In a brief stop-over in Estonia during the Latvian NATO meeting, Bush trotted out the old Al Qaeda-Iraq argument, with the claim that Al Qaeda is behind the Iraqi sectarian violence now occurring. Perhaps, in Estonia, he felt he could get away with it. While I don't totally discount his argument, so much of his insight has been shown to be based on false premises, he should realize by now that he needs to show "proof" when making such charges. This is especially true, when there seems to be ample contrary evidence being noted by his "generals in the field."
The information flow in this Administration continues to be a mystery to me. Whether Iraq or Katrina, the Presidential "interpretation" seems to depart radically from factual evidence "on the ground." And, the argument, "I know things you don't," just doesn't work anymore. If that is the case, he needs to find a way of conveying his "proof" to his audiences without compromising national security.
In his apparent failure to understand the above, he simply becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Meanwhile, the "Newt" has begun to position himself for the 2008 Election and the Republican nomination for President. In a recent speech before some group celebrating the First Amendment, Newt delivered the keynote address. The main theme seems to have been that we must, given the War on Terror, be prepared to give up basic civil rights.
One commentator explained this as: "Newt's an 'idea guy.' He throws out lots of ideas; a lot bad, a few good."
I think it goes beyond that. Newt seems to be positioning himself to fill a perceived vacuum on the Republican "Right." With Giuliani on the Republican Left and McCain in the Republican Middle, the Newt is apparently catering to the Republican base on the Right.
As with Bush, I don't totally discount his point; the War on Terror, although it needs definition and more precise, attainable goals, is probably going to be with us for a long time. And, "traditional interpretations" of civil rights (particularly in the area of privacy) may need revisiting. But the manner in which this should be done, in my opinion, is through Congress and the Judiciary, not those seeking Executive power. Many Republicans, namely the current Administration, have been too quick to simply ignore basic civil liberties in the name of the War on Terror. What they seem to fail to realize (perhaps deliberately) is that civil liberties are the "base line" and that it is up to them to find ways of fighting terrorism effectively without negating these liberties. I would like to see more rational discussion on this point by organizations on the left and those in support of civil liberties, such as the ACLU. How do these people believe the war on terror can be fought without infringement on traditional rights? I suspect the answer lies in the direction of increased Congressional oversight and an expanded Judiciary, rather than the opposite...i.e. simply more Presidential power.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
Bush's Trip
As Democrats prepare to take control of both Congressional houses, President Bush apparently feels it best to just stay out of town.
His trip this week, after returning from Asia last week, will be to a NATO meeting in Latvia and a meeting with the Iraqi President in Jordan. Latvia is appropriate. With the announcement during the past week that our Polish and Italian allies will be withdrawing the remainder of their Iraqi forces in 2007 and the UK announcement that it expects to reduce its already diminished presence of 7,000 by "some thousands" in the coming year, Latvia has vaulted into the position of "critical ally" in the ongoing war in terror in Iraq.
The War on Terror in Iraq has degenerated into civil war. It's one thing to be there killing members of international terrorist groups such as AlQaeda; its another thing to be there killing quarrelsome Iraqis fighting among themselves to see which crazy Mullah will become "the power behind the throne" of the "democratic government." If there is any logic left to our presence, it lies in the hope that eventually all of the crazies will kill each other off and allow for a stable, middle class Iraqi society to emerge as a regional "democratic paradise." And, if you believe that, you probably also believe there are forty virgins waiting for you in heaven.
Iraq has evolved, through virtually every fault of our own, from "the center stage in the War on Terror, " to the center piece of Bush's new "nation building" diplomacy. And, although Vietnam may not be an exact parallel, it was this same mentality of "we can accomplish anything we want, anywhere," that led to twenty plus years of frustration, untold billions of dollars wasted, and 50,000 dead Americans.
Indeed, the sole "reason" for the Iraqi invasion now lies in this policy, nation building. Powell was absolutely right, "if you break it, you own it." No WMD, no 9/11 connection, no post invasion stability. And, most of those (save the elected Cheney) who advocated the invasion, from Iraqi ex-patriots who had hoped to seize power now back in London or whereever, to Richard Pearle, now outside the Administration complaining about incompetence, are gone.
The one positive aspect of Iraq is that we have NOT been there 20 years or lost 50,000 dead Americans...yet. The two decade long agony of Vietnam (now, according to Bush, one of the "young tigers" of Asia) has been compressed in three and half years in Iraq. The November election reminds me of the old phrase: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
The fact that Bush is meeting with the Iraqi President in Jordan, not Baghdad, says everything.
His trip this week, after returning from Asia last week, will be to a NATO meeting in Latvia and a meeting with the Iraqi President in Jordan. Latvia is appropriate. With the announcement during the past week that our Polish and Italian allies will be withdrawing the remainder of their Iraqi forces in 2007 and the UK announcement that it expects to reduce its already diminished presence of 7,000 by "some thousands" in the coming year, Latvia has vaulted into the position of "critical ally" in the ongoing war in terror in Iraq.
The War on Terror in Iraq has degenerated into civil war. It's one thing to be there killing members of international terrorist groups such as AlQaeda; its another thing to be there killing quarrelsome Iraqis fighting among themselves to see which crazy Mullah will become "the power behind the throne" of the "democratic government." If there is any logic left to our presence, it lies in the hope that eventually all of the crazies will kill each other off and allow for a stable, middle class Iraqi society to emerge as a regional "democratic paradise." And, if you believe that, you probably also believe there are forty virgins waiting for you in heaven.
Iraq has evolved, through virtually every fault of our own, from "the center stage in the War on Terror, " to the center piece of Bush's new "nation building" diplomacy. And, although Vietnam may not be an exact parallel, it was this same mentality of "we can accomplish anything we want, anywhere," that led to twenty plus years of frustration, untold billions of dollars wasted, and 50,000 dead Americans.
Indeed, the sole "reason" for the Iraqi invasion now lies in this policy, nation building. Powell was absolutely right, "if you break it, you own it." No WMD, no 9/11 connection, no post invasion stability. And, most of those (save the elected Cheney) who advocated the invasion, from Iraqi ex-patriots who had hoped to seize power now back in London or whereever, to Richard Pearle, now outside the Administration complaining about incompetence, are gone.
The one positive aspect of Iraq is that we have NOT been there 20 years or lost 50,000 dead Americans...yet. The two decade long agony of Vietnam (now, according to Bush, one of the "young tigers" of Asia) has been compressed in three and half years in Iraq. The November election reminds me of the old phrase: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
The fact that Bush is meeting with the Iraqi President in Jordan, not Baghdad, says everything.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Charlie Wrangel's Draft Proposal
While I agree with the general thrust of Wrangel's proposal to re institute the draft, there are several factors that make it impractical and one has to assume Wrangel's idea is put forth with a bit of "tongue in cheek" - i.e. if the War on Terror is important enough to win that we adopt pre-emptive wars; must be prepared to fight it for generations; and give up civil liberties in its conduct, the very least we could do is reinstate the draft.
