By Michael J.W. Stickings
McCain on O'Reilly. An ugly exchange.
Discussing the (sensible, compromise) immigration bill, O'Reilly said this: "But do you understand what The New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number... But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don't know, I don't know. We've got to cap it."
And McCain responded: "We do, we do. I agree with you."
O'Reilly and McCain -- defending "the white, Christian, male power structure". Which is to say -- promoting a racist, sexist theocracy.
Rarely are we provided with such insight into the conservative mind.
Steve Benen comments: "Think about it — if a KKK official appeared on Fox News, wouldn’t you expect him to make similar comments?" Yes, absolutely. And this is not just as offensive as what Don Imus said, it's far more serious. But why won't Bill O'Reilly be fired and, as justice would have it, consigned to irrelevance and obscurity, if not oblivion? Because of the ratings, because conservatives love him. Those who also desire a racist, sexist theocracy -- and America isn't one (anymore -- or yet), whatever the signs, even if he thinks (or hopes) it is -- will keep him right where he is, spewing his venom night after night.
Here's the YouTube clip (also at the Dems' website). The exchange quoted above comes near the end, but the entire clip is instructive:
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Just another month in the life and death of Iraq V
By Michael J.W. Stickings
We haven't done one of these since last October, if I'm not mistaken. Why again now? May 2007 warrants the extra attention. The depressing facts, from Reuters (@ The Star):
Add to the 122 dead the countless Iraqis and others who died violent deaths this month throughout the country. That's the human toll of this disastrous war.
And there is more to come -- much more -- even with the war over four years old and with success as it was originally understood essentially an impossibility. The warmonger-in-chief, who keeps redefining "success" to fit the failure of his misadventure, has predicted that the summer, and particularly August could be particularly bloody.
Consider what that might mean, given what has happened this May 2007.
We haven't done one of these since last October, if I'm not mistaken. Why again now? May 2007 warrants the extra attention. The depressing facts, from Reuters (@ The Star):
The U.S. military reported three more deaths in Iraq today, taking the death toll to 122 for May, already the worst month for U.S. forces there in more than two years.
May is the third-worst month overall in the campaign for U.S. soldiers, behind November 2004, when 137 soldiers died, and April 2004, when 135 were killed.
A total of 3,473 U.S. soldiers have been killed since the start of the invasion in March 2003.
Add to the 122 dead the countless Iraqis and others who died violent deaths this month throughout the country. That's the human toll of this disastrous war.
And there is more to come -- much more -- even with the war over four years old and with success as it was originally understood essentially an impossibility. The warmonger-in-chief, who keeps redefining "success" to fit the failure of his misadventure, has predicted that the summer, and particularly August could be particularly bloody.
Consider what that might mean, given what has happened this May 2007.
Creature's Corner
By Creature
I am a 77 year-old man who works as a columnist for a major newspaper in Washington DC (some call me the "dean" of all DC columnists, go me!). I generally consider myself a serious person, but lately I've been finding myself searching for ponies in unlikely places. Yes, ponies. I never had a pony growing up, could this be the reason for my searching? Help me, Creature. I need to know if this is normal.
ASS, ASS, ASS, You need to get out more. While never having had a pony may cause one to search for ponies in unlikely places, this obsessive searching can be attributed more to the fact that your head is stuck so far up the collective asses of the DC establishment you simply can't see that there are no ponies and there never will be. You may think you are a serious person, ASS, but your pony search is downright silly.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
I am a 77 year-old man who works as a columnist for a major newspaper in Washington DC (some call me the "dean" of all DC columnists, go me!). I generally consider myself a serious person, but lately I've been finding myself searching for ponies in unlikely places. Yes, ponies. I never had a pony growing up, could this be the reason for my searching? Help me, Creature. I need to know if this is normal.-Always Searching Somewhere
ASS, ASS, ASS, You need to get out more. While never having had a pony may cause one to search for ponies in unlikely places, this obsessive searching can be attributed more to the fact that your head is stuck so far up the collective asses of the DC establishment you simply can't see that there are no ponies and there never will be. You may think you are a serious person, ASS, but your pony search is downright silly.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
ZACH- THE AMAZING 3 YEAR OLD ARTIST ! ! !
THIS KID HAS AN INCREDIBLE SENSE OF SPACE AND MOVEMENT! WOW !!!
By Zeus, he's running!
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Fred Thompson, that is. So says The Politico. And The Weekly Standard. And The Washington Post, which is reporting that this second coming of Ronald Reagan (or so his delusional admirers imagine him to be -- but, then, most admirers of Reagan are delusional, too) "will offer himself as a down-home antidote to Washington politics in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, running a campaign out of Nashville while promising leadership on a conservative agenda that will appeal to his party's base".
Can you feel the excitement? It's palpable. (Oh, wait, sorry. I was just sitting on a thumbtack.)
Well, the right is excited. How could it not be, what with Giuliani, McCain, and Romney running 1-2-3 in the polls, three rather undesirably candidates for GOP loyalists? See Ed Morrissey, for example, whose enthusiasm is at least admirably restrained.
Many others have responded to the news, too -- see Memeorandum -- but let me single out, as I often do, my friend Melissa McEwan, who put it so well: "While some might say that the GOP’s palpable desperation for an heir to Reagan’s throne became completely pathetic once they fixed their sights on another actor, I would argue that it’s always been completely pathetic, but now has simply just been taken to a riotous level of literalism." (Her post is hilarious, by the way.)
It's all a big fantasy, see, but it makes sense given that Republicans have made fantasyland their own. Thompson (Fred, not Tommy) is perhaps more likeable than any of the other GOP hopefuls, as Melissa suggests, but that's not saying much at all. What's all so laughable about this is that Republicans seem to be confusing the actor with the character (on Law & Order, if not in The Hunt for Red October and Die Hard 2). But who better to lead a party that lives in fantasyland than an actor?
I don't have much to add to what I've already said about Freddy T. in many, many previous posts -- see them all here, or go directly to these: The Fred Thompson romance, Politics and entertainment: The fact and fiction of Fred Thompson, Imaginary politics, and Too much like McCain? Suffice it to say that although he's been making an Oscar-caliber effort (at least by the rather low standards of Republican actors) to portray himself (as any actor might) as a Reagan conservative who is both social conservative and authoritarian warmonger -- that is, who is very much in line with the party base -- the record (i.e., the truth) is rather more nuanced than the performance would have the delusional gaping-mouthers on the right believe (because they oh-so want to believe, because they oh-so need to believe).
Fred Thompson may be sincere in his desire to seek the presidency, but nothing smacks of Republican desperation quite like the excitement his presumptive candidacy has generated.
Fred Thompson, that is. So says The Politico. And The Weekly Standard. And The Washington Post, which is reporting that this second coming of Ronald Reagan (or so his delusional admirers imagine him to be -- but, then, most admirers of Reagan are delusional, too) "will offer himself as a down-home antidote to Washington politics in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, running a campaign out of Nashville while promising leadership on a conservative agenda that will appeal to his party's base".
Can you feel the excitement? It's palpable. (Oh, wait, sorry. I was just sitting on a thumbtack.)
Well, the right is excited. How could it not be, what with Giuliani, McCain, and Romney running 1-2-3 in the polls, three rather undesirably candidates for GOP loyalists? See Ed Morrissey, for example, whose enthusiasm is at least admirably restrained.
Many others have responded to the news, too -- see Memeorandum -- but let me single out, as I often do, my friend Melissa McEwan, who put it so well: "While some might say that the GOP’s palpable desperation for an heir to Reagan’s throne became completely pathetic once they fixed their sights on another actor, I would argue that it’s always been completely pathetic, but now has simply just been taken to a riotous level of literalism." (Her post is hilarious, by the way.)
It's all a big fantasy, see, but it makes sense given that Republicans have made fantasyland their own. Thompson (Fred, not Tommy) is perhaps more likeable than any of the other GOP hopefuls, as Melissa suggests, but that's not saying much at all. What's all so laughable about this is that Republicans seem to be confusing the actor with the character (on Law & Order, if not in The Hunt for Red October and Die Hard 2). But who better to lead a party that lives in fantasyland than an actor?
I don't have much to add to what I've already said about Freddy T. in many, many previous posts -- see them all here, or go directly to these: The Fred Thompson romance, Politics and entertainment: The fact and fiction of Fred Thompson, Imaginary politics, and Too much like McCain? Suffice it to say that although he's been making an Oscar-caliber effort (at least by the rather low standards of Republican actors) to portray himself (as any actor might) as a Reagan conservative who is both social conservative and authoritarian warmonger -- that is, who is very much in line with the party base -- the record (i.e., the truth) is rather more nuanced than the performance would have the delusional gaping-mouthers on the right believe (because they oh-so want to believe, because they oh-so need to believe).
Fred Thompson may be sincere in his desire to seek the presidency, but nothing smacks of Republican desperation quite like the excitement his presumptive candidacy has generated.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Another neocon at The World Bank
By Michael J.W. Stickings
President Bush has tapped Robert Zoellick, Goldman Sachs executive and former deputy secretary of state, to head The World Bank. And because Bush says so, it's a go. It is the president of the United States who nominates the World Bank president -- and the position is always given to an American -- but any nomination is merely a formality. The banks's executive board will appoint Zoellick just as it appoints (i.e., rubber stamps) every other nominee.
There is no good reason for this to be the case. Why should the president of the United States be the one effectively to fill the position with his (or her) own nominee? Why should the position always go to an American? Why, more specifically, should the position always go to a partisan of the president?
Well, of course, because The World Bank is an instrument of American global hegemony. It always has been. That was the original intent, for all intents and purposes, and nothing has changed. If other countries approved of this, it was only because they approved of American global hegemony at least to some degree. This should change. China, Brazil, South Africa, India, and Russia, along with others, are right to call for a new and open process to select World Bank presidents. But the U.S. will refuse. Why would it agree to have its hegemonic position weakened? (It's already doing a stellar job weakening itself.)
