Media Matters is reporting that folk-leader Bill O'Reilly has taken to attacking what he calls "a very secret plan" by secular progressives to "diminish Christian philosophy in the U.S.A."
Now, this is misguided on so many levels, but let me mention three.
1) There is no such thing as Christian philosophy. Theology yes, philosophy no. This may be a somewhat controversial assertion on my part, but religion is very much the antithesis of philosophy properly understood (that is, as Socrates understood it). Just as George W. Bush was wrong to call Jesus a political philosopher, so is O'Reilly wrong to speak of Christian philosophy.
2) America is still a deeply Christian nation. Even George Soros's billions won't change that. If anything, there's a not-so-secret plan by conservative fundamentalists to enhance Christian theology in the U.S.A.
3) American secularism is rooted in Lockean political philosophy, in the modern project initiated by Machiavelli and liberalized by Hobbes and Locke. The modern project sought to liberate humanity from the shackles of superstition and the domination of politics by religion. Lockean political philosophy is the philosophy of American constitutionalism, the philosophy that deeply animated the Founders as they sought to forge a new nation in a new world. To be sure, there are theological strains guiding much of American life, but American is a fundamentally liberal nation.
You got it wrong, Bill.
Again.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Blair misreads Bush on climate change
Once again, a somewhat gullible Tony Blair has learned that the U.S. isn't serious about tackling the problem of climate change:
I know, this isn't exactly news. The Bush Administration won't do anything that could challenge the business interests that support it, and, beyond that, it's not even clear that high-ranking officials, including the president himself, even believe that climate change is a reality (let alone a real problem that ought to be dealt with in a serious, concerted way).
Bush touts his own meager coalition of the willing in Iraq (hello, Mongolia!), but he won't do anything to support the truly international and almost universal coalition of the willing on climate change.
Hasn't Blair learned his lesson? Bush is all take and no give, all faith and no reason. Blair at least spends much of his time living and governing in reality. Bush closed himself off from reality long ago.
(I previously wrote about Bush, Blair, and climate change here.)
The US has dismissed a suggestion from UK Prime Minister Tony Blair that it may be prepared to sign up to binding targets to tackle climate change.
Speaking at UN climate talks in Canada, the US chief negotiator said his nation would not enter talks about fixed curbs on emissions of greenhouse gases.
Mr Blair told UK business leaders on Tuesday that he believed all major nations would support new targets.
The Kyoto Protocol, the current global climate agreement, will expire in 2012.
I know, this isn't exactly news. The Bush Administration won't do anything that could challenge the business interests that support it, and, beyond that, it's not even clear that high-ranking officials, including the president himself, even believe that climate change is a reality (let alone a real problem that ought to be dealt with in a serious, concerted way).
Bush touts his own meager coalition of the willing in Iraq (hello, Mongolia!), but he won't do anything to support the truly international and almost universal coalition of the willing on climate change.
Hasn't Blair learned his lesson? Bush is all take and no give, all faith and no reason. Blair at least spends much of his time living and governing in reality. Bush closed himself off from reality long ago.
(I previously wrote about Bush, Blair, and climate change here.)
Cunningham, Canada, and confidence
Stephen Colbert was absolutely hilarious last night -- the best I've seen of his new show so far. Crooks and Liars has the must-see video.
(For more video, go to the Report's main site.)
(For more video, go to the Report's main site.)
Investigating T.O.: What will Arlen do?
SI.com is reporting that "Sen. Arlen Specter on Tuesday backed off a threat to have a Senate subcommittee investigate whether the NFL and the Philadelphia Eagles violated antitrust laws in their handling of Terrell Owens."
But what was the point to start with? Only the day before, Senator Specter had "said it was 'vindictive and inappropriate' for the league and the Eagles to prohibit the All-Pro wide receiver from playing and prevent other teams from talking to him". In other words, he was prepared to waste public money and the time and energy of public officials investigating a matter involving a collective agreement between owners and the union -- even after arbitrator Richard Bloch had already determined that "the team's actions were supported by the labor agreement between the league and the NFL Players Association".
I'm neither anti-government nor anti-politician, but surely the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has better things to do than to meddle with the NFL. After all, as Steve Benen put it: "Specter's committee hasn't managed to lift a finger to look into a White House criminal scandal that's already led to one high-profile indictment, among other matters that might spark a hearing or two. In other words, by Specter's standard, an undercover CIA agent outed by the White House can't get attention from the Senate Judiciary Committee, but a controversial football player can."
My own take on T.O.: He's the one who's been "vindictive" and "inappropriate". The Eagles were right to do what they did.
But what was the point to start with? Only the day before, Senator Specter had "said it was 'vindictive and inappropriate' for the league and the Eagles to prohibit the All-Pro wide receiver from playing and prevent other teams from talking to him". In other words, he was prepared to waste public money and the time and energy of public officials investigating a matter involving a collective agreement between owners and the union -- even after arbitrator Richard Bloch had already determined that "the team's actions were supported by the labor agreement between the league and the NFL Players Association".
I'm neither anti-government nor anti-politician, but surely the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has better things to do than to meddle with the NFL. After all, as Steve Benen put it: "Specter's committee hasn't managed to lift a finger to look into a White House criminal scandal that's already led to one high-profile indictment, among other matters that might spark a hearing or two. In other words, by Specter's standard, an undercover CIA agent outed by the White House can't get attention from the Senate Judiciary Committee, but a controversial football player can."
My own take on T.O.: He's the one who's been "vindictive" and "inappropriate". The Eagles were right to do what they did.
Divide and conquer: Bush's new strategy to win in Iraq and at home
From the AP:
I tend to agree. Bush must take responsibility for what he's done, for the mess he's gotten America into. He needs to be held accountable both for the "deliberate deceit" of the pre-war period and for the gross mismanagement of the war itself (see here). But he also needs to do the right thing, that is, to finish the job properly, that is, to ensure that Iraq is secure and stable and on a course to viable, long-term self-governance.
In theory, I'm with Hillary.
Whether or not America should be in Iraq, America is in Iraq, and that's the truth that matters most.
But here's the big problem: Is Bush even capable of finishing what he started? He may still be committed to the lofty goal of a stable, democratic Iraq and the even loftier goal of a democratic revolution in the Middle East, but it seems to me that he's torn between his stubborn pursuit of those goals on the one hand and domestic political reality on the other, namely, his own sagging approval ratings and next year's midterm elections.
And he's trying to sail between that Scylla and that Charybdis even as his own mismanagement of the war and the revelation of the untruths that sustained it hindered his stubborn pursuit of those goals and turned domestic political reality against him. All of which leaves him with no one to blame but himself. He's blown it over here and over there, and that's some accomplishment.
So what will he do? Just what he's been doing lately and what he's generally done throughout his presidency. Attack his opponents for partisan political purposes while appropriating their ideas for partisan political purposes.
And spin, spin, spin. Change the narrative, the framing of the story. Withdraw large numbers of troops to take the issue away from Democrats and carry on the war by other means. That is, submit to domestic political reality and pursue those lofty goals in Iraq.
That's the strategy. For now. (It may change.) Again, Bush has been forced into this risky maneuver by his own hand. But he can only reverse the trend over here and over there by maneuvering delicately between a war that isn't going well on one side and a withdrawal of U.S. forces that would send Iraq into civil war and anarchy on the other.
Democrats -- and the still-hawkish Hillary in particular -- need to see that this is what's going on, that this is Bush's attempt to salvage his presidency (and the Republican Party over here and Iraqi democracy over there). The danger is that Democrats are splitting (or have split) into two camps, the hawks (finish the job) and the doves (withdraw now). But those two camps reflect the Scylla and the Charybdis, the two extremes, the thesis and the antithesis. Bush will try to sail through while blasting away at the Democrats on both extremes, hoping that he wins approval over here secures his legacy over there.
He may not succeed. After all, the "new" war in Iraq may not go well and Iraq may yet descend into civil war and anarchy. But it's more likely that he'll succeed politically and that Iraq will become a win-win for him. Here's what I wrote in a recent post: "If Iraq succeeds, with success defined broadly as stable self-governance that is more or less democratic, Bush can take all the credit (the war was worth it, see?). If Iraq fails, with failure defined as civil war and/or anarchy, Bush can blame the Iraqis themselves (the war was worth it, but those good-for-nothing Iraqis let us down, see?). And if Iraq ends up somewhere between success and failure, which seems likely, Bush can spin whatever story makes him look good and helps him stick it to his opponents."
Whatever his messianic idealism, Bush is trying to set the Democrats up for inevitable failure by sailing right through the yawning chasm of their disparate and at times warring elements. It's not enough to say that the troops must be withdrawn or that the job must be finished. Democrats must set the tone, define the terms, and unite in response to the next phase of Bush's campaign over here. But first they must understand what he's trying to do, what the new strategy is. A failure do that could result in this incredibly unpopular president rising like a phoenix from the ashes of his own self-made demise.
Is that horrible possibility enough for Democrats to get their act together?
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday defended her vote to authorize war in Iraq amid growing unease among liberal Democrats who could determine the potential 2008 presidential candidate's future.
"I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war," the New York senator said in a lengthy letter to thousands of people who have written her about the war.
At the same time, she said the United States must "finish what it started" in Iraq.
I tend to agree. Bush must take responsibility for what he's done, for the mess he's gotten America into. He needs to be held accountable both for the "deliberate deceit" of the pre-war period and for the gross mismanagement of the war itself (see here). But he also needs to do the right thing, that is, to finish the job properly, that is, to ensure that Iraq is secure and stable and on a course to viable, long-term self-governance.
In theory, I'm with Hillary.
Whether or not America should be in Iraq, America is in Iraq, and that's the truth that matters most.
But here's the big problem: Is Bush even capable of finishing what he started? He may still be committed to the lofty goal of a stable, democratic Iraq and the even loftier goal of a democratic revolution in the Middle East, but it seems to me that he's torn between his stubborn pursuit of those goals on the one hand and domestic political reality on the other, namely, his own sagging approval ratings and next year's midterm elections.
