From TPM:
New McCain ad sliming Obama for supposedly saying Iran is "tiny" and "doesn't pose a serious threat" is a comically dishonest distortion of what Obama actually said.
Probably the most infuriating development of the past several years has been--in addition to the fact that the invade-Iraq cheerleaders are still treated like Very Serious People--is the drumbeat to "do something" about that Very Terrible and Exceedingly Dangerous Threat, Iran. Be nice if Obama and the Dems pushed back on this, but unfortunately, in his AIPAC concession speech, Obama largely ceded the ground to the "dangerous threat" forces. And although it is largely water under or over the bridge, so did Hilary (who will certainly be the Party's nominee next time if Obama doesn't win this year).
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Defeatists in Iraq
So, who is this Mister Maliki dude-guy and why is he demanding that U.S. troops precipitously withdraw from his country by a fixed date?
Monday, August 25, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Evolution of a Right Wing Attack Dog
On Joe Lieberman's saying "Obama has not always put his country first", Andrew Sullivan says:
And so the evolution from hawkish Democrat to Republican attack-dog continues. What Lieberman is doing is what a vice-presidential candidate tends to do: savage the opponent. Or more accurately, what Rove Republican vice-presidential candidates have been trained to do: savage the opponent as a traitor. It's funny but I don't recall him ever being so aggressive when he was Gore's running mate.
Yeah, well, 9/11 changed everything, blah, blah, blah.
And so the evolution from hawkish Democrat to Republican attack-dog continues. What Lieberman is doing is what a vice-presidential candidate tends to do: savage the opponent. Or more accurately, what Rove Republican vice-presidential candidates have been trained to do: savage the opponent as a traitor. It's funny but I don't recall him ever being so aggressive when he was Gore's running mate.
Yeah, well, 9/11 changed everything, blah, blah, blah.
Death Throes
On Evan Bayh's VP prospects, after the Indiana Senator signed on to the 100-year war in Iraq, only to later admit his vote was a mistake:
"The antiwar people cannot define the Democratic Party,” said Al From, a founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, of which Mr. Bayh was chairman for four years. “I think Evan’s real strength is you get someone on the ticket who has a record of being strong on national security, and that is a very important quality to have.”
I know we're close to a deal to give Lieberman to the Repubs. What will it take for the GOP to take the DLC and its head-pubah, Al From, off our hands, too?
"The antiwar people cannot define the Democratic Party,” said Al From, a founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, of which Mr. Bayh was chairman for four years. “I think Evan’s real strength is you get someone on the ticket who has a record of being strong on national security, and that is a very important quality to have.”
I know we're close to a deal to give Lieberman to the Repubs. What will it take for the GOP to take the DLC and its head-pubah, Al From, off our hands, too?
Saturday, August 09, 2008
2017
Tired of Republican presidential candidates and administrations that pander to the club for growth wing of their party by always clamoring for larger and more frequent tax cuts? Tired of Republican administrations bent on invading and occupying middle eastern countries for hundreds of years?
Then 2017 is the magic number for you to remember. In 2017, the party's over for Republicans always looking to bust the budget and rule the world. In 2017, Social Security income will for the first time in decades fall short of what's needed to pay monthly benefits. This means that beginning in 2017, Republican administrations and Republican congresses won't have the Social Security surpluses to kick around anymore. Or rather, beginning in 2017, when Social Security is no longer running a cash-flow surplus--as it currently does and has done since the 1980's--Republicans bent on wars without end and tax cuts for the rich and famous, won't have any Social Security surpluses to help them out, and they'll have to either borrow the money from outside of the government, or start trying to live within the country's means. In 2017, Republicans, who have always threatened to starve the beast of government but who have in actuality always governed like drunken sailors--will actually have to start cutting back on the military outposts they want to establish around the world and tax cuts they want to enact at home.
2017--When things really start to get fun.
Then 2017 is the magic number for you to remember. In 2017, the party's over for Republicans always looking to bust the budget and rule the world. In 2017, Social Security income will for the first time in decades fall short of what's needed to pay monthly benefits. This means that beginning in 2017, Republican administrations and Republican congresses won't have the Social Security surpluses to kick around anymore. Or rather, beginning in 2017, when Social Security is no longer running a cash-flow surplus--as it currently does and has done since the 1980's--Republicans bent on wars without end and tax cuts for the rich and famous, won't have any Social Security surpluses to help them out, and they'll have to either borrow the money from outside of the government, or start trying to live within the country's means. In 2017, Republicans, who have always threatened to starve the beast of government but who have in actuality always governed like drunken sailors--will actually have to start cutting back on the military outposts they want to establish around the world and tax cuts they want to enact at home.
2017--When things really start to get fun.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Anthrax (cont.)
David Neiwert:
One thing we do know: Once it became apparent that the phony theory that the anthrax contained bentonite -- which was how the attacks were originally connected to Iraq -- would not hold water, it was also clear that this was a case of pure domestic terrorism, and very likely right-wing terrorism at that. And it was at this point that all interest in solving the case, both on an official level and within the media, evaporated.
I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as Neiwert here. There was, apparently, an ongoing, FBI-led investigation of the matter, which resulted in the events of last week. So there was some official level interest in the case, however questionable its effectiveness or purpose.
But as far as the upper reaches of political officialdom are concerned, all interest certainly evaporated. And obviously all interest evaporated among the media elite as well. And to be truthful, the anthrax-blackout on the part of the administration and media helped suppress interest in the story among liberal bloggers, too.
But the obvious stinkiness of this story should encourage a more widespread diligence, from professional and non-professional investigative sources now. Or not. I've no doubt the professional media would just assume this story go away. And we obviously can't let that happen.
One thing we do know: Once it became apparent that the phony theory that the anthrax contained bentonite -- which was how the attacks were originally connected to Iraq -- would not hold water, it was also clear that this was a case of pure domestic terrorism, and very likely right-wing terrorism at that. And it was at this point that all interest in solving the case, both on an official level and within the media, evaporated.
I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as Neiwert here. There was, apparently, an ongoing, FBI-led investigation of the matter, which resulted in the events of last week. So there was some official level interest in the case, however questionable its effectiveness or purpose.
But as far as the upper reaches of political officialdom are concerned, all interest certainly evaporated. And obviously all interest evaporated among the media elite as well. And to be truthful, the anthrax-blackout on the part of the administration and media helped suppress interest in the story among liberal bloggers, too.
But the obvious stinkiness of this story should encourage a more widespread diligence, from professional and non-professional investigative sources now. Or not. I've no doubt the professional media would just assume this story go away. And we obviously can't let that happen.
Friday, August 01, 2008
The Anthrax Letters, 9/11, and the Invasion of Iraq
Read today's Greenwald.
A week after 9/11, letters containing the lethal substance Anthrax, are mailed to the offices of Senator's Daschle and Leahy, as well as to NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. The mailings result in the deaths of five people, while scores of others become ill. The letters contain statements purported to be from Muslim "extremists" who want to bring death to America.
ABC news, in the person of Brian Ross, reports--on the basis of four supposedly high up and separate sources at the lab--that tests on the anthrax at a U.S. military lab at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, reveal the presence of bentonite in the anthrax. Bentonite is said to be uniquely associated with Saddam Hussein's anthrax production program in Iraq.
On the basis of the letters and the reports by ABC news, leading columnists, such as Richard Cohen, come out in support of an invasion of Iraq. The neo-conservative journal, The Weekly Standard, also trumpets the ABC news reports of bentonite-laced anthrax letters as a basis for launching an invasion of Iraq. In 2002, the president identifies an "Axis of Evil", consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, with Iraq being included, in part, on the basis of their known production and dissemination of the lethal substance anthrax.
In March 2003, the U.S. invades Iraq, and in the course of the war and occupation, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's are tortured, killed or maimed. The price of oil has skyrocketed, and more than five years after the invasion, more than 150,000 U.S. troops continue to occupy Iraq.
In 2008, a leading suspect in the anthrax letter attacks, a top researcher and 35-year veteran at Ft. Detrick from whence came the ABC news reports of a bentonite-Iraq connection, commits suicide.
Nearly seven years since the anthrax attacks and the highly inflammatory and false ABC news reports, the network and its reporter, Brian Ross, still haven't come clean as to their supposed "sources" at Ft. Detrick.
To sum, anthrax laced letters purported to be from Muslim extremists in Iraq or close to Saddam Hussein, are mailed to U.S. Senators and media anchormen, traumatizing the country immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Highly placed sources in a U.S. military lab reveal to ABC news that tests indicate the presence of a substance uniquely associated with Iraqi anthrax programs. Scores among the political elite draq a connection between the anthrax and Iraq, helping to make the 2003 Iraq invasion publicly and politically palatable. Seven years later, as the investigation purports to center on a U.S. researcher as the source of the attacks, the leading suspect commits suicide. ABC news continues to with-hold the identification of its supposed sources.
How weird and outrageous is all of this?
A week after 9/11, letters containing the lethal substance Anthrax, are mailed to the offices of Senator's Daschle and Leahy, as well as to NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. The mailings result in the deaths of five people, while scores of others become ill. The letters contain statements purported to be from Muslim "extremists" who want to bring death to America.
ABC news, in the person of Brian Ross, reports--on the basis of four supposedly high up and separate sources at the lab--that tests on the anthrax at a U.S. military lab at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, reveal the presence of bentonite in the anthrax. Bentonite is said to be uniquely associated with Saddam Hussein's anthrax production program in Iraq.
On the basis of the letters and the reports by ABC news, leading columnists, such as Richard Cohen, come out in support of an invasion of Iraq. The neo-conservative journal, The Weekly Standard, also trumpets the ABC news reports of bentonite-laced anthrax letters as a basis for launching an invasion of Iraq. In 2002, the president identifies an "Axis of Evil", consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, with Iraq being included, in part, on the basis of their known production and dissemination of the lethal substance anthrax.
In March 2003, the U.S. invades Iraq, and in the course of the war and occupation, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's are tortured, killed or maimed. The price of oil has skyrocketed, and more than five years after the invasion, more than 150,000 U.S. troops continue to occupy Iraq.
In 2008, a leading suspect in the anthrax letter attacks, a top researcher and 35-year veteran at Ft. Detrick from whence came the ABC news reports of a bentonite-Iraq connection, commits suicide.
Nearly seven years since the anthrax attacks and the highly inflammatory and false ABC news reports, the network and its reporter, Brian Ross, still haven't come clean as to their supposed "sources" at Ft. Detrick.
To sum, anthrax laced letters purported to be from Muslim extremists in Iraq or close to Saddam Hussein, are mailed to U.S. Senators and media anchormen, traumatizing the country immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Highly placed sources in a U.S. military lab reveal to ABC news that tests indicate the presence of a substance uniquely associated with Iraqi anthrax programs. Scores among the political elite draq a connection between the anthrax and Iraq, helping to make the 2003 Iraq invasion publicly and politically palatable. Seven years later, as the investigation purports to center on a U.S. researcher as the source of the attacks, the leading suspect commits suicide. ABC news continues to with-hold the identification of its supposed sources.
How weird and outrageous is all of this?
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Is this all they have?
I guess Obama's celebrity status, (a byproduct of the GOP candidate's snarl and lack of charisma I'd say) as opposed to his policy proposals, is to be the dividing factor in this election. This is pretty weak tea, whose only probable impact is to lose the Britney vote. Maybe it will sit well with Middle America. Who knows? But it sounds pretty vapid to me. I thought McCain would be better than this.
Trashin the Place
I can't imagine the McCain campaign or the folks at GOP headquarters were thrilled to wake up this morning and see the Washington Post with an above-the-fold story calling McCain a liar, or the Ruth Marcus op-ed charging the Administration with having "trashed the place"--and Marcus wasn't even referring to the yeoman work of her Post colleague detailing the Administration's hack hiring and staffing of the Iraqi occupation or the Katrina catastrophe and the hack hiring at FEMA--for the hack hiring practices of the Justice Department's Monica Goodling, spawning a new political shorthand for ideology and incompetence in government run-amok--"Goodlings", as in "Goodlings Gone Wild".