For, though, it's Zoellick, and people seem to be happy with his nomination. He's no Wolfowitz, after all -- though, of course, pretty much anyone would have been an improvement over the outgoing president. And is there good reason for them to be happy? Perhaps. He seems to know where Africa is, which is good, and he has already presented himself as an internationalist. An American internationalist, but still. Even the European seem to like him.
BUT: Let's not give him a free pass just yet. He's a Wall Street insider whose emphasis may turn out to be on maximizing Wall Street profits. And there's more. He may be presenting himself as an internationalist, and he may be receiving a warm welcome because he's not Wolfowitz, but, like Wolfowitz, he's a committed neoconservative. (See here.)
He was, for example, one of the signatories to a now-infamous 1998 letter from the Project for the New American Century to President Clinton calling for "the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power". The other signatories amounted to a who's-who of the neocon movement and Bush foreign policy team, including Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Richard Perle, and, yes, Paul Wolfowitz. Indeed, though he may very well be more of an internationalist than some of his nationalist neocon brethren, he has long been an enthusiastic supporter of the neocon movement and of Bush's foreign policy, including the Iraq War and the war on terror. His own writings show that he sounded a lot like Bush well before Bush himself ever did.
What this means is that whatever his commitment to international development, which may be genuine, and whatever his commitment to Wall Street, which may be profound, it is likely that Zoellick will use his position as World Bank president to advance what he perceives to be American national self-interest. Like other neocons, he is something of a neo-Wilsonian idealist, but, also like them, he is first and foremost an American nationalist who believes in American exceptionalism and the prospect of -- and (PNAC) project for -- American global hegemony. The neocons like to think of such hegemony as benevolent, but much of the rest of the world, and many Americans themselves, know that this is a sham.
Which is not to say that Zoellick's World Bank presidency will be overtly malevolent. It's just that in many important ways Zoellick is just like his soon-to-be predecessor. And that should be of serious concern not just to critics of neoconservatism, and there are many of us, but to everyone who desires a global community, and development within that community, that is not ultimately subservient to American nationalism.
President Bush has tapped Robert Zoellick, Goldman Sachs executive and former deputy secretary of state, to head The World Bank. And because Bush says so, it's a go. It is the president of the United States who nominates the World Bank president -- and the position is always given to an American -- but any nomination is merely a formality. The banks's executive board will appoint Zoellick just as it appoints (i.e., rubber stamps) every other nominee.
There is no good reason for this to be the case. Why should the president of the United States be the one effectively to fill the position with his (or her) own nominee? Why should the position always go to an American? Why, more specifically, should the position always go to a partisan of the president?
Well, of course, because The World Bank is an instrument of American global hegemony. It always has been. That was the original intent, for all intents and purposes, and nothing has changed. If other countries approved of this, it was only because they approved of American global hegemony at least to some degree. This should change. China, Brazil, South Africa, India, and Russia, along with others, are right to call for a new and open process to select World Bank presidents. But the U.S. will refuse. Why would it agree to have its hegemonic position weakened? (It's already doing a stellar job weakening itself.)
For, though, it's Zoellick, and people seem to be happy with his nomination. He's no Wolfowitz, after all -- though, of course, pretty much anyone would have been an improvement over the outgoing president. And is there good reason for them to be happy? Perhaps. He seems to know where Africa is, which is good, and he has already presented himself as an internationalist. An American internationalist, but still. Even the European seem to like him.
BUT: Let's not give him a free pass just yet. He's a Wall Street insider whose emphasis may turn out to be on maximizing Wall Street profits. And there's more. He may be presenting himself as an internationalist, and he may be receiving a warm welcome because he's not Wolfowitz, but, like Wolfowitz, he's a committed neoconservative. (See here.)
He was, for example, one of the signatories to a now-infamous 1998 letter from the Project for the New American Century to President Clinton calling for "the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power". The other signatories amounted to a who's-who of the neocon movement and Bush foreign policy team, including Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Richard Perle, and, yes, Paul Wolfowitz. Indeed, though he may very well be more of an internationalist than some of his nationalist neocon brethren, he has long been an enthusiastic supporter of the neocon movement and of Bush's foreign policy, including the Iraq War and the war on terror. His own writings show that he sounded a lot like Bush well before Bush himself ever did.
What this means is that whatever his commitment to international development, which may be genuine, and whatever his commitment to Wall Street, which may be profound, it is likely that Zoellick will use his position as World Bank president to advance what he perceives to be American national self-interest. Like other neocons, he is something of a neo-Wilsonian idealist, but, also like them, he is first and foremost an American nationalist who believes in American exceptionalism and the prospect of -- and (PNAC) project for -- American global hegemony. The neocons like to think of such hegemony as benevolent, but much of the rest of the world, and many Americans themselves, know that this is a sham.
Which is not to say that Zoellick's World Bank presidency will be overtly malevolent. It's just that in many important ways Zoellick is just like his soon-to-be predecessor. And that should be of serious concern not just to critics of neoconservatism, and there are many of us, but to everyone who desires a global community, and development within that community, that is not ultimately subservient to American nationalism.
New Zealand energy company shuts off power, woman dies
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Seriously:
The company, Mercury Energy, claims not to have known about the machine. The woman's family claimed it told a company representative about the machine and what would happen if the electricity was shut off. One is tempted to believe the family, though of course the representative -- i.e., a technician -- was probably just doing his job. But who knows? Maybe the company, as it put it, was indeed "simply unaware that loss of electricity to the household was putting a vulnerable customer at risk". And since the woman, a schoolteacher, was on leave for medical reasons and behind on her bills (likely well behind on her bills), one wonders why she, or her family, didn't prepare for this possible eventuality with a back-up system.
Regardless of who knew what, it's a pretty awful story.
Seriously:
A New Zealand woman on an oxygen machine died after an energy firm switched off her power supply because of unpaid bills, her family claims.
Folole Muliaga, a 44-year-old mother of four, died within two hours of the electricity being switched off at her home in the northern city of Auckland.
The company, Mercury Energy, claims not to have known about the machine. The woman's family claimed it told a company representative about the machine and what would happen if the electricity was shut off. One is tempted to believe the family, though of course the representative -- i.e., a technician -- was probably just doing his job. But who knows? Maybe the company, as it put it, was indeed "simply unaware that loss of electricity to the household was putting a vulnerable customer at risk". And since the woman, a schoolteacher, was on leave for medical reasons and behind on her bills (likely well behind on her bills), one wonders why she, or her family, didn't prepare for this possible eventuality with a back-up system.
Regardless of who knew what, it's a pretty awful story.
Bush, the Nazis, and torture
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Andrew Sullivan has an extremely important post up -- he put it up yesterday, but I'm just now getting back to blogging after a day off to rest -- on the similarities between the Nazis' interrogation techniques (or methods of examination) and those approved for use by Bush and his underlings (and approved, too, by many of his supporters). Make sure to read his entire post. Here are some comments:
The Germans call it verschärfte Vernehmung, which means "enhanced" or "intensified" or "sharpened" interrogation. Andrew includes a Gestapo directive that outlines when such interrogation may be use, on whom it may be used, why it may be used, and what methods may be applied. As Andrew explains, "[t]he methods... are indistinguishable from those described as 'enhanced interrogation techniques' by the president". But he also notes that Bush has gone even further than the Nazis: "Also: the use of hypothermia, authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld, was initially forbidden. 'Waterboarding' was forbidden too, unlike that authorized by Bush."
Of course, the Nazis went much further than this. The U.S. has, too, but not nearly as far, and so the comparison between Bush and the Nazis must be understood in context. Still, what Andrew shows is that "[t]he Nazi defense of the techniques is almost verbatim that of the Bush administration," and he provides extensive evidence to show even more similarities, including the approved use of "stress positions," "repeated beatings," "[f]reezing prisoners to near-death," and the "withholding of medicine and leaving wounded or sick prisoners alone in cells for days on end".
The word "interrogation" is a euphemism. This is torture -- and nothing less. It's what went on in places like Dachau. More recently, it's what's been going on in U.S. detention facilities around the world as "authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld," not to mention Cheney, Gonzales, and other officials, elected and unelected alike, and as supported by many Republicans in Congress and many mainstream conservatives, including prominent pundits, bloggers, and media personalities like Charles Krauthammer, Glenn Reynolds, and Rush Limbaugh. Here's more from Andrew:
No, I'm not suggesting capital punishment (and Andrew isn't either, of course), which I'm against. But consider the historical context for what Bush is doing as president. That he has abused his authority to wield power like the Nazis, and with such arrogance and brutality, should be viewed as one of the defining elements of his presidency. If America is an empire in decline, and if there is, as I think there is, a sickness eating away at its soul, there can be little doubt that a symptom of that sickness and decline, one that is spreading the sickness and accelerating the decline, that is blocking any attempt at recovery and making everything so much worse, can be found at the very apex of government, in the White House and in the various corridors of power occupied by those who have turned Lincoln's last, best hope into a savage instrument of oppression.
Andrew Sullivan has an extremely important post up -- he put it up yesterday, but I'm just now getting back to blogging after a day off to rest -- on the similarities between the Nazis' interrogation techniques (or methods of examination) and those approved for use by Bush and his underlings (and approved, too, by many of his supporters). Make sure to read his entire post. Here are some comments:
The Germans call it verschärfte Vernehmung, which means "enhanced" or "intensified" or "sharpened" interrogation. Andrew includes a Gestapo directive that outlines when such interrogation may be use, on whom it may be used, why it may be used, and what methods may be applied. As Andrew explains, "[t]he methods... are indistinguishable from those described as 'enhanced interrogation techniques' by the president". But he also notes that Bush has gone even further than the Nazis: "Also: the use of hypothermia, authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld, was initially forbidden. 'Waterboarding' was forbidden too, unlike that authorized by Bush."
Of course, the Nazis went much further than this. The U.S. has, too, but not nearly as far, and so the comparison between Bush and the Nazis must be understood in context. Still, what Andrew shows is that "[t]he Nazi defense of the techniques is almost verbatim that of the Bush administration," and he provides extensive evidence to show even more similarities, including the approved use of "stress positions," "repeated beatings," "[f]reezing prisoners to near-death," and the "withholding of medicine and leaving wounded or sick prisoners alone in cells for days on end".