And he's trying to sail between that Scylla and that Charybdis even as his own mismanagement of the war and the revelation of the untruths that sustained it hindered his stubborn pursuit of those goals and turned domestic political reality against him. All of which leaves him with no one to blame but himself. He's blown it over here and over there, and that's some accomplishment.
So what will he do? Just what he's been doing lately and what he's generally done throughout his presidency. Attack his opponents for partisan political purposes while appropriating their ideas for partisan political purposes.
And spin, spin, spin. Change the narrative, the framing of the story. Withdraw large numbers of troops to take the issue away from Democrats and carry on the war by other means. That is, submit to domestic political reality and pursue those lofty goals in Iraq.
That's the strategy. For now. (It may change.) Again, Bush has been forced into this risky maneuver by his own hand. But he can only reverse the trend over here and over there by maneuvering delicately between a war that isn't going well on one side and a withdrawal of U.S. forces that would send Iraq into civil war and anarchy on the other.
Democrats -- and the still-hawkish Hillary in particular -- need to see that this is what's going on, that this is Bush's attempt to salvage his presidency (and the Republican Party over here and Iraqi democracy over there). The danger is that Democrats are splitting (or have split) into two camps, the hawks (finish the job) and the doves (withdraw now). But those two camps reflect the Scylla and the Charybdis, the two extremes, the thesis and the antithesis. Bush will try to sail through while blasting away at the Democrats on both extremes, hoping that he wins approval over here secures his legacy over there.
He may not succeed. After all, the "new" war in Iraq may not go well and Iraq may yet descend into civil war and anarchy. But it's more likely that he'll succeed politically and that Iraq will become a win-win for him. Here's what I wrote in a recent post: "If Iraq succeeds, with success defined broadly as stable self-governance that is more or less democratic, Bush can take all the credit (the war was worth it, see?). If Iraq fails, with failure defined as civil war and/or anarchy, Bush can blame the Iraqis themselves (the war was worth it, but those good-for-nothing Iraqis let us down, see?). And if Iraq ends up somewhere between success and failure, which seems likely, Bush can spin whatever story makes him look good and helps him stick it to his opponents."
Whatever his messianic idealism, Bush is trying to set the Democrats up for inevitable failure by sailing right through the yawning chasm of their disparate and at times warring elements. It's not enough to say that the troops must be withdrawn or that the job must be finished. Democrats must set the tone, define the terms, and unite in response to the next phase of Bush's campaign over here. But first they must understand what he's trying to do, what the new strategy is. A failure do that could result in this incredibly unpopular president rising like a phoenix from the ashes of his own self-made demise.
Is that horrible possibility enough for Democrats to get their act together?
Canada set for January election
Here's an update to yesterday's post (check it out for some excellent reader comments). Again from The Globe and Mail:
And Christmas is an issue:
And here's how it all began:
Well, maybe, maybe not. Canadians surely aren't happy with an election campaign that runs through the holidays, but, then, I'm not sure they're happy with Liberal corruption, a vision-less and direction-less government that tries to buy votes with billions and billions of dollars in pre-election spending, and the stink of stagnation in Ottawa.
This election, I believe is necessary, if only to clear the air and for the country to move beyond a largely lame-duck Parliament where the Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois were angling to topple the Liberals even as the New Democratic Party was holding them hostage with a guarantee of confidence-saving votes in return for ramped up spending on social programs. How was that arrangement to last? How long were the Conservatives, out of power since 1993, to hold off?
But if this election is necessary, and if, for our parliamentary system, it's really no big deal, the election campaign itself is going to be nasty, brutish, and agonizingly long. This, after all, was just Day 1. We'll have a few weeks of this, then a brief pause over the holidays, then an acceleration of hostility into the election itself.
And the tone's already been set. There are series issues to be debated, but the Liberals, desperate to cling to power (a loss would mean the end of Martin's political career and unleash civil war upon the party), will try to terrify voters with the ominous specter of a far-right and un-Canadian alternative (it's not, but the Liberals like to think they're the truly Canadian party -- they are, but only of the Canada of their own imagining), and the Conservatives will try to hammer home the corruption tag on an admittedly corrupt governing party. Meanwhile, the NDP will promote their elitist socialism in the hopes of picking up a few seats and holding the Liberals hostage yet again (but with more ammunition), and the Bloc Quebecois will couch a separatist subtext in a constant barrage of criticism against Liberal corruption in Quebec, supplementing the Conservative critique even as it uses a federal election campaign to manipulate Quebec's long-standing sense of victimization, much of it self-inflicted, in the service of its anti-Canadian goals.
So much for the issues.
Who says things are boring up here in Canada?
What's already looking like a long and nasty winter election campaign slid downhill quickly Tuesday with Liberal Leader Paul Martin comparing Stephen Harper to a sinister and ambitious Scrooge and the Conservative Leader describing Mr. Martin as the head of a criminal government that steals tax dollars.
Day One of the long campaign -- the election date was set for Monday Jan. 23 -- was marked by vitriol and sarcasm.
And Christmas is an issue:
So, what do you think of your Christmas present from Stephen Harper?" he asked Liberals at his first campaign rally last night in a restaurant in the Ottawa Byward Market district.
"Just think about it. What family doesn't look forward to gathering together on Christmas Eve, sipping on some hot chocolate and sharing in the joy of watching Stephen Harper as Scrooge on TV?"
Mr. Harper gave as good as he got, saying in his first campaign address Canadians now have a chance to get rid of a corrupt government that has been "stealing your money."
And here's how it all began:
The day began with a formality. Mr. Martin advised Governor-General Michäelle Jean that his 17-month-old minority government had lost a confidence vote in the Commons Monday night. She was ready, agreeing to dissolve the 38th Parliament and issue electoral writs.
The formalities complete, Mr. Martin emerged from Rideau Hall and immediately went on the offensive, blaming the three opposition parties for an election he claims Canadians don't want at this time.
Well, maybe, maybe not. Canadians surely aren't happy with an election campaign that runs through the holidays, but, then, I'm not sure they're happy with Liberal corruption, a vision-less and direction-less government that tries to buy votes with billions and billions of dollars in pre-election spending, and the stink of stagnation in Ottawa.
This election, I believe is necessary, if only to clear the air and for the country to move beyond a largely lame-duck Parliament where the Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois were angling to topple the Liberals even as the New Democratic Party was holding them hostage with a guarantee of confidence-saving votes in return for ramped up spending on social programs. How was that arrangement to last? How long were the Conservatives, out of power since 1993, to hold off?
But if this election is necessary, and if, for our parliamentary system, it's really no big deal, the election campaign itself is going to be nasty, brutish, and agonizingly long. This, after all, was just Day 1. We'll have a few weeks of this, then a brief pause over the holidays, then an acceleration of hostility into the election itself.
And the tone's already been set. There are series issues to be debated, but the Liberals, desperate to cling to power (a loss would mean the end of Martin's political career and unleash civil war upon the party), will try to terrify voters with the ominous specter of a far-right and un-Canadian alternative (it's not, but the Liberals like to think they're the truly Canadian party -- they are, but only of the Canada of their own imagining), and the Conservatives will try to hammer home the corruption tag on an admittedly corrupt governing party. Meanwhile, the NDP will promote their elitist socialism in the hopes of picking up a few seats and holding the Liberals hostage yet again (but with more ammunition), and the Bloc Quebecois will couch a separatist subtext in a constant barrage of criticism against Liberal corruption in Quebec, supplementing the Conservative critique even as it uses a federal election campaign to manipulate Quebec's long-standing sense of victimization, much of it self-inflicted, in the service of its anti-Canadian goals.
So much for the issues.
Who says things are boring up here in Canada?
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Sexism in the air... down under
From The New Zealand Herald (which makes its first appearance at The Reaction): "Air New Zealand and Qantas have banned men from sitting next to unaccompanied children on flights..."
Sexist political correctness way out of control or a sensible, precautionary policy? (Or is it perhaps that children are more comfortable around women?)
I'll go with the former: It's stupid, ridiculous, and insulting.
Sexist political correctness way out of control or a sensible, precautionary policy? (Or is it perhaps that children are more comfortable around women?)
I'll go with the former: It's stupid, ridiculous, and insulting.
Cheney's travelgate?
It looks like America's ethics-challenged vice president may have incurred illicit travel expenses at taxpayers' expense.
Lovely.
Lovely.
Iraq's death squads
Yesterday, I reported on Ayad Allawi's assertion that in terms of abuse things are just as bad in Iraq now as they were under Saddam. Well, now there's more -- and it isn't pretty:
And all this while the U.S. is preparing to withdraw ground forces and to hand over security duties to the Iraqis themselves -- Iraqi forces that are likely unprepared to assume those responsibilities (even as the latest White House spin misleadingly and outrageously touts the Iraqi forces' competence).
(Make sure to read the whole L.A. Times article. I've just quoted the first few paragraphs here.)
**********
See Political Animal, The Left Coaster, Body and Soul, and Taegan Goddard.
Shiite Muslim militia members have infiltrated Iraq's police force and are carrying out sectarian killings under the color of law, according to documents and scores of interviews.
The abuses raise the specter of organized retaliation to attacks by Sunni-led insurgents that have killed thousands of Shiites, who endured decades of subjugation under Saddam Hussein.
And they undermine the U.S. effort to stabilize the nation, and train and equip Iraq's security forces — the Bush administration's key prerequisites for the eventual withdrawal of American troops.
And all this while the U.S. is preparing to withdraw ground forces and to hand over security duties to the Iraqis themselves -- Iraqi forces that are likely unprepared to assume those responsibilities (even as the latest White House spin misleadingly and outrageously touts the Iraqi forces' competence).
(Make sure to read the whole L.A. Times article. I've just quoted the first few paragraphs here.)
**********
See Political Animal, The Left Coaster, Body and Soul, and Taegan Goddard.
Politics + Money = Corruption
That's a truism across time and space -- but has it gotten worse?