(And a pretty good smack-down to boot by Marcus of her other Post colleague, David Broder, for complaining of the Clintons' "trashing the place" a decade ago. Ahhh, the nineties. Them were the days).
Neither can I imagine that seeing headlines and pictures about the Senate's longest reigning Republican, the Hulk Tubester, Ted Stevens, being indicted on corruption charges, doing much to cheer the ranks of more would be hack hirers and government bathtub drowning specialists at RNC headquarters or in the new Minority offices in Congress.
Just another stellar day in the GOP neighborhood.
(And a pretty good smack-down to boot by Marcus of her other Post colleague, David Broder, for complaining of the Clintons' "trashing the place" a decade ago. Ahhh, the nineties. Them were the days).
Neither can I imagine that seeing headlines and pictures about the Senate's longest reigning Republican, the Hulk Tubester, Ted Stevens, being indicted on corruption charges, doing much to cheer the ranks of more would be hack hirers and government bathtub drowning specialists at RNC headquarters or in the new Minority offices in Congress.
Just another stellar day in the GOP neighborhood.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Obama Should Townhall McCain
I know this is probably against the grain, with McCain liking specially-tailored townhall meeting-style debates and all. But I believe Obama should agree to some townhall style debates and not be overly cautious in restricting the crowd that attends.
If the "Obama is a prima donna candidate more comfortable parading before foreign audiences who can't or won't come down to earth to hobnob with the Regular Americans" meme isn't a constant GOP trope yet, I can guarantee it will be as the campaign goes on.
On top of it, Obama needs to be seen getting his hands dirty, as it were, taking risks, campaigning in relatively unfamiliar terrains and before potentially hostile audiences. I fear he's being too careful, in danger of immitating the overly-assured 1948 Dewey campaign whose candidate once wouldn't come out from inside the train to greet voters while Truman spoke out from "whistlestops" all around the country, helping to pull off the come from behind win.
If the "Obama is a prima donna candidate more comfortable parading before foreign audiences who can't or won't come down to earth to hobnob with the Regular Americans" meme isn't a constant GOP trope yet, I can guarantee it will be as the campaign goes on.
On top of it, Obama needs to be seen getting his hands dirty, as it were, taking risks, campaigning in relatively unfamiliar terrains and before potentially hostile audiences. I fear he's being too careful, in danger of immitating the overly-assured 1948 Dewey campaign whose candidate once wouldn't come out from inside the train to greet voters while Truman spoke out from "whistlestops" all around the country, helping to pull off the come from behind win.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
David Broder: Whiner
The headline--not usually penned by the columnist--is positive, but from the text it's clear Obama's overseas trip has "the dean" pouting [Bulworth comments in italics]:
--------
It made no sense when Barack Obama left the country on his nine-day overseas tour for some of my fellow columnists to describe it as a high-risk venture. [Really? Why not? Iraq is still a war-zone, and American officials and Iraqi leaders are still bunkered in the Green Zone]
Foreign leaders, who can read the polls as well as anyone, would go out of their way not to embarrass a man who may, six months from now, be president of the United States.
Obama prepares thoroughly for the big occasions. He is almost always well briefed, and he was traveling in sharp company -- with Sens. Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel -- so you knew he would be ready for these meetings. The chance of a major screw-up was minimal. [The dean was disappointed there wasn't]
And as millions of Americans who watched the primary campaign learned, Obama is invariably articulate. There would be no verbal gaffes. [In other words, the dean is saying Obama is "slick"]
So where was the risk? [How about in the fact that he was traveling to Iraq, which is still unsafe enough to require that the specifics of official visits not be announced]
It existed mainly in the minds of some journalists and, perhaps, in the musings of Obama staffers who wanted to hype the journey. [What kind of slap is this? I thought McCain and the Republicans pretty much goaded Obama into taking the trip--but no mention of that here by "the dean"]
Acknowledging all that, it is still the case that Obama is pulling off this trip in great style and thereby has enhanced his Oval Office credentials. [The dean is implying Obama is all style no substance]
What he could not have counted on is the role that luck has played in the events that have surrounded the tour and in the actions of a cast of supporting players. When, on the first day of the trip, Obama stepped onto a basketball court at the air base in Kuwait and sent his first three-point shot cleanly through the basket, you knew that the gods had decided to favor him. [The dean's man, McBush, is so much the underdog, the "gods" are against him]
He could not have known in advance that on the very day he left Chicago, President Bush would suddenly reverse six years of policy and send a high-ranking State Department official off to a meeting with Iranian and European nuclear negotiators.
He could not have guessed that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, eager to promise his constituents that the American occupation would not be endless, would persuade Bush to declare agreement to "a time horizon" for the departure of U.S. troops. [The dean thinks "a time horizon" is ridiculous, and Iraq's puppet ruler is pandering to his "constituents"]
And he could not have assumed that a Maliki spokesman, briefing reporters on the prime minister's meeting with Obama, would volunteer the comment that "the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal" of U.S. troops.
Suddenly, long-standing Obama policies -- direct talks with Iran and a 16-month timetable for withdrawal -- seemed to be ratified by events. [Right. Who knew an invasion of Iraq--which McBush favored and Obama opposed--would necessitate the occupation of Iraq by hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops for decades on end and result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?]
So it was a confident and contented Obama who faced reporters Tuesday in Jordan for his first news conference of the trip. He handled the expected question about his meeting with Gen. David Petraeus by saying he perfectly understood the U.S. commander's opposition to any timetable that would limit his options, but that as commander in chief, he, Obama, would weigh Iraq's needs against those in Afghanistan -- and also against the interests of the domestic economy.
It was a skillful answer, not rejecting Petraeus's views but asserting a president's own larger responsibility. [To the dean, "skillful" means artful, stylish, but not substantive or Serious]
On the other hand, his saying that there was no way to know what would have happened in Iraq if the United States had followed his advice to start the withdrawal of troops two years ago rather than embarking on the "surge" seemed disingenuous. Obama still has trouble admitting when he is wrong. [The "surge", which the dean favors because McBush and his pals favor it, has solved all Iraq's, and America's problems--but we still can't bring the troops home or tear down the Green Zone. And gas is still $4 a gallon]
But his troubles are minimal compared with those of John McCain, who looks like the odd man out in the ongoing foreign policy debate. Having given steadfast support to the policies of both Maliki and George Bush, he has a legitimate complaint: They owed him more consideration in the way they announced their shifts. As it is, McCain appears isolated from trends in both Baghdad and Washington. [Waaaahh. How come Bush and that Iraqi president guy didn't get McBush's approval for their actions and comments first?]
McCain's frustration at the turn of events is something he cannot conceal. The domestic economy was always going to be a problem for him -- even before gasoline hit $4 a gallon. But he had a credible position to argue on national security issues and a record that was consistent and in some respects prescient. [Right. Who knew the Iraqi invasion and occupation--which McBush favored and Obama opposed--would cost trillions of dollars, cause a religiously-driven civil war among Iraqi's, bond Iraq closer to our other supposed enemy Iran, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and require hundreds of thousands of American troops to occupy another Middle Eastern country for decades on end. And that gas would still be $4 a gallon five years after we "liberated" Iraq]
But now the ground has shifted -- and his opponent was right where he needed to be to capture the advantage. July has been a cruel month for McCain. [The dean thinks July has sucked]
----
Easily Broder's worst column in months, if not years.
--------
It made no sense when Barack Obama left the country on his nine-day overseas tour for some of my fellow columnists to describe it as a high-risk venture. [Really? Why not? Iraq is still a war-zone, and American officials and Iraqi leaders are still bunkered in the Green Zone]
Foreign leaders, who can read the polls as well as anyone, would go out of their way not to embarrass a man who may, six months from now, be president of the United States.
Obama prepares thoroughly for the big occasions. He is almost always well briefed, and he was traveling in sharp company -- with Sens. Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel -- so you knew he would be ready for these meetings. The chance of a major screw-up was minimal. [The dean was disappointed there wasn't]
And as millions of Americans who watched the primary campaign learned, Obama is invariably articulate. There would be no verbal gaffes. [In other words, the dean is saying Obama is "slick"]
So where was the risk? [How about in the fact that he was traveling to Iraq, which is still unsafe enough to require that the specifics of official visits not be announced]
It existed mainly in the minds of some journalists and, perhaps, in the musings of Obama staffers who wanted to hype the journey. [What kind of slap is this? I thought McCain and the Republicans pretty much goaded Obama into taking the trip--but no mention of that here by "the dean"]
Acknowledging all that, it is still the case that Obama is pulling off this trip in great style and thereby has enhanced his Oval Office credentials. [The dean is implying Obama is all style no substance]
What he could not have counted on is the role that luck has played in the events that have surrounded the tour and in the actions of a cast of supporting players. When, on the first day of the trip, Obama stepped onto a basketball court at the air base in Kuwait and sent his first three-point shot cleanly through the basket, you knew that the gods had decided to favor him. [The dean's man, McBush, is so much the underdog, the "gods" are against him]
He could not have known in advance that on the very day he left Chicago, President Bush would suddenly reverse six years of policy and send a high-ranking State Department official off to a meeting with Iranian and European nuclear negotiators.
He could not have guessed that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, eager to promise his constituents that the American occupation would not be endless, would persuade Bush to declare agreement to "a time horizon" for the departure of U.S. troops. [The dean thinks "a time horizon" is ridiculous, and Iraq's puppet ruler is pandering to his "constituents"]
And he could not have assumed that a Maliki spokesman, briefing reporters on the prime minister's meeting with Obama, would volunteer the comment that "the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal" of U.S. troops.
Suddenly, long-standing Obama policies -- direct talks with Iran and a 16-month timetable for withdrawal -- seemed to be ratified by events. [Right. Who knew an invasion of Iraq--which McBush favored and Obama opposed--would necessitate the occupation of Iraq by hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops for decades on end and result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?]
So it was a confident and contented Obama who faced reporters Tuesday in Jordan for his first news conference of the trip. He handled the expected question about his meeting with Gen. David Petraeus by saying he perfectly understood the U.S. commander's opposition to any timetable that would limit his options, but that as commander in chief, he, Obama, would weigh Iraq's needs against those in Afghanistan -- and also against the interests of the domestic economy.
It was a skillful answer, not rejecting Petraeus's views but asserting a president's own larger responsibility. [To the dean, "skillful" means artful, stylish, but not substantive or Serious]
On the other hand, his saying that there was no way to know what would have happened in Iraq if the United States had followed his advice to start the withdrawal of troops two years ago rather than embarking on the "surge" seemed disingenuous. Obama still has trouble admitting when he is wrong. [The "surge", which the dean favors because McBush and his pals favor it, has solved all Iraq's, and America's problems--but we still can't bring the troops home or tear down the Green Zone. And gas is still $4 a gallon]
But his troubles are minimal compared with those of John McCain, who looks like the odd man out in the ongoing foreign policy debate. Having given steadfast support to the policies of both Maliki and George Bush, he has a legitimate complaint: They owed him more consideration in the way they announced their shifts. As it is, McCain appears isolated from trends in both Baghdad and Washington. [Waaaahh. How come Bush and that Iraqi president guy didn't get McBush's approval for their actions and comments first?]
McCain's frustration at the turn of events is something he cannot conceal. The domestic economy was always going to be a problem for him -- even before gasoline hit $4 a gallon. But he had a credible position to argue on national security issues and a record that was consistent and in some respects prescient. [Right. Who knew the Iraqi invasion and occupation--which McBush favored and Obama opposed--would cost trillions of dollars, cause a religiously-driven civil war among Iraqi's, bond Iraq closer to our other supposed enemy Iran, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and require hundreds of thousands of American troops to occupy another Middle Eastern country for decades on end. And that gas would still be $4 a gallon five years after we "liberated" Iraq]
But now the ground has shifted -- and his opponent was right where he needed to be to capture the advantage. July has been a cruel month for McCain. [The dean thinks July has sucked]
----
Easily Broder's worst column in months, if not years.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
What About The Green Zone? Part XVIU
The AP:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Tuesday that security in Iraq has improved and that the United States urgently needs to turn its attention to Afghanistan.
I keep wondering about the status of the Green Zone. The article states Obama met local Iraqi leaders in Ramidi, in AnBar Province. But what kind of travel is permitted for most Americans and Iraqi national leaders around, into, and from, the walled Green Zone?