The word "interrogation" is a euphemism. This is torture -- and nothing less. It's what went on in places like Dachau. More recently, it's what's been going on in U.S. detention facilities around the world as "authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld," not to mention Cheney, Gonzales, and other officials, elected and unelected alike, and as supported by many Republicans in Congress and many mainstream conservatives, including prominent pundits, bloggers, and media personalities like Charles Krauthammer, Glenn Reynolds, and Rush Limbaugh. Here's more from Andrew:
Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture -- "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death.
No, I'm not suggesting capital punishment (and Andrew isn't either, of course), which I'm against. But consider the historical context for what Bush is doing as president. That he has abused his authority to wield power like the Nazis, and with such arrogance and brutality, should be viewed as one of the defining elements of his presidency. If America is an empire in decline, and if there is, as I think there is, a sickness eating away at its soul, there can be little doubt that a symptom of that sickness and decline, one that is spreading the sickness and accelerating the decline, that is blocking any attempt at recovery and making everything so much worse, can be found at the very apex of government, in the White House and in the various corridors of power occupied by those who have turned Lincoln's last, best hope into a savage instrument of oppression.
The Korean model
By Creature
Reuters (via ThinkProgress):
Josh Marshall pokes all the appropriate holes in this disingenuous presidential desire -- mainly that we are protecting the South Koreans from the North, not from themselves -- however, Mr. Marshall calls the statement another example of how "the White House is seriously out of touch with both history and reality when it comes to Iraq." I would propose that this statement, linking Iraq to the successful long-term operation in South Korea, is not at all delusional. I would propose it's a very deliberate attempt at mischaracterizing the Iraq war to make our long term presence there a more palatable idea to the American people. After all, we don't have a chorus of Americans clamoring for us get out of South Korea.
So, yes, while the White House appears to be out-of-touch to those like Mr. Marshall, who know history and have been paying attention for the last few years, to a good number of Americans the administration's out-of-touch-ness is an attempt at muddying the argument for withdrawal and to confuse them just the same.
Besides incompetence, "muddying and confusing" is what this White House does best.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Reuters (via ThinkProgress):
President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.
The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.
Democrats in control of the U.S. Congress have been pressing Bush to agree to a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq, an idea firmly opposed by the president.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea.
"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters.
Josh Marshall pokes all the appropriate holes in this disingenuous presidential desire -- mainly that we are protecting the South Koreans from the North, not from themselves -- however, Mr. Marshall calls the statement another example of how "the White House is seriously out of touch with both history and reality when it comes to Iraq." I would propose that this statement, linking Iraq to the successful long-term operation in South Korea, is not at all delusional. I would propose it's a very deliberate attempt at mischaracterizing the Iraq war to make our long term presence there a more palatable idea to the American people. After all, we don't have a chorus of Americans clamoring for us get out of South Korea.
So, yes, while the White House appears to be out-of-touch to those like Mr. Marshall, who know history and have been paying attention for the last few years, to a good number of Americans the administration's out-of-touch-ness is an attempt at muddying the argument for withdrawal and to confuse them just the same.
Besides incompetence, "muddying and confusing" is what this White House does best.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Heil Bush
By Creature
I can't break down the minutia of the Valerie Plame outing like some on the Interwebs can, but I can recognize denial when I see it, and today the Right side of the Sphere is in serious denial over the fact that Valerie Plame was indeed "covert" at the time of her outing and that the people deemed serious about national security are anything but. Their loyalty to all things Bush, over all things country, Constitution, and reason, is beyond disturbing.
Update: Glenn Greenwald chronicles the Wingnut "covert" denial.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
I can't break down the minutia of the Valerie Plame outing like some on the Interwebs can, but I can recognize denial when I see it, and today the Right side of the Sphere is in serious denial over the fact that Valerie Plame was indeed "covert" at the time of her outing and that the people deemed serious about national security are anything but. Their loyalty to all things Bush, over all things country, Constitution, and reason, is beyond disturbing.
Update: Glenn Greenwald chronicles the Wingnut "covert" denial.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
ALLISON STOKKE- WORLD'S HOTTEST POLEVAULTER !
SHE INTERVIEWS WELL. THIS KID HAS A PROMISING FUTURE !
THE STORY OF HER ANGRY FATHER
MANY MORE PICS HERE
MEN IN THEIR 30'S EARN LESS THAN THEIR DADS ?
Study of incomes for men in 30s: Dad had it better
By Seattle Times news services
American men in their 30s today are worse off than their fathers' generation, a reversal from a decade ago, when sons generally were better off than their fathers, a new study finds.
The study also says the typical American family's income has lagged far behind productivity growth since 2000, a departure from most of the post-World War II period.
The findings suggest "the up escalator that has historically ensured that each generation would do better than the last may not be working very well," says the study, released Friday.
Family incomes of 30-something men have continued to rise in recent decades, but mostly because more of their wives are working, the study's authors said. Yet even with the addition of women's paychecks, the rate of family-income growth has slowed.
Along with data showing more workers are earning less in comparison with the incomes of top earners, the report suggests a growing number of Americans "believe that the rules of the game are no longer fair," said John Morton, director of the Economic Mobility Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts and one of the study's lead authors.
Median income down
In 2004, the median income for a man in his 30s was $35,010, the study says, 12 percent less than for men in their 30s in 1974 — their fathers' generation — adjusted for inflation. In 1994, median income for men in their 30s was $32,901, 5 percent higher than 30 years earlier.
The median is the midpoint: half of men earn more, half earn less.
Researchers focused on that age group because income in one's 30s is a good predictor of lifetime income, according to the report.
advertising
Outsourcing and the demise of higher-paying manufacturing jobs have contributed to the stagnation in men's incomes, Morton said. The influx of well-educated women into the work force since the 1970s also might have exerted downward pressure on men's wages, he said.
Freelance television editor Chapen Hayslett, 31, of Los Angeles, said he earns between $48,000 and $50,000 when he works steadily, a figure he says is probably less than his father made at the same age as an Air Force officer.
Hayslett said the $80,000 in student loans he accumulated earning his film degree at the University of Southern California might have limited his earning potential, at least in the short run. "I didn't have the ability to take as many risks in taking jobs or being more decisive," he said. "It was ... oh my God, I need a job."
Across political spectrum
The Pew report is the first in a planned series of studies on economic mobility drawing together researchers representing think tanks from across the political spectrum, including the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation on the right and the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute on the left.
The generational income gap highlights troubling questions, Morton said, including what happens if an increasing percentage of Americans believe the American dream "is off-limits to them."
The report also found that between 1947 and 1974, productivity, or output per hour, and median family income, adjusted for inflation, roughly doubled. Between 1974 and 2000, however, productivity rose 56 percent while income rose 29 percent. Between 2000 and 2005, productivity rose 16 percent while median income fell 2 percent, challenging "the notion that a rising tide will lift all boats," the report says.
Isabel Sawhill, of the Brookings Institution, another lead author of the report, said several factors could explain the divergence: a growing share of income going to the highest-paid workers, or to profits; an increased share of labor compensation going toward benefits such as health care; or a decline in the number of wage earners, or hours worked, in the typical family.
Bill Beach, of the Heritage Foundation, said increased immigration could have pulled down median wages, since most immigrants at first earn less than native-born workers. But he said their incomes may also move up more rapidly in subsequent years.
Careerist baby boomers
Diehard careerist baby boomers also might partly explain the inability of 30-something men to move up the income ladder as quickly as their fathers. From the moment Generation Xers entered the workplace, boomers have been the "ceiling" blocking their way up the income ladder, said Peter Rose, a partner with marketing-research company Yankelovich in Los Angeles.
"The boomers stand out in defining themselves in terms of their work and have shown a disinclination to get out of the way," he said.
Freelancer Hayslett said he thinks there's another factor: "Honestly, it seems that women are more together," he said. They're more stable and focused, he said, compared with "a lot of guys who feel so frustrated that they tend to move around and leave."
Material from The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times is
included in this report.
By Seattle Times news services
American men in their 30s today are worse off than their fathers' generation, a reversal from a decade ago, when sons generally were better off than their fathers, a new study finds.
The study also says the typical American family's income has lagged far behind productivity growth since 2000, a departure from most of the post-World War II period.
The findings suggest "the up escalator that has historically ensured that each generation would do better than the last may not be working very well," says the study, released Friday.
Family incomes of 30-something men have continued to rise in recent decades, but mostly because more of their wives are working, the study's authors said. Yet even with the addition of women's paychecks, the rate of family-income growth has slowed.
Along with data showing more workers are earning less in comparison with the incomes of top earners, the report suggests a growing number of Americans "believe that the rules of the game are no longer fair," said John Morton, director of the Economic Mobility Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts and one of the study's lead authors.
Median income down
In 2004, the median income for a man in his 30s was $35,010, the study says, 12 percent less than for men in their 30s in 1974 — their fathers' generation — adjusted for inflation. In 1994, median income for men in their 30s was $32,901, 5 percent higher than 30 years earlier.
The median is the midpoint: half of men earn more, half earn less.
Researchers focused on that age group because income in one's 30s is a good predictor of lifetime income, according to the report.
advertising
Outsourcing and the demise of higher-paying manufacturing jobs have contributed to the stagnation in men's incomes, Morton said. The influx of well-educated women into the work force since the 1970s also might have exerted downward pressure on men's wages, he said.
Freelance television editor Chapen Hayslett, 31, of Los Angeles, said he earns between $48,000 and $50,000 when he works steadily, a figure he says is probably less than his father made at the same age as an Air Force officer.
Hayslett said the $80,000 in student loans he accumulated earning his film degree at the University of Southern California might have limited his earning potential, at least in the short run. "I didn't have the ability to take as many risks in taking jobs or being more decisive," he said. "It was ... oh my God, I need a job."
Across political spectrum
The Pew report is the first in a planned series of studies on economic mobility drawing together researchers representing think tanks from across the political spectrum, including the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation on the right and the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute on the left.
