minority, demanded to know how Ginsburg would judge capital punishment cases.
When Republican Senator William Cohen asked Ginsburg about discrimination based on sexual orientation, she again declined to answer because it was a possible case that she may have to decide. Ginsburg was more than willing to talk about decisions she had written, as in her frank discussion of abortion rights and women's rights in general. Cohen also pressed Stephen Breyer in 1994, when Breyer was a nominee, asking him directly for the future justice's personal opinion on the death penalty.
Fox News Gets Ready for War with Iran
I was watching some TV over the weekend and happened by the cable "news" coverage of the finding of that girl in Idaho who had been kidnapped in the aftermath of her family's murder several weeks ago. CNN in particular was all over this story, all the time. Natalie Holloway was pushed aside for the moment.
But there was also a fascinating piece of work over on Fox about the new Iranian president's past. I was hoping to find a transcript of the show on their web site but was unsuccessful.
Anyway, the Fox "news" show's guest claimed that the new Iranian president-elect was essentially a murderer and a terrorist with extensive intellegence training and involvement AND further alleged that Iran had knowledge before-hand about 9-11, even if they weren't complicit in the attacks outright (which the guest seemed to believe).
Now, I realize that the suggestion of Iran being involved in 9-11 may not be an entirely new or strange line of thought, but since the "right" was deadset on establishing Iraq as the vital link to 9-11, it's interest in connecting Iran to that day were less useful.
But maybe now that the U.S. military is bogged down in Iraq, and that Iran is reportedly continuing to pursue the means of fully developing its nuclear power, a new enemy for a new war is being sought. In that case, it would appear Fox "news" is planting the propaganda seeds for such an endeavor should the administration want to take us to war against Tehran as well.
Admittedly I don't watch Fox "news" or any other cable "news" programs regularly if at all, so I don't know how prevalent this attitude towards Iran is, but given Fox's devotion to the administration, I am going to assume that it looks less than fondly or objectively at the remaining Axis of Evil members.
But that the network is trading in allegations of this volatile sort, and especially given the fawning attention the Fox "news" host accorded his guest making them, and given the network's support of, and connection to the administration, I wouldn't take its coverage of Iran or any other supposed "enemy of America" lightly.
But there was also a fascinating piece of work over on Fox about the new Iranian president's past. I was hoping to find a transcript of the show on their web site but was unsuccessful.
Anyway, the Fox "news" show's guest claimed that the new Iranian president-elect was essentially a murderer and a terrorist with extensive intellegence training and involvement AND further alleged that Iran had knowledge before-hand about 9-11, even if they weren't complicit in the attacks outright (which the guest seemed to believe).
Now, I realize that the suggestion of Iran being involved in 9-11 may not be an entirely new or strange line of thought, but since the "right" was deadset on establishing Iraq as the vital link to 9-11, it's interest in connecting Iran to that day were less useful.
But maybe now that the U.S. military is bogged down in Iraq, and that Iran is reportedly continuing to pursue the means of fully developing its nuclear power, a new enemy for a new war is being sought. In that case, it would appear Fox "news" is planting the propaganda seeds for such an endeavor should the administration want to take us to war against Tehran as well.
Admittedly I don't watch Fox "news" or any other cable "news" programs regularly if at all, so I don't know how prevalent this attitude towards Iran is, but given Fox's devotion to the administration, I am going to assume that it looks less than fondly or objectively at the remaining Axis of Evil members.
But that the network is trading in allegations of this volatile sort, and especially given the fawning attention the Fox "news" host accorded his guest making them, and given the network's support of, and connection to the administration, I wouldn't take its coverage of Iran or any other supposed "enemy of America" lightly.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Getting Borked
I see via CapitolBuzz that Bork was on TV cricizing the retiring O'Connor, presumably for the relative nonconservatism of her opinions.
Does it strike anyone as even remotely possible that Bush might actually nominate Bork himself to replace O'Connor?
It would be in keeping with the "up yours" nomination style the administration has employed for the UN, SEC and lower courts already, would continue the trend of rescuscitating the careers of conservative heroes/criminals from the Reagan era (think Negroponte, Poindexter) and would naturally give Republicans the opportunity to avenge one of their most bitter defeats from the eighties. And not coincidentally, the Dobson-Perkins-Santorum wing of the party would love it.
I wouldn't put it past them.
Does it strike anyone as even remotely possible that Bush might actually nominate Bork himself to replace O'Connor?
It would be in keeping with the "up yours" nomination style the administration has employed for the UN, SEC and lower courts already, would continue the trend of rescuscitating the careers of conservative heroes/criminals from the Reagan era (think Negroponte, Poindexter) and would naturally give Republicans the opportunity to avenge one of their most bitter defeats from the eighties. And not coincidentally, the Dobson-Perkins-Santorum wing of the party would love it.
I wouldn't put it past them.