If it's now secure in Baghdad, tear down the Green Zone walls, and start announcing scheduled visits by American officials.
Until then, I'd say not much has changed.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Tuesday that security in Iraq has improved and that the United States urgently needs to turn its attention to Afghanistan.
I keep wondering about the status of the Green Zone. The article states Obama met local Iraqi leaders in Ramidi, in AnBar Province. But what kind of travel is permitted for most Americans and Iraqi national leaders around, into, and from, the walled Green Zone?
If it's now secure in Baghdad, tear down the Green Zone walls, and start announcing scheduled visits by American officials.
Until then, I'd say not much has changed.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Two Score and 10 Olympics Ago
It's hard to believe that two black men raising their fists at an Olympics award event merited being suspended from the U.S. team and being banned from the Olympic "village". And death threats.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Pushing It
OK, even I'll admit I'm getting a bit tired of the wimpishness here.
And we can do without the MoveOn.org-sixties-counterculture lectures, too.
And we can do without the MoveOn.org-sixties-counterculture lectures, too.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Obama and Ideology
I agree, sadly, with much of what Krugman is saying here. The Democrat's ideological mushiness and timidity is in fact a major pet peeve of mine and I've written about it repeatedly in this space.
But there a few mitigating factors to consider.
One is that in most surveys, respondents are about twice as likely to identify as conservative as liberal (40% to 20% on average) and this self-identifying trend predates Reagan's campaign or presidency. So this is the lay of the land most Democrats face. I would argue that Democrats need to do a better job of rehabilitating the liberal label, but that's probably a post for another day.
Second is that the 1980 Reagan and 1992 Clinton comparisons are not equivalent. The economic and international environments were more severe in 1980 than 1992, leaving Reagan a better opportunity to rework the political landscape.
There's also the matter of the structure of American politics, which in both elections was shaped by a Democratic Party that still had a sizeable national presence in the South. The 1994 elections largely eradicated this feature of American politics. But again, as with the economic and international environments, Reagan was on a lot safer ground in many respects.
Finally, the 1994 election results came about largely on the basis of the Republican's depiction of Clinton as a radical liberal. Clinton's first two years were fairly bold ones--he attempted to allow gays to serve freely in the military; with Hillary he attempted an overhaul of the health care system to provide universal coverage; and he engineered the passage of the deficit reduction bill, which among other things, raised marginal tax rates. Similar to George W., Clinton stood accused of having run as a moderate New Democrat but as having governed as a crazed liberal wacko from San Fran.
The upshot of all of this is that there are reasons for doubting that, despite the country's apparent disapproval of a Republican president, we are on the cusp of a liberal revolution. The structure and geography of American politics makes such change, or at least the duration of such change, very difficult. Add to that the racial issues already affecting the campaign, and Obama's "triangulating" is somewhat understandable.
At the same time, mostly because he is an economist, Krugman overlooks many of the fields in which Obama has sounded pretty distinctly liberal tones, especially in regards to foreign policy in Cuba and the need to change, not just the tactics, but the underlying basis for American imperialistic policies around the globe and in the Middle East.
So, with Krugman, I share more than a little concern with any rhetoric that seems to give up the battle by trying to "transcend" ideology (remember Dukakis?). But Obama in many ways does represent a significant ideological departure from the norm. Maybe this will bear fruit in an Obama administration and maybe not. But it's pretty safe to say he's a better ticket to that kind of alteration than Hillary (or Biden or Bayh) would have been and certainly a better bet than John McCain.
But there a few mitigating factors to consider.
One is that in most surveys, respondents are about twice as likely to identify as conservative as liberal (40% to 20% on average) and this self-identifying trend predates Reagan's campaign or presidency. So this is the lay of the land most Democrats face. I would argue that Democrats need to do a better job of rehabilitating the liberal label, but that's probably a post for another day.
Second is that the 1980 Reagan and 1992 Clinton comparisons are not equivalent. The economic and international environments were more severe in 1980 than 1992, leaving Reagan a better opportunity to rework the political landscape.
There's also the matter of the structure of American politics, which in both elections was shaped by a Democratic Party that still had a sizeable national presence in the South. The 1994 elections largely eradicated this feature of American politics. But again, as with the economic and international environments, Reagan was on a lot safer ground in many respects.
Finally, the 1994 election results came about largely on the basis of the Republican's depiction of Clinton as a radical liberal. Clinton's first two years were fairly bold ones--he attempted to allow gays to serve freely in the military; with Hillary he attempted an overhaul of the health care system to provide universal coverage; and he engineered the passage of the deficit reduction bill, which among other things, raised marginal tax rates. Similar to George W., Clinton stood accused of having run as a moderate New Democrat but as having governed as a crazed liberal wacko from San Fran.
The upshot of all of this is that there are reasons for doubting that, despite the country's apparent disapproval of a Republican president, we are on the cusp of a liberal revolution. The structure and geography of American politics makes such change, or at least the duration of such change, very difficult. Add to that the racial issues already affecting the campaign, and Obama's "triangulating" is somewhat understandable.
At the same time, mostly because he is an economist, Krugman overlooks many of the fields in which Obama has sounded pretty distinctly liberal tones, especially in regards to foreign policy in Cuba and the need to change, not just the tactics, but the underlying basis for American imperialistic policies around the globe and in the Middle East.
So, with Krugman, I share more than a little concern with any rhetoric that seems to give up the battle by trying to "transcend" ideology (remember Dukakis?). But Obama in many ways does represent a significant ideological departure from the norm. Maybe this will bear fruit in an Obama administration and maybe not. But it's pretty safe to say he's a better ticket to that kind of alteration than Hillary (or Biden or Bayh) would have been and certainly a better bet than John McCain.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Slaughter 'em all
Not only is Hugh Hewitt terribly afraid of the Islams and Obamas, he's also terribly fond of the brutality of football and eager to watch his team "slaughter" another team in the sport.
But isn't Hewitt supposed to be a "Christian" kind of conservative? Is the kind of "Christian" society Hewitt wants to impose on us all one in which we go around "slaughtering" our enemies, literal and figurative, real and imagined (mostly imagined)?
But isn't Hewitt supposed to be a "Christian" kind of conservative? Is the kind of "Christian" society Hewitt wants to impose on us all one in which we go around "slaughtering" our enemies, literal and figurative, real and imagined (mostly imagined)?
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Bible Bamboozlement
Have you ever noticed that although conservative religious folk whine incessantly about how supposedly persecuted they are, how they aren't being allowed to practice their faith to the fullest extent in the public square, how somehow they and their faith are slighted by elites abroad in the land in academia, in the media, in Hollywood, etc, that when someone actually refers directly to what the Bible literally says, these same uptight, conservative fundies just blow their stacks, as if quoting from their holy book is intolerable?
After referring to the book of Leviticus's condoning and provision for slavery (the book of Exodus blesses it, too; take a read through chapter 21), for the buying and selling of human flesh, for created human beings, the Christianist brigade goes into overdrive complaining, bizarrely, that Obama is "deliberately distorting" the Bible and "dragging Biblical understanding through the mud."
But what is Obama distorting? He's merely quoting from the Bible, which they falsely claim to rever.
What the Dobsonites really mean is that it is unfair for Obama, or anyone, least of all the sheeples in the pews, to dare to interpret the Bible for themselves, to read it just as it is written. Rather, it is insinuated, there is a grand tradition of evangelical Christian thought that is the only proper intepreter and guardian of the scriptures, and that unless we are party to this elite consensus on the holy book, then our views, our readings, are invalid. Only religious elites like Dobson can explain the Bible for us. This is an old argument, at least as old as the Reformation when the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy first tried to prevent the widespread printing and distribution of the Bible and then when that became impossible, amped up its supposed prerogatives to infallibility, meaning that for the simple lay person, they could read the Bible, but couldn't decide for themselves what the texts meant or how to apply them. But as literacy and education have spread, and just as importantly, as people have become more healthy and prosperous, the would be dictators in the Roman Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Mormon church, and in Colorado Springs lose more of their hold on the public imagination. The same old tricks don't work any more.
Put simply, Dobson and his ilk believe only they are fit to interpret the Bible. The rest of us are supposed to follow mindlessly like the most rabid ignorant fanatics.
After referring to the book of Leviticus's condoning and provision for slavery (the book of Exodus blesses it, too; take a read through chapter 21), for the buying and selling of human flesh, for created human beings, the Christianist brigade goes into overdrive complaining, bizarrely, that Obama is "deliberately distorting" the Bible and "dragging Biblical understanding through the mud."
But what is Obama distorting? He's merely quoting from the Bible, which they falsely claim to rever.
What the Dobsonites really mean is that it is unfair for Obama, or anyone, least of all the sheeples in the pews, to dare to interpret the Bible for themselves, to read it just as it is written. Rather, it is insinuated, there is a grand tradition of evangelical Christian thought that is the only proper intepreter and guardian of the scriptures, and that unless we are party to this elite consensus on the holy book, then our views, our readings, are invalid. Only religious elites like Dobson can explain the Bible for us. This is an old argument, at least as old as the Reformation when the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy first tried to prevent the widespread printing and distribution of the Bible and then when that became impossible, amped up its supposed prerogatives to infallibility, meaning that for the simple lay person, they could read the Bible, but couldn't decide for themselves what the texts meant or how to apply them. But as literacy and education have spread, and just as importantly, as people have become more healthy and prosperous, the would be dictators in the Roman Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Mormon church, and in Colorado Springs lose more of their hold on the public imagination. The same old tricks don't work any more.
Put simply, Dobson and his ilk believe only they are fit to interpret the Bible. The rest of us are supposed to follow mindlessly like the most rabid ignorant fanatics.
Dobson and his FOTF are a Joke
This is amusing.
Speaking of faith matters, Obama said:
"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asked in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?
"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama said, to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."
He also called Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application."
In response, Dobson's camp issued this declaimer:
...Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.
Get that? The OT is just junk, according to Dobson. It's "antiquated" and "no longer relevant."
But then later, the FOTF chieftain through is PR minion issues this smarmy, contradictory statement:
"Evangelicals are people who take Bible interpretation very seriously, and the sort of speech he gave shows that he is worlds away in the views of evangelicals," he said.
Get that? "Evangelicals...take Bible interpretation very seriously." No, they don't. Just after throwing three quarters of the Christian holy book (i.e. The Old Testament) under the bus, Dobson's munchkin has the gall to claim that "Evangelicals....take Bible interpretation seriously."
But even if you allow Dobson and his crew to claim that when they want to impose Biblical morality on the country they really only mean the New Testament Bible, there's still that matter about the Sermon on the Mount and Obama's linking of those famous injunctions to the presence of the U.S. Department of War (er, Defense), which Dobson's mouthpiece didn't bother reflecting on.
So, when it really comes down to it, when you get through with Dobson's Christian Bible, what you have left is basically the covers.
Dobson and the Christianist, theocon community are a ridiculous joke.
Speaking of faith matters, Obama said:
"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asked in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?
"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama said, to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."
He also called Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application."
In response, Dobson's camp issued this declaimer:
...Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.
Get that? The OT is just junk, according to Dobson. It's "antiquated" and "no longer relevant."
But then later, the FOTF chieftain through is PR minion issues this smarmy, contradictory statement:
"Evangelicals are people who take Bible interpretation very seriously, and the sort of speech he gave shows that he is worlds away in the views of evangelicals," he said.
Get that? "Evangelicals...take Bible interpretation very seriously." No, they don't. Just after throwing three quarters of the Christian holy book (i.e. The Old Testament) under the bus, Dobson's munchkin has the gall to claim that "Evangelicals....take Bible interpretation seriously."
But even if you allow Dobson and his crew to claim that when they want to impose Biblical morality on the country they really only mean the New Testament Bible, there's still that matter about the Sermon on the Mount and Obama's linking of those famous injunctions to the presence of the U.S. Department of War (er, Defense), which Dobson's mouthpiece didn't bother reflecting on.
So, when it really comes down to it, when you get through with Dobson's Christian Bible, what you have left is basically the covers.
Dobson and the Christianist, theocon community are a ridiculous joke.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Bite Me
Brooks doth protest too much.