The generational income gap highlights troubling questions, Morton said, including what happens if an increasing percentage of Americans believe the American dream "is off-limits to them."
The report also found that between 1947 and 1974, productivity, or output per hour, and median family income, adjusted for inflation, roughly doubled. Between 1974 and 2000, however, productivity rose 56 percent while income rose 29 percent. Between 2000 and 2005, productivity rose 16 percent while median income fell 2 percent, challenging "the notion that a rising tide will lift all boats," the report says.
Isabel Sawhill, of the Brookings Institution, another lead author of the report, said several factors could explain the divergence: a growing share of income going to the highest-paid workers, or to profits; an increased share of labor compensation going toward benefits such as health care; or a decline in the number of wage earners, or hours worked, in the typical family.
Bill Beach, of the Heritage Foundation, said increased immigration could have pulled down median wages, since most immigrants at first earn less than native-born workers. But he said their incomes may also move up more rapidly in subsequent years.
Careerist baby boomers
Diehard careerist baby boomers also might partly explain the inability of 30-something men to move up the income ladder as quickly as their fathers. From the moment Generation Xers entered the workplace, boomers have been the "ceiling" blocking their way up the income ladder, said Peter Rose, a partner with marketing-research company Yankelovich in Los Angeles.
"The boomers stand out in defining themselves in terms of their work and have shown a disinclination to get out of the way," he said.
Freelancer Hayslett said he thinks there's another factor: "Honestly, it seems that women are more together," he said. They're more stable and focused, he said, compared with "a lot of guys who feel so frustrated that they tend to move around and leave."
Material from The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times is
included in this report.
CONTROVERSIAL CHINESE CLASSROOM VIDEO
THIS VIDEO HAS OUTRAGED THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT! THESE KIDS ARE ACTING LIKE AMERICAN SCHOOL KIDS! ITS ANARCHY !
YEAH HE'LL BE IN A LABOR CAMP BEFORE GRADUATION !
YEAH HE'LL BE IN A LABOR CAMP BEFORE GRADUATION !
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
NEW BIG ASS SMITH & WESSON HANDGUN ! ! !
MODEL 500 S&W MAGNUM REVOLVER
In the 1971 movie "Dirty Harry," actor Clint Eastwood introduced the world to the double-action Smith & Wesson Model 29 .44-cal. Magnum revolver--"the most powerful handgun in the world."
It was a crown S&W wore proudly, albeit briefly.
The rising popularity of handgun hunting for big game (spurred largely by the .44 Magnum itself) prompted the introduction of newer and significantly more powerful revolver cartridges. Many powerful enough that they had to be chambered in single-action handguns because existing double-action designs could not contain the recoil forces and pressures they produced.
Since S&W does not make single-action revolvers, and no double-action frame at its disposal could handle the new loads, S&W was effectively dethroned.
At the 2003 Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show, the manufacturer regained its crown. And, most significantly, it did it by introducing a new massive double-action revolver that is chambered for an equally new .50-cal. cartridge.
The S&W X-frame Model 500 is a brawny handgun designed to master the most rigorous hunting fields in the world. It is not a revolver one would, or likely could, tuck into a waistband. In fact, to call it massive is an understatement.
With its 8-3/8-in. barrel, the overall length of the Model 500 is 15 in. and the empty weight is 4.5 pounds. The cylinder alone is almost 2 in. in diameter and approaches 2.25 in. in length. Thumb the cylinder open and five charge holes await. Each is 1/2 in. in diameter, and the .50-cal. cartridges they hold are almost 2 in. long. Load five of them and the total weight of the handgun climbs to 5 pounds.
You don't just casually pick up a Model 500. You have to lift it.
Fire even one of those big cartridges and you'll appreciate why the weight and mass are there.
When the .44 Magnum laid claim to being the most powerful handgun in the world, its standard load produced about 900 ft.-lb. of muzzle energy. Several new loads have since eclipsed that, but the handgun most commonly used by big game hunters is the .454 Casull, which will generate about 1900 ft.-lb.
The 500 S&W Magnum will produce almost 2600 ft.-lb. with its heaviest load, and more powerful loads may well be on the way.
If Dirty Harry felt that the .44 Magnum would make his day, the new 500 S&W Magnum would certainly make his decade. It is the largest double-action revolver available, and there is no production revolver in the world--single or double action--capable of matching, or even approaching, the level of power it produces.
Harnessing that power in a double-action revolver, however, required some departures from traditional desig
FULL STORY
PARIS HILTON FLASHING IN IBIZA ! ! !
OVER EXPOSED NEVER NOT FOR THE LIKES OF PARIS AND LINDSAY
Paris Hilton Exposed - video powered by Metacafe
Paris Hilton Exposed - video powered by Metacafe
WASHINGTONS NEW MONICA SCANDLE ! ! !
By Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas
Newsweek
June 4, 2007 issue - The United States Department of Justice has not always been above politics. John F. Kennedy, after all, appointed his brother and consigliere Robert to be attorney general. But the Justice Department is supposed to stand for the rule of law—to be the enforcer of the laws of the United States, not the place presidents go to get around the law. Independence is an important tradition in the columned limestone building on Constitution Avenue. It is worth remembering that before Richard Nixon could find someone at the Justice Department willing to fire the Watergate special prosecutor in 1973, he had to accept the resignations of the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, and the deputy attorney general, William Ruckelshaus. (Solicitor General Robert Bork finally did the deed.)
FULL STORY ON MSNBC.COM
HAPPY FEET TRAILER ! ! !
I LOVED THIS MOVIE AWESOME ANIMATION WITH REALISTIC LIGHT AND WATER EFFECTS
GREAT MUSICAL NUMBERS! THE STORYLINE IS MULTI LEVEL AND YOU CAN GET AS DEEP AS YOU DARE WITH IT!
ENVIRONMENTALISM,CONSUMERISM,XENOPHOBIA,ALIEN CONSPIRACY THEORIES !!!
THIS IS THE 500TH MIENFOKS POST! PATHETIC OR IMPRESSIVE ?
GREAT MUSICAL NUMBERS! THE STORYLINE IS MULTI LEVEL AND YOU CAN GET AS DEEP AS YOU DARE WITH IT!
ENVIRONMENTALISM,CONSUMERISM,XENOPHOBIA,ALIEN CONSPIRACY THEORIES !!!
THIS IS THE 500TH MIENFOKS POST! PATHETIC OR IMPRESSIVE ?
WHAT TO DO IF YOU GET CAUGHT CHEATING ? ? ?
FIRST DENY EVERYTHING THEN GET ANGRY FINALLY GRAB YOUR PAINT BALL GUN !!
Talking to Tehran
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Well, it's a start:
But there's the glaring problem: How is it possible to talk about Iraq without addressing Iran's nuclear program or U.S.-Iran relations more generally? Is it possible that the U.S. and Iran will find common ground with respect to Iraq? One wonders. As Yglesias puts it, "the Iranians are going to seek to thwart our goals," because "our goals in the Middle East include overthrowing the [Iranian] regime".
And so Cernig may be right with his skepticism: "Talking is almost always vastly preferable to bombing. However, I've a nasty feeling that these talks will, eventually, go nowhere -- and will then be held up as evidence of Iran's lack of amenability to diplomacy by pro-war Bush administration members and their enablers."
Somewhere, perhaps in some underground lair, Dick Cheney is smirking.
Well, it's a start:
The United States and Iran held their first official high-level, face-to-face talks in almost 30 years Monday to discuss the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, and officials emerged generally upbeat about the renewed dialogue, suggesting additional meetings were likely.
In briefings to reporters afterward, the chief negotiators -- U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker and Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, Hassan Kazemi Qomi -- said the talks focused solely on Iraq and did not stray into the contentious areas of Iran's nuclear program or the recent detentions of four Iranian American citizens by Tehran.
But there's the glaring problem: How is it possible to talk about Iraq without addressing Iran's nuclear program or U.S.-Iran relations more generally? Is it possible that the U.S. and Iran will find common ground with respect to Iraq? One wonders. As Yglesias puts it, "the Iranians are going to seek to thwart our goals," because "our goals in the Middle East include overthrowing the [Iranian] regime".
And so Cernig may be right with his skepticism: "Talking is almost always vastly preferable to bombing. However, I've a nasty feeling that these talks will, eventually, go nowhere -- and will then be held up as evidence of Iran's lack of amenability to diplomacy by pro-war Bush administration members and their enablers."
Somewhere, perhaps in some underground lair, Dick Cheney is smirking.
Monday, May 28, 2007
The Island goes Liberal
By Michael J.W. Stickings
In case you were wondering, the Liberals are back in power on Prince Edward Island. In yesterday's provincial election, they won 52.9 percent of the vote and 23 of the province's 27 districts to secure a solid majority in the legislature. The Progressive Conservatives, who were going for a fourth straight majority victory under Premier Pat Binns (first elected premier in 1996), were reduced to 41.4 percent of the vote and just four seats. The new premier will be Robert Ghiz. Voter turnout was 83.4 percent of registered voters.
Although the Conservatives looked unbeatable when the campaign kicked off, the Liberals ran a strong campaign, promising new spending on health care and education, a reduction in the gasoline tax, and a balanced budget. Meanwhile, the Conservatives made what were seen as desperate promises -- a new junior high school and health center in Stratford, as well as a new convention center in Charlottetown, without explaining where the money would come from. The province's main newspaper, The Guardian, had predicted a Liberal victory, but the magnitude of the victory comes as something of a surprise.
See The Guardian for more. As well, see Wikipedia (which includes the image below).
Tyranny of the airwaves
By Michael J.W. Stickings
As you may know, Venezuelan Tyrant Hugo Chavez has shut down Radio Caracas Television, calling it "subversive". This is what he does to his critics, and far worse. And those who are protesting this act of tyrannical censorship, this suppression of dissent, have been hit hard:
Freedom indeed. But what is freedom in Chavez's Venezuela?
Said RCTV talk show host Miguel Angel Rodriguez, "They will not silence us!" I hope he's right, but I'm afraid they will. Or, at leat, they'll try. This is how Chavez rules Venezuela.