As for what is wrong with it: 1) It's politically impractical. 2) The military doesn't want it - the art of war has become so high tech, it's doubtful a short period of enlistment for draftees would allow for the training required today. And, 3) The composition of today's military, unlike Vietnam (with the occasional McCain/Kerry exception), is according to studies more representative of the country as a whole than Wrangel suggests.
On the other hand, there are a couple of pro-draft points Wrangel has missed. As wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in our society, the "economic elite" actually shrinks in size, so it takes far fewer of their sons and daughters in military service to hold their "representation ratio."
Perhaps, however, more important is an argument that democracies should only go to war defensively and on rare occasions. But when they do, they should mobilize as much of their population as possible to ensure quick victories, and return to peacetime as fast as possible. Sort of the political side of the Powell Doctrine. War is or should be, the "abnormal state of being," and the best way to ensure that it is over quickly, with minimal casualties, is to utilize overwhelming force.
And, if I remember Roman history correctly, there are historians that trace the failure of the Roman Republic to Roman professional armies and the fall of the later Empire to taking that a step further by handing over the defense of the Empire to an "outsourcing policy" that relied heavily on allied barbarian tribes.
So, the thought that the defense of our country, whose national security is threatened - as opposed to threats that may be handled through police powers - should be a shared burden, spread among all segments of our society, doesn't strike me as all that bad.
As for what is wrong with it: 1) It's politically impractical. 2) The military doesn't want it - the art of war has become so high tech, it's doubtful a short period of enlistment for draftees would allow for the training required today. And, 3) The composition of today's military, unlike Vietnam (with the occasional McCain/Kerry exception), is according to studies more representative of the country as a whole than Wrangel suggests.
On the other hand, there are a couple of pro-draft points Wrangel has missed. As wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in our society, the "economic elite" actually shrinks in size, so it takes far fewer of their sons and daughters in military service to hold their "representation ratio."
Perhaps, however, more important is an argument that democracies should only go to war defensively and on rare occasions. But when they do, they should mobilize as much of their population as possible to ensure quick victories, and return to peacetime as fast as possible. Sort of the political side of the Powell Doctrine. War is or should be, the "abnormal state of being," and the best way to ensure that it is over quickly, with minimal casualties, is to utilize overwhelming force.
And, if I remember Roman history correctly, there are historians that trace the failure of the Roman Republic to Roman professional armies and the fall of the later Empire to taking that a step further by handing over the defense of the Empire to an "outsourcing policy" that relied heavily on allied barbarian tribes.
So, the thought that the defense of our country, whose national security is threatened - as opposed to threats that may be handled through police powers - should be a shared burden, spread among all segments of our society, doesn't strike me as all that bad.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Can Democrats Win in 2008?
Prior to a few comments on 2008, a bit on 2006. The more I think about it, the more I think I may be correct in regard to the "Kerry Gaff." It's just possible that Democrats have figured out how to beat the Rove style of Republican politics.
The Rove style is to play to the base. That basic proposition almost mandates "attack politics," since the base is in itself small. So, the positive message, to play to that base, has to be reasonably narrow. To gain the larger support necessary to win, the "attack" is preferred, as long as it can in some way be related to the same narrow message the base is hearing.
Secondly, the Rove Machine depends heavily on enormous sums of data and organization. Essentially representing a "minority position" among the electorate, it is extremely important that all of the Rove allies to be on the "same page at the same time," to counter what they feel is basically a liberal media and maximize the impact of their attacks. This requires good organization and communication among the faithful. Not to mention, lots of money.
It generally works - at least in 2000, 2002 and 2004. I have noticed that virtually the moment one Republican goes onto the attack, all do...with the same message, down to the same phrasing.
But, even prior to the Kerry Gaff, Republicans went into 2006 in a position they most decidedly dislike, the defensive position. With two-thirds of the electorate against "their" war in Iraq, struggling to make a connection between that war and the war on terror and explain an economy that was great for a few, bad for a few, and just mediocre for the rest, the deck was stacked against them from the beginning. The ethics problems didn't help. They could point to Representative Jefferson's "cold cash" in his freezer and a questionable land deal in Nevada on the part of Reid, but these were minuscule compared to Delay, Ney, Foley, Cunningham, Abramoff, earmarks, etc.
Events in Iraq weren't going their way either. No reasonable assessment suggested we were "winning" and the only people coming home were either wounded or in body bags. So, if there was some remote connection between Iraq and the War on Terror, which had been the "sale," then how could we be winning the War on Terror and losing in Iraq?
Thus, their chosen platform, the war on terror and the economy, was weak to begin with.
The trouble they were in was adequately reflected in the polls...maybe not the specialized 80 or so polls Rove was reading, but sufficiently mainstream, relatively unbiased ones, that only the most radical ideologues could deny them. And, they went into the closing two weeks of the election, one would guess praying for a miracle.
And, then, along came John Kerry...hehehe. Kerry's "bad joke," which when taken out of context, appeared to be degradating the educational levels of our troops in Iraq was like "mania from heaven." In the attack mode they favored, against an already vanquished foe, they committed a significant error...they went after Kerry.
No matter that Kerry wasn't running for re-election. No matter that as hard as they tried to tag him as the "titular head of the Democratic Party," most of us look to the last "winner" as in that role (i.e. Bill Clinton). No matter that among Democrats, Kerry was running a distant 5th for the 2008 Presidential candidacy. They just could not resist going after Kerry a second time.
The result was that most conservative media and Republicans went "off message" for from 4-6 critical days in the last two weeks of a campaign in an election forecast as "close" and during the period where most independents were making up their minds. The question in my mind is not whether Kerry's Gaff was for real or faked, but whether or not conservatives were actually duped by Democrats and a supposedly liberal media. In other words, was Rove outfoxed?
Remember, that for a day or two; three at the most, this was a major story in the "liberal media" as well as among Democrats. The general reaction was, "Geez...OK, it was a bad joke told badly, but just apologize and get on with it." Ah...but Kerry himself kept it on the front page, by initially refusing an abject apology (and in hindsight, I think correctly...because it was another "Swift Boat Attack"). Had Democrats and the media themselves failed to make it an issue, would the conservative media have made it such a big deal? Ah...fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Fully five or six days, after the Gaff, I caught a "Hannity and Colmes" Fox Network broadcast. The principal topic was still John Kerry, who had little to do, if anything, with the major election issues. Voters had moved on...Rove had not.
So...I've come to the conclusion that the "Kerry Gaff" was not the sole, but a significant factor in the Democratic victories. Goes to show you, that sometimes, the best offense is not necessarily the best defense. But what do they know about military strategy?
Secondly, I was impressed by the Democrats to simply point to the flaws of the current Administration, as recorded in the daily press, in order to win elections without any unified program of their own. That "plan" was there...Nancy's List of Things To Do in the First 100 Hours, but it appeared relatively late and didn't receive any unified Democratic support among the candidates. Presuming a Rove directed campaign would be based on "attack," Democrats wisely gave them nothing to attack, except for Kerry, who really didn't matter much in the voter's mind anyhow. It was really sort of "What! We don't have a Plan for getting out of Iraq? Well, no one does. Put us into office and we'll figure it out."