I keep having this fantasy of Obama telling the Israeli Lobby, the Cuban Exiles, Faux News, the Wash Post editorial page, the Bush Dog Democrats, Joe Lieberman, and the other clowns ruining our Democracy to go screw themselves.
But in the absence of that, a reputation for ruthlessness won't hurt.
I keep having this fantasy of Obama telling the Israeli Lobby, the Cuban Exiles, Faux News, the Wash Post editorial page, the Bush Dog Democrats, Joe Lieberman, and the other clowns ruining our Democracy to go screw themselves.
But in the absence of that, a reputation for ruthlessness won't hurt.
Is the Speaker of the House still a Dem?
I'm assuming the Speaker can block bills like this from coming to the Floor. But what do I know.
Remind me again, how did Steny Hoyer get to be Majority Leader?
Remind me again, how did Steny Hoyer get to be Majority Leader?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Choose Liberal
Greenwald:
A few weeks ago, Andrew Sullivan had an Op-Ed in The Washington Post regarding the extraordinary fact that the U.S. is only one of 12 countries in the world to ban HIV-positive individuals from entering the country, and he described the heavy toll that ban exacts on people such as himself who are living with the virus (This week, the new ACLU blog is hosting a symposium on lesbian and gay issues that includes a discussion of these and related matters).
The HIV ban was the work of the Jesse Helms-led right-wing in 1993. Although Iran hasn't followed that policy, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen and Saddam Hussein's Iraq did. It's really baffling why the American Right is so obsessed with waging war against radical Islam and flamboyantly condemning other oppressive systems when they replicate and embrace so many of their most defining attributes.
Yes, it is baffling.
Maybe our very serious media establishment could ponder this question. Our Democratic candidates might want to mention it around, too. Campaign speeches, debates, TV ads, those would be great places to start.
A few weeks ago, Andrew Sullivan had an Op-Ed in The Washington Post regarding the extraordinary fact that the U.S. is only one of 12 countries in the world to ban HIV-positive individuals from entering the country, and he described the heavy toll that ban exacts on people such as himself who are living with the virus (This week, the new ACLU blog is hosting a symposium on lesbian and gay issues that includes a discussion of these and related matters).
The HIV ban was the work of the Jesse Helms-led right-wing in 1993. Although Iran hasn't followed that policy, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen and Saddam Hussein's Iraq did. It's really baffling why the American Right is so obsessed with waging war against radical Islam and flamboyantly condemning other oppressive systems when they replicate and embrace so many of their most defining attributes.
Yes, it is baffling.
Maybe our very serious media establishment could ponder this question. Our Democratic candidates might want to mention it around, too. Campaign speeches, debates, TV ads, those would be great places to start.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Gail Collins
Whut?
In the print edition of today's NYT, the op-ed by Gail Collins dealing with Obama and Jim Johnson includes one of those paragraph breaks intended to be suggestive of the column's theme. But this one seems particularly odd. The paragraph break says -- "Maybe Al Gore will change his mind."
Huh? What does this mean? Change his mind about what?
The op-ed itself doesn't mention Gore.
Is Collins or the NYT implying Gore should have, or might still, enter the 2008 nomination contest (after a long, expensive, and bruising primary/caucus contest has just concluded)? Or is Collins or the NYT suggesting that Gore has already turned down the chance to be Obama's VP or VP vetting person, but might still be persuaded to accept one or both? I don't get it.
Can someone enlighten me?
In the print edition of today's NYT, the op-ed by Gail Collins dealing with Obama and Jim Johnson includes one of those paragraph breaks intended to be suggestive of the column's theme. But this one seems particularly odd. The paragraph break says -- "Maybe Al Gore will change his mind."
Huh? What does this mean? Change his mind about what?
The op-ed itself doesn't mention Gore.
Is Collins or the NYT implying Gore should have, or might still, enter the 2008 nomination contest (after a long, expensive, and bruising primary/caucus contest has just concluded)? Or is Collins or the NYT suggesting that Gore has already turned down the chance to be Obama's VP or VP vetting person, but might still be persuaded to accept one or both? I don't get it.
Can someone enlighten me?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
They Ask Questions
Hunter, at the Great Orange Satan, has a question for Democratic OK Rep, Dan Boren:
So here's my gentle question for Rep. Boren[who is refraining from endorsing Obama, his party's presumptive nominee, because Boren represents a CD full of sensitive folk who would faint away were he to do so--Ed.]. Let's just suppose that he was right, and Obama really was "the most liberal senator" in the entire Democratic contingent -- a term magically conferred by conservatives on whatever figure wins the nomination, election after election, while hyper-mega-death-penalty-mocking-war-humping-salmon-punching-archconservative Republicans magically turn into "moderates", using those same conservatives' exact same terribly objective calculations for such things.
So let's just stipulate that someone might be "the most liberal" senator. My question for Rep. Boren, and for his Oklahoma constituents, is this: so what? So what if someone is a "liberal"?
What exactly are you afraid of?
What, will he start some wars? Will the economy go to hell? Will gasoline suddenly cost four bucks a gallon, so that getting from one end of town to the other starts to be something you have to plan for in your family budget? Oh, wait, no -- that's what conservatism has wrought. So what big, scary menace will "liberalism" rain down upon us all?
The horror of free public education? The apocalypse of affordable healthcare for families and the elderly? An energy policy that consists of something other than "hell, let's just sit on our asses and see what happens"? My God, maybe we'll have a foreign policy that doesn't revolve around sucking thousands of dollars out of your constituents' pockets, lighting all that money on fire, and using the pyre to make super-special Democracy Smores in the middle of the Iraqi desert?
What, are we afraid less American soldiers will die? That our trade deficit will be, if not reversed, at least addressed? Are Oklahomans all huddled in their closets, lest some of the now-legions of outsourced jobs start reappearing in their towns? What? What is it that is so absolutely alarming about the word "liberal" that you'd rather stomach having everything that's happened to America for the past decade continue, rather than being seen as someone who might secretly have tolerance for, shudder, that word?
What a solid, principled, unflappable figure this Dan Boren is, eh?
So here's my gentle question for Rep. Boren[who is refraining from endorsing Obama, his party's presumptive nominee, because Boren represents a CD full of sensitive folk who would faint away were he to do so--Ed.]. Let's just suppose that he was right, and Obama really was "the most liberal senator" in the entire Democratic contingent -- a term magically conferred by conservatives on whatever figure wins the nomination, election after election, while hyper-mega-death-penalty-mocking-war-humping-salmon-punching-archconservative Republicans magically turn into "moderates", using those same conservatives' exact same terribly objective calculations for such things.
So let's just stipulate that someone might be "the most liberal" senator. My question for Rep. Boren, and for his Oklahoma constituents, is this: so what? So what if someone is a "liberal"?
What exactly are you afraid of?
What, will he start some wars? Will the economy go to hell? Will gasoline suddenly cost four bucks a gallon, so that getting from one end of town to the other starts to be something you have to plan for in your family budget? Oh, wait, no -- that's what conservatism has wrought. So what big, scary menace will "liberalism" rain down upon us all?
The horror of free public education? The apocalypse of affordable healthcare for families and the elderly? An energy policy that consists of something other than "hell, let's just sit on our asses and see what happens"? My God, maybe we'll have a foreign policy that doesn't revolve around sucking thousands of dollars out of your constituents' pockets, lighting all that money on fire, and using the pyre to make super-special Democracy Smores in the middle of the Iraqi desert?
What, are we afraid less American soldiers will die? That our trade deficit will be, if not reversed, at least addressed? Are Oklahomans all huddled in their closets, lest some of the now-legions of outsourced jobs start reappearing in their towns? What? What is it that is so absolutely alarming about the word "liberal" that you'd rather stomach having everything that's happened to America for the past decade continue, rather than being seen as someone who might secretly have tolerance for, shudder, that word?
What a solid, principled, unflappable figure this Dan Boren is, eh?
Narrowing the VP field
While I'm not offering my full throated endorsement yet, I do concur wholeheartedly with the sentiments of E.J. Dionne, and Ezra Klein on the positive attributes U.S. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) would bring to the position.
Unlike some people, Biden doesn't just say he's a fighter, he's actually been one. And unlike some people, he's actually been a fighter against the other party. He can be, as Ezra notes, an obnoxious ass. But among other things, that is something this campaign will desperately need, since its leader can't afford to be one. Along with his pugnaciousness comes a willingness to say what he believes, come gaffe what may, lending an all-important "authenticity" quotient to the ticket. And the truth is he is about as knowledgeable a spokesperson on matters of law and justice, as well as foreign policy, as the party has.
If Biden can seem a bit unsufferable for all his media appearances, I think it's worthwhile to point out that U.S. Senators are not just voting automatons--they're also elected to inform, and hopefully lead, public opinion, not only in their state, but around the country. Or at least the best of them over the years have recognized the virtue in their playing that role. For this reason, you won't hear me gripe about all the times McCain shows up on Sunday talk shows and the like.
On the downside, Biden isn't exactly what could be called a fresh voice in the public debate. And to the extent that for Obama the promise of bringing in the new is a legitimately real aspiration--and I think it is, as it is for many of his voters and donors--then Biden as VP would not just be a potential mocking point for Republicans and late night TV hosts, but could actually represent a real digression from the campaign's goals.
So, although I have him in my top three or so, I'm not quite ready to annoint Biden. While the Party needs a tough and knowledgeable voice, it also needs a new voice, one that challenges the conventional wisdom on important issues.
Unlike some people, Biden doesn't just say he's a fighter, he's actually been one. And unlike some people, he's actually been a fighter against the other party. He can be, as Ezra notes, an obnoxious ass. But among other things, that is something this campaign will desperately need, since its leader can't afford to be one. Along with his pugnaciousness comes a willingness to say what he believes, come gaffe what may, lending an all-important "authenticity" quotient to the ticket. And the truth is he is about as knowledgeable a spokesperson on matters of law and justice, as well as foreign policy, as the party has.
If Biden can seem a bit unsufferable for all his media appearances, I think it's worthwhile to point out that U.S. Senators are not just voting automatons--they're also elected to inform, and hopefully lead, public opinion, not only in their state, but around the country. Or at least the best of them over the years have recognized the virtue in their playing that role. For this reason, you won't hear me gripe about all the times McCain shows up on Sunday talk shows and the like.
On the downside, Biden isn't exactly what could be called a fresh voice in the public debate. And to the extent that for Obama the promise of bringing in the new is a legitimately real aspiration--and I think it is, as it is for many of his voters and donors--then Biden as VP would not just be a potential mocking point for Republicans and late night TV hosts, but could actually represent a real digression from the campaign's goals.
So, although I have him in my top three or so, I'm not quite ready to annoint Biden. While the Party needs a tough and knowledgeable voice, it also needs a new voice, one that challenges the conventional wisdom on important issues.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Debt Conflict
That well-known Communist and Socialist Utopian, David Brooks, has an op-ed today asserting, among other things, that our greedy, can't delay gratification debt culture is worse than whatever sexual immorality might be being promoted by Hollywood. This is an interesting conservative twist, certain to leave Christianist scolds and prosperity gospel preachers flummoxed.
And while I agree with Jesse Taylor that Brooks tilts his analysis towards the problems presented by debtors and their insatiable consumer appetites at the expense of, say, the behavior of lenders, I actually think the behavior of consumers and lenders are only tangentially the real threat here.
The real problem I think is that, consumer me-too-ism and unscrupulous lending behavior aside, the economy largely depends on people spending money they don't have. This is the real conundrum, the real conflict our public policies to deal with the debt problem will probably only exacerbate. If the spicot gets turned off in some way, credit tightened any which way, the economy will likely slow. At the same time, unless the debt spiral is lessened, the whole system will ultimately end up crashing anyway.
And while I agree with Jesse Taylor that Brooks tilts his analysis towards the problems presented by debtors and their insatiable consumer appetites at the expense of, say, the behavior of lenders, I actually think the behavior of consumers and lenders are only tangentially the real threat here.