Reuters has more here, as does CNN here, but make sure to check out Daniel's post at Venezuela News and Views here. He's my go-to blogger for all things Venezuelan, and he says this: "The distinction is important, a mangled freedom of expression still exists in Venezuela, but freedom of information is already lost." He predicts "violence ahead," with Chavez's opponents having no other outlet for their opposition. And this is precisely what Chavez wants, "excuses to tighten his grip and 'eliminate' those who oppose him. He already killed them with words this week, it is just a matter of time for him to act on his words."
Democracy, says Daniel, died in Venezuela a few years ago. What is left is the consolidation of Chavez's tyranny.
**********
Update: The BBC is reporting that Chavez is also going after another TV network, Globovision.
As you may know, Venezuelan Tyrant Hugo Chavez has shut down Radio Caracas Television, calling it "subversive". This is what he does to his critics, and far worse. And those who are protesting this act of tyrannical censorship, this suppression of dissent, have been hit hard:
Venezuelan police fired tear gas and plastic bullets Monday into a crowd of thousands protesting a decision by President Hugo Chavez that forced a television station critical of his leftist government off the air.
Police fired toward the crowd of up to 5,000 protesters from a raised highway, and protesters fled amid clouds of tear gas. They later regrouped in Caracas’ Plaza Brion chanting "freedom!" Some tossed rocks and bottles at police, prompting authorities to scatter demonstrators by firing more gas.
Freedom indeed. But what is freedom in Chavez's Venezuela?
Said RCTV talk show host Miguel Angel Rodriguez, "They will not silence us!" I hope he's right, but I'm afraid they will. Or, at leat, they'll try. This is how Chavez rules Venezuela.
Reuters has more here, as does CNN here, but make sure to check out Daniel's post at Venezuela News and Views here. He's my go-to blogger for all things Venezuelan, and he says this: "The distinction is important, a mangled freedom of expression still exists in Venezuela, but freedom of information is already lost." He predicts "violence ahead," with Chavez's opponents having no other outlet for their opposition. And this is precisely what Chavez wants, "excuses to tighten his grip and 'eliminate' those who oppose him. He already killed them with words this week, it is just a matter of time for him to act on his words."
Democracy, says Daniel, died in Venezuela a few years ago. What is left is the consolidation of Chavez's tyranny.
**********
Update: The BBC is reporting that Chavez is also going after another TV network, Globovision.
CRANK ! ! ! 5 MINUTE TEASER ! ! !
YOU HAVE GOT ONE HOUR TO LIVE !!! WHAT WOULD YOU DO ???
Online Videos by Veoh.com
THIS IS A REMAKE OF D.O.A.(1950) STARRING EDMUND OBRIEN ,HE HAD 24 HOURS!!!
Online Videos by Veoh.com
THIS IS A REMAKE OF D.O.A.(1950) STARRING EDMUND OBRIEN ,HE HAD 24 HOURS!!!
Headline of the Day
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Here's a good one:
Here's the story:
This begs certain questions: What exactly are "inappropriate attitudes"? What exactly needs to be examined? And what exactly would psychologists say to children about this "hidden homosexual insinuation"? Given "the emerging climate of racist, xenophobic and homophobic intolerance in Poland," as the European Parliament put it recently, one would be justified in thinking that no good will come of this.
**********
Update: BBC's headline -- Poland targets 'gay' Teletubbies.
Here's a good one:
Here's the story:
Poland's child rights ombudsman said on Monday she was investigating whether "The Teletubbies," the British television show for infants, promotes homosexuality.
"It would be good for a group of psychologists to talk to children about this. We need to examine this. If inappropriate attitudes have been promoted, we need to react," said Ewa Sowinska.
In an interview with the weekly news magazine Wprost, Sowinska said the character Tinky Winky was in the spotlight.
The plump purple creature is considered male due to his relative height, but carries a handbag.
"I have heard that this could be a hidden homosexual insinuation," said Sowinska.
This begs certain questions: What exactly are "inappropriate attitudes"? What exactly needs to be examined? And what exactly would psychologists say to children about this "hidden homosexual insinuation"? Given "the emerging climate of racist, xenophobic and homophobic intolerance in Poland," as the European Parliament put it recently, one would be justified in thinking that no good will come of this.
**********
Update: BBC's headline -- Poland targets 'gay' Teletubbies.
Memorial Day YouTubery
By Jeffaclitus
There's really nothing about this video that makes it appropriate or remotely relevant to Memorial Day, but it will never be either of those things for any other day, either, so might as well post it today. Besides, maybe it will lift people's spirits as they watch the last few hours of their long weekend slip through their fingers (ah, YouTube... helps ease the pain). And maybe it ties in with Michael's post on Wolfowitz.
Okay, enough specious justifications. I'm posting this video because it's sweet. No, wait, it's suh-weet. Behold, the greatest moment in American music history, the video of Travis Tritt's "Here's a Quarter (Call Someone Who Cares)." He's got a feathered mullet. He appears to be wearing The Puffy Shirt. The video features a CGI quarter in the set-up. And I won't even try to do justice that that belt buckle jamboree he's rocking in the opening scene (or is that his guitar strap? -- look closely!). But perhaps the high point is when he executes a sweet guitar pick toss-and-catch whilst some dude porks his girlfriend outside the men's room.
I kind of think of Travis Tritt as the Waylon Jennings of his generation, just as I think of Toby Keith as the Travis Tritt of his. As you can see from that analogy/genealogy, if you buy it, country music has been all downhill since Roger Miller died (as if you didn't already know that). Except for Dwight Yoakam.
Okay, okay, enough jabbering. Enjoy.
There's really nothing about this video that makes it appropriate or remotely relevant to Memorial Day, but it will never be either of those things for any other day, either, so might as well post it today. Besides, maybe it will lift people's spirits as they watch the last few hours of their long weekend slip through their fingers (ah, YouTube... helps ease the pain). And maybe it ties in with Michael's post on Wolfowitz.
Okay, enough specious justifications. I'm posting this video because it's sweet. No, wait, it's suh-weet. Behold, the greatest moment in American music history, the video of Travis Tritt's "Here's a Quarter (Call Someone Who Cares)." He's got a feathered mullet. He appears to be wearing The Puffy Shirt. The video features a CGI quarter in the set-up. And I won't even try to do justice that that belt buckle jamboree he's rocking in the opening scene (or is that his guitar strap? -- look closely!). But perhaps the high point is when he executes a sweet guitar pick toss-and-catch whilst some dude porks his girlfriend outside the men's room.
I kind of think of Travis Tritt as the Waylon Jennings of his generation, just as I think of Toby Keith as the Travis Tritt of his. As you can see from that analogy/genealogy, if you buy it, country music has been all downhill since Roger Miller died (as if you didn't already know that). Except for Dwight Yoakam.
Okay, okay, enough jabbering. Enjoy.
Wolfie's blame game
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Because he's a Bushie, and because Bushies must be Bushies, and because Bushies avoid taking responsibility for anything and everything they do that fails, which is pretty much anything and everything, Paul Wolfowitz has come to the conclusion, the only conclusion that could make any real sense to him, the only conclusion that could allow him to avoid responsibility for his actions, that he did nothing wrong at The World Bank, nothing at all that would justify what has happened to him, namely, his resignation (i.e., firing).
Like the Bush Administration -- like Bush himself, who rallied to Wolfowitz's defence and, in so doing, protected one of his own even in the face of mounting international criticism -- Wolfowitz prefers to place the blame anywhere but on himself. And the scapegoat this time? The media:
Actually, though, a World Bank panel determined that Wolfowitz in fact "broke World Bank laws" and that there was a conflict of interest in his efforts to help his girlfriend, Shaha Riza. Indeed, the panel "ruled he had broken the bank's code of conduct and violated the terms of his contract". As to his claim that he acted "in good faith and acted ethically," the banks board of directors "accepted [his] assurances," according to the BBC, but nonetheless "acknowledged that a 'number of mistakes' had been made". The bank's staff association put it more bluntly: "He has damaged the institution and continues to damage it every day that he remains as its president."
Wolfowitz was given the opportunity to save face and resign rather than face being censured or fired. Essentially, he had no choice but to resign. And it wasn't because of a hostile media environment. He was shown the exit because he had irreparably damaged his credibility, acted unethically, violated the bank's own rules, and weakened the bank itself. Simply put, he could not be left in power.
Just as he once said that he could not imagine why more troops would be needed after the fall of Saddam's regime than for the invasion itself, that is, just as he could not imagine what could go wrong during the American occupation of post-Saddam Iraq, Wolfowitz cannot imagine that he did anything wrong at The World Bank. It is the sort of arrogance that cannot admit of failure. And it is the sort of hubris that characterizes Bushies everywhere and that has come to define the Bush presidency. He may be a scoundrel, but he is just like all the rest.
Because he's a Bushie, and because Bushies must be Bushies, and because Bushies avoid taking responsibility for anything and everything they do that fails, which is pretty much anything and everything, Paul Wolfowitz has come to the conclusion, the only conclusion that could make any real sense to him, the only conclusion that could allow him to avoid responsibility for his actions, that he did nothing wrong at The World Bank, nothing at all that would justify what has happened to him, namely, his resignation (i.e., firing).
Like the Bush Administration -- like Bush himself, who rallied to Wolfowitz's defence and, in so doing, protected one of his own even in the face of mounting international criticism -- Wolfowitz prefers to place the blame anywhere but on himself. And the scapegoat this time? The media:
The outgoing president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, has told the BBC an "overheated" atmosphere at the bank and in the media forced him to resign.
*****
Speaking to the BBC World Service, Mr Wolfowitz denied that his own actions were the root cause of his departure.
"I'm pleased that finally the board did accept that I acted in good faith and acted ethically," he said.
"I accept the fact that by the time we got around to that, emotions here were so overheated that I don't think I could have accomplished what I wanted to accomplish for the people I really care about."