A final note on Kerry before moving to 2008. As a Democrat, I was initially a Dean supporter, then an Edwards supporter, and ultimately a reluctant Kerry supporter. I thought he was too cerebral and wealthy East Coast Ivy League to gain sufficient popular support to win. But, I never doubted his patriotism, in my mind the deepest sort of patriotism one can offer one's country. He went to war, risked his life, and returned home with medals and a belief that what we had done as a nation was wrong and that he had a patriotic duty to stop it. I seriously doubt his radical statements regarding the behavior of a minority of our forces in the field were conveyed to condemn the U.S. military, but to further the cause of the anti-war movement. To attack his patriotism is pretty much scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
But, if the Kerry Gaff was unintentional, it sort of confirms why I had some doubts about him in 2004. If it was intentional, it shows a stroke of genius that merits another look see for 2008. Remember that John Kerry is a guy who has "fallen on his own sword" before and survived.
So, the Democrats finally took back Congress and a bare two weeks after the election began squabbling...hehehe. Pelosi strikes me as a very savvy lady, so what was the deal with Murtha?
My explanation is that she showed appropriate deference to a political debt and silenced a potential problem...namely Murtha himself. Although, I believe Murtha deserves credit for being one of the first to point out that the "Emporer has no clothes," he always impressed me as an "old timer back room politician." His appearance on the FBI Abscam tapes only confirmed my suspicions. It was pretty obvious that he was being offered a bribe and although he didn't take it, he failed to be indignant or to as a minimum inform the bribers (FBI agents) of the rules of the game. Well...maybe he did..."I don't trust you, but once I do, maybe then I'll take your money." That coupled with his recent acid comments on "ethics reform" convinced me that here is a guy overreaching on the strength of his anti-war sentiments.
So, Pelosi, who presumably will need those 87 Murtha votes (those who voted for him as Majority Leader) to push through genuine ethics reform may have come up with a wise solution...I'll back him and he'll lose, but then go away and I'll have paid my "loyalty debt."
I like that. If her claims regarding reform are genuine, she put her agenda ahead of personal power. Not being overwhelmed about NOT supporting her Number 2, Steny Hoyer doesn't bother me. For one, it was an "election." And, for another, it is an indication that she intends to run the Democratic House from the Speaker's chair and is confident in her leadership.
But, I'll be watching those first 100 Hours carefully.
Meanwhile, the front runners in the 2008 Presidential race seem to be Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Kerry and an assorted cast of thousands. I would not discount either Dean or Richardson. And Bayh and whatshisname, the Governor of Iowa, although the latter may be throwing his hat in for some leverage in the Iowa caucuses and subsequent Convention.
Hillary has the unfortunate baggage of Bill and liberalism. Bill himself is no more baggage than Bush 41 is to the current Bush...but then, like Bill, Bush 41 wasn't all that bad either. It's just that electing the first woman President is enough of a challenge, without the additional challenge of being part of a "dynasty." We have recently "been there; done that." Three other drawbacks: although she tries hard, she just does not come across as warm and friendly...it may be her intelligence. And, she's feared as a "closet liberal," although she's tried to move away from that. And, thirdly, largely because of that movement, she wound up supporting the resolution that gave Bush the authority to go into Iraq. In two years, if the war is still an issue, it will probably be because things will have gotten worse, not better. Early opposition to it will be a plus.
Barak Obama is the current Democratic heart throb. He's got lots of time and would probably be wise to wait a couple of terms, building a reputation in the Senate. He would also be the first black President. I think the country is ready to elect a black President, such as Powell, but not a black without experience...i.e. as racist as this may sound, a black President who has proven his or her self within a white system. In eight or twelve years it won't be a "white system," plus he'll have the experience. Of course, he might be an excellent VP candidate. But, on the other hand, not with a woman...my oh my, our prejudices certainly make life complicated, don't they?
Dean would be my current favorite but is definitely not an "Democratic establishment candidate." The Clinton's pretty much still run the Party and I have occasionally thought that the Party hierarchy destroyed Dean's chances in 2004 because if he'd won election, Hillary wouldn't have been able to run in 2008 (assuming the Party would renominate the President). Dean has the advantage of still having the "bloggers/Internet crowd" support and did much to insist on a "50 State Democratic Strategy" that produced the 2006 gains...though the Party seems loath to give him any credit (as opposed to Rahm Emmanuel, who is a Party "insider" and has been given most of the credit). Dean has the added advantage of being an early opponent to the war and a fiscal conservative.
Edwards is certainly toiling in the trenches enough to gain some ground. He's also given the "public apology" necessary by saying, "if I knew then, what I know now, I would have never supported the war." That confession, assuming things don't suddenly improve in Iraq, seems to me to be sort of a "litmus test" for any 2008 candidate, Democratic or Republican - and that includes John McCain. Next to being against it from the beginning, genuflection on this point is required.
Evan Bayh is from a famous and respected political family...but may be just too nice a guy. Even if Iraq goes away, the threat of terrorism is likely to continue...so we'll be looking for a true gunslinger, a sort of Paladin (remember Richard Boone), instead of a John Wayne.
Which brings me to my dark horse favorite, New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson. He has a western image, solid international credentials (UN Ambassador), former Congressman, a former Secretary of Energy and speaks Spanish (his mother was Mexican, as were his grandmothers). If there was ever someone "made for the job," considering the times and changing demographics, Richardson seems to be it. Plus, he has a great sense of humor and has shown he can laugh at himself, a trait that will probably become more and more essential as we attempt to solve the impossible.
If one of the front runners (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) gets it, I would think Richardson would be an easy pick for VP, if he wants it. Richardson is well thought of in the Party hierarchy, grew up in Boston, went to Tufts. For more, see his biography on Wikipedia. He's conservative enough to carry part of the West and South, liberal enough to hold the "blue states." And, I assume speaks Spanish well enough to say more than: "Jose, bring me another Jack Daniels and tell me how things are going on the fence for the back forty acres." Finally, he's stayed out of the limelight just enough to give the American electorate the impression that he's a "new face."
Then, there is Kerry and Gore. I voted for both of them...well, maybe I voted for Nader instead of Gore, but he was my second choice. I have no great feelings one way or the other about either, but a vague understanding that their time has come and gone. Honorable, senior statesmen, whose advice would be welcome...but, then they "lost" didn't they?
Soooo....sports fans...if the Party decides Hillary and Barak would be nice but suicidal, my pick is Richardson...this week.
The Rove style is to play to the base. That basic proposition almost mandates "attack politics," since the base is in itself small. So, the positive message, to play to that base, has to be reasonably narrow. To gain the larger support necessary to win, the "attack" is preferred, as long as it can in some way be related to the same narrow message the base is hearing.
Secondly, the Rove Machine depends heavily on enormous sums of data and organization. Essentially representing a "minority position" among the electorate, it is extremely important that all of the Rove allies to be on the "same page at the same time," to counter what they feel is basically a liberal media and maximize the impact of their attacks. This requires good organization and communication among the faithful. Not to mention, lots of money.
It generally works - at least in 2000, 2002 and 2004. I have noticed that virtually the moment one Republican goes onto the attack, all do...with the same message, down to the same phrasing.