Jeffrey Birnbaum has this in the Post: "For several years now, corporations and other wealthy interests have made ever-larger campaign contributions, gifts and sponsored trips part of the culture of Capitol Hill. But now, with fresh guilty pleas by a lawmaker and a public relations executive, federal prosecutors -- and perhaps average voters -- may be concluding that the commingling of money and politics has gone too far."
True enough. Quite a few Congressmen (mostly Republicans) have been indicted or are under investigation for so-called "improper conduct".
Here's Kevin Drum: "[T]he evidence indicates that Birnbaum is basically right: most voters don't pay much attention to politics and don't understand that it's mostly Republicans who have been gaming the system in unprecedented numbers in recent years."
Democrats have been guilty of "improper conduct" in the past, of course, but, whether the public knows it or not, it's the other party that's making a mockery of political ethics and ensuring that the old truism lives on.
**********
See MyDD, The Next Hurrah, The Huffington Post, and Bull Moose.
Jeffrey Birnbaum has this in the Post: "For several years now, corporations and other wealthy interests have made ever-larger campaign contributions, gifts and sponsored trips part of the culture of Capitol Hill. But now, with fresh guilty pleas by a lawmaker and a public relations executive, federal prosecutors -- and perhaps average voters -- may be concluding that the commingling of money and politics has gone too far."
True enough. Quite a few Congressmen (mostly Republicans) have been indicted or are under investigation for so-called "improper conduct".
Here's Kevin Drum: "[T]he evidence indicates that Birnbaum is basically right: most voters don't pay much attention to politics and don't understand that it's mostly Republicans who have been gaming the system in unprecedented numbers in recent years."
Democrats have been guilty of "improper conduct" in the past, of course, but, whether the public knows it or not, it's the other party that's making a mockery of political ethics and ensuring that the old truism lives on.
**********
See MyDD, The Next Hurrah, The Huffington Post, and Bull Moose.
Canada's government falls on no-confidence vote
From The Globe and Mail:
Martin was leading a minority government -- that is, the Liberal Party had only a minority of seats in the House of Commons, and it was really only a matter of time before the opposition parties, led by the Conservatives, would force a new election by voting down the government in a no-confidence vote. The Liberals have been in power since 1993, after all, and they've been tarnished by allegations of corruption (see my post on the Gomery Report here).
And now? A January election and a campaign running through Christmas:
And what do the polls say? The Liberals are ahead, but not by much:
Don't count out the Liberals, however. They run an incredible electoral machine, and they may very well surprise on the upside, securing a majority government or at least sustaining their current standing in the House of Commons. But the Conservatives, based largely in the West, are making inroads in Ontario, Canada's heartland and the key to winning a national election. Martin has spent the past couple of weeks handing out billions of dollars in pre-election spending, but he's not a great campaigner and there just isn't much pro-Liberal passion in the electorate. Indeed, it seems rather that the electorate is exhausted after so many years of Liberal rule.
It may be far too early for a prediction, but I think we're headed for yet another Liberal minority government.
For better and for worse.
Note: Keep checking back for regular updates through the campaign period. I may even try to bring in a few guest bloggers to add their expertise.
The short-lived 38th Parliament met its demise on Monday night, setting the stage for the longest election campaigns in two decades, as the Liberal government was defeated in a no-confidence vote at the hands of all three opposition parties and the country was launched into official election mode.
The Liberals lost the vote in the House of Commons 133 to 171, beginning a series of events that will propel voters toward the ballot boxes, likely on Jan. 23.
Prime Minister Paul Martin will officially call a federal election on Tuesday.
Martin was leading a minority government -- that is, the Liberal Party had only a minority of seats in the House of Commons, and it was really only a matter of time before the opposition parties, led by the Conservatives, would force a new election by voting down the government in a no-confidence vote. The Liberals have been in power since 1993, after all, and they've been tarnished by allegations of corruption (see my post on the Gomery Report here).
And now? A January election and a campaign running through Christmas:
Mr. Martin said he will visit Governor-General Michäelle Jean at 9:30 EST on Tuesday morning and ask her to dissolve the government, triggering an immediate election campaign likely to run 56 days with a likely hiatus over Christmas. That would mean one of the longest campaigns in recent history. This would also be only other election to run over the Christmas holidays besides the campaign in 1979-80 when former Conservative leader Joe Clark's party was toppled in a budget vote.
And what do the polls say? The Liberals are ahead, but not by much:
[The] Liberals enter an election campaign six percentage points ahead of the Conservatives, but losing ground in Ontario and facing an increased desire for a change of government, a new poll shows...
The poll, conducted between Thursday and Sunday, found that 35 per cent of Canadians would vote Liberal if an election were held today, compared with 29 per cent for the Conservatives and 17 per cent for the [left-wing] NDP...
The numbers have not changed much since the June 28, 2004, election, which produced a Liberal minority government.
Don't count out the Liberals, however. They run an incredible electoral machine, and they may very well surprise on the upside, securing a majority government or at least sustaining their current standing in the House of Commons. But the Conservatives, based largely in the West, are making inroads in Ontario, Canada's heartland and the key to winning a national election. Martin has spent the past couple of weeks handing out billions of dollars in pre-election spending, but he's not a great campaigner and there just isn't much pro-Liberal passion in the electorate. Indeed, it seems rather that the electorate is exhausted after so many years of Liberal rule.
It may be far too early for a prediction, but I think we're headed for yet another Liberal minority government.
For better and for worse.
Note: Keep checking back for regular updates through the campaign period. I may even try to bring in a few guest bloggers to add their expertise.
Blair's burden
While President Bush spins himself silly rewriting history and otherwise avoiding responsibility for his own messes, Prime Minister Blair, who weekly stands before a raucous House of Commons during Question Period, is about to face perhaps his biggest political challenge -- and he may not survive:
I admire Tony Blair. I really do. I generally approve of his liberal interventionist approach to foreign policy. But he's in trouble here.
In a parliamentary system like the one at Westminster, the prime minister must ultimately defend himself and his policies (or, rather, those of his government) before parliament. And if parliament loses confidence, the government is brought down (as it was on Monday here in Canada). In a presidential system like the one in the U.S., the president is accountable to... whom? The voters? Yes, but only once. Congress? Well, there are checks, to be sure, what what happens when the president's party holds the majority in Congress? Exactly. Nothing. The Supreme Court? More checks, yes, but what if a majority of justices support broad executive powers? Or what if there's no clear case to be brought before the justices? The media? Yeah, sure.
So we're left with President Bush's lies and deception and revisionism. And where Blair's toughest challenger is the House of Commons itself, Bush's toughest challenger appears to be... Helen Thomas.
Wouldn't it be great if Bush and Blair could swap jobs for a couple of weeks?
Now that'd make for some outstanding reality TV.
Leading opposition figures from the Conservative, Liberal-Democratic, Scottish National and Plaid Cymru (Welsh) parties have banded together to back the cross-party motion titled "Conduct of Government policy in relation to the war against Iraq" to demand that the case for an inquiry be debated in the House of Commons. They seem assured of the 200 signatures required to get such a debate -- and then the loyalty of Blair's dismayed and disillusioned Labor members of Parliament will be sorely tested...
Labor Party rebels have already inflicted one unprecedented defeat on Blair in this parliamentary session, and on the issue of Iraq, he commands little confidence. One leading Labor rebel, Alan Simpson, MP for Nottingham, has already signed on to the motion.
It reads: "This House believes there should be a select committee of seven Members, being Members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, to review the way in which the responsibilities of government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto in the period leading up to military action in that country in March, 2003 and in its aftermath."
There have been earlier inquiries, critical of Blair but not lethal, into the use of intelligence and other issues, but this would be the first to focus on the way the decision to go to war was reached...
I admire Tony Blair. I really do. I generally approve of his liberal interventionist approach to foreign policy. But he's in trouble here.
In a parliamentary system like the one at Westminster, the prime minister must ultimately defend himself and his policies (or, rather, those of his government) before parliament. And if parliament loses confidence, the government is brought down (as it was on Monday here in Canada). In a presidential system like the one in the U.S., the president is accountable to... whom? The voters? Yes, but only once. Congress? Well, there are checks, to be sure, what what happens when the president's party holds the majority in Congress? Exactly. Nothing. The Supreme Court? More checks, yes, but what if a majority of justices support broad executive powers? Or what if there's no clear case to be brought before the justices? The media? Yeah, sure.
So we're left with President Bush's lies and deception and revisionism. And where Blair's toughest challenger is the House of Commons itself, Bush's toughest challenger appears to be... Helen Thomas.
Wouldn't it be great if Bush and Blair could swap jobs for a couple of weeks?
Now that'd make for some outstanding reality TV.
Monday, November 28, 2005
9/11 is over
Better late than never. I neglected to link to this excellent piece by Howard Fineman in Newsweek over the Thanksgiving weekend -- a review of the state of affairs in Washington while so many Washingtonians were away. I generally go up and down on Fineman, but he's immensely readable and, here, he's right on the mark:
There are challenges ahead, some seemingly insurmountable, but I think it's important to move on outside the shadow of 9/11. It was truly a day that shall live on in infamy, but it must not be allowed to cloud our judgement.
A chapter has just ended in the life of the country, the chapter that began on 9/11. We came together in the aftermath of that still-unimaginable catastrophe.
The emotion of unity lasted long enough to get the president reelected a year ago. My sense was that the voters were not going to give Osama & Co. the satisfaction of ousting Bush, almost no matter what, and yet the insular and not particularly ept John Kerry almost won. Bush claimed a mandate. By the statistical standards of history, he was justified in doing so. The Second Inaugural Address he gave was astonishing in its neo-Wilsonian sweep. The rhetoric was grand. But the country wasn’t buying.
So as the year winds down, the post-9/11 consensus has vanished, blown away by the bloody predations of evildoers in Iraq; by the growing belief that Bush was sloppy at best, dishonest at worst, in claiming Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, and that the dictator was itching to use them; and by the farrago of ineptitude called FEMA.
Most Americans no longer believe the central justification that was offered for war in Iraq. They no longer believe that the president is an honest man or an effectively strong leader. They no longer believe that going to war in Iraq made us safer here at home. And they are beginning to think that maybe we should just get the hell out.