Actually, though, a World Bank panel determined that Wolfowitz in fact "broke World Bank laws" and that there was a conflict of interest in his efforts to help his girlfriend, Shaha Riza. Indeed, the panel "ruled he had broken the bank's code of conduct and violated the terms of his contract". As to his claim that he acted "in good faith and acted ethically," the banks board of directors "accepted [his] assurances," according to the BBC, but nonetheless "acknowledged that a 'number of mistakes' had been made". The bank's staff association put it more bluntly: "He has damaged the institution and continues to damage it every day that he remains as its president."
Wolfowitz was given the opportunity to save face and resign rather than face being censured or fired. Essentially, he had no choice but to resign. And it wasn't because of a hostile media environment. He was shown the exit because he had irreparably damaged his credibility, acted unethically, violated the bank's own rules, and weakened the bank itself. Simply put, he could not be left in power.
Just as he once said that he could not imagine why more troops would be needed after the fall of Saddam's regime than for the invasion itself, that is, just as he could not imagine what could go wrong during the American occupation of post-Saddam Iraq, Wolfowitz cannot imagine that he did anything wrong at The World Bank. It is the sort of arrogance that cannot admit of failure. And it is the sort of hubris that characterizes Bushies everywhere and that has come to define the Bush presidency. He may be a scoundrel, but he is just like all the rest.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
See Evil, Speak Evil, Do Evil
By Capt. Fogg
I remember standing outside the Federal Courthouse during the Chicago 7 trial and talking to another demonstrator who saw this whole movement as the wave of the future that would sweep away the war mongering and the anti-democratic and totalitarian evils that accompanied it. He was sure that in our children's time, it would be a brave new world. My reply was that no, they would simply go around us and propagandize our children and make us into the enemy and so they did. Now, in my grandchildren's time, I think I can say with sadness that not only did it work, but it still works and they're still doing it.
Behold the man. Dick Cheney, pictured with his arm raised like Hitler, addressing the graduating class of the United States Military Academy at West Point. While many have been concerned that the officers of tomorrow already take a dim view of the Geneva Conventions, Cheney chose to take the low road and make his appeal to the growing contempt for morality amongst the ever more radically fundamentalist military.
"Capture one of these killers" said the worm Cheney, assuming that everyone captured is a demon, " and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away."
Indeed, those whose country we occupy by force are not only the "enemy" but sub-human demons and that absolves us of being moral; that justifies any evil we might enjoy in the quest to bring American, Judeo-Christian traditions to the heathens.
"The terrorists know what they want and they will stop at nothing to get it. By force and intimidation, they seek to impose a dictatorship of fear, under which every man, woman, and child lives in total obedience to their ideology." And indeed that's just what they say about us and that's what Cheney wants of us.
And just who the hell is "they," Dick? would it be the civilians beaten, raped, tortured and killed in your dungeons and in their own homes? Would it be the victims of your shock and awe? Would it be the millions forced to flee and the millions living in fear and hunger and disease and heat and cold and poverty now that we have changed their regime? Is everyone objecting to your imperialist thievery a "terrorist?" and what the hell is the moral difference between a terrorist who tortures and kills and a sick, corrupt maggot like you who does the same thing in the name of "freedom?"
It's not often that I am a complete loss of adequate words to describe the moral abomination that is Dick Cheney and his gang of murderers, liars and barbarians. No biblical prophet ever execrated any man or act thoroughly enough to suit the crime of his very existence. No advocate of Satanism ever was more eloquent in setting forth his case than he.
I fear to live in a country whose Army is pressed into the same mold as Hitler's Waffen SS. I loathe living in a country where standing up for morality, ethics, decency, liberty, democracy and all I hold to be the foundations of civilization are considered by our leadership to be unpatriotic. Our constitution, our laws, our beliefs about the inherent rights of man; our traditional values, our aspirations to be moral leaders - none of these things mean anything but as objects of contempt for Cheney and not only is he the least moral of anyone pretending to be an American; not only is he the Devil's advocate and propagandist, he's guilty of more high crimes and misdemeanors against our laws then any loathsome invertibarate ever to hold public office.
Dick Cheney is a malignant and aggressive cancer that cannot be removed soon enough. Impeachment and a lengthy jail sentence in some filthy sewer of a prison would have been his fate years ago if this country were worthy of any of the things it still brags about being. Cheney must be impeached and removed from office or we have no reason to exist.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
I remember standing outside the Federal Courthouse during the Chicago 7 trial and talking to another demonstrator who saw this whole movement as the wave of the future that would sweep away the war mongering and the anti-democratic and totalitarian evils that accompanied it. He was sure that in our children's time, it would be a brave new world. My reply was that no, they would simply go around us and propagandize our children and make us into the enemy and so they did. Now, in my grandchildren's time, I think I can say with sadness that not only did it work, but it still works and they're still doing it.
Behold the man. Dick Cheney, pictured with his arm raised like Hitler, addressing the graduating class of the United States Military Academy at West Point. While many have been concerned that the officers of tomorrow already take a dim view of the Geneva Conventions, Cheney chose to take the low road and make his appeal to the growing contempt for morality amongst the ever more radically fundamentalist military. "Capture one of these killers" said the worm Cheney, assuming that everyone captured is a demon, " and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away."
Indeed, those whose country we occupy by force are not only the "enemy" but sub-human demons and that absolves us of being moral; that justifies any evil we might enjoy in the quest to bring American, Judeo-Christian traditions to the heathens.
"The terrorists know what they want and they will stop at nothing to get it. By force and intimidation, they seek to impose a dictatorship of fear, under which every man, woman, and child lives in total obedience to their ideology." And indeed that's just what they say about us and that's what Cheney wants of us.
And just who the hell is "they," Dick? would it be the civilians beaten, raped, tortured and killed in your dungeons and in their own homes? Would it be the victims of your shock and awe? Would it be the millions forced to flee and the millions living in fear and hunger and disease and heat and cold and poverty now that we have changed their regime? Is everyone objecting to your imperialist thievery a "terrorist?" and what the hell is the moral difference between a terrorist who tortures and kills and a sick, corrupt maggot like you who does the same thing in the name of "freedom?"
It's not often that I am a complete loss of adequate words to describe the moral abomination that is Dick Cheney and his gang of murderers, liars and barbarians. No biblical prophet ever execrated any man or act thoroughly enough to suit the crime of his very existence. No advocate of Satanism ever was more eloquent in setting forth his case than he.
I fear to live in a country whose Army is pressed into the same mold as Hitler's Waffen SS. I loathe living in a country where standing up for morality, ethics, decency, liberty, democracy and all I hold to be the foundations of civilization are considered by our leadership to be unpatriotic. Our constitution, our laws, our beliefs about the inherent rights of man; our traditional values, our aspirations to be moral leaders - none of these things mean anything but as objects of contempt for Cheney and not only is he the least moral of anyone pretending to be an American; not only is he the Devil's advocate and propagandist, he's guilty of more high crimes and misdemeanors against our laws then any loathsome invertibarate ever to hold public office.
Dick Cheney is a malignant and aggressive cancer that cannot be removed soon enough. Impeachment and a lengthy jail sentence in some filthy sewer of a prison would have been his fate years ago if this country were worthy of any of the things it still brags about being. Cheney must be impeached and removed from office or we have no reason to exist.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
Headline of the Day
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Here's the headline:
Here's the story:
Right, sure, of course that's what it will express. Isn't Syrian democracy awesome?
Here's the headline:
Here's the story:
Syrians were voting on Sunday in a no-contest referendum which will give President Bashar al-Assad another seven years at the helm of a Middle East regional heavyweight.
With parliament unanimously approving the candidature of the 41-year-old president for a second term, and with vocal opponents of the regime locked up, the referendum will inevitably annoint Assad as president until the year 2014.
The ruling Baath party has called on voters to give a resounding "yes" to a new mandate for Assad, who it said "will express the hopes of the people and the expectations of the nation".
Right, sure, of course that's what it will express. Isn't Syrian democracy awesome?
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Memorial Day and Iraq
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Reflect on this:
And all for what?
To be the target of Sunni-Shiite cooperation, as Moqtada al-Sadr suggested on Friday?
To support a government in Baghdad that is at best incompetent (and impotent) and at worst a vehicle for Shiite sectarianism?
To fight the terrorists -- namely, al Qaeda -- even though it is precisely America's presence in Iraq that is empowering them?
To build a stable and democratic Iraq, as if that were even possible now?
And yet the war goes on and on, the death toll rises, and even the delusional warmonger-in-chief anticipates the spilling of more blood.
Oh, what a lovely war this has become. Is Richard Attenborough available to direct the musical?
Reflect on this:
Americans have opened nearly 1,000 new graves to bury U.S. troops killed in Iraq since Memorial Day a year ago. The figure is telling — and expected to rise in coming months.
In the period from Memorial Day 2006 through Saturday, 980 soldiers and Marines died in Iraq, compared to 807 deaths in the previous year. And with the Baghdad security operation now 3 1/2 months old, even President Bush has predicted a difficult summer for U.S. forces.
"It could be a bloody — it could be a very difficult August," he said last week.
And all for what?
To be the target of Sunni-Shiite cooperation, as Moqtada al-Sadr suggested on Friday?
To support a government in Baghdad that is at best incompetent (and impotent) and at worst a vehicle for Shiite sectarianism?
To fight the terrorists -- namely, al Qaeda -- even though it is precisely America's presence in Iraq that is empowering them?
To build a stable and democratic Iraq, as if that were even possible now?
And yet the war goes on and on, the death toll rises, and even the delusional warmonger-in-chief anticipates the spilling of more blood.
Oh, what a lovely war this has become. Is Richard Attenborough available to direct the musical?
Laura Flanders on electoral politics and media
By Jeffaclitus
Okay, first, as you can see just above, I've changed -- or really just tweaked -- my nom de blog. The new name burst forth fully formed from the head of the excellent Sylvia, like Athena from the brow of Zeus, here (scroll up a bit to hear my lament about the old moniker, Heraclitus, which struck me as too pretentious and really out of keeping with my blogging persona).