The real problem I think is that, consumer me-too-ism and unscrupulous lending behavior aside, the economy largely depends on people spending money they don't have. This is the real conundrum, the real conflict our public policies to deal with the debt problem will probably only exacerbate. If the spicot gets turned off in some way, credit tightened any which way, the economy will likely slow. At the same time, unless the debt spiral is lessened, the whole system will ultimately end up crashing anyway.
Monday, June 09, 2008
A Failure of Moral Leadership
I've been meaning to comment on this (h/t Andrew Sullivan).
This time out, as Duncan Black keeps pointing out, the elephant in the room is the Iraq war. If Hillary hadn’t decided to play it safe and let the rumpus room warriors have their way, she would be the nominee and everyone would be saying “Barack who?” She thought she was being shrewd, and it blew up in her face. That vote lost her the nomination, and yet the “analysts” and pundits are scrupulously avoiding talking about it. The war decided this primary, and it will decide the vote in November as well.
In her essay about self-respect (it’s in Slouching Towards Bethlehem), Joan Didion writes that without integrity, ”one runs away to find oneself, and finds no one at home.” I’m not a Hillary hater, but I think that sentence sums up this turning point in her political career. The country needed more from her than what she was ready to give, and now she gets nothing.
That about sums it up. But it was more than the Iraq vote. It's clear that for the Clinton's, the era of Bill's two terms (won with less than 50% majorities both times, BTW) is to be remembered with deep longing and gratitude. But neither Clinton seems to recall that the Democratic Party in general, and liberalism in particular, were essentially forced into exile after 1994.
Not all of that was Bill Clinton's fault. In fact, despite its failure, the Clinton's attempt to provide universal health insurance was admirable and risky. President Bill was also pretty solid on abortion rights and allowing gays in the military. Again, for all the flack "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has received, it's easy to forget that Clinton at least raised the issue and attempted to find a solution.
Nevertheless, the nineties are not grand memories for many of us. Things only got worse after the 2000 election, although for the Clinton's the carpetbagger election of Hillary to a U.S. Senate seat in NY probably allayed some of the disappointment felt by Democrats that year.
Then of course there was the very difficult period between 9/11 and the March 2003 Iraq invasion when Democrats were either cowed into sanctioning the neocon's war or risk finding themselves the targets of the Republican Noise Machine, accused of aiding and abetting terrorist enemies, being a fifth column of opposition to Amerika, and so forth.
As I said, these were very difficult times and Hillary was as good as absent from this country and from the liberal world for all the little she did. I don't recall her ever being a "fighter" during this period or through the 2006 elections, when the only attention she received or encouraged was that related to her inevitable presidential run.
"The country needed more from her than what she was ready to give, and now she gets nothing. "
This time out, as Duncan Black keeps pointing out, the elephant in the room is the Iraq war. If Hillary hadn’t decided to play it safe and let the rumpus room warriors have their way, she would be the nominee and everyone would be saying “Barack who?” She thought she was being shrewd, and it blew up in her face. That vote lost her the nomination, and yet the “analysts” and pundits are scrupulously avoiding talking about it. The war decided this primary, and it will decide the vote in November as well.
In her essay about self-respect (it’s in Slouching Towards Bethlehem), Joan Didion writes that without integrity, ”one runs away to find oneself, and finds no one at home.” I’m not a Hillary hater, but I think that sentence sums up this turning point in her political career. The country needed more from her than what she was ready to give, and now she gets nothing.
That about sums it up. But it was more than the Iraq vote. It's clear that for the Clinton's, the era of Bill's two terms (won with less than 50% majorities both times, BTW) is to be remembered with deep longing and gratitude. But neither Clinton seems to recall that the Democratic Party in general, and liberalism in particular, were essentially forced into exile after 1994.
Not all of that was Bill Clinton's fault. In fact, despite its failure, the Clinton's attempt to provide universal health insurance was admirable and risky. President Bill was also pretty solid on abortion rights and allowing gays in the military. Again, for all the flack "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has received, it's easy to forget that Clinton at least raised the issue and attempted to find a solution.
Nevertheless, the nineties are not grand memories for many of us. Things only got worse after the 2000 election, although for the Clinton's the carpetbagger election of Hillary to a U.S. Senate seat in NY probably allayed some of the disappointment felt by Democrats that year.
Then of course there was the very difficult period between 9/11 and the March 2003 Iraq invasion when Democrats were either cowed into sanctioning the neocon's war or risk finding themselves the targets of the Republican Noise Machine, accused of aiding and abetting terrorist enemies, being a fifth column of opposition to Amerika, and so forth.
As I said, these were very difficult times and Hillary was as good as absent from this country and from the liberal world for all the little she did. I don't recall her ever being a "fighter" during this period or through the 2006 elections, when the only attention she received or encouraged was that related to her inevitable presidential run.
"The country needed more from her than what she was ready to give, and now she gets nothing. "
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Yes She Did
I thought the speech was mostly pretty good. She sounded genuine and not overly self-absorbed to my hearing. There were also some welcome and surprisingly good lines affirming gay rights (where the hell has this been all campaign??), and some nice allusions to civil rights and those on the margins of American society.
But in terms of how difficult all this is so supposed to be for her and her supporters, it seems to me there's one very easy was of dealing with that--try ripping the Republicans a few new ones. She claims to be a fighter. Whether she gets the VP nod or not--and I'm feeling more charitable today than I was earlier this week--let her turn some of her supposed fighting-ness against John McBush and the Republicrat Party that would turn back the causes of African Americans, women, and others relegated to the fringes of American society.
She made some contributions to this end today, but in much milder forms than I hope she can generate later, the sooner the better. If she or her supporters want her to be the VP, she and they can get an early start doing what VP candidates typically do. Don't wait for an invitation.
I also thought she could have done more towards addressing the racial healing this campaign--and her campaign in particular--has generated the need for. While there were a few allusions to Obama's similarly historical campaign and the civil rights struggles of yesteryear, there's still another big elephant or bull left standing in the china shop in addition to the War--race. Regular, white, hard working white Americans and all that. The speech crowd was overwhelmingly White. If she wants to go further, in this year or some future year, she has some damage to repair in this area.
Meanwhile, one of the oddities of this campaign, and HRC's in particular, is what seems to me to have been a shocking deficit of attention being paid to so-called women's issues, like abortion, access to birth control, equal pay, paid leave, etc. Hillary has stuck mostly to generic, middle class pabulum. Her references today to labor rights, the need for greater unionization, gay rights, and civil rights are a welcome change from what has been a dirth of attention paid to these issues so far.
Maybe there's an understandable, if still not a good reason, for this; these issues tend to be controversial. But as she is supposed to be a fighter and all, she will go a long way to making me feel all warm and fuzzy about her in the future if she, you know, actually does fight for something and on behalf of those issues and people most in need of it.
But in terms of how difficult all this is so supposed to be for her and her supporters, it seems to me there's one very easy was of dealing with that--try ripping the Republicans a few new ones. She claims to be a fighter. Whether she gets the VP nod or not--and I'm feeling more charitable today than I was earlier this week--let her turn some of her supposed fighting-ness against John McBush and the Republicrat Party that would turn back the causes of African Americans, women, and others relegated to the fringes of American society.
She made some contributions to this end today, but in much milder forms than I hope she can generate later, the sooner the better. If she or her supporters want her to be the VP, she and they can get an early start doing what VP candidates typically do. Don't wait for an invitation.
I also thought she could have done more towards addressing the racial healing this campaign--and her campaign in particular--has generated the need for. While there were a few allusions to Obama's similarly historical campaign and the civil rights struggles of yesteryear, there's still another big elephant or bull left standing in the china shop in addition to the War--race. Regular, white, hard working white Americans and all that. The speech crowd was overwhelmingly White. If she wants to go further, in this year or some future year, she has some damage to repair in this area.
Meanwhile, one of the oddities of this campaign, and HRC's in particular, is what seems to me to have been a shocking deficit of attention being paid to so-called women's issues, like abortion, access to birth control, equal pay, paid leave, etc. Hillary has stuck mostly to generic, middle class pabulum. Her references today to labor rights, the need for greater unionization, gay rights, and civil rights are a welcome change from what has been a dirth of attention paid to these issues so far.
Maybe there's an understandable, if still not a good reason, for this; these issues tend to be controversial. But as she is supposed to be a fighter and all, she will go a long way to making me feel all warm and fuzzy about her in the future if she, you know, actually does fight for something and on behalf of those issues and people most in need of it.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
The Politics of Banality
One of the things that struck me about Hillary's non-concession speech was, beyond its seeming spitefulness and intractability, the essential banality of its content. As in past speeches there were multiple examples of people she met and how her campaign was all about them and how she was all about fighting for them, for their health care, for their jobs, for their education, etc, all things that the federal government has little control over. What's particularly weird about our politics is how contentious it is over what is basically nothing. There wasn't anything meaningful in Hillary's speech. She complained, as Democratic candidates are wont to do, about the individuals who don't have health insurance and can't get it; but in the case of Hillary--wasn't your husband President for eight years? And haven't you been in the U.S. Senate for eight years? If there are still people who don't have health insurance, aren't you and your vaunted experience part of the problem, or at least not the solution?
Of course this political banality isn't restricted to Hillary. She pretty much copied--xeroxed if you will--her campaign material and slogans from her husband's campaigns a decade and a half ago (although, thankfully, she didn't promise to build any bridges to the next century or generation or whatever). John Edwards ran much the same kind of campaign and Obama has taken, or been pushed by the media, to adopt much of the same vague platitudes and laments about American life with the equally dubious promises to solve them all.
Today, fresh off his elevation to presumptive nominee, Obama goes before the Likud super-cult, AIPAC. Here's hoping he takes the opportunity to engage in some much-needed "straight talk". But I'm not optimistic. Candidates' prostrating themselves before the god AIPAC is becoming a deeply regrettable campaign must-do. With all the banalities and propaganda that entails.
Of course this political banality isn't restricted to Hillary. She pretty much copied--xeroxed if you will--her campaign material and slogans from her husband's campaigns a decade and a half ago (although, thankfully, she didn't promise to build any bridges to the next century or generation or whatever). John Edwards ran much the same kind of campaign and Obama has taken, or been pushed by the media, to adopt much of the same vague platitudes and laments about American life with the equally dubious promises to solve them all.
Today, fresh off his elevation to presumptive nominee, Obama goes before the Likud super-cult, AIPAC. Here's hoping he takes the opportunity to engage in some much-needed "straight talk". But I'm not optimistic. Candidates' prostrating themselves before the god AIPAC is becoming a deeply regrettable campaign must-do. With all the banalities and propaganda that entails.
Chris Matthews Attributes Hillary's Loss to Her War Vote
Atrios:
MSNBC just ran yet another "What Clinton Did Wrong" piece which... didn't mention the war.
Arguably there were two major substantive policy differences between Clinton and Obama. The first one is their health plans, and the second one is Iraq. Perhaps absent more differences it's inevitable that the horse race/identity politics/silly season/"gaffe" stuff gets elevated even more than it usually is, but at the very least they could mention the real, if small, differences in their policy positions.
And it is Iraq. No Iraq, no way to challenge Clinton.
------
I was watching MSNBC during most of the coverage last night and I do recall Chris Matthews, of all people, at one point quite explicitly point out that a key distinction between Obama and Clinton was the latter's vote to authorize the Iraq war and that that decision was the key cause of Obama's ultimate victory. Matthews referred to Obama's opposition to the war as "surendipitous".
I did, however, find all the banter about Hillary as VP a bit much to deal with. Both CNN and MSNBC were playing up this angle all night.
I even watched all of Hillary's speech, with one towards the little clock in the bottom left hand corner of the screen indicating when the Montana polls would close, hoping that the land of Big Sky would give Obama a symbolic victory to paper over the disappointment of losing South Dakota by double digits.
Despite the thousands filling the arena in St. Paul, it certainly feels like Obama limped across the finish line. Maybe stumbled is the right word.
So in some ways I'm not surprised by the mostly defiant tone Hillary struck last night. But her egging on her supporters to log onto her website and offer suggestions as to what she should do now was pretty weird.
Meanwhile, I got a kick out of the reception to John McCain's 8:30 address. Jeffrey Toobin on CNN ridiculed it, causing the normally congenial David Gergen to shift uneasily in his seat next to him.