There are challenges ahead, some seemingly insurmountable, but I think it's important to move on outside the shadow of 9/11. It was truly a day that shall live on in infamy, but it must not be allowed to cloud our judgement.
The GOP's M.O. -- all the lies that are fit to spread
My friend Mike at the great Crooks and Liars sent me a link to this post from State of the Day on how the Republicans' do their thing:
This Is How They Do It: Lie, Rinse, Repeat
Give it a read.
One point, which I must credit to a different friend today: The Republicans generally don't retract their lies and distortions. The Niger/uranium story is the rare exception.
Life must be so easy when you don't have to deal with reality. Right, Mr. Cheney et al.?
This Is How They Do It: Lie, Rinse, Repeat
Give it a read.
One point, which I must credit to a different friend today: The Republicans generally don't retract their lies and distortions. The Niger/uranium story is the rare exception.
Life must be so easy when you don't have to deal with reality. Right, Mr. Cheney et al.?
The changing nature of the war in Iraq
Make sure to read Seymour Hersh's latest at The New Yorker -- on Bush, Murtha, and where the Iraq War is headed. As usual, he cuts through all the White House spin and reveals what's really going on. I'd pick out a few key passages, but it's all good.
Okay, here's one: "Current and former military and intelligence officials have told me that the President remains convinced that it is his personal mission to bring democracy to Iraq, and that he is impervious to political pressure, even from fellow Republicans. They also say that he disparages any information that conflicts with his view of how the war is proceeding."
There will be a quantitative withdrawal of U.S. forces, but the war will continue: "Iraqi infantry with American support and greater use of airpower," as one expert puts it.
Will it work? I have confidence in the U.S. military, but not in the civilian leadership, not in the occupant of the Oval Office, not when it's all about the next photo-op and political considerations leading up to 2006 and beyond: "The Administration’s immediate political goal after the December elections is to show that the day-to-day conduct of the war can be turned over to the newly trained and equipped Iraqi military. It has already planned heavily scripted change-of-command ceremonies, complete with the lowering of American flags at bases and the raising of Iraqi ones."
Surely the Iraqi people deserve better.
Okay, here's one: "Current and former military and intelligence officials have told me that the President remains convinced that it is his personal mission to bring democracy to Iraq, and that he is impervious to political pressure, even from fellow Republicans. They also say that he disparages any information that conflicts with his view of how the war is proceeding."
There will be a quantitative withdrawal of U.S. forces, but the war will continue: "Iraqi infantry with American support and greater use of airpower," as one expert puts it.
Will it work? I have confidence in the U.S. military, but not in the civilian leadership, not in the occupant of the Oval Office, not when it's all about the next photo-op and political considerations leading up to 2006 and beyond: "The Administration’s immediate political goal after the December elections is to show that the day-to-day conduct of the war can be turned over to the newly trained and equipped Iraqi military. It has already planned heavily scripted change-of-command ceremonies, complete with the lowering of American flags at bases and the raising of Iraqi ones."
Surely the Iraqi people deserve better.
The Duke goes down: Cunningham pleads guilty
Busted:
Well, I hope you do. (By the way, you've also disgraced Congress and the Constitution. And you've fueled the apathy and cynicism that pervades American political life. Your friends and family must be so proud.)
Good riddance.
**********
For some good reaction, see The Carpetbagger Report, Demagogue, Shakespeare's Sister, The Left Coaster, and Running Scared.
Representative Randy Cunningham of California resigned from Congress today after admitting to a federal judge that he had taken $2.4 million in bribes from a military contractor.
Mr. Cunningham, 63, made a brief and tearful announcement to a group of reporters outside a federal courthouse in San Diego after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery. He admitted to taking money from a military contractor in exchange for his supporting the contractor's efforts to secure Defense Department contracts. The eight-term Republican congressman, one of the most highly decorated fighter pilots of the Vietnam War, also pleaded guilty to charges of mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion for underreporting his income in 2004.
"The truth is I broke the law," Mr. Cunningham, and "disgraced my family."
"I forfeited my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions," and, he added, his voice breaking, "most importantly, the trust of my friends and family."
"I can't undo what I have done but I can atone," he told reporters.
Well, I hope you do. (By the way, you've also disgraced Congress and the Constitution. And you've fueled the apathy and cynicism that pervades American political life. Your friends and family must be so proud.)
Good riddance.
**********
For some good reaction, see The Carpetbagger Report, Demagogue, Shakespeare's Sister, The Left Coaster, and Running Scared.
Adieu, Monsieur Chirac!
As bad as things get for the beleaguered Bush, he has nothing on Chirac: "Jacques Chirac's presidency hit a new low yesterday when a poll revealed that most voters think he now has little or no influence over events at home or abroad."
We can only wish that Bush had such little influence.
We can only wish that Bush had such little influence.
The "trophy" video scandal
I know a couple of private security guards in Iraq -- truly honourable men doing dangerous and difficult work.
Unfortunately, this gives them all a bad name and is otherwise truly repugnant: "A 'trophy' video appearing to show security guards in Baghdad randomly shooting Iraqi civilians has sparked two investigations after it was posted on the internet, the Sunday Telegraph can reveal. The video has sparked concern that private security companies, which are not subject to any form of regulation either in Britain or in Iraq, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Iraqis."
Nice, eh?
Unfortunately, this gives them all a bad name and is otherwise truly repugnant: "A 'trophy' video appearing to show security guards in Baghdad randomly shooting Iraqi civilians has sparked two investigations after it was posted on the internet, the Sunday Telegraph can reveal. The video has sparked concern that private security companies, which are not subject to any form of regulation either in Britain or in Iraq, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Iraqis."
Nice, eh?
Three cheers for President Bush!*
Check out Digby's amusing take on the flip-floppers at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., now taking credit for achieving "consensus" on withdrawal from Iraq.
Uh, right.
*You don't think I'm serious, do you?
Uh, right.
*You don't think I'm serious, do you?
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Iraq then and now -- the abuse continues
Make of this what you will. I'll just report it as is:
The "same things"? Well, some of them, perhaps -- the torture of Iraqis by Iraqis, for example. But has there been anything resembling organized genocide? Have entire communities been gassed? Is this post-Saddam regime, however flawed, a regime of terror? Surely not.
Nonetheless, Allawi is surely onto something. He may overstate the case, and he may have an ax to grind, but abuse is a reality in present-day Iraq -- and I don't mean Abu Ghraib-style abuse. And what concerns me, given this ongoing abuse, is that Iraqis will soon have to govern themselves without the large-scale presence of an occupying power. Are they prepared to do so without sliding back into Saddam-style oppression?
Recently, thanks to the latest White House spin, all the focus has been on whether or not Iraqis will be ready to protect and police themselves upon a staggered U.S. withdrawal through 2006 and 2007. But what of this, according to Allawi: "We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated... A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them."
The state of Iraqi security forces notwithstanding, is this the Iraq that the U.S. will leave behind -- an Iraq that all-too-closely resembles what it was under Saddam?
If so, shouldn't President Bush himself be held to account?
Human rights abuses in Iraq are as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein if not worse, former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has said.
"People are doing the same as (in) Saddam's time and worse," Allawi said in an interview published in Britain on Sunday.
"It is an appropriate comparison," Allawi told The Observer newspaper. "People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things."
The "same things"? Well, some of them, perhaps -- the torture of Iraqis by Iraqis, for example. But has there been anything resembling organized genocide? Have entire communities been gassed? Is this post-Saddam regime, however flawed, a regime of terror? Surely not.
Nonetheless, Allawi is surely onto something. He may overstate the case, and he may have an ax to grind, but abuse is a reality in present-day Iraq -- and I don't mean Abu Ghraib-style abuse. And what concerns me, given this ongoing abuse, is that Iraqis will soon have to govern themselves without the large-scale presence of an occupying power. Are they prepared to do so without sliding back into Saddam-style oppression?
Recently, thanks to the latest White House spin, all the focus has been on whether or not Iraqis will be ready to protect and police themselves upon a staggered U.S. withdrawal through 2006 and 2007. But what of this, according to Allawi: "We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated... A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them."
The state of Iraqi security forces notwithstanding, is this the Iraq that the U.S. will leave behind -- an Iraq that all-too-closely resembles what it was under Saddam?
If so, shouldn't President Bush himself be held to account?
Joe-mentum for the GOP
Is this at all a surprise? The Republicans' favourite Democrat in Congress is:
Joe Lieberman.
(Which is a reflection of why so many Democrats dislike him.)
Joe Lieberman.
(Which is a reflection of why so many Democrats dislike him.)
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Update: The plot to bomb Aljazeera
The BBC: "The head of al-Jazeera is delivering a letter to Tony Blair demanding the facts on reports that President Bush suggested bombing the Arab TV station. He wants a memo published which is alleged to show Tony Blair dissuaded President Bush from bombing its HQ... Wadah Khanfar is calling for the facts to be made public and urgent talks... Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, Mr Khanfar said: 'Al- Jazeera is in the foremost of free form and democracy in the Arab world and therefore this news that we have heard is very concerning. So we demand a proper explanation and we would like to know the facts about this letter.'"
My original post on the alleged plot to bomb Aljazeera's headquarters in Qatar is here.
My original post on the alleged plot to bomb Aljazeera's headquarters in Qatar is here.
I wish Bush would be (fill in the blank)
So, what do you think of this vocabulary quiz from Vermont?
Kevin Drum has a funny take here: "I say, leave the poor guy alone. After all, if you can't make jokes about George Bush's diction even in Vermont, the terrorists have won."
Ah, education can be so much fun.
Kevin Drum has a funny take here: "I say, leave the poor guy alone. After all, if you can't make jokes about George Bush's diction even in Vermont, the terrorists have won."
Ah, education can be so much fun.
"When will our troops come home?"
That's what Senator Joe Biden, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asks in an op-ed piece at the Post today: "Over the next six months, we must forge a sustainable political compromise between Iraqi factions, strengthen the Iraqi government and bolster reconstruction efforts, and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces."