But, even prior to the Kerry Gaff, Republicans went into 2006 in a position they most decidedly dislike, the defensive position. With two-thirds of the electorate against "their" war in Iraq, struggling to make a connection between that war and the war on terror and explain an economy that was great for a few, bad for a few, and just mediocre for the rest, the deck was stacked against them from the beginning. The ethics problems didn't help. They could point to Representative Jefferson's "cold cash" in his freezer and a questionable land deal in Nevada on the part of Reid, but these were minuscule compared to Delay, Ney, Foley, Cunningham, Abramoff, earmarks, etc.
Events in Iraq weren't going their way either. No reasonable assessment suggested we were "winning" and the only people coming home were either wounded or in body bags. So, if there was some remote connection between Iraq and the War on Terror, which had been the "sale," then how could we be winning the War on Terror and losing in Iraq?
Thus, their chosen platform, the war on terror and the economy, was weak to begin with.
The trouble they were in was adequately reflected in the polls...maybe not the specialized 80 or so polls Rove was reading, but sufficiently mainstream, relatively unbiased ones, that only the most radical ideologues could deny them. And, they went into the closing two weeks of the election, one would guess praying for a miracle.
And, then, along came John Kerry...hehehe. Kerry's "bad joke," which when taken out of context, appeared to be degradating the educational levels of our troops in Iraq was like "mania from heaven." In the attack mode they favored, against an already vanquished foe, they committed a significant error...they went after Kerry.
No matter that Kerry wasn't running for re-election. No matter that as hard as they tried to tag him as the "titular head of the Democratic Party," most of us look to the last "winner" as in that role (i.e. Bill Clinton). No matter that among Democrats, Kerry was running a distant 5th for the 2008 Presidential candidacy. They just could not resist going after Kerry a second time.
The result was that most conservative media and Republicans went "off message" for from 4-6 critical days in the last two weeks of a campaign in an election forecast as "close" and during the period where most independents were making up their minds. The question in my mind is not whether Kerry's Gaff was for real or faked, but whether or not conservatives were actually duped by Democrats and a supposedly liberal media. In other words, was Rove outfoxed?
Remember, that for a day or two; three at the most, this was a major story in the "liberal media" as well as among Democrats. The general reaction was, "Geez...OK, it was a bad joke told badly, but just apologize and get on with it." Ah...but Kerry himself kept it on the front page, by initially refusing an abject apology (and in hindsight, I think correctly...because it was another "Swift Boat Attack"). Had Democrats and the media themselves failed to make it an issue, would the conservative media have made it such a big deal? Ah...fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Fully five or six days, after the Gaff, I caught a "Hannity and Colmes" Fox Network broadcast. The principal topic was still John Kerry, who had little to do, if anything, with the major election issues. Voters had moved on...Rove had not.
So...I've come to the conclusion that the "Kerry Gaff" was not the sole, but a significant factor in the Democratic victories. Goes to show you, that sometimes, the best offense is not necessarily the best defense. But what do they know about military strategy?
Secondly, I was impressed by the Democrats to simply point to the flaws of the current Administration, as recorded in the daily press, in order to win elections without any unified program of their own. That "plan" was there...Nancy's List of Things To Do in the First 100 Hours, but it appeared relatively late and didn't receive any unified Democratic support among the candidates. Presuming a Rove directed campaign would be based on "attack," Democrats wisely gave them nothing to attack, except for Kerry, who really didn't matter much in the voter's mind anyhow. It was really sort of "What! We don't have a Plan for getting out of Iraq? Well, no one does. Put us into office and we'll figure it out."
A final note on Kerry before moving to 2008. As a Democrat, I was initially a Dean supporter, then an Edwards supporter, and ultimately a reluctant Kerry supporter. I thought he was too cerebral and wealthy East Coast Ivy League to gain sufficient popular support to win. But, I never doubted his patriotism, in my mind the deepest sort of patriotism one can offer one's country. He went to war, risked his life, and returned home with medals and a belief that what we had done as a nation was wrong and that he had a patriotic duty to stop it. I seriously doubt his radical statements regarding the behavior of a minority of our forces in the field were conveyed to condemn the U.S. military, but to further the cause of the anti-war movement. To attack his patriotism is pretty much scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
But, if the Kerry Gaff was unintentional, it sort of confirms why I had some doubts about him in 2004. If it was intentional, it shows a stroke of genius that merits another look see for 2008. Remember that John Kerry is a guy who has "fallen on his own sword" before and survived.
So, the Democrats finally took back Congress and a bare two weeks after the election began squabbling...hehehe. Pelosi strikes me as a very savvy lady, so what was the deal with Murtha?
My explanation is that she showed appropriate deference to a political debt and silenced a potential problem...namely Murtha himself. Although, I believe Murtha deserves credit for being one of the first to point out that the "Emporer has no clothes," he always impressed me as an "old timer back room politician." His appearance on the FBI Abscam tapes only confirmed my suspicions. It was pretty obvious that he was being offered a bribe and although he didn't take it, he failed to be indignant or to as a minimum inform the bribers (FBI agents) of the rules of the game. Well...maybe he did..."I don't trust you, but once I do, maybe then I'll take your money." That coupled with his recent acid comments on "ethics reform" convinced me that here is a guy overreaching on the strength of his anti-war sentiments.
So, Pelosi, who presumably will need those 87 Murtha votes (those who voted for him as Majority Leader) to push through genuine ethics reform may have come up with a wise solution...I'll back him and he'll lose, but then go away and I'll have paid my "loyalty debt."
I like that. If her claims regarding reform are genuine, she put her agenda ahead of personal power. Not being overwhelmed about NOT supporting her Number 2, Steny Hoyer doesn't bother me. For one, it was an "election." And, for another, it is an indication that she intends to run the Democratic House from the Speaker's chair and is confident in her leadership.
But, I'll be watching those first 100 Hours carefully.
Meanwhile, the front runners in the 2008 Presidential race seem to be Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Kerry and an assorted cast of thousands. I would not discount either Dean or Richardson. And Bayh and whatshisname, the Governor of Iowa, although the latter may be throwing his hat in for some leverage in the Iowa caucuses and subsequent Convention.
Hillary has the unfortunate baggage of Bill and liberalism. Bill himself is no more baggage than Bush 41 is to the current Bush...but then, like Bill, Bush 41 wasn't all that bad either. It's just that electing the first woman President is enough of a challenge, without the additional challenge of being part of a "dynasty." We have recently "been there; done that." Three other drawbacks: although she tries hard, she just does not come across as warm and friendly...it may be her intelligence. And, she's feared as a "closet liberal," although she's tried to move away from that. And, thirdly, largely because of that movement, she wound up supporting the resolution that gave Bush the authority to go into Iraq. In two years, if the war is still an issue, it will probably be because things will have gotten worse, not better. Early opposition to it will be a plus.