From Pandagon commenter Incertus:
Man, Toobin just kicked McCain in the junk for that speech.
MSNBC just ran yet another "What Clinton Did Wrong" piece which... didn't mention the war.
Arguably there were two major substantive policy differences between Clinton and Obama. The first one is their health plans, and the second one is Iraq. Perhaps absent more differences it's inevitable that the horse race/identity politics/silly season/"gaffe" stuff gets elevated even more than it usually is, but at the very least they could mention the real, if small, differences in their policy positions.
And it is Iraq. No Iraq, no way to challenge Clinton.
------
I was watching MSNBC during most of the coverage last night and I do recall Chris Matthews, of all people, at one point quite explicitly point out that a key distinction between Obama and Clinton was the latter's vote to authorize the Iraq war and that that decision was the key cause of Obama's ultimate victory. Matthews referred to Obama's opposition to the war as "surendipitous".
I did, however, find all the banter about Hillary as VP a bit much to deal with. Both CNN and MSNBC were playing up this angle all night.
I even watched all of Hillary's speech, with one towards the little clock in the bottom left hand corner of the screen indicating when the Montana polls would close, hoping that the land of Big Sky would give Obama a symbolic victory to paper over the disappointment of losing South Dakota by double digits.
Despite the thousands filling the arena in St. Paul, it certainly feels like Obama limped across the finish line. Maybe stumbled is the right word.
So in some ways I'm not surprised by the mostly defiant tone Hillary struck last night. But her egging on her supporters to log onto her website and offer suggestions as to what she should do now was pretty weird.
Meanwhile, I got a kick out of the reception to John McCain's 8:30 address. Jeffrey Toobin on CNN ridiculed it, causing the normally congenial David Gergen to shift uneasily in his seat next to him.
From Pandagon commenter Incertus:
Man, Toobin just kicked McCain in the junk for that speech.
Monday, June 02, 2008
2012 and Beyond
If, heaven forbid, the Democrats lose in '08, or face a quasi-open primary in '16, we might do well to remember crap like this--
You guys have seen the latest Clinton craziness, right? The freaking out over the "four delegates" that were supposedly wrenched from their hands by the DNC's RBC committee this past Saturday. To hear them say it, Obama is evvvviiiilllll because he denied Clinton four delegates she "won" in Michigan's potemkin one-candidate "primary". Why couldn't have Obama been magnanimous and just given Clinton those extra four delegates? He's going to win anyway, right? Would the four delegates have made a difference?
Of course, the issue isn't the four delegates. The Clinton campaign made clear a long time ago that they don't view this as a delegate fight. Not since she lost the lead in delegates. Now, they view it as a popular vote fight.
Had the DNC handed out delegates based on January's sham vote, it would've ratified the election as a legitimate one (as ended up happening with Florida, by the way). Hillary and her acolytes would've then had a greater claim to her Michigan "victory" of 328,309 votes to zero for Obama. As is, at the Michigan Democratic Party's insistence, the DNC threw out the election and invented a new split out of thin air. Obama had the vote for a 50-50 split, but threw Clinton a few extra delegates to try and ease bruised feelings.
But again, Clinton doesn't give a damn about those extra delegates. She wanted to ratify the Michigan election and claim that 328,309-vote advantage for her tally.
So when you see Clinton surrogates in a rage about those "four delegates", understand that their rage has nothing to do with four delegates. It has to do with the blow it dealt to their propaganda efforts.
And crap like this.
If the Clintons think they can bleed Obama to death between now and November and expect to show up in '12 or '16 and cash in their presidency-entitlement ticket (like they tried to do this year), they shouldn't act surprised if their reception is a little less than gracious. (h/t Andrew Sullivan).
You guys have seen the latest Clinton craziness, right? The freaking out over the "four delegates" that were supposedly wrenched from their hands by the DNC's RBC committee this past Saturday. To hear them say it, Obama is evvvviiiilllll because he denied Clinton four delegates she "won" in Michigan's potemkin one-candidate "primary". Why couldn't have Obama been magnanimous and just given Clinton those extra four delegates? He's going to win anyway, right? Would the four delegates have made a difference?
Of course, the issue isn't the four delegates. The Clinton campaign made clear a long time ago that they don't view this as a delegate fight. Not since she lost the lead in delegates. Now, they view it as a popular vote fight.
Had the DNC handed out delegates based on January's sham vote, it would've ratified the election as a legitimate one (as ended up happening with Florida, by the way). Hillary and her acolytes would've then had a greater claim to her Michigan "victory" of 328,309 votes to zero for Obama. As is, at the Michigan Democratic Party's insistence, the DNC threw out the election and invented a new split out of thin air. Obama had the vote for a 50-50 split, but threw Clinton a few extra delegates to try and ease bruised feelings.
But again, Clinton doesn't give a damn about those extra delegates. She wanted to ratify the Michigan election and claim that 328,309-vote advantage for her tally.
So when you see Clinton surrogates in a rage about those "four delegates", understand that their rage has nothing to do with four delegates. It has to do with the blow it dealt to their propaganda efforts.
And crap like this.
If the Clintons think they can bleed Obama to death between now and November and expect to show up in '12 or '16 and cash in their presidency-entitlement ticket (like they tried to do this year), they shouldn't act surprised if their reception is a little less than gracious. (h/t Andrew Sullivan).
Jesse Taylor Back At Pandagon
And boy is he laying the smacketh down:
All I want is a nominee who’ll pick smart fights. Clinton hasn’t shown herself to be that candidate...
Experience is only worth something if you learn from it. From what I’ve been able to tell, the main lesson Clinton’s learned thus far is that you always hold the line, no matter how ridiculously out of touch with reality it may be...
Of all the bad decisions the Clinton campaign made, deciding that Obama was more The Enemy than John McCain was likely the worst...
For all the snide talk of “Obamabots” and the alleged cult-like behavior of Obama supporters (which was almost entirely overplayed), the increasing legitimacy of the Bible of Clinton (with the Gospels of Michigan and Florida and the Acts of the Superdelegates I and II) is far more disturbing than any reports of fainting at rallies or the overexuberance of young supporters...
Hillary Clinton is going to lose. She will likely lose Wednesday. Everything that I’ve talked about, everything that has happened during this race, makes me very wary about her ability to bring her supporters back into the fold - a responsibility, incidentally, that does fall largely on her. And if they do wander away, if they do vote for John McCain over Barack Obama, it will be her greatest failure as a candidate and as a leader...
Damn, that's some good shit.
All I want is a nominee who’ll pick smart fights. Clinton hasn’t shown herself to be that candidate...
Experience is only worth something if you learn from it. From what I’ve been able to tell, the main lesson Clinton’s learned thus far is that you always hold the line, no matter how ridiculously out of touch with reality it may be...
Of all the bad decisions the Clinton campaign made, deciding that Obama was more The Enemy than John McCain was likely the worst...
For all the snide talk of “Obamabots” and the alleged cult-like behavior of Obama supporters (which was almost entirely overplayed), the increasing legitimacy of the Bible of Clinton (with the Gospels of Michigan and Florida and the Acts of the Superdelegates I and II) is far more disturbing than any reports of fainting at rallies or the overexuberance of young supporters...
Hillary Clinton is going to lose. She will likely lose Wednesday. Everything that I’ve talked about, everything that has happened during this race, makes me very wary about her ability to bring her supporters back into the fold - a responsibility, incidentally, that does fall largely on her. And if they do wander away, if they do vote for John McCain over Barack Obama, it will be her greatest failure as a candidate and as a leader...
Damn, that's some good shit.
Fair and Balanced
While I won't do the dis-service of linking to them, I will point out that the Washington Post graced us with TWO snarling, anti-Scott McClellan op-eds this morning, plus a Howie Kurtz column in Style that basically adopts Karl Rove's talking points on McClellan's book.
Your liberal media at work.
Your liberal media at work.
What Will Krugman Say?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
More on Kornblut
Returning to a previous subject, this exchange between a Wash Post reporter and the public deserves further attention:
------
Potomac, MD: McClellan needs to get over himself. The nerve of blaming the media for their failures in the run-up to the War. Elisabeth Bumiller so eloquently explained how things work the night before the Iraq War started, 4,000 dead American soldiers ago: "it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you're standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time.".
Anne E. Kornblut: That's a good point. (I'm a huge Bumiller fan). To that I would add that most reporters, or at least this reporter, looked continuously for cracks in the facade internally, and the assistance of an aide such as McClellan in helping us understand the flaws is essential. I would urge all future White House aides to remember that sometimes the press can be a friend when things inside start going wrong.
(snip)
Re. Potomac, MD: Wait a minute, Bumiller was advocating stenography. Methinks if her relative (or yours) was about to head over to Iraq, she might have done more than wait for "cracks in the facade". That's just whistling by the graveyard. Obviously, none of YOUR children, nephews or nieces will ever enlist in our Armed Forces, but you might want to develop some empathy for the countless people in flyover country who actually lose loved ones when we go to war. Not because you're a journalist, but because you're a, you know, human being.
Anne E. Kornblut: As one with a parent and two grandparents buried at Arlington Cemetery, I can tell you that this has nothing to do with taking war lightly. If anything, I think we all felt a great sense of deference toward the presidency, as an institution, and wanted to be respectful on the eve of war, trusting that any president would only take such an important step in good faith. That isn't to say we shouldn't have been more skeptical and pressed harder in print -- and I have no doubt we all will next time, if there is a next time -- but it wasn't out of cluelessness that we did not do more.
_______________________
Vienna, Va.: I don't understand this comment: "The assistance of an aide such as McClellan in helping us understand the flaws is essential." Did you expect him to publicly say "I don't agree with this but here's our rationale for the invasion?" Do you even expect him to say that off-the-record? Why would he openly share disapproval or disagreement with policy decisions with you?
Anne E. Kornblut: Some of the greatest scandals of all time (Watergate?) have been exposed by administration insiders who felt a patriotic duty to get the real story out. We as reporters use them all the time to help get to the bottom of things. Almost always in private. And in my experience (in my smaller incidents than Watergate) aides do so because they want the public to know what is going on, and they can be an essential part of making that happen. As reporters, we can only deal in information that we are given -- and we can't actually force a White House to give us information if it doesn't want to.
_______________________
You must be kidding!: Just a comment: You think it's the job of people employed by the White House to be straightforward? Uh, no--it's the job of the media to hold the government responsible. If the people in the White House were straightforward, Americans would not need the media to intercede as our surrogates in ensuring that truth is separated from B.S.
Anne E. Kornblut: I know, I know, a dream land -- but I do actually know some rare public officials who are straightforward, and I would happily pursue another line of work if everyone else followed their examples. But I'm not really worried about unemployment (not for that reason, anyway).
-------
There you have it. Unless the administration spills the beans on itself, unless every public issue has its own private Deep Throat, unless it reveals the "cracks" in its "facade", to properly "respectful" stenographers, the public are destined to be flim-flammed because our "liberal" media will be without any means at all to seek out and assess what the hell is really going on.
------
Potomac, MD: McClellan needs to get over himself. The nerve of blaming the media for their failures in the run-up to the War. Elisabeth Bumiller so eloquently explained how things work the night before the Iraq War started, 4,000 dead American soldiers ago: "it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you're standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time.".
Anne E. Kornblut: That's a good point. (I'm a huge Bumiller fan). To that I would add that most reporters, or at least this reporter, looked continuously for cracks in the facade internally, and the assistance of an aide such as McClellan in helping us understand the flaws is essential. I would urge all future White House aides to remember that sometimes the press can be a friend when things inside start going wrong.
(snip)
Re. Potomac, MD: Wait a minute, Bumiller was advocating stenography. Methinks if her relative (or yours) was about to head over to Iraq, she might have done more than wait for "cracks in the facade". That's just whistling by the graveyard. Obviously, none of YOUR children, nephews or nieces will ever enlist in our Armed Forces, but you might want to develop some empathy for the countless people in flyover country who actually lose loved ones when we go to war. Not because you're a journalist, but because you're a, you know, human being.