Anyways, on to the substance of the post: Amanda Marcotte has a very interesting interview up at Pandagon with Laura Flanders, author of a new book on the future of the progressive movement and the Democratic Party. The interview covers a lot of ground and Flanders has a lot of heterodox ideas about how the Democrats can strengthen their party and what they can learn from the conservative movement. Here's a sample of the interview:
Okay, first, as you can see just above, I've changed -- or really just tweaked -- my nom de blog. The new name burst forth fully formed from the head of the excellent Sylvia, like Athena from the brow of Zeus, here (scroll up a bit to hear my lament about the old moniker, Heraclitus, which struck me as too pretentious and really out of keeping with my blogging persona).
Anyways, on to the substance of the post: Amanda Marcotte has a very interesting interview up at Pandagon with Laura Flanders, author of a new book on the future of the progressive movement and the Democratic Party. The interview covers a lot of ground and Flanders has a lot of heterodox ideas about how the Democrats can strengthen their party and what they can learn from the conservative movement. Here's a sample of the interview:
One of the biggest breaks you make with conventional wisdom is your advice for liberals to embrace the culture wars instead of just changing the subject and hope they’ll go away. You disagree strongly with the Thomas Frank theory that cultural issues are a distraction from “real” issues like labor and the economy. What are your objections to the changing-the-subject strategy?
I say that the Democrats are never going to be anti-gay or anti-abortion or anti-racial justice enough to please their critics. On the other hand, they could learn from their friends. These fundamental issues of fairness are not losing issues; it’s how the Democratic candidates tend to deal with those issues that trips them up. In just a decade of talking about gay marriage, now 66% of Americans support some legal recognition for gay and lesbian relationships. My book BLUE GRIT is full of examples of candidates who have won office -- even in conservative areas -- by standing up on these issues and gaining respect. Candidates who duck and dodge look shady. They certainly don’t look like leaders.
For instance, Hillary Clinton was asked point blank: “Do you believe homosexuality is immoral?” She answered, “I’ll leave that for others to decide.” That’s not leadership. Moreover, it’s insulting to her very own base.
A tale of incompetence and irresponsibility
By Michael J.W. Stickings
He was warned, but he went ahead anyway, misleading the American people, misleading the world, and leading his country into a disaster of his own making. Now we know:
No surprise here, nothing new.
Bush and the warmongers weren't about to let such warnings -- or the facts -- get in the way of what they all wanted, of what they all had wanted for so long. The annals of warfare are filled with examples of incompetence and irresponsibility. But Bush's misadventure in Iraq surely takes its place alongside the great military blunders of history.
Senator Rockefeller: "[T]he intelligence community gave the administration plenty of warning about the difficulties we would face if the decision was made to go to war... These dire warnings were widely distributed at the highest levels of government, and it's clear that the administration didn't plan for any of them."
For his part, Bush blew off the report. But of course. He remains delusionally self-righteous. And he is certainly not about to admit to failure.
**********
Update: Why is this report only coming out now? Why did it not come out, say, before the '04 election? See Steve Benen at TPM for the history (although it's still not clear why now, before the long weekend).
He was warned, but he went ahead anyway, misleading the American people, misleading the world, and leading his country into a disaster of his own making. Now we know:
Two months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies twice warned the Bush administration that establishing a democracy there would prove difficult and that Al Qaeda would use political instability to increase its operations, according to a Senate report released Friday.
The report, issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee, brought to light once-classified warnings that accurately forecasted many of the military and political problems the Bush administration and Iraqi officials have faced since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
These warnings were distributed to senior officials with daily access to President Bush and others at the very top of the administration, the report states.
No surprise here, nothing new.
Bush and the warmongers weren't about to let such warnings -- or the facts -- get in the way of what they all wanted, of what they all had wanted for so long. The annals of warfare are filled with examples of incompetence and irresponsibility. But Bush's misadventure in Iraq surely takes its place alongside the great military blunders of history.
Senator Rockefeller: "[T]he intelligence community gave the administration plenty of warning about the difficulties we would face if the decision was made to go to war... These dire warnings were widely distributed at the highest levels of government, and it's clear that the administration didn't plan for any of them."
For his part, Bush blew off the report. But of course. He remains delusionally self-righteous. And he is certainly not about to admit to failure.
**********
Update: Why is this report only coming out now? Why did it not come out, say, before the '04 election? See Steve Benen at TPM for the history (although it's still not clear why now, before the long weekend).
RON PAUL - RESTORE THE REPUBLIC ! ! !
RON PAUL WANTS TO WITH DRAWL THE TROOPS FROM IRAQ USING THE MONEY ALREADY ALLOCATED FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL BUDGET. HE WANTS TO USE THE NEW MILITARY BUDGET TO CARE FOR THE VETERANS !!!
Feeding the sheep
By Michael J.W. Stickings
There is yet another report in the mainstream media today -- this time in the NYT, which prints so much that is unfit -- of White House "concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate". Think about this for a moment: What exactly are "concepts"? Are they concrete plans or, much more likely, vague notions being tossed around because everything has gone wrong in a war that drags on and on and that has more or less destroyed the president's credibility and his party's electoral fortunes? And are we honestly to believe that there is some genuine "internal debate" in progress? Would it not be more appropriate to view this latest report as yet more of the same old warmongering spin being lapped up by a willing and eager and essentially bankrupt media establishment?
For more on this, see Glenn Greenwald, who posts the evidence. This does indeed seem to be yet another appearance of the eternal recurrence of the same old warmongering spin, "the same exact false assurances about Iraq -- virtually verbatim -- in order to protect themselves politically".
With the controversial war-funding bill now behind us -- and, as I said yesterday, we must unite around the common goal of putting an end as soon as possible to this disastrous war, not allow internal differences to overwhelm us -- we must not allow them to get away with it. The media may lap it all up, but all the bullshit coming out of the White House, and from the ranks of the warmongers generally, is nothing but cynical deception. And we don't need Penn and Teller to show us how it's done. It's all quite obvious.
There is yet another report in the mainstream media today -- this time in the NYT, which prints so much that is unfit -- of White House "concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate". Think about this for a moment: What exactly are "concepts"? Are they concrete plans or, much more likely, vague notions being tossed around because everything has gone wrong in a war that drags on and on and that has more or less destroyed the president's credibility and his party's electoral fortunes? And are we honestly to believe that there is some genuine "internal debate" in progress? Would it not be more appropriate to view this latest report as yet more of the same old warmongering spin being lapped up by a willing and eager and essentially bankrupt media establishment?
For more on this, see Glenn Greenwald, who posts the evidence. This does indeed seem to be yet another appearance of the eternal recurrence of the same old warmongering spin, "the same exact false assurances about Iraq -- virtually verbatim -- in order to protect themselves politically".
With the controversial war-funding bill now behind us -- and, as I said yesterday, we must unite around the common goal of putting an end as soon as possible to this disastrous war, not allow internal differences to overwhelm us -- we must not allow them to get away with it. The media may lap it all up, but all the bullshit coming out of the White House, and from the ranks of the warmongers generally, is nothing but cynical deception. And we don't need Penn and Teller to show us how it's done. It's all quite obvious.
Irish election update
By Michael J.W. Stickings
For some background, see my recent post here. And here's the BBC with the latest:
There had been some speculation that Sinn Fein could play kingmaker, tipping the balance one way or the other, but (good news indeed) it "polled badly". If it prefers not to form a coalition with the Progressive Democrats and the independents, the governing Fianni Fail could do so with Labour. Regardless, Bertie Ahern is set to remain as prime minister.
For a profile of Ahern, see here. For an analysis of his victory, see here.
As always, Wikipedia has a lot more here.
**********
Update: The BBC article linked above has been updated: "Irish PM Bertie Ahern's Fianna Fail party has won the country's general election, but narrowly failed to gain an overall majority in parliament. The party secured 78 seats in the 166-seat assembly, but saw a decline in the vote of its previous coalition partners, the Progressive Democrats."
The breakdown is now as follows:
For some background, see my recent post here. And here's the BBC with the latest:
The final seats in Ireland's parliament are being decided by counts in six remaining constituencies.
Fianna Fail are expected to secure 78 Dail seats - five short of an overall majority, but the focus now is on who they will form a government with.
They can count on two former Fianna Fail independents and two Progressive Democrat TDs set to retain their seats.
Fine Gael polled well, but its potential coalition partners Labour and the Greens fared less well.
As a result, not even these three combined could overtake Fianna Fail and the PDs.
*****
So far the breakdown of seats is: Fianna Fail 73; Fine Gael 48; Labour 20; PDs 1; Green Party 5; Sinn Fein 3 and Others 5.
There had been some speculation that Sinn Fein could play kingmaker, tipping the balance one way or the other, but (good news indeed) it "polled badly". If it prefers not to form a coalition with the Progressive Democrats and the independents, the governing Fianni Fail could do so with Labour. Regardless, Bertie Ahern is set to remain as prime minister.
For a profile of Ahern, see here. For an analysis of his victory, see here.
As always, Wikipedia has a lot more here.
**********
Update: The BBC article linked above has been updated: "Irish PM Bertie Ahern's Fianna Fail party has won the country's general election, but narrowly failed to gain an overall majority in parliament. The party secured 78 seats in the 166-seat assembly, but saw a decline in the vote of its previous coalition partners, the Progressive Democrats."
The breakdown is now as follows:
- Fianna Fail: 78 seats
- Fine Gael: 51
- Labour: 20
- Greens: 6
- Independents: 5
- Sinn Fein: 4
- Progressive Democrats: 2
Friday, May 25, 2007
Vincent van Gogh: Starry Night Over the Rhone (1888)
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Let's take a break from blogging about Iraq, Bush, and the Dems. (More on that, and on much else, soon enough.)
Although I consider Van Gogh to be wildly overrated and overexposed -- consider those ubiquitous sunflowers, for example, or those hugely popular stars and swirls -- there is no denying his influence on modern art, and specifically on expressionism, and there is also no denying the diversity of his work. Just as Monet was about more than waterlilies, so was Van Gogh about more than poster-friendly still lifes and self-portraits (and a famous ear). Consider the selection of his work here and here.