Barak Obama is the current Democratic heart throb. He's got lots of time and would probably be wise to wait a couple of terms, building a reputation in the Senate. He would also be the first black President. I think the country is ready to elect a black President, such as Powell, but not a black without experience...i.e. as racist as this may sound, a black President who has proven his or her self within a white system. In eight or twelve years it won't be a "white system," plus he'll have the experience. Of course, he might be an excellent VP candidate. But, on the other hand, not with a woman...my oh my, our prejudices certainly make life complicated, don't they?
Dean would be my current favorite but is definitely not an "Democratic establishment candidate." The Clinton's pretty much still run the Party and I have occasionally thought that the Party hierarchy destroyed Dean's chances in 2004 because if he'd won election, Hillary wouldn't have been able to run in 2008 (assuming the Party would renominate the President). Dean has the advantage of still having the "bloggers/Internet crowd" support and did much to insist on a "50 State Democratic Strategy" that produced the 2006 gains...though the Party seems loath to give him any credit (as opposed to Rahm Emmanuel, who is a Party "insider" and has been given most of the credit). Dean has the added advantage of being an early opponent to the war and a fiscal conservative.
Edwards is certainly toiling in the trenches enough to gain some ground. He's also given the "public apology" necessary by saying, "if I knew then, what I know now, I would have never supported the war." That confession, assuming things don't suddenly improve in Iraq, seems to me to be sort of a "litmus test" for any 2008 candidate, Democratic or Republican - and that includes John McCain. Next to being against it from the beginning, genuflection on this point is required.
Evan Bayh is from a famous and respected political family...but may be just too nice a guy. Even if Iraq goes away, the threat of terrorism is likely to continue...so we'll be looking for a true gunslinger, a sort of Paladin (remember Richard Boone), instead of a John Wayne.
Which brings me to my dark horse favorite, New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson. He has a western image, solid international credentials (UN Ambassador), former Congressman, a former Secretary of Energy and speaks Spanish (his mother was Mexican, as were his grandmothers). If there was ever someone "made for the job," considering the times and changing demographics, Richardson seems to be it. Plus, he has a great sense of humor and has shown he can laugh at himself, a trait that will probably become more and more essential as we attempt to solve the impossible.
If one of the front runners (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) gets it, I would think Richardson would be an easy pick for VP, if he wants it. Richardson is well thought of in the Party hierarchy, grew up in Boston, went to Tufts. For more, see his biography on Wikipedia. He's conservative enough to carry part of the West and South, liberal enough to hold the "blue states." And, I assume speaks Spanish well enough to say more than: "Jose, bring me another Jack Daniels and tell me how things are going on the fence for the back forty acres." Finally, he's stayed out of the limelight just enough to give the American electorate the impression that he's a "new face."
Then, there is Kerry and Gore. I voted for both of them...well, maybe I voted for Nader instead of Gore, but he was my second choice. I have no great feelings one way or the other about either, but a vague understanding that their time has come and gone. Honorable, senior statesmen, whose advice would be welcome...but, then they "lost" didn't they?
Soooo....sports fans...if the Party decides Hillary and Barak would be nice but suicidal, my pick is Richardson...this week.
The Administration and Post Election Foereign Policy
Ah. I am reading this morning about Mr. Nasty's (otherwise known as our VP) comments before the Federalist Society regarding the usual stuff about pre-emptive wars and attacks on civil liberties. This guy just doesn't give up and neither logic, common sense or democratic elections seem to phase him much...although there is always a tidbit thrown into his speeches to cover himself on the latter.
The civil liberty part came in his attack on the Judiciary concerning a Federal District Court's ruling on a portion of the Administration's "Surveillance Program." The part about having to obtain a court warrant prior to listening in on U.S. citizens. I understand Mr. Nasty's point of view and, in part, agree with him. I think 9/11 and the threat of terrorism DOES justify listening in on the international conversations of Al Qaeda operatives and/or suspected operatives and U.S. citizens. The point I don't get is why Mr. Nasty gets so upset at the prospect of going to a special Federal Court to get a warrant, even when that warrant may be accomplished retroactively in emergencies.
I will certainly concede that obtaining the necessary authority and power to fight terrorism effectively today isn't an easy task in a democracy. Fighting "terrorism" in World War II, otherwise known in Europe as the "underground," was probably a lot easier in Nazi Germany than it was in Nazi occupied France. But Mr. Nasty's argument (as usual) simply boils down to a plea for more Executive Branch power without oversight, in a vaguely defined, open-ended "War," and an attack on the checks and balances of our democracy. While Mr. Nasty focused entirely on Judicial "interference" and the role of the Executive, there was nary a word regarding the Courts as protectors of civil liberties. Mr. Nasty would do better in his battle to keep us safe by effectively policing our borders, rather than attacking our Judiciary.
But, it was the part about Iraq that really caught my interest. I quote from his speech:
"To get out before the job is done would convince the terrorists once again (?) that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends and abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with violence and blackmail." This thought embraces the whole neo-con argument of "roll-back" (i.e. we should have attacked the Soviet Union fifty or sixty years ago and stamped out communism, rather than "winning" through containment) and that we should have "won" in South Vietnam.
This is an interesting, if not new thought, particularly in wake of the November 7th elections and the fact that his boss, the Pres, was on the same day explaining in Hanoi, the following.
When asked about the lessons of Vietnam and how they might relate to Iraq, the President replied, "One lesson is, that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while. Its just going to take a long period of time for the ideology that is hopeful, and that is an ideology of freedom, to overcome an ideology of hate. We'll succeed unless we quit." Mr. Bush then went on to say, regarding the Vietnamese government, " I have seen firsthand the great vibrancy and the excitement that's taking place in Vietnam. You're like a young tiger, and I look forward to continuing to work to make sure our bilateral relations are close."
Huh? This wise observation was in the capital city of an enemy we fought for two decades, lost 50,000 American lives, killed untold hundreds of thousands of others, and eventually left with our tail between our legs. The Presidential points (the Pres and Mr. Nasty) re. Iraq, would have made some sense if we'd "won" in Vietnam. If memory serves correctly, we did not "win," and Vietnam went on to rebuild, violently (or through "re-education") eliminate any and all opposition and achieve "young tiger" status.
Are these people still campaigning? Logic (which seldom enters into campaigns) would tell me that the lesson of Vietnam for Iraq is to immediately leave, let the Iraqis fight it out, and eventually, "after a long period of time," they will become, like the Vietnamese, "young tigers." But both Bush and Mr. Nasty's comments tell me they still don't get it...and, in view of the November elections, it also tells me..."ideology trumps democracy." Stay the course for what...an obviously failed policy?
So Bush and Mr. Nasty's comments reveal what this whole thing is really about. It's not about democracy or even religion. It's about "capitalism." We really don't give a damn about what sort of government or religion you have, as long as you don't bother us (as in 9/11) and give us cheap labor (as in China and Vietnam) and oil (as in Iraq).
This is pure Calvin Coolidge and Charlie Wilson stuff. Coolidge, who once said, "the business of America is business" and Charlie Wilson (Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense), who said: "What's good for America is good for General Motors...and vice versa." Not too surprising from our first MBA President and the former CEO of Halliburton, a company that has reaped enormous profits from the war in Iraq. [No...I don't think Halliburton was THE reason we went into Iraq...in Mr. Nasty's twisted perception of foreign policy, it was an ancillary "win-win" deal.]