Anne E. Kornblut: As one with a parent and two grandparents buried at Arlington Cemetery, I can tell you that this has nothing to do with taking war lightly. If anything, I think we all felt a great sense of deference toward the presidency, as an institution, and wanted to be respectful on the eve of war, trusting that any president would only take such an important step in good faith. That isn't to say we shouldn't have been more skeptical and pressed harder in print -- and I have no doubt we all will next time, if there is a next time -- but it wasn't out of cluelessness that we did not do more.
_______________________
Vienna, Va.: I don't understand this comment: "The assistance of an aide such as McClellan in helping us understand the flaws is essential." Did you expect him to publicly say "I don't agree with this but here's our rationale for the invasion?" Do you even expect him to say that off-the-record? Why would he openly share disapproval or disagreement with policy decisions with you?
Anne E. Kornblut: Some of the greatest scandals of all time (Watergate?) have been exposed by administration insiders who felt a patriotic duty to get the real story out. We as reporters use them all the time to help get to the bottom of things. Almost always in private. And in my experience (in my smaller incidents than Watergate) aides do so because they want the public to know what is going on, and they can be an essential part of making that happen. As reporters, we can only deal in information that we are given -- and we can't actually force a White House to give us information if it doesn't want to.
_______________________
You must be kidding!: Just a comment: You think it's the job of people employed by the White House to be straightforward? Uh, no--it's the job of the media to hold the government responsible. If the people in the White House were straightforward, Americans would not need the media to intercede as our surrogates in ensuring that truth is separated from B.S.
Anne E. Kornblut: I know, I know, a dream land -- but I do actually know some rare public officials who are straightforward, and I would happily pursue another line of work if everyone else followed their examples. But I'm not really worried about unemployment (not for that reason, anyway).
-------
There you have it. Unless the administration spills the beans on itself, unless every public issue has its own private Deep Throat, unless it reveals the "cracks" in its "facade", to properly "respectful" stenographers, the public are destined to be flim-flammed because our "liberal" media will be without any means at all to seek out and assess what the hell is really going on.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Nomination Process Broken?
This brief post by David Kurtz at TPM, which links to a larger post by Greg Sargent, which in turn links to an article in the New Yorker by Hendrik Hertzberg, is a disappointment.
If the system is malfunctioning or broken, why?
Until this year, I'd always been disappointed at how short the nomination processes of the two parties were. To this disappointment was added an academic as well as political junky-ish perplexity stemming from a recognition that nothing in the nomination process required that it be over after Iowa.
In the past, money, the front-loading of the primary/caucus calendar, as well as the media's intent on assigning the all important "momentum", or Big Mo, to one of the party's leading candidates, served to quickly winnow the fields.
In particular, the front-loading of the calendar, although driven partly by the initiatives of individual states, helped serve the national party's seeming desire to produce unamity and harmony as early and as painlessly as possible.
Obviously, to the extent quickness and unity are important goals, the process has failed terribly this year.
But competitive, elongated campaigns that increase political participation, by voting, contributing money, or other activities, particularly in states that aren't normally a focus of either party, and that ensure substantial vetting of the candidates aren't necessarily bad.
So what would you do? What changes do you think should be made, if any, for the next election cycle?
If the system is malfunctioning or broken, why?
Until this year, I'd always been disappointed at how short the nomination processes of the two parties were. To this disappointment was added an academic as well as political junky-ish perplexity stemming from a recognition that nothing in the nomination process required that it be over after Iowa.
In the past, money, the front-loading of the primary/caucus calendar, as well as the media's intent on assigning the all important "momentum", or Big Mo, to one of the party's leading candidates, served to quickly winnow the fields.
In particular, the front-loading of the calendar, although driven partly by the initiatives of individual states, helped serve the national party's seeming desire to produce unamity and harmony as early and as painlessly as possible.
Obviously, to the extent quickness and unity are important goals, the process has failed terribly this year.
But competitive, elongated campaigns that increase political participation, by voting, contributing money, or other activities, particularly in states that aren't normally a focus of either party, and that ensure substantial vetting of the candidates aren't necessarily bad.
So what would you do? What changes do you think should be made, if any, for the next election cycle?
Over Her Head
I'm guessing Anne Kornblutt missed the sarcasm here: (h/t Atrios)
Potomac, MD: McClellan needs to get over himself. The nerve of blaming the media for their failures in the run-up to the War. Elisabeth Bumiller so eloquently explained how things work the night before the Iraq War started, 4,000 dead American soldiers ago: "it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you're standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time.".
Anne E. Kornblut: That's a good point. (I'm a huge Bumiller fan).....
----
While McClellan's book and revelations are sure to come in for their share of "Now he tells us", along with a share of "disgruntled staffer" taunts from the dead-enders, I actually find it rather surprising that McClellan would be this upfront about what he and the administration engaged in. And it's pretty hard to be surprised by anything at this point.
Potomac, MD: McClellan needs to get over himself. The nerve of blaming the media for their failures in the run-up to the War. Elisabeth Bumiller so eloquently explained how things work the night before the Iraq War started, 4,000 dead American soldiers ago: "it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you're standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time.".
Anne E. Kornblut: That's a good point. (I'm a huge Bumiller fan).....
----
While McClellan's book and revelations are sure to come in for their share of "Now he tells us", along with a share of "disgruntled staffer" taunts from the dead-enders, I actually find it rather surprising that McClellan would be this upfront about what he and the administration engaged in. And it's pretty hard to be surprised by anything at this point.
A Ludicrous Failure, Part XXVII
From Robert Borosage at the Huff Post:
The embargo has helped, no doubt, to impoverish the Cuban people. It has also helped to make Castro a nationalist hero throughout Latin America and much of the world. It has done nothing for nearly five decades to advance democracy, civil liberties or capitalism in Cuba. Even its economic effects have diminished over time. It once cribbed tourism, and, once the Soviet Union went belly up, put a squeeze on oil. Now the Europeans and Canadians populate the Cuban beaches. And Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is happy to provide Cuba with the oil it needs.
Cuba is a small island, 90 miles off our shores. Its people are proud and nationalistic. They also get island fever. Their relatives across the straits let them know what they've been missing economically. There is little doubt that had the US normalized relations with Cuba, opened up trade, encouraged travel and exchanges, Cuba would have been transformed long ago. The détente that worked its magic on the Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe would have been much more powerful in Cuba.
So why does McCain extol this tribute to folly? It's a good pander to the older generation of Cubans, still pining to see Castro's overthrow and to have a shot at taking back their old properties. But straight talking John McCain wouldn't adopt a goofy failed foreign policy just for political purposes, would he?
McCain's spokesperson, Nancy Pfotenhauer, tried to explain on Fox News:We can't talk with Castro or lift the embargo until democracy descends on the island, she stated, because "the worst thing we can do is prematurely capitulate (emphasis added) and give them what they want the most without anything in return, and what they want the most is legitimacy, which, by the way, all that does is completely erode the confidence and the hopes of the people in Cuba who want freedom."
Can't "prematurely capitulate" after nearly five decades of a failed policy. We can't dash the "confidence and hopes" of the "people in Cuba who want freedom" who, no doubt, are biting their finger nails, hoping against hope that, after five decades, more of the same will somehow convince Castro to install a democracy.
The embargo has helped, no doubt, to impoverish the Cuban people. It has also helped to make Castro a nationalist hero throughout Latin America and much of the world. It has done nothing for nearly five decades to advance democracy, civil liberties or capitalism in Cuba. Even its economic effects have diminished over time. It once cribbed tourism, and, once the Soviet Union went belly up, put a squeeze on oil. Now the Europeans and Canadians populate the Cuban beaches. And Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is happy to provide Cuba with the oil it needs.
Cuba is a small island, 90 miles off our shores. Its people are proud and nationalistic. They also get island fever. Their relatives across the straits let them know what they've been missing economically. There is little doubt that had the US normalized relations with Cuba, opened up trade, encouraged travel and exchanges, Cuba would have been transformed long ago. The détente that worked its magic on the Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe would have been much more powerful in Cuba.
So why does McCain extol this tribute to folly? It's a good pander to the older generation of Cubans, still pining to see Castro's overthrow and to have a shot at taking back their old properties. But straight talking John McCain wouldn't adopt a goofy failed foreign policy just for political purposes, would he?
McCain's spokesperson, Nancy Pfotenhauer, tried to explain on Fox News:We can't talk with Castro or lift the embargo until democracy descends on the island, she stated, because "the worst thing we can do is prematurely capitulate (emphasis added) and give them what they want the most without anything in return, and what they want the most is legitimacy, which, by the way, all that does is completely erode the confidence and the hopes of the people in Cuba who want freedom."
Can't "prematurely capitulate" after nearly five decades of a failed policy. We can't dash the "confidence and hopes" of the "people in Cuba who want freedom" who, no doubt, are biting their finger nails, hoping against hope that, after five decades, more of the same will somehow convince Castro to install a democracy.
The Last Refuge of Scoundrels
I know this has been distilled and rehashed in other places, but I thought Harold Meyerson's summation in this morning's Post was particularly on target:
On Saturday, when the Rules Committee of the Democratic National Committee meets to determine the fate of Florida and Michigan's delegations to this summer's convention, it will have some company. A group of Hillary Clinton supporters has announced it will demonstrate outside.
That Clinton has impassioned supporters, many of whom link her candidacy to the feminist cause, hardly qualifies as news. And it's certainly true that along the campaign trail Clinton has encountered some outrageously sexist treatment, just as Barack Obama has been on the receiving end of bigoted treatment. (Obama has even been subjected to anti-Muslim bigotry despite the fact that he's not Muslim.) But somehow, a number of Clinton supporters have come to identify the seating of Michigan and Florida not merely with Clinton's prospects but with the causes of democracy and feminism -- an equation that makes a mockery of democracy and feminism.
Clinton herself is largely responsible for this absurdity. Over the past couple of weeks, she has equated the seating of the two delegations with African Americans' struggle for suffrage in the Jim Crow South, and with the efforts of the democratic forces in Zimbabwe to get a fair count of the votes in their presidential election.
(snip)
Not a single Clinton campaign official or DNC Rules Committee member, much less the candidate herself, said at the time that the sanctions imposed on Florida or Michigan were in any way a patriarchal plot or an affront to democratic values. The threat that these rules posed to our fundamental beliefs was discovered only ex post facto -- the facto in question being Clinton's current need to seat the delegations whose seatings she had opposed when she thought she'd cruise to the nomination.
Clinton's supporters have every right to demonstrate on Saturday, of course. But their larger cause is neither democracy nor feminism; it's situational ethics. To insist otherwise is to degrade democracy and turn feminism into the last refuge of scoundrels.
On Saturday, when the Rules Committee of the Democratic National Committee meets to determine the fate of Florida and Michigan's delegations to this summer's convention, it will have some company. A group of Hillary Clinton supporters has announced it will demonstrate outside.
That Clinton has impassioned supporters, many of whom link her candidacy to the feminist cause, hardly qualifies as news. And it's certainly true that along the campaign trail Clinton has encountered some outrageously sexist treatment, just as Barack Obama has been on the receiving end of bigoted treatment. (Obama has even been subjected to anti-Muslim bigotry despite the fact that he's not Muslim.) But somehow, a number of Clinton supporters have come to identify the seating of Michigan and Florida not merely with Clinton's prospects but with the causes of democracy and feminism -- an equation that makes a mockery of democracy and feminism.
Clinton herself is largely responsible for this absurdity. Over the past couple of weeks, she has equated the seating of the two delegations with African Americans' struggle for suffrage in the Jim Crow South, and with the efforts of the democratic forces in Zimbabwe to get a fair count of the votes in their presidential election.
(snip)
Not a single Clinton campaign official or DNC Rules Committee member, much less the candidate herself, said at the time that the sanctions imposed on Florida or Michigan were in any way a patriarchal plot or an affront to democratic values. The threat that these rules posed to our fundamental beliefs was discovered only ex post facto -- the facto in question being Clinton's current need to seat the delegations whose seatings she had opposed when she thought she'd cruise to the nomination.