The problem is, there are just so many shoulds. Is Bush up to the task? Or will he continue to play politics? I suspect the latter.
For more, scroll down or see my previous post here.
**********
On the right, Captain's Quarters responds.
The Glittering Eye has an excellent post: "The most pernicious of the many errors we’ve made over the last several years is the notion that we can achieve good things in Iraq or in the War on Terror without substantial costs. That just isn’t going to happen. Come what may there will be major political, social, economic, and human costs."
The problem is, there are just so many shoulds. Is Bush up to the task? Or will he continue to play politics? I suspect the latter.
For more, scroll down or see my previous post here.
**********
On the right, Captain's Quarters responds.
The Glittering Eye has an excellent post: "The most pernicious of the many errors we’ve made over the last several years is the notion that we can achieve good things in Iraq or in the War on Terror without substantial costs. That just isn’t going to happen. Come what may there will be major political, social, economic, and human costs."
Preparing for withdrawal from Iraq
Republicans went nuts after John Murtha called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, and I myself do not favour immediate withdrawal, but it already looks as though the Pentagon is preparing for withdrawal:
Of course, the tide has turned. The Bush Administration, which has flip-flopped so often on everything to do with the Iraq War that nothing it says is credible, is trying to "relieve enormous pressure by war opponents".
So the latest "story," already told by Rice and soon to be pushed by Bush himself, is that the Iraqis are almost ready to defend themselves. Are they? Maybe. We'll have to see. (I suspect that the Iraqis are far from ready.)
But you can see what's going on, can't you? The Bush Administration is trying to set up a win-win situation for itself. If Iraq succeeds, with success defined broadly as stable self-governance that is more or less democratic, Bush can take all the credit (the war was worth it, see?). If Iraq fails, with failure defined as civil war and/or anarchy, Bush can blame the Iraqis themselves (the war was worth it, but those good-for-nothing Iraqis let us down, see?). And Iraq ends up somewhere between success and failure, which seems likely, Bush can spin whatever story makes him look good and helps him stick it to his opponents.
Don't get me wrong. I hope Iraq succeeds. But don't let Bush define the terms.
**********
Joe Gandelman gets it right at The Moderate Voice: "The Bush administration has insisted that setting any kind of even nebulous date for a withdrawal encourages the enemy to hold out and get even bolder. Translation: it has insinuated that by setting a timetable more American military could be killed. And it turned this into a partisan jihad, going after one political party when even some members of the GOP are voicing increasing doubts."
For this White House, it's all political, isn't it?
See John Cole at Balloon Juice (with whom I've had my differences but who is one of the more thoughtful conservatives out there): "While drawing down 40k of 160k troops over the next year is certainly not cutting and running, I think it is pretty clear this decision is being based on domestic political considerations rather than facts on the ground. Which, of course, makes this administration no better than the cynical Democrats who have been using this issue for their own political reasons. Worse, some might argue, since this adminstration led us into this war, and now seems unwilling to win it."
Here's John Aravosis at AMERICAblog: "So, basically, in order to save his political behind, Bush will put even more US soldiers in danger by trying to split the baby in half. And, within days of Dick Cheney suggesting anybody advocating a troop pull out is a coward and emboldening the terrorists (even though most of the folks we're fighting in Iraq aren't terrorists, but are actually Iraqis we've pissed off), Bush is now proposing the same thing."
And Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo: "What we have is posturing and positioning over the political consequences of withdrawal. The White House and the president's partisans will lay down a wall of covering fire, calling anybody who considers withdrawal an appeaser, to allow the president to go about the business of drawing down the American presence in Iraq in time to game the 2006 elections."
And Justin Gardner at Donklephant: "The Roveian way of doing things is to double the PR budget and forget about what’s right or wrong, because history is written by the winners. My grave fear, though, is while we may seem like the winners to some right now, the Iraqis will end up losing so much."
See also Eschaton, The Heretik, Middle Earth Journal, Rising Hegemon, The Mahablog, and Just a Bump in the Beltway.
**********
I just have one word for how the Bush Administration is handling all this: DISGUSTING.
Even as debate over the Iraq war continues to rage, signs are emerging of a convergence of opinion on how the Bush administration might begin to exit the conflict.
In a departure from previous statements, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week that the training of Iraqi soldiers had advanced so far that the current number of U.S. troops in the country probably would not be needed much longer...
The developments seemed to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals in 2006 and 2007, consistent with scenarios outlined by Pentagon planners. The approach also tracks the thinking of some centrist Democrats...
Of course, the tide has turned. The Bush Administration, which has flip-flopped so often on everything to do with the Iraq War that nothing it says is credible, is trying to "relieve enormous pressure by war opponents".
So the latest "story," already told by Rice and soon to be pushed by Bush himself, is that the Iraqis are almost ready to defend themselves. Are they? Maybe. We'll have to see. (I suspect that the Iraqis are far from ready.)
But you can see what's going on, can't you? The Bush Administration is trying to set up a win-win situation for itself. If Iraq succeeds, with success defined broadly as stable self-governance that is more or less democratic, Bush can take all the credit (the war was worth it, see?). If Iraq fails, with failure defined as civil war and/or anarchy, Bush can blame the Iraqis themselves (the war was worth it, but those good-for-nothing Iraqis let us down, see?). And Iraq ends up somewhere between success and failure, which seems likely, Bush can spin whatever story makes him look good and helps him stick it to his opponents.
Don't get me wrong. I hope Iraq succeeds. But don't let Bush define the terms.
**********
Joe Gandelman gets it right at The Moderate Voice: "The Bush administration has insisted that setting any kind of even nebulous date for a withdrawal encourages the enemy to hold out and get even bolder. Translation: it has insinuated that by setting a timetable more American military could be killed. And it turned this into a partisan jihad, going after one political party when even some members of the GOP are voicing increasing doubts."
For this White House, it's all political, isn't it?
See John Cole at Balloon Juice (with whom I've had my differences but who is one of the more thoughtful conservatives out there): "While drawing down 40k of 160k troops over the next year is certainly not cutting and running, I think it is pretty clear this decision is being based on domestic political considerations rather than facts on the ground. Which, of course, makes this administration no better than the cynical Democrats who have been using this issue for their own political reasons. Worse, some might argue, since this adminstration led us into this war, and now seems unwilling to win it."
Here's John Aravosis at AMERICAblog: "So, basically, in order to save his political behind, Bush will put even more US soldiers in danger by trying to split the baby in half. And, within days of Dick Cheney suggesting anybody advocating a troop pull out is a coward and emboldening the terrorists (even though most of the folks we're fighting in Iraq aren't terrorists, but are actually Iraqis we've pissed off), Bush is now proposing the same thing."
And Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo: "What we have is posturing and positioning over the political consequences of withdrawal. The White House and the president's partisans will lay down a wall of covering fire, calling anybody who considers withdrawal an appeaser, to allow the president to go about the business of drawing down the American presence in Iraq in time to game the 2006 elections."
And Justin Gardner at Donklephant: "The Roveian way of doing things is to double the PR budget and forget about what’s right or wrong, because history is written by the winners. My grave fear, though, is while we may seem like the winners to some right now, the Iraqis will end up losing so much."
See also Eschaton, The Heretik, Middle Earth Journal, Rising Hegemon, The Mahablog, and Just a Bump in the Beltway.
**********
I just have one word for how the Bush Administration is handling all this: DISGUSTING.
Friday, November 25, 2005
DINOs and RINOs: Is the center rising again?
Read Joe Gandelman (The Moderate Voice) on Jonah Goldberg (L.A. Times). Booker Rising weighs in here.
For what I wrote two weeks ago on the alleged rise of centrism, see here: "The center is with the Democrats, more to the left of where the Republican spin machine says it is. Indeed, I would say that liberalism is centrism. But it's up to liberals, and their Democratic candidates and representatives, to explain that to the American people, that is, to explain just how liberalism is at the very center of American life, how America's fundamental values are themselves fundamentally liberal."
For what I wrote two weeks ago on the alleged rise of centrism, see here: "The center is with the Democrats, more to the left of where the Republican spin machine says it is. Indeed, I would say that liberalism is centrism. But it's up to liberals, and their Democratic candidates and representatives, to explain that to the American people, that is, to explain just how liberalism is at the very center of American life, how America's fundamental values are themselves fundamentally liberal."
Terrorism and opportunism
Kevin Drum on taking terrorism seriously: "The American public can hardly be expected to take terrorism seriously if it's obvious that the Bush administration itself views al-Qaeda as primarily a political opportunity rather than a real problem. Sooner or later, we're going to pay the price for this feckless and irresponsible approach."
I think America's paying it already.
**********
See Dahlia Lithwick's piece on Jose Padilla at Slate. On the Padilla case, also see Intel Dump, The Liberal Avenger, and The Mahablog.
Laura Rozen at War and Piece: "It is kind of staggering to realize the extent to which we may have been sold a fiction the past four years. Orwellian. All the more staggering because it's propaganda in the service of exaggerating a threat that needs no exaggeration."
There's the Bush Administration for you. Now what was that about Cheney again?
I think America's paying it already.
**********
See Dahlia Lithwick's piece on Jose Padilla at Slate. On the Padilla case, also see Intel Dump, The Liberal Avenger, and The Mahablog.
Laura Rozen at War and Piece: "It is kind of staggering to realize the extent to which we may have been sold a fiction the past four years. Orwellian. All the more staggering because it's propaganda in the service of exaggerating a threat that needs no exaggeration."
There's the Bush Administration for you. Now what was that about Cheney again?
Bill Richardson and me
Dear Mr. Richardson:
Why?
Sincerely,
MJWS (fellow Tufts graduate)
P.S.: Several of my fellow bloggers are similarly curious -- see here, here, here, and here.