What neither of these guys seem to see or understand is that China, Vietnam, to a lesser extent, India, and most of continental Western Europe live under systems which might be roughly defined as "democratic socialism." As the commercial engine for the world, and in the aftermath of the failure of communism in the former Soviet Union, the Asian economic success stories are based, in large measure, on our own willingness to trade with them, in the quest for cheap goods, based on cheap labor. In Europe, it was probably a case of "it's either going to be democratic socialism or communism" and we opted for support of the former.
With these guys, it's not about democracy; its about "factors of production" and a safe and secure system that benefits the investment class...i.e. those smart enough to have learned to acquire a lot of wealth by not physically working for a living (e.g. Wall Street, Corporate management, et al). This is why we have 150,000 troops in Iraq, but can't find an extra 20,000 or so to enforce our own borders. [More on that in subsequent posts - but, border enforcement is anti-NAFTA, which was created as a counter-weight to the European Union, which - at least in Western Europe - has done away with border controls and allows the free passage of EU members, with the UK as an exception.]
Sooo...from "wars of choice". to the open ended War on Terrorism, to tax cuts for the upper 5%, and "business as usual," the common theme of this Administration is based on the Coolidge dictum of "the business of America is business." It's not about social security, border enforcement, universal health care, or anything else which may impact the vast majority of us, aside from the loosely defined, but genuine, threat to national security.
There is, in my opinion, a legitimate argument for certain aspects of this policy. National security IS the primary duty of any President. A strong and prosperous "investment class" IS beneficial to the entire community. In those goals, I would agree with the Administration. But, as they say, the devil is in the detail, and the degree to which national resources are devoted to the overall needs of the community, and by community, I do not mean the global community. Mr. President, you were "hired" by us to take care of us...not the world. In both foreign and domestic policy, my conclusion is that we are very close to "maxing out" our credit.
In closing this post, let me suggest an "out of the box" thought. The war in Iraq was launched on the supposition that there was some imminent national security threat via weapons of mass destruction. Getting rid of Hussein, establishing a democracy in the region, oil, protection of Israel, ALL of the rest, were secondary to the WMD argument and that argument justified the pre-emptive war. Once we reached Baghdad, disposed of Hussein and found no WMD, we no longer had a justifiable reason to remain. As nice as it would be for the millions of Iraqi people to live in democracy and freedom, we have no commitment to them, other than the fact that we are there, based on an enormous error in intelligence. But we have neither the resources, nor political will to export democracy to the rest of the world. The sole reason we remain is due to what was once referred to as "mission creep." Iraqi stability and secular democracy are "covers" for the original failure and the inability of the people who made that error to admit it.
It is time for our Political CEO's to liquidate what has turned into a bad investment. Or, to use an old Texas phrase, "to stop pouring money (and lives) down a dry hole." There is no need for a single American soldier to die for Iraqi freedom. Or, for that matter, for any one's freedom, other than our own. Nor is Presidential Pride and legacy worth the life of one American soldier...and if we think so, we no longer have that democracy the Administration loves to talk about. If the President thinks he has to "stay the course" in face of a failed policy, which is costing American lives, then he should be impeached, even if that impeachment occurs one day before his term expires. Polosie should have taken a cue from the Administration and left "all options on the table."
We need to make it clear that we are getting out of Iraq as quickly as is prudent and inform the Iraqi government of our decision. In this case, a timetable is reasonable. True, a timetable will allow insurgents to "go to ground" and reemerge after we've left...but that's the Iraqis problem, not ours, and the effect may be to reduce American causalities during the withdrawal process.
Finally, in my opinion, we are due some Presidential penance. Changing deck chairs on the Titanic is not enough. I want acknowledgement that we weren't on the look out for icebergs. I want a disavowal of the crazy notion that this country somehow has a responsibility to bring democracy to the world. I want a definition of the "war on terror." Who does this mean? How do we know we've "won?" And, I want you, Mr. President, to tell Mr. Nasty to just shut up. As the Chief Decider this shouldn't be all that difficult.
Next Post...Why the Democrats will probably lose the fleeting power they've gained in 2008.
The civil liberty part came in his attack on the Judiciary concerning a Federal District Court's ruling on a portion of the Administration's "Surveillance Program." The part about having to obtain a court warrant prior to listening in on U.S. citizens. I understand Mr. Nasty's point of view and, in part, agree with him. I think 9/11 and the threat of terrorism DOES justify listening in on the international conversations of Al Qaeda operatives and/or suspected operatives and U.S. citizens. The point I don't get is why Mr. Nasty gets so upset at the prospect of going to a special Federal Court to get a warrant, even when that warrant may be accomplished retroactively in emergencies.
I will certainly concede that obtaining the necessary authority and power to fight terrorism effectively today isn't an easy task in a democracy. Fighting "terrorism" in World War II, otherwise known in Europe as the "underground," was probably a lot easier in Nazi Germany than it was in Nazi occupied France. But Mr. Nasty's argument (as usual) simply boils down to a plea for more Executive Branch power without oversight, in a vaguely defined, open-ended "War," and an attack on the checks and balances of our democracy. While Mr. Nasty focused entirely on Judicial "interference" and the role of the Executive, there was nary a word regarding the Courts as protectors of civil liberties. Mr. Nasty would do better in his battle to keep us safe by effectively policing our borders, rather than attacking our Judiciary.
But, it was the part about Iraq that really caught my interest. I quote from his speech:
"To get out before the job is done would convince the terrorists once again (?) that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends and abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with violence and blackmail." This thought embraces the whole neo-con argument of "roll-back" (i.e. we should have attacked the Soviet Union fifty or sixty years ago and stamped out communism, rather than "winning" through containment) and that we should have "won" in South Vietnam.
This is an interesting, if not new thought, particularly in wake of the November 7th elections and the fact that his boss, the Pres, was on the same day explaining in Hanoi, the following.
When asked about the lessons of Vietnam and how they might relate to Iraq, the President replied, "One lesson is, that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while. Its just going to take a long period of time for the ideology that is hopeful, and that is an ideology of freedom, to overcome an ideology of hate. We'll succeed unless we quit." Mr. Bush then went on to say, regarding the Vietnamese government, " I have seen firsthand the great vibrancy and the excitement that's taking place in Vietnam. You're like a young tiger, and I look forward to continuing to work to make sure our bilateral relations are close."
Huh? This wise observation was in the capital city of an enemy we fought for two decades, lost 50,000 American lives, killed untold hundreds of thousands of others, and eventually left with our tail between our legs. The Presidential points (the Pres and Mr. Nasty) re. Iraq, would have made some sense if we'd "won" in Vietnam. If memory serves correctly, we did not "win," and Vietnam went on to rebuild, violently (or through "re-education") eliminate any and all opposition and achieve "young tiger" status.
Are these people still campaigning? Logic (which seldom enters into campaigns) would tell me that the lesson of Vietnam for Iraq is to immediately leave, let the Iraqis fight it out, and eventually, "after a long period of time," they will become, like the Vietnamese, "young tigers." But both Bush and Mr. Nasty's comments tell me they still don't get it...and, in view of the November elections, it also tells me..."ideology trumps democracy." Stay the course for what...an obviously failed policy?