Clinton's supporters have every right to demonstrate on Saturday, of course. But their larger cause is neither democracy nor feminism; it's situational ethics. To insist otherwise is to degrade democracy and turn feminism into the last refuge of scoundrels.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
"A Ludicrous Failure"
Yglesias gets shrill:
Washington Post correctly says that John McCain is "distorting history" as he criticized Barack Obama's pro-negotiations position. The United States really only has two experiences with a sustained effort at the Bush/McCain approach to diplomacy. One would be our effort to deny recognition to Communist China during the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations. This, it's generally acknowledged, was a strategic fiasco that denied us the opportunity to gain leverage vis-Ã -vis the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was a fiasco of such enormous proportions that Richard Nixon's role in undoing it actually manages to stack up in a non-trivial way against his otherwise terrible record in office.
The other is our fifty year effort to starve the people of Cuba into rebelling against Fidel Castro. McCain actually defends continuing this policy, but everyone with a functioning brain understands that it's been a ludicrous failure.
Indeed. It's baffling how head-in-the-sand American establishment thinking has been on this subject.
It ought to be enough to point out, as Yglesias does, that American policy towards Cuba has been a study in ludicrous failure. But that probably won't be enough to generate rationale debate on the subject.
Instead, I'd like to see Obama frame the debate in terms of how it has restricted the freedom of regular old Americans. For example, most Americans, if not all, cannot travel directly to Cuba. And that's our policy, not Havana's. And it's obviously ridiculous and an affront to Liberty. Why should the American government limit where Americans can travel?
Fresh thinking is desperately needed in the area of foreign policy generally, and in our Cuba policy particularly. If Obama can help provide that, he will have accomplished much.
Washington Post correctly says that John McCain is "distorting history" as he criticized Barack Obama's pro-negotiations position. The United States really only has two experiences with a sustained effort at the Bush/McCain approach to diplomacy. One would be our effort to deny recognition to Communist China during the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations. This, it's generally acknowledged, was a strategic fiasco that denied us the opportunity to gain leverage vis-Ã -vis the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was a fiasco of such enormous proportions that Richard Nixon's role in undoing it actually manages to stack up in a non-trivial way against his otherwise terrible record in office.
The other is our fifty year effort to starve the people of Cuba into rebelling against Fidel Castro. McCain actually defends continuing this policy, but everyone with a functioning brain understands that it's been a ludicrous failure.
Indeed. It's baffling how head-in-the-sand American establishment thinking has been on this subject.
It ought to be enough to point out, as Yglesias does, that American policy towards Cuba has been a study in ludicrous failure. But that probably won't be enough to generate rationale debate on the subject.
Instead, I'd like to see Obama frame the debate in terms of how it has restricted the freedom of regular old Americans. For example, most Americans, if not all, cannot travel directly to Cuba. And that's our policy, not Havana's. And it's obviously ridiculous and an affront to Liberty. Why should the American government limit where Americans can travel?
Fresh thinking is desperately needed in the area of foreign policy generally, and in our Cuba policy particularly. If Obama can help provide that, he will have accomplished much.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
$31.9 Mill
Obama raised $31.9 million in April. Good news, right? Yeah, but here's the thing: $31.3 mill was for the primaries, $600k for the general. Meanwhile, the primaries are about over, and Obama essentially passed on two of the May primaries--WV and Kentucky--that the $31.3 mill would presumably have been spent on. So, the $31.3 mill is virtually useless.
Am I reading this right?
Update: After musing over this a while, I suspect it's actually the case that funds raised during the primaries are available for the general election. I'm not sure how that squares with the intent of the campaign finance law. But in this case, money Obama has collected from individuals who have not yet reached their $2,300 contribution maximum is assumed to be primary funds. Donations from those who have reached the $2,300 maximum are kept aside for the general. By law, individuals can donate $2,300 per election cycle; $2,300 for the primary election and $2,300 for the general. So individuals can give $4,600 in all.
Am I reading this right?
Update: After musing over this a while, I suspect it's actually the case that funds raised during the primaries are available for the general election. I'm not sure how that squares with the intent of the campaign finance law. But in this case, money Obama has collected from individuals who have not yet reached their $2,300 contribution maximum is assumed to be primary funds. Donations from those who have reached the $2,300 maximum are kept aside for the general. By law, individuals can donate $2,300 per election cycle; $2,300 for the primary election and $2,300 for the general. So individuals can give $4,600 in all.
Nixonland
One of the advantageous of working among the elite in Wash DC is getting the opportunity to participate in the very elite culture the area has to offer, including being able to attend very elitist type book-readings where very elite authors, most of them liberal elitists, hold forth on their latest publications and afterward, agree to affix their elitist signature to the books.
Last night was such an occasion, as I went to hear the great Rick Perlstein read and discuss his latest, Nixonland. Seven years in the making, the book is a follow up to the much acclaimed Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus.
I imagine I'll have more to say on the book as I get through it, although I confess to being in the middle of reading a lot of other material as well, so my remarks on Nixonland will probably come along later.
But I enjoyed Perstein's reading of a passage taken from 1967 and the discussion afterwards. And yes, I got him to sign a copy I had just purchased.
I was a little worried that Nixonland might be a type of "stream of consciousness" book, full of rambling anecdotes and loosely drawn inferences, but the book appears to be well organized, by election cycle. As Perlstein took great pains to point out, Nixon himself was a rather complex character. One questioner in the audience asked Perlstein if he thought Nixon was a demagogue. "No", the author responded. While conceding Nixon's brutal style of politics (not particular to Nixon), Perlstein said Nixon was more subtle than that. George Wallace was a demagogue, but not Nixon. I considered asking Perlstein what he thought of Nixon's campaign charges of Helen Douglass being pink down to her..., but I thought better of it.
For anyone interested in reading historic epics and fascinated by the changes wrought by and during the 1960's will I'm sure greatly appreciate Rick Perlstein's Nixonland.
One point that occurs to me of the period that came to be associated with what is sometimes thought of as the Conservative Ascendacy is that, while the conservative movement that rose from the ashes of the 1964 Goldwater landslide loss was effective in mobilizing a broad coalition of disaffected reactionaries and high-brow financiers in the decades beginning with and after Nixon, the conservative movement's actual achievements seem rather meager to me. That is to say, while the country's political rhetoric, campaign styles and partisan balances have gotten more conservative, the underlying structure of government and the wider culture remain to a large degree, liberal, and increasingly so.
Nevertheless, we appear to be entering upon another period of partisan and cultural upheaval, and Perlstein's Nixonland should remind us that things may not necessarily be what they seem. That is, if we think we are witnessing a conservative meltdown over Iraq and other calamities and changes, we could be in for a comeuppance. On the other hand, one of the points Perlstein stresses is that, the establishment media, Johnson administration, and Democratic Congress failed to perceive the resentments, changes and dynamics forming in response to the war, racial upheaval and other developments, and found themselves disgraced or swept away by the changing tide. The Establishment didn't get it, in other words. A similar thing could be said today of the Bush II administration, the war in Iraq and the seemingly dramatic changes taking place in the economy, high gas prices, mortgage problems, household debt, etc, which the government and media seem only partially responsive to. Whether liberals or conservatives end up addressing or successfully responding to these changes and upheavals may prove to be the subject of a future book and a much debated historical epic when America as we knew it dramatically changed forever.
Last night was such an occasion, as I went to hear the great Rick Perlstein read and discuss his latest, Nixonland. Seven years in the making, the book is a follow up to the much acclaimed Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus.
I imagine I'll have more to say on the book as I get through it, although I confess to being in the middle of reading a lot of other material as well, so my remarks on Nixonland will probably come along later.
But I enjoyed Perstein's reading of a passage taken from 1967 and the discussion afterwards. And yes, I got him to sign a copy I had just purchased.
I was a little worried that Nixonland might be a type of "stream of consciousness" book, full of rambling anecdotes and loosely drawn inferences, but the book appears to be well organized, by election cycle. As Perlstein took great pains to point out, Nixon himself was a rather complex character. One questioner in the audience asked Perlstein if he thought Nixon was a demagogue. "No", the author responded. While conceding Nixon's brutal style of politics (not particular to Nixon), Perlstein said Nixon was more subtle than that. George Wallace was a demagogue, but not Nixon. I considered asking Perlstein what he thought of Nixon's campaign charges of Helen Douglass being pink down to her..., but I thought better of it.
For anyone interested in reading historic epics and fascinated by the changes wrought by and during the 1960's will I'm sure greatly appreciate Rick Perlstein's Nixonland.
One point that occurs to me of the period that came to be associated with what is sometimes thought of as the Conservative Ascendacy is that, while the conservative movement that rose from the ashes of the 1964 Goldwater landslide loss was effective in mobilizing a broad coalition of disaffected reactionaries and high-brow financiers in the decades beginning with and after Nixon, the conservative movement's actual achievements seem rather meager to me. That is to say, while the country's political rhetoric, campaign styles and partisan balances have gotten more conservative, the underlying structure of government and the wider culture remain to a large degree, liberal, and increasingly so.
Nevertheless, we appear to be entering upon another period of partisan and cultural upheaval, and Perlstein's Nixonland should remind us that things may not necessarily be what they seem. That is, if we think we are witnessing a conservative meltdown over Iraq and other calamities and changes, we could be in for a comeuppance. On the other hand, one of the points Perlstein stresses is that, the establishment media, Johnson administration, and Democratic Congress failed to perceive the resentments, changes and dynamics forming in response to the war, racial upheaval and other developments, and found themselves disgraced or swept away by the changing tide. The Establishment didn't get it, in other words. A similar thing could be said today of the Bush II administration, the war in Iraq and the seemingly dramatic changes taking place in the economy, high gas prices, mortgage problems, household debt, etc, which the government and media seem only partially responsive to. Whether liberals or conservatives end up addressing or successfully responding to these changes and upheavals may prove to be the subject of a future book and a much debated historical epic when America as we knew it dramatically changed forever.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Fly-Paper Theory on Steroids
Many, many years ago, among the many, many alternative and conflicting rationales offered for why America must-had to absolutely bomb, invade and occupy Iraq NOW, right this very minute yesterday, was so that America and Americans could fight the terrorists on their own soil over there, rather than having to face them on our soil over here.
Well. If you listen very carefully, now, to the "debate" as to why the mullahs in that other Islamic country Iran--who we were so sure would be suitably intimidated by our shock and awe and democracy and love for the world over Iraq that they would faint in fear before our might weapons and goodness and rightness--have reached the lofty status our former Iraqi enemies once occupied in posing the most absolutely deadliest threat ever to the United States, is that, having now invaded and occupied Iraq, a country that hadn't attacked us and didn't pose a threat to us, are attacking us in Iraq. Consequently, it is common conservative nonsense that we must therefore bomb, invade and occupy Iran NOW yesterday.
Following this logic, one can imagine it will be advisable to some day bomb, invade and occupy the old Soviet Union because Russian separatists, Islamic minorities in the break-a-way countries, and other sponsors of "terrorism" in the region are sending "terrorists" and bomb materials into Iran, killing our soldiers and military contractors, and otherwise aiding and abetting our enemies among the mullahs who we're endeavoring to liberate.
Make sense?
Well. If you listen very carefully, now, to the "debate" as to why the mullahs in that other Islamic country Iran--who we were so sure would be suitably intimidated by our shock and awe and democracy and love for the world over Iraq that they would faint in fear before our might weapons and goodness and rightness--have reached the lofty status our former Iraqi enemies once occupied in posing the most absolutely deadliest threat ever to the United States, is that, having now invaded and occupied Iraq, a country that hadn't attacked us and didn't pose a threat to us, are attacking us in Iraq. Consequently, it is common conservative nonsense that we must therefore bomb, invade and occupy Iran NOW yesterday.
Following this logic, one can imagine it will be advisable to some day bomb, invade and occupy the old Soviet Union because Russian separatists, Islamic minorities in the break-a-way countries, and other sponsors of "terrorism" in the region are sending "terrorists" and bomb materials into Iran, killing our soldiers and military contractors, and otherwise aiding and abetting our enemies among the mullahs who we're endeavoring to liberate.
Make sense?
No Military Industrial Complex in Oregon
I hadn't realized this:
Oregon, with no major defense industries or a major military facility, has expressed strong opposition to the war in Iraq. Multnomah County, which includes Portland, is particularly antiwar.
Oregon, with no major defense industries or a major military facility, has expressed strong opposition to the war in Iraq. Multnomah County, which includes Portland, is particularly antiwar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)