**********
Note: I was drafted by my hometown Montreal Canadiens in 1988. They thought I was the next Guy Lafleur. Of course, the Boston Celtics wanted me, too, and the opportunity to play with Larry Bird was nothing if not tempting, but I realized soon enough that baseball was my true calling. I started out as a pitcher in the Montreal Expos organization in 1990 before playing seven seasons with the Toronto Blue Jays and New York Yankees. I won two World Series with the Jays, but I was lured into pinstripes by some big-time money from George Steinbrenner. But by that time I'd had enough of baseball. I spent the next two years training for the NFL, and, this coming Monday, you may see me on the sidelines as Ben Roethlisbergers' back-up against the Colts on MNF. I'll be live-blogging the whole thing, unless Big Ben goes down again and I'm forced to take the field.
(Update: After researching the matter, I've come to the conclusion that I was not drafted by the Canadiens, nor did I play for the Celtics, Blue Jays, and Yankees, nor will I be in a Steelers uniform on Monday. I regret the error.)
**********
Welcome TBogg readers. It's an honour to be linked from such a great site. I hope you like The Reaction, and I certainly invite you all to check back regularly for multiple daily posts on a variety of political and cultural issues.
Why?
Sincerely,
MJWS (fellow Tufts graduate)
P.S.: Several of my fellow bloggers are similarly curious -- see here, here, here, and here.
**********
Note: I was drafted by my hometown Montreal Canadiens in 1988. They thought I was the next Guy Lafleur. Of course, the Boston Celtics wanted me, too, and the opportunity to play with Larry Bird was nothing if not tempting, but I realized soon enough that baseball was my true calling. I started out as a pitcher in the Montreal Expos organization in 1990 before playing seven seasons with the Toronto Blue Jays and New York Yankees. I won two World Series with the Jays, but I was lured into pinstripes by some big-time money from George Steinbrenner. But by that time I'd had enough of baseball. I spent the next two years training for the NFL, and, this coming Monday, you may see me on the sidelines as Ben Roethlisbergers' back-up against the Colts on MNF. I'll be live-blogging the whole thing, unless Big Ben goes down again and I'm forced to take the field.
(Update: After researching the matter, I've come to the conclusion that I was not drafted by the Canadiens, nor did I play for the Celtics, Blue Jays, and Yankees, nor will I be in a Steelers uniform on Monday. I regret the error.)
**********
Welcome TBogg readers. It's an honour to be linked from such a great site. I hope you like The Reaction, and I certainly invite you all to check back regularly for multiple daily posts on a variety of political and cultural issues.
The "wisdom" of Dick Cheney
"The hallmark of the Dick Cheney administration is its illegitimacy."
Does that get your attention? It should. It's the first line of "The long march of Dick Cheney," Sidney Blumenthal's latest piece at Salon.com (thankfully available in full here).
Here's the next line: "Its essential method is bypassing established lines of authority; its goal is the concentration of unaccountable presidential power."
It's provocative, with an excellent overview of Cheney's rise to power in the Nixon Ford, and Bush I administrations (and as a Congressman during the Reagan years). Make sure to read the whole thing. (Even you Cheney defenders. Needless to say, I'm not one of them -- see here, here, here, here, and here.)
To tempt you, here are a couple of key passages:
-- "Even though experts and pundits contradict his talking points, Cheney presents them with characteristic assurance. His rhetoric is like a paving truck that will flatten obstacles. Cheney remains undeterred; he has no recourse. He will not run for president in 2008. He is defending more than the Bush record; he is defending the culmination of his career. Cheney's alliances, ideas, antagonisms and tactics have accumulated for decades."
-- "The making of the Iraq war, torture policy and an industry-friendly energy plan has required secrecy, deception and subordination of government as it previously existed. But these, too, are means to an end. Even projecting a 'war on terror' as total war, trying to envelop the whole American society within its fog, is a device to invest absolute power in the executive."
-- "Dick Cheney sees in George W. Bush his last chance. Nixon self-destructed, Ford was fatally compromised by his moderation, Reagan was not what was hoped for, the elder Bush ended up a disappointment. In every case, the Republican presidents had been checked or gone soft. Finally, President Bush provided the instrument, Sept. 11 the opportunity. This time the failures of the past provided the guideposts for getting it right. The administration's heedlessness was simply the wisdom of Cheney's experience."
But when and where will that heedlessness end? I'm not sure America can take any more of Cheney's "wisdom".
(See also The Left Coaster and The Sideshow.)
Does that get your attention? It should. It's the first line of "The long march of Dick Cheney," Sidney Blumenthal's latest piece at Salon.com (thankfully available in full here).
Here's the next line: "Its essential method is bypassing established lines of authority; its goal is the concentration of unaccountable presidential power."
It's provocative, with an excellent overview of Cheney's rise to power in the Nixon Ford, and Bush I administrations (and as a Congressman during the Reagan years). Make sure to read the whole thing. (Even you Cheney defenders. Needless to say, I'm not one of them -- see here, here, here, here, and here.)
To tempt you, here are a couple of key passages:
-- "Even though experts and pundits contradict his talking points, Cheney presents them with characteristic assurance. His rhetoric is like a paving truck that will flatten obstacles. Cheney remains undeterred; he has no recourse. He will not run for president in 2008. He is defending more than the Bush record; he is defending the culmination of his career. Cheney's alliances, ideas, antagonisms and tactics have accumulated for decades."
-- "The making of the Iraq war, torture policy and an industry-friendly energy plan has required secrecy, deception and subordination of government as it previously existed. But these, too, are means to an end. Even projecting a 'war on terror' as total war, trying to envelop the whole American society within its fog, is a device to invest absolute power in the executive."
-- "Dick Cheney sees in George W. Bush his last chance. Nixon self-destructed, Ford was fatally compromised by his moderation, Reagan was not what was hoped for, the elder Bush ended up a disappointment. In every case, the Republican presidents had been checked or gone soft. Finally, President Bush provided the instrument, Sept. 11 the opportunity. This time the failures of the past provided the guideposts for getting it right. The administration's heedlessness was simply the wisdom of Cheney's experience."
But when and where will that heedlessness end? I'm not sure America can take any more of Cheney's "wisdom".
(See also The Left Coaster and The Sideshow.)
Thursday, November 24, 2005
What is white phosphorus?
Alright, I've already written three rather incendiary posts on white phosphorus, specifically on the use of WP by U.S. forces in Fallujah last year. Those posts, which elicited a number of impassioned comments from readers, are here, here, and here. Here's what's happened so far:
-- Italy's RAI TV network aired a documentary alleging U.S. use of WP against civilians in Fallujah. This story was picked up by the BBC, The Independent, The Christian Science Monitor, and, in the blogosphere, Juan Cole.
-- The Pentagon initially denied the story, calling it "disinformation". But then, after much delay, it flip-flopped and admitted that WP was used as a weapon against insurgents in Fallujah (but not against civilians).
-- Think Progress reported on a declassified Pentagon document that refers to WP as a chemical weapon.
And so here we are.
It seems that Think Progress's report was somewhat misleading. Conservatives John Cole and Confederate Yankee respond, arguing that a) the Pentagon document cited by Think Progress is not an official document but the report of a conversation between two Kurds, and b) WP isn't a chemical weapon but a conventional incendiary one (when used as a weapon and not strictly as a smoke-screening agent).
Fair enough. But let's hear from the other side:
Kos, for example, whom John Cole singles out: "Apologists of the use of WP continue to hide under the legalistic argument that white phosphorus isn't classified as a chemical weapon under any treaty signed by the United States, as if our moral standing in the world hinges on legal parsings. In the court of world opinion, if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and burns off the skin of babies like a duck while leaving their clothes intact, well then..."
And my friend Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest, who has been challenged by Confederate Yankee to a blogospheric duel: "Don't you understand the propaganda advantage they gained because our forces used WP for 'shake and bake'? Just as with torture, it isn't the revealing it's the doing. I don't CARE if it is a 'chemical' weapon or not, that is hardly the point. They should not have started the policy of torture, and they should not have allowed the use of WP as a weapon. Because of the huge propaganda advantage this gives the enemy. It is NOT the revealing, it is the USE. It is our DUTY to speak out against the use. And it is NOT the troops, it's the leadership that failed us."
In the MSM, The Independent picked up the Pentagon document story,
**********
Dave makes a valid point: Does it even matter if WP is technically a chemical weapon? Shouldn't we be more concerned with the use of WP as a weapon? Or, that is, shouldn't the discussion focus on whether or not WP is a useful, legitimate, and, well, morally defensible weapon? (Or, perhaps, morality doesn't matter on the battlefield? -- if so, then say so.) Beyond this, shouldn't we be concerned with the perception of the use of WP as a weapon in Iraq? Kos is right, after all: WP seems like a duck. How does this affect U.S. credibility in Iraq, throughout the Middle East, and around the world? Does that even matter?
These are all, I think, valid questions. Let's ask them. And answer them.
For more on what WP is, and what it does, see GlobalSecurity.org here: "White Phosphorus (WP), known as Willy Pete, is used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes... White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents."
But it's pretty nasty stuff. See here. For example: "Skin contact with burning white phosphorus may burn skin or cause liver, heart, and kidney damage."
From its Wikipedia entry (which, admittedly, may be open to criticism): "White phosphorus is a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus which has found extensive military application as an incendiary agent, smoke-screening agent and as an antipersonnel flame compound capable of causing serious burns."
Effects on humans: "Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed personnel because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed, in some cases burning right down to the bone."
But here's where things get interesting:
So legally, yes, there might not be a problem. And, indeed, WP may be a useful and legitimate "weapon" when used indirectly on enemy targets -- whether as a smoke-screening agent or as a psychological weapon. But what if WP is used so that the "incendiary effect" becomes primary? Is it then still useful? Perhaps. Legitimate? Maybe (since the U.S. isn't a signatory to Protocol III). But moral? There's the big question.
Pentagon spokesman Col. Barry Venable has admitted that the U.S. used WP as "an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," according to the BBC. He stressed that it isn't a chemical weapon, that it's merely a conventional weapon, and that it's not "outlawed or illegal".