So Bush and Mr. Nasty's comments reveal what this whole thing is really about. It's not about democracy or even religion. It's about "capitalism." We really don't give a damn about what sort of government or religion you have, as long as you don't bother us (as in 9/11) and give us cheap labor (as in China and Vietnam) and oil (as in Iraq).
This is pure Calvin Coolidge and Charlie Wilson stuff. Coolidge, who once said, "the business of America is business" and Charlie Wilson (Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense), who said: "What's good for America is good for General Motors...and vice versa." Not too surprising from our first MBA President and the former CEO of Halliburton, a company that has reaped enormous profits from the war in Iraq. [No...I don't think Halliburton was THE reason we went into Iraq...in Mr. Nasty's twisted perception of foreign policy, it was an ancillary "win-win" deal.]
What neither of these guys seem to see or understand is that China, Vietnam, to a lesser extent, India, and most of continental Western Europe live under systems which might be roughly defined as "democratic socialism." As the commercial engine for the world, and in the aftermath of the failure of communism in the former Soviet Union, the Asian economic success stories are based, in large measure, on our own willingness to trade with them, in the quest for cheap goods, based on cheap labor. In Europe, it was probably a case of "it's either going to be democratic socialism or communism" and we opted for support of the former.
With these guys, it's not about democracy; its about "factors of production" and a safe and secure system that benefits the investment class...i.e. those smart enough to have learned to acquire a lot of wealth by not physically working for a living (e.g. Wall Street, Corporate management, et al). This is why we have 150,000 troops in Iraq, but can't find an extra 20,000 or so to enforce our own borders. [More on that in subsequent posts - but, border enforcement is anti-NAFTA, which was created as a counter-weight to the European Union, which - at least in Western Europe - has done away with border controls and allows the free passage of EU members, with the UK as an exception.]
Sooo...from "wars of choice". to the open ended War on Terrorism, to tax cuts for the upper 5%, and "business as usual," the common theme of this Administration is based on the Coolidge dictum of "the business of America is business." It's not about social security, border enforcement, universal health care, or anything else which may impact the vast majority of us, aside from the loosely defined, but genuine, threat to national security.
There is, in my opinion, a legitimate argument for certain aspects of this policy. National security IS the primary duty of any President. A strong and prosperous "investment class" IS beneficial to the entire community. In those goals, I would agree with the Administration. But, as they say, the devil is in the detail, and the degree to which national resources are devoted to the overall needs of the community, and by community, I do not mean the global community. Mr. President, you were "hired" by us to take care of us...not the world. In both foreign and domestic policy, my conclusion is that we are very close to "maxing out" our credit.
In closing this post, let me suggest an "out of the box" thought. The war in Iraq was launched on the supposition that there was some imminent national security threat via weapons of mass destruction. Getting rid of Hussein, establishing a democracy in the region, oil, protection of Israel, ALL of the rest, were secondary to the WMD argument and that argument justified the pre-emptive war. Once we reached Baghdad, disposed of Hussein and found no WMD, we no longer had a justifiable reason to remain. As nice as it would be for the millions of Iraqi people to live in democracy and freedom, we have no commitment to them, other than the fact that we are there, based on an enormous error in intelligence. But we have neither the resources, nor political will to export democracy to the rest of the world. The sole reason we remain is due to what was once referred to as "mission creep." Iraqi stability and secular democracy are "covers" for the original failure and the inability of the people who made that error to admit it.
It is time for our Political CEO's to liquidate what has turned into a bad investment. Or, to use an old Texas phrase, "to stop pouring money (and lives) down a dry hole." There is no need for a single American soldier to die for Iraqi freedom. Or, for that matter, for any one's freedom, other than our own. Nor is Presidential Pride and legacy worth the life of one American soldier...and if we think so, we no longer have that democracy the Administration loves to talk about. If the President thinks he has to "stay the course" in face of a failed policy, which is costing American lives, then he should be impeached, even if that impeachment occurs one day before his term expires. Polosie should have taken a cue from the Administration and left "all options on the table."
We need to make it clear that we are getting out of Iraq as quickly as is prudent and inform the Iraqi government of our decision. In this case, a timetable is reasonable. True, a timetable will allow insurgents to "go to ground" and reemerge after we've left...but that's the Iraqis problem, not ours, and the effect may be to reduce American causalities during the withdrawal process.
Finally, in my opinion, we are due some Presidential penance. Changing deck chairs on the Titanic is not enough. I want acknowledgement that we weren't on the look out for icebergs. I want a disavowal of the crazy notion that this country somehow has a responsibility to bring democracy to the world. I want a definition of the "war on terror." Who does this mean? How do we know we've "won?" And, I want you, Mr. President, to tell Mr. Nasty to just shut up. As the Chief Decider this shouldn't be all that difficult.
Next Post...Why the Democrats will probably lose the fleeting power they've gained in 2008.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Corrected on Bolton
Tommyblog has corrected me on Bolton, pointing out that he remains essentially "anti-UN," and his continuance in the UN post would not exactly show a "new direction" in US foreign policy.
OK. However, it still seems to be that the Administration's call for his confirmation is still sort of the "preliminary fight" beforee the main event...Iraq and the Democrats would be wiser to simply side step te issue and not waste, in GW's terms, "political capital" on it. There has been some housecleaning of Administration neo-cons since 2004 and letting the Democrats do the coup d'grace on Bolton is probably pretty much doing Bush's job for him.
Suppose that if I were in the Dems shoes, I'd just make it clear that Bolton doesn't have the votes to be confirmed, but if pressed for an "up or down vote," they'd be happy to call Bolton back for further hearings and make those hearings Step One of the Iraqi investigation process and focus on neo-con influence within the Administration.
Another note on Iraq. If anyone wants to get some understanding of the difficulties in Iraq, go revisit "Lawrence of Arabia." Aside from great acting, great photography, etc. there is quite a bit of political history in the lead up to time when the British eventually drew up the Iraq borders. I remember one scene wherein Lawrence is pleading with the British and French authorities for more arms for his rag-tag Arab Army, fighting the German allied Turks. They grant him more guns, ammunition, dynamite, etc., but draw the line at the WMD of the day, artillery. No artillery. Guns make revolutions. Artillery makes governments.
OK. However, it still seems to be that the Administration's call for his confirmation is still sort of the "preliminary fight" beforee the main event...Iraq and the Democrats would be wiser to simply side step te issue and not waste, in GW's terms, "political capital" on it. There has been some housecleaning of Administration neo-cons since 2004 and letting the Democrats do the coup d'grace on Bolton is probably pretty much doing Bush's job for him.
Suppose that if I were in the Dems shoes, I'd just make it clear that Bolton doesn't have the votes to be confirmed, but if pressed for an "up or down vote," they'd be happy to call Bolton back for further hearings and make those hearings Step One of the Iraqi investigation process and focus on neo-con influence within the Administration.