This painting -- Starry Night Over the Rhone -- is one of my favourite Van Goghs. It is similar to the more famous Starry Night -- yet I find it significantly more beautiful.
Tactics, not principle
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Jonathan Alter (via Maha) makes an excellent (and correct) point: "[W]hat's going on inside the Democratic Party now is a family argument about tactics, not principle."
This is important. Now is not the time for division. Now is not the time for Democrats to be attacking Democrats. Now is not the time for insinuations and allegations. Now is not the time for ideological narrowness. We all -- allow me to generalize here -- we all want this disastrous war to come to an end as soon as possible. But how to achieve that end? Some demand a timetable for withdrawal. Some have agreed to compromise. The war-funding bill that President Bush signed today threatens to tear us apart, pitting Democrat against Democrat, friend against friend. There has even been differences of opinion at this blog, where I have made the case for compromise and others -- notably Creature and Edward -- have argued, rather persuasively, that compromise amounts to capitulation. And yet the struggle goes on. And we will only win that struggle if we remain united, if we remember that we all have the same goal. We may differ with one another with respect to means, but we must remain focused on the end.
**********
Allow me to quote more from Alter. He has argued before that Democrats needed to "stiffen their spines," but he argues here that the tactic (compromise or capitulation, call it what you will) was driven by political reality:
Make sure to read his entire piece. You may not agree -- and I do not agree -- that Democrats "had no choice" but to agree to remove the timetable from the bill. They did have a choice, and what they chose was what they thought was the right thing to do. Not all of them, of course. Congressional Democrats, like those of us in the blogosphere, have their differences. But do not think, because I do not think it is true, that Democrats willfully capitulated, that they are secret supporters of the war, that they are afraid of Bush and the Republicans. There is good reason to worry about how Bush and the Republicans will use their spin-and-smear machine to blame Democrats for whatever happens in Iraq, but public opinion is with the Democrats, not Bush. But I do think Democrats were legitimately worried about how voters would understand (or misunderstand) the funding issue.
Here's Barbara O'Brien (or Maha, linked above): "Only 13 percent want Congress to cut off funding for the war. Dems look at those numbers and assume that cutting off funds would be political suicide. That, folks, is motivation. That's why the supplement bill passed both houses yesterday." I would also add that Democrats do not want to be held responsible for what could happen in Iraq post-withdrawal (i.e., chaos, genocide). You may disagree with their assumptions, you may find their worries overblown, but I for one find them both, assumptions and worries alike, wholly reasonable given the circumstances. This is why I simply cannot agree with Matt Stoller, who suggested that "Democratic insiders are convinced that capitulation is the right strategy. They actually believe that this will put pressure on the Republicans in the fall, and that standing up to Bush is a bad idea." Barbara again: "I don't think in their minds they thought capitulation now would put pressure on Republicans in the fall. They're hoping the war's own popularity [or unpopularity] will put pressure on Republicans in the fall. Instead, I think the Dems just want to avoid being a big, fat target for the [Vast Right Wing Conspiracy] over the summer."
Yes, this makes sense to me. The war is unpopular -- and it's also going badly and seemingly getting worse. It is Bush's war. He will be held accountable for it in the long run. Will the Democrats' refusal to demand a timetable for withdrawal now cost even more lives? No. Because the Democrats were never going to get a timetable for withdrawal. It's not as if Democrats said, "Look, we could put a stop to this war, but, well, we're not going to do that right now." Let's not overstate their power. Bush is still in charge, like it or not. (And he's still in trouble.) That's the basis of Alter's analysis. And I think it's a sound one.
**********
See also E.J. Dionne at WaPo:
Political reality, in other words.
**********
See also Juan Cole (via Shakes):
An excellent analysis of why Democrats voted the way they did. Again, political reality. And Democrats, however they voted on this particular bill, can win in '08 because of Iraq. Timetable or no, they will be able to made the credible case they have been against the war, if not from the beginning at least since the gross mismanagement of the occupation began.
**********
And yet I have been agonizing over all this for some time now. It is difficult to find oneself in disagreement with one's friends, with those one admires and respects. Consider, for one example among many, Taylor Marsh's compelling post in opposition to the compromise. There is much there with which I agree.
Just remember: means, not ends; tactics, not principle.
Let's focus on what unites us. And let's work towards that goal.
Bush has signed the bill. Let's move on.
Jonathan Alter (via Maha) makes an excellent (and correct) point: "[W]hat's going on inside the Democratic Party now is a family argument about tactics, not principle."
This is important. Now is not the time for division. Now is not the time for Democrats to be attacking Democrats. Now is not the time for insinuations and allegations. Now is not the time for ideological narrowness. We all -- allow me to generalize here -- we all want this disastrous war to come to an end as soon as possible. But how to achieve that end? Some demand a timetable for withdrawal. Some have agreed to compromise. The war-funding bill that President Bush signed today threatens to tear us apart, pitting Democrat against Democrat, friend against friend. There has even been differences of opinion at this blog, where I have made the case for compromise and others -- notably Creature and Edward -- have argued, rather persuasively, that compromise amounts to capitulation. And yet the struggle goes on. And we will only win that struggle if we remain united, if we remember that we all have the same goal. We may differ with one another with respect to means, but we must remain focused on the end.
**********
Allow me to quote more from Alter. He has argued before that Democrats needed to "stiffen their spines," but he argues here that the tactic (compromise or capitulation, call it what you will) was driven by political reality:
[I]t's one thing to be tough; it's another altogether to criticize any member of the party who doesn't vote with MoveOn.org and others on the antiwar left as "Dick Cheney Democrats" cruising for a primary challenge, or at least a flaming from the liberal blogosphere. It's fine to urge opposition to the Iraq spending bill, but it's juvenile to toss around threats or make it seem as if voting wrong on this bill means you aren't sincerely against the war. In fact, what's going on inside the Democratic Party now is a family argument about tactics, not principle.
The first thing to understand is that Democrats may have won the midterms but they lack the votes to end the war in Iraq. Some liberals don't seem to get this elemental fact. A bill with a timetable for withdrawal was passed and sent to President Bush's desk. He vetoed it. Democrats didn't have anywhere near the votes to override the veto. Bush and his war might be terribly unpopular, but under our system, he's still holding the high cards.
Make sure to read his entire piece. You may not agree -- and I do not agree -- that Democrats "had no choice" but to agree to remove the timetable from the bill. They did have a choice, and what they chose was what they thought was the right thing to do. Not all of them, of course. Congressional Democrats, like those of us in the blogosphere, have their differences. But do not think, because I do not think it is true, that Democrats willfully capitulated, that they are secret supporters of the war, that they are afraid of Bush and the Republicans. There is good reason to worry about how Bush and the Republicans will use their spin-and-smear machine to blame Democrats for whatever happens in Iraq, but public opinion is with the Democrats, not Bush. But I do think Democrats were legitimately worried about how voters would understand (or misunderstand) the funding issue.
Here's Barbara O'Brien (or Maha, linked above): "Only 13 percent want Congress to cut off funding for the war. Dems look at those numbers and assume that cutting off funds would be political suicide. That, folks, is motivation. That's why the supplement bill passed both houses yesterday." I would also add that Democrats do not want to be held responsible for what could happen in Iraq post-withdrawal (i.e., chaos, genocide). You may disagree with their assumptions, you may find their worries overblown, but I for one find them both, assumptions and worries alike, wholly reasonable given the circumstances. This is why I simply cannot agree with Matt Stoller, who suggested that "Democratic insiders are convinced that capitulation is the right strategy. They actually believe that this will put pressure on the Republicans in the fall, and that standing up to Bush is a bad idea." Barbara again: "I don't think in their minds they thought capitulation now would put pressure on Republicans in the fall. They're hoping the war's own popularity [or unpopularity] will put pressure on Republicans in the fall. Instead, I think the Dems just want to avoid being a big, fat target for the [Vast Right Wing Conspiracy] over the summer."
Yes, this makes sense to me. The war is unpopular -- and it's also going badly and seemingly getting worse. It is Bush's war. He will be held accountable for it in the long run. Will the Democrats' refusal to demand a timetable for withdrawal now cost even more lives? No. Because the Democrats were never going to get a timetable for withdrawal. It's not as if Democrats said, "Look, we could put a stop to this war, but, well, we're not going to do that right now." Let's not overstate their power. Bush is still in charge, like it or not. (And he's still in trouble.) That's the basis of Alter's analysis. And I think it's a sound one.
**********
See also E.J. Dionne at WaPo:
Democrats, in short, have enough power to complicate the president's life, but not enough to impose their will. Moreover, there is genuine disagreement even among Bush's Democratic critics over what the pace of withdrawal should be and how to minimize the damage of this war to the country's long-term interests. That is neither shocking nor appalling, but, yes, it complicates things. So does the fact that the minority wields enormous power in the Senate.
What was true in January thus remains true today: The president will be forced to change his policy only when enough Republicans tell him he has to. Facing this is no fun; it's just necessary.
Political reality, in other words.
**********
See also Juan Cole (via Shakes):
Thursday night's vote did not put a resolution of the Iraq quagmire off for only a few months. It put it off until a new president is inaugurated in January of 2009. Bush seems unlikely to significantly withdraw while still president, and the Dems can't make him if the Republicans won't turn on their own party's leader.
Iraq will be the central issue of the 2008 presidential campaign.
An excellent analysis of why Democrats voted the way they did. Again, political reality. And Democrats, however they voted on this particular bill, can win in '08 because of Iraq. Timetable or no, they will be able to made the credible case they have been against the war, if not from the beginning at least since the gross mismanagement of the occupation began.
**********
And yet I have been agonizing over all this for some time now. It is difficult to find oneself in disagreement with one's friends, with those one admires and respects. Consider, for one example among many, Taylor Marsh's compelling post in opposition to the compromise. There is much there with which I agree.
Just remember: means, not ends; tactics, not principle.
Let's focus on what unites us. And let's work towards that goal.
Bush has signed the bill. Let's move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