Again, fair enough. But is that where the story ends? For some, yes. The U.S. used it, but it's not a chemical weapon, its use is not prohibited by treaty, and it may be a useful agent on the battlefield -- where, let us not forget, our troops' lives are at risk.
But I come back to this: What message does the use of WP send to those whose hearts and minds the U.S. is trying to win over? After all, they're not interested in whether or not WP is a chemical weapon by definition or whether or not the U.S. is a signatory to this or that convention or protocol or whatever. They're not interested in the chemistry of WP or its deployment on the battlefield as a smoke-screening agent. Rather, they're interested in how the U.S. conducts itself in a war of its own making as it attempts to spread freedom and democracy around the world, in speech if not always in deed.
Perhaps the Pentagon -- perhaps America's civilian leadership -- needs to do a better job explaining why it does what it does. If it was absolutely necessary to use WP on the battlefield in Fallujah, then make that case. If it wasn't, then there'd better be a good reason why it was used.
Let me be clear about something before I end: I do not believe that there is any sort of moral equivalency between America and her enemies. I have said that before and I say it again. Criticizing the U.S. for using WP or for torturing detainees is not to imply that the U.S. is at the moral level of the Islamofascists, as they're now being called, or of, say, the Nazis.
But America must be held to a higher standard. That is why torture must be repudiated and why the use of WP in Iraq must at least be questioned. I won't say conclusively that it should or shouldn't have been used, but the discussion must take place within the context of that higher standard.
That's what the world expects of America. And that's what Americans should expect of themselves.
-- Italy's RAI TV network aired a documentary alleging U.S. use of WP against civilians in Fallujah. This story was picked up by the BBC, The Independent, The Christian Science Monitor, and, in the blogosphere, Juan Cole.
-- The Pentagon initially denied the story, calling it "disinformation". But then, after much delay, it flip-flopped and admitted that WP was used as a weapon against insurgents in Fallujah (but not against civilians).
-- Think Progress reported on a declassified Pentagon document that refers to WP as a chemical weapon.
And so here we are.
It seems that Think Progress's report was somewhat misleading. Conservatives John Cole and Confederate Yankee respond, arguing that a) the Pentagon document cited by Think Progress is not an official document but the report of a conversation between two Kurds, and b) WP isn't a chemical weapon but a conventional incendiary one (when used as a weapon and not strictly as a smoke-screening agent).
Fair enough. But let's hear from the other side:
Kos, for example, whom John Cole singles out: "Apologists of the use of WP continue to hide under the legalistic argument that white phosphorus isn't classified as a chemical weapon under any treaty signed by the United States, as if our moral standing in the world hinges on legal parsings. In the court of world opinion, if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and burns off the skin of babies like a duck while leaving their clothes intact, well then..."
And my friend Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest, who has been challenged by Confederate Yankee to a blogospheric duel: "Don't you understand the propaganda advantage they gained because our forces used WP for 'shake and bake'? Just as with torture, it isn't the revealing it's the doing. I don't CARE if it is a 'chemical' weapon or not, that is hardly the point. They should not have started the policy of torture, and they should not have allowed the use of WP as a weapon. Because of the huge propaganda advantage this gives the enemy. It is NOT the revealing, it is the USE. It is our DUTY to speak out against the use. And it is NOT the troops, it's the leadership that failed us."
In the MSM, The Independent picked up the Pentagon document story,
**********
Dave makes a valid point: Does it even matter if WP is technically a chemical weapon? Shouldn't we be more concerned with the use of WP as a weapon? Or, that is, shouldn't the discussion focus on whether or not WP is a useful, legitimate, and, well, morally defensible weapon? (Or, perhaps, morality doesn't matter on the battlefield? -- if so, then say so.) Beyond this, shouldn't we be concerned with the perception of the use of WP as a weapon in Iraq? Kos is right, after all: WP seems like a duck. How does this affect U.S. credibility in Iraq, throughout the Middle East, and around the world? Does that even matter?
These are all, I think, valid questions. Let's ask them. And answer them.
For more on what WP is, and what it does, see GlobalSecurity.org here: "White Phosphorus (WP), known as Willy Pete, is used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes... White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents."
But it's pretty nasty stuff. See here. For example: "Skin contact with burning white phosphorus may burn skin or cause liver, heart, and kidney damage."
From its Wikipedia entry (which, admittedly, may be open to criticism): "White phosphorus is a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus which has found extensive military application as an incendiary agent, smoke-screening agent and as an antipersonnel flame compound capable of causing serious burns."
Effects on humans: "Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed personnel because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed, in some cases burning right down to the bone."
But here's where things get interesting:
Use of white phosphorus against military targets (and outside civilian areas) is not specifically banned by any treaty. However, there is a debate on whether white phosphorus is a chemical weapon and thus outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The spokesman for that organization, Peter Kaiser, stated that the use of white phosphorus was not prohibited under the convention if it was used for "(m)ilitary purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.)). The Chemical Weapons Convention specifically defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals". (CWC, II). Following that definition, the convention defines chemical weapons as "(t)oxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes". Strictly speaking, since white phosphorus's primary effects are not actually due to its toxicity, but its spontaneous ignition in the presence of oxygen, many believe it has more in common with incendiary weapons instead.
The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians. However, the protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effect is secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed Protocol III.
So legally, yes, there might not be a problem. And, indeed, WP may be a useful and legitimate "weapon" when used indirectly on enemy targets -- whether as a smoke-screening agent or as a psychological weapon. But what if WP is used so that the "incendiary effect" becomes primary? Is it then still useful? Perhaps. Legitimate? Maybe (since the U.S. isn't a signatory to Protocol III). But moral? There's the big question.
Pentagon spokesman Col. Barry Venable has admitted that the U.S. used WP as "an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," according to the BBC. He stressed that it isn't a chemical weapon, that it's merely a conventional weapon, and that it's not "outlawed or illegal".
Again, fair enough. But is that where the story ends? For some, yes. The U.S. used it, but it's not a chemical weapon, its use is not prohibited by treaty, and it may be a useful agent on the battlefield -- where, let us not forget, our troops' lives are at risk.
But I come back to this: What message does the use of WP send to those whose hearts and minds the U.S. is trying to win over? After all, they're not interested in whether or not WP is a chemical weapon by definition or whether or not the U.S. is a signatory to this or that convention or protocol or whatever. They're not interested in the chemistry of WP or its deployment on the battlefield as a smoke-screening agent. Rather, they're interested in how the U.S. conducts itself in a war of its own making as it attempts to spread freedom and democracy around the world, in speech if not always in deed.
Perhaps the Pentagon -- perhaps America's civilian leadership -- needs to do a better job explaining why it does what it does. If it was absolutely necessary to use WP on the battlefield in Fallujah, then make that case. If it wasn't, then there'd better be a good reason why it was used.
Let me be clear about something before I end: I do not believe that there is any sort of moral equivalency between America and her enemies. I have said that before and I say it again. Criticizing the U.S. for using WP or for torturing detainees is not to imply that the U.S. is at the moral level of the Islamofascists, as they're now being called, or of, say, the Nazis.
But America must be held to a higher standard. That is why torture must be repudiated and why the use of WP in Iraq must at least be questioned. I won't say conclusively that it should or shouldn't have been used, but the discussion must take place within the context of that higher standard.
That's what the world expects of America. And that's what Americans should expect of themselves.
To bomb or not to bomb... Aljazeera
Is this story simply unbelievable... or does it make perfect sense?
Juan Cole reports: "The Mirror broke the story on Tuesday that a secret British memo demonstrates that George W. Bush wanted to bomb Aljazeera's offices in Doha, Qatar, in spring of 2004. The subject came up with Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK, and Blair is said to have argued Bush out of it."
More: "Despite attempts of British officials to muddy the waters by suggesting that Bush was joking, another official who had seen the memo insisted, "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."
Have you seen Control Room, the brilliant documentary about Aljazeera leading up to and during the early days of the Iraq War? Read Professor Cole's full post, then go out and rent/buy it.
**********
The Daily Mirror is a British tabloid, but The Guardian picks up the story here: "Claims that George Bush planned to bomb the Arabic TV news station al-Jazeera have fuelled concerns that an attack on the broadcaster's Baghdad offices during the war on Iraq was deliberate."
At The Washington Note, Steve Clemons "takes no position at all on whether Bush said this outrageous statement," but his lengthy post is a must-read. Among other things, he points out just how Aljazeera is misrepresented by the right.
Digby things the story's true. He may very well be right -- but, like Steve, I take no position here. See also Atrios, Kos, and Firedoglake.
AMERICAblog: "We have lost any credibility we ever had as a beacon of democracy and freedom." Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. With Bush, Cheney, et al., however, whatever credibility America has left is fading fast.
And that's not a good thing.
Juan Cole reports: "The Mirror broke the story on Tuesday that a secret British memo demonstrates that George W. Bush wanted to bomb Aljazeera's offices in Doha, Qatar, in spring of 2004. The subject came up with Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK, and Blair is said to have argued Bush out of it."
More: "Despite attempts of British officials to muddy the waters by suggesting that Bush was joking, another official who had seen the memo insisted, "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."
Have you seen Control Room, the brilliant documentary about Aljazeera leading up to and during the early days of the Iraq War? Read Professor Cole's full post, then go out and rent/buy it.
**********
The Daily Mirror is a British tabloid, but The Guardian picks up the story here: "Claims that George Bush planned to bomb the Arabic TV news station al-Jazeera have fuelled concerns that an attack on the broadcaster's Baghdad offices during the war on Iraq was deliberate."
At The Washington Note, Steve Clemons "takes no position at all on whether Bush said this outrageous statement," but his lengthy post is a must-read. Among other things, he points out just how Aljazeera is misrepresented by the right.
Digby things the story's true. He may very well be right -- but, like Steve, I take no position here. See also Atrios, Kos, and Firedoglake.
AMERICAblog: "We have lost any credibility we ever had as a beacon of democracy and freedom." Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. With Bush, Cheney, et al., however, whatever credibility America has left is fading fast.
And that's not a good thing.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Let the withdrawal begin...