Um, No
Pat Buchanan via Suzie Madrack:
What persuades me we are headed for a crisis is that, within the presidents speech, lies a contradiction. He calls the war in Iraq vital to the future security of our country, i.e., defeat would be life threatening for America.
But if victory is vital to this country, how can Bush ever entrust the outcome of this war to Iraqis?
If victory is vital, how can he rule out more troops?
If victory is vital, how can he even rule out a draft?
Has Bush thought this through?
What persuades me we are headed for a crisis is that, within the presidents speech, lies a contradiction. He calls the war in Iraq vital to the future security of our country, i.e., defeat would be life threatening for America.
But if victory is vital to this country, how can Bush ever entrust the outcome of this war to Iraqis?
If victory is vital, how can he rule out more troops?
If victory is vital, how can he even rule out a draft?
Has Bush thought this through?
Arrogant This
On my way into work this morning, I passed a Moonie Times newstand, whose top headline, above the fold, blared this:
U.S. Demands Iran Answers
I wondered whether this was a reference to the nuclear controversy the administration and its shoeshine boys in the press are trying to stoke, or whether it had something to do with allegations that the newly elected Iranian president was one of the American hostage takers in 1979.
I know there are international treaties relating to nuclear weapons that would make an accusation under the former more credible. But if it was the latter, it seemed to me a supremely arrogant approach for anyone in the American diplomatic or political sphere to take. What makes anyone in our government think that they're entitled to "demand" that Iran or anyone else answer whatever questions they have? Are we running the world? Does the rest of the world answer to us, and only to us?
Then I saw a variation of that headline again on Yahoo! and went over to the Moonie Times webpage to read the context.
And how about that. Apparently the Moonie Times headline this morning was about the newly elected Iranian president's "background". So we're "demanding" the Iranians answer this? And to what end? Does our government expect the Iranians to offer his head up on a platter if indeed he was one of the participants in 1979?
But Time magazine's most favorite blog and Peggy Noonan still think that Democrats are the arrogant party in town (via Tbogg).
I guess Hindrocket doesn't remember this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
U.S. Demands Iran Answers
I wondered whether this was a reference to the nuclear controversy the administration and its shoeshine boys in the press are trying to stoke, or whether it had something to do with allegations that the newly elected Iranian president was one of the American hostage takers in 1979.
I know there are international treaties relating to nuclear weapons that would make an accusation under the former more credible. But if it was the latter, it seemed to me a supremely arrogant approach for anyone in the American diplomatic or political sphere to take. What makes anyone in our government think that they're entitled to "demand" that Iran or anyone else answer whatever questions they have? Are we running the world? Does the rest of the world answer to us, and only to us?
Then I saw a variation of that headline again on Yahoo! and went over to the Moonie Times webpage to read the context.
And how about that. Apparently the Moonie Times headline this morning was about the newly elected Iranian president's "background". So we're "demanding" the Iranians answer this? And to what end? Does our government expect the Iranians to offer his head up on a platter if indeed he was one of the participants in 1979?
But Time magazine's most favorite blog and Peggy Noonan still think that Democrats are the arrogant party in town (via Tbogg).
I guess Hindrocket doesn't remember this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Here Comes The Blame
Uh oh.
Two Republican Senators weigh in on the cause of the army's declining recruitment:
Families are discouraging young men and women from enlisting "because of all the negative media that's out there," Sen. James Inhofe (news, bio, voting record), an Oklahoma Republican, said at a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Inhofe also said that other senators' criticism of the war contributed to the propaganda of U.S. enemies. He did not name the senators.
Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker urged members of Congress to use "your considerable influence to explain to the American people and to those that are influencers out there how important it is for our young people to serve this nation at a time like this."
The Army on Wednesday said it was 14 percent, or about 7,800 recruits, behind its year-to-date recruitment target even though it exceeded its monthly target in June [um, see post below]. With extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting also is down for the National Guard and the Reserves.
"With the deluge of negative news that we get daily, it's just amazing to me that anybody would want to sign up," said Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), a Kansas Republican.
But if Fox News is supposedly the most watched cable TV news network, than how can the media and the news be said to be "negative"?
Two Republican Senators weigh in on the cause of the army's declining recruitment:
Families are discouraging young men and women from enlisting "because of all the negative media that's out there," Sen. James Inhofe (news, bio, voting record), an Oklahoma Republican, said at a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Inhofe also said that other senators' criticism of the war contributed to the propaganda of U.S. enemies. He did not name the senators.
Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker urged members of Congress to use "your considerable influence to explain to the American people and to those that are influencers out there how important it is for our young people to serve this nation at a time like this."
The Army on Wednesday said it was 14 percent, or about 7,800 recruits, behind its year-to-date recruitment target even though it exceeded its monthly target in June [um, see post below]. With extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting also is down for the National Guard and the Reserves.
"With the deluge of negative news that we get daily, it's just amazing to me that anybody would want to sign up," said Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), a Kansas Republican.
But if Fox News is supposedly the most watched cable TV news network, than how can the media and the news be said to be "negative"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)