From the Post:
In other words, "a gradual, phased reduction," not an immediate withdrawal; indeed, "administration officials say that military and political factors heavily constrain how fast U.S. forces should leave. They cite a continuing need to assist Iraq's fledgling security forces, ensure establishment of a permanent government, suppress the insurgency and reduce the potential for civil war."
This would seem to make a lot of sense. I've argued here before that America has a moral responsibility in Iraq and that the job needs to be finished -- meaning, Iraq needs to be left in a position to survive on its own, or mostly on its own, with a relatively stable, democratically-elected government and control over its own security without the risk, or as little risk as possible, of regressing into anarchy and civil war.
But what "political" factors will be considered? Indeed, is it not likely that the Bush Administration will politicize any such withdrawal in order to reverse the Republican Party's current slide and establish momentum going into next year's mid-term elections? Or to boost Bush's own sagging popularity?
One hopes that the right thing will be done and that various strategic factors will be considered, but cynicism -- a cynicism based on experience -- insists otherwise.
**********
Around the blogosphere:
Political Animal: "They can call this a 'rough rule of thumb' if they want, but it sure sounds like the Pentagon is adopting a set of measurable benchmarks for a phased withdrawal. This is almost precisely what John Kerry proposed last month, and what an RNC spokesman immediately slammed as a plan that would 'endanger American forces on the ground.' But politics aside, I sure hope they're serious about this. If it's done right, it's probably the best hope we have for a non-catastrophic outcome in Iraq.
Absolutely.
The Carpetbagger Report suggests sending apologies to Jack Murtha. Well, my Republican friends, will you?
See AMERICAblog, Preemptive Karma, One Hand Clapping, and, on the right, Captain's Quarters.
Barring any major surprises in Iraq, the Pentagon tentatively plans to reduce the number of U.S. forces there early next year by as many as three combat brigades, from 18 now, but to keep at least one brigade "on call" in Kuwait in case more troops are needed quickly, several senior military officers said.
Pentagon authorities also have set a series of "decision points" during 2006 to consider further force cuts that, under a "moderately optimistic" scenario, would drop the total number of troops from more than 150,000 now to fewer than 100,000, including 10 combat brigades, by the end of the year, the officers said.
In other words, "a gradual, phased reduction," not an immediate withdrawal; indeed, "administration officials say that military and political factors heavily constrain how fast U.S. forces should leave. They cite a continuing need to assist Iraq's fledgling security forces, ensure establishment of a permanent government, suppress the insurgency and reduce the potential for civil war."
This would seem to make a lot of sense. I've argued here before that America has a moral responsibility in Iraq and that the job needs to be finished -- meaning, Iraq needs to be left in a position to survive on its own, or mostly on its own, with a relatively stable, democratically-elected government and control over its own security without the risk, or as little risk as possible, of regressing into anarchy and civil war.
But what "political" factors will be considered? Indeed, is it not likely that the Bush Administration will politicize any such withdrawal in order to reverse the Republican Party's current slide and establish momentum going into next year's mid-term elections? Or to boost Bush's own sagging popularity?
One hopes that the right thing will be done and that various strategic factors will be considered, but cynicism -- a cynicism based on experience -- insists otherwise.
**********
Around the blogosphere:
Political Animal: "They can call this a 'rough rule of thumb' if they want, but it sure sounds like the Pentagon is adopting a set of measurable benchmarks for a phased withdrawal. This is almost precisely what John Kerry proposed last month, and what an RNC spokesman immediately slammed as a plan that would 'endanger American forces on the ground.' But politics aside, I sure hope they're serious about this. If it's done right, it's probably the best hope we have for a non-catastrophic outcome in Iraq.
Absolutely.
The Carpetbagger Report suggests sending apologies to Jack Murtha. Well, my Republican friends, will you?
See AMERICAblog, Preemptive Karma, One Hand Clapping, and, on the right, Captain's Quarters.
A matter of trust: Does the White House mislead the American people?
Another poll paints a clear picture of Bush's White House. From the Journal: "A majority of U.S. adults believe the Bush administration generally misleads the public on current issues, while fewer than a third of Americans believe the information provided by the administration is generally accurate, the latest Harris Interactive poll finds."
What are the numbers?
Democrats: 7% accurate, 91% misleading
Republicans: 68% accurate, 28% misleading
Independents: 25% accurate, 73% misleading
TOTAL: 32% accurate, 64% misleading
The partisan results are predictable (although 28% of Republicans calling the WH misleading seems like an unusually high number -- is Bush losing some of his partisan support?). But independents have clearly turned on Bush. He ran on trust, on "values," but how much credibility does he have left?
See the Journal piece for more poll results.
What are the numbers?
Democrats: 7% accurate, 91% misleading
Republicans: 68% accurate, 28% misleading
Independents: 25% accurate, 73% misleading
TOTAL: 32% accurate, 64% misleading
The partisan results are predictable (although 28% of Republicans calling the WH misleading seems like an unusually high number -- is Bush losing some of his partisan support?). But independents have clearly turned on Bush. He ran on trust, on "values," but how much credibility does he have left?
See the Journal piece for more poll results.
Who's the real coward -- Murtha or Schmidt?
Last week, Rep. Jean Schmidt of Ohio called Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, the decorated war veteran who recently called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a coward. Needless to say, her ad hominem didn't go over well. From the Post:
Well, boo-hoo. Is it at all surprising that Saturday Night Live made fun of her? Or that The Cincinnati Enquirer criticized her? Or that her own friends are backing away from her? Sure, there's a lot of partisanship in Washington, a lot of senseless name-calling, but there's a big difference between respectful disagreement and disrespectful childishness.
Is Schmidt a coward herself? You make the call.
But what other word do you have for someone who took such a cheap shot at a distinguished American, hid from public view when the public turned against her, and now can't even understand what she did that was so wrong?
**********
Around the blogosphere:
The Carpetbagger Report: "For what it's worth, Schmidt may represent a conservative Ohio district, but her callous style and personal attacks aren't boosting her popularity back home. At least two Republicans who ran against her in this year's special election have expressed interest in taking Schmidt on in a GOP primary again next year."
The Moderate Voice: "Schmidt has a problem. Clearly, Bush and Cheney wouldn't have suddenly done all but twist themselves into pretzels to try and change their position enough to try and defuse the Murtha controversy unless they discovered they were suddenly facing big problems. Evidently, they got some very negative feedback and had to shift gears — fast. Polls? Calls from other Republicans? Expressions of dismay from members of the first Bush administration?"
See also Hullabaloo, Talking Points Memo, The Heretik, Firedoglake, and Middle Earth Journal.
Rep. Jean Schmidt flung the word "coward" at a decorated war veteran from Pennsylvania last week, but the Ohio Republican's comments landed with a splat in her own Cincinnati district, where some supporters are backing away as she scrambles to explain what she meant.
Judging by her words yesterday -- the first after avoiding the public for three days -- Schmidt doesn't understand what the fuss is about, and sees herself more as victim than villain. "I am amazed at what a national story this has become," she said in a statement. "I have been attacked very personally, continuously since Friday evening."
Well, boo-hoo. Is it at all surprising that Saturday Night Live made fun of her? Or that The Cincinnati Enquirer criticized her? Or that her own friends are backing away from her? Sure, there's a lot of partisanship in Washington, a lot of senseless name-calling, but there's a big difference between respectful disagreement and disrespectful childishness.
Is Schmidt a coward herself? You make the call.
But what other word do you have for someone who took such a cheap shot at a distinguished American, hid from public view when the public turned against her, and now can't even understand what she did that was so wrong?
**********
Around the blogosphere:
The Carpetbagger Report: "For what it's worth, Schmidt may represent a conservative Ohio district, but her callous style and personal attacks aren't boosting her popularity back home. At least two Republicans who ran against her in this year's special election have expressed interest in taking Schmidt on in a GOP primary again next year."
The Moderate Voice: "Schmidt has a problem. Clearly, Bush and Cheney wouldn't have suddenly done all but twist themselves into pretzels to try and change their position enough to try and defuse the Murtha controversy unless they discovered they were suddenly facing big problems. Evidently, they got some very negative feedback and had to shift gears — fast. Polls? Calls from other Republicans? Expressions of dismay from members of the first Bush administration?"
See also Hullabaloo, Talking Points Memo, The Heretik, Firedoglake, and Middle Earth Journal.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Pentagon calls white phosphorus a chemical weapon
On November 9 and 17 of this year, I addressed the use of white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, by U.S. forces in Iraq. Reaction from readers was, well, intense.
You can find those posts here and here.
No one thinks that WP is a humane weapon, and no one denies that it was used in Iraq, specifically in Fallujah, but one of the central questions of the discussion, both here and elsewhere, has revolved around whether or not it's a chemical weapon. The answer, I thought, was no.
But now Think Progress alerts us to a declassified Pentagon document that suggests otherwise: "A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled 'Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical' describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:
In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies."
See also Daily Kos: "About the most frustrating thing about the White Phosphorus "debate" has been the endless discussion whether it's a chemical weapon or not. There are legitimate uses for WP -- battlefield illumination and target spotting -- but use as a battlefield munition has apparently been a big supposed question mark. This regardless the fact that WP objectively behaves like a chemical weapon."
And Seeing the Forest (with links to various right-wing apologists).
You can find those posts here and here.
No one thinks that WP is a humane weapon, and no one denies that it was used in Iraq, specifically in Fallujah, but one of the central questions of the discussion, both here and elsewhere, has revolved around whether or not it's a chemical weapon. The answer, I thought, was no.
But now Think Progress alerts us to a declassified Pentagon document that suggests otherwise: "A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled 'Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical' describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:
IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]
IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.
In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies."
See also Daily Kos: "About the most frustrating thing about the White Phosphorus "debate" has been the endless discussion whether it's a chemical weapon or not. There are legitimate uses for WP -- battlefield illumination and target spotting -- but use as a battlefield munition has apparently been a big supposed question mark. This regardless the fact that WP objectively behaves like a chemical weapon."
And Seeing the Forest (with links to various right-wing apologists).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