Another note on Iraq. If anyone wants to get some understanding of the difficulties in Iraq, go revisit "Lawrence of Arabia." Aside from great acting, great photography, etc. there is quite a bit of political history in the lead up to time when the British eventually drew up the Iraq borders. I remember one scene wherein Lawrence is pleading with the British and French authorities for more arms for his rag-tag Arab Army, fighting the German allied Turks. They grant him more guns, ammunition, dynamite, etc., but draw the line at the WMD of the day, artillery. No artillery. Guns make revolutions. Artillery makes governments.
Friday, November 10, 2006
A Word on John Bolton
Bolton may be one of the few remaining neo-cons in the Administration and remains as the unconfirmed Ambassador to the UN. As such, he's "easy pickins."
However, my impression (and I am willing to be corrected on this as well) is that he hasn't really done too bad a job. From the Press, I expected Khrushchev shoe banging. Unless there is something I don't know and assuming he'd be gone in 2008 with a Democratic Presidential victory, it would seem to me that Democrats could give this one to Bush without any actual harm. I believe Bolton has remained relatively focused on "cleaning up the UN," but has gone about it in a responsible, quiet way...and few could disagree with the need for a UN cleansing.
Maybe as part of the confirmation hearings, the Dems could get him to sign a "loyalty oath," disavowing his prior neo-con sentiments? IOW, put him through some grilling, but be magnanimous...and "trade" his confirmation for something more tangible.
However, my impression (and I am willing to be corrected on this as well) is that he hasn't really done too bad a job. From the Press, I expected Khrushchev shoe banging. Unless there is something I don't know and assuming he'd be gone in 2008 with a Democratic Presidential victory, it would seem to me that Democrats could give this one to Bush without any actual harm. I believe Bolton has remained relatively focused on "cleaning up the UN," but has gone about it in a responsible, quiet way...and few could disagree with the need for a UN cleansing.
Maybe as part of the confirmation hearings, the Dems could get him to sign a "loyalty oath," disavowing his prior neo-con sentiments? IOW, put him through some grilling, but be magnanimous...and "trade" his confirmation for something more tangible.
Part II - The Democratic Opportunity
I turned on the news this morning to learn that less than a week following the Democratic election victory, George McGovern was to present his plan for getting out of Iraq to Democrats and Charlie Wrangle was trying to kick Cheney out of his Congressional office, arguing that the office was traditionally reserved for the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Great...they haven't even taken power yet and they've started shooting themselves in the foot.
I am open to correction on this point, but I associate McGovern with the Democratic left equivalent of the Republican right neo-cons. If there is still a McGovern Wing in the Democratic Party, I understand why they' ve been out of power for 12 years. As for Charlie, his complaint only seems to confirm the Republican comments about "measuring the windows for drapes." Surely, he can think of something else to talk about at this moment other than Dick Cheney's office.
I would suggest that just before the Congressional Democrats go to bed at night and immediately upon rising they say the following: "Americans vote out whom they don't like and do not vote in whom they like." Repeat that 20 times each evening and morning. Chaffee's loss in Rhode Island was a metaphor for the entire election..."gee, you're a nice guy, but I am sending a message."
The election victory was an opportunity handed to the Democrats by the American voter based on the same motivation that had them putting Republicans into power in 2004...namely fear. This time, it was fear of Republicans, misguided policies and incompetence. It was NOT because they've bought into the Democratic "agenda," which - as reasonable as it might be - came only late and with little election publicity in the campaign. On Iraq...frankly with notable exceptions (Howard Dean being one)...most Democrats were BEHIND public opinion on the war.
The 2008 campaign began on Wednesday. In my opinion, the message - loud and clear - is that we are tired of polarizing policies by both parties and want to see more bipartisanship in Congress, with middle of the road real solutions to real problems. If you disregard this message and use the opportunity to either gloat, get even, or swing the country to the left wing of your party...you'll be out of office as fast as you came back in...in 2008.
Geez...the bi-partisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group now has the center of the stage, for both parties. What the hell is George McGovern doing? OK...OK...it's a Big Tent...everybody is entitled to be heard...but I'll pay close attention to who is listening. As for Charlie....Charlie, get a life.
I think Democrats came close to becoming completely irrelevant and it was only the old saying about "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," that saved them from oblivion. To take advantage of the opportunity they've been given they must achieve a bi-partisan solution in Iraq and initially pass some bi-partisan legislation. This may actually work on a few issues...immigration...minimum wage...education. The biggies...tax cuts...health care...social security are probably NOT going to be resolved on a bi-partisan basis. Given their Congressional numbers and GW's veto power (wonder how many pens he's received since the election)...controversal issues should have the overwhelming support of the American people...thus painting GW as the "Daschle Obstructionist."
As of now, it appears 2008 is going to be a fight for the middle. Both parties are going to be looking for an early critic of the war, who is a fiscal conservative and "clean." Sooo...at least through 2008, the old Democratic liberal warhorses are going to have to fake it and at least appear like normal people.
Great...they haven't even taken power yet and they've started shooting themselves in the foot.
I am open to correction on this point, but I associate McGovern with the Democratic left equivalent of the Republican right neo-cons. If there is still a McGovern Wing in the Democratic Party, I understand why they' ve been out of power for 12 years. As for Charlie, his complaint only seems to confirm the Republican comments about "measuring the windows for drapes." Surely, he can think of something else to talk about at this moment other than Dick Cheney's office.
I would suggest that just before the Congressional Democrats go to bed at night and immediately upon rising they say the following: "Americans vote out whom they don't like and do not vote in whom they like." Repeat that 20 times each evening and morning. Chaffee's loss in Rhode Island was a metaphor for the entire election..."gee, you're a nice guy, but I am sending a message."
The election victory was an opportunity handed to the Democrats by the American voter based on the same motivation that had them putting Republicans into power in 2004...namely fear. This time, it was fear of Republicans, misguided policies and incompetence. It was NOT because they've bought into the Democratic "agenda," which - as reasonable as it might be - came only late and with little election publicity in the campaign. On Iraq...frankly with notable exceptions (Howard Dean being one)...most Democrats were BEHIND public opinion on the war.
The 2008 campaign began on Wednesday. In my opinion, the message - loud and clear - is that we are tired of polarizing policies by both parties and want to see more bipartisanship in Congress, with middle of the road real solutions to real problems. If you disregard this message and use the opportunity to either gloat, get even, or swing the country to the left wing of your party...you'll be out of office as fast as you came back in...in 2008.
Geez...the bi-partisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group now has the center of the stage, for both parties. What the hell is George McGovern doing? OK...OK...it's a Big Tent...everybody is entitled to be heard...but I'll pay close attention to who is listening. As for Charlie....Charlie, get a life.
I think Democrats came close to becoming completely irrelevant and it was only the old saying about "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," that saved them from oblivion. To take advantage of the opportunity they've been given they must achieve a bi-partisan solution in Iraq and initially pass some bi-partisan legislation. This may actually work on a few issues...immigration...minimum wage...education. The biggies...tax cuts...health care...social security are probably NOT going to be resolved on a bi-partisan basis. Given their Congressional numbers and GW's veto power (wonder how many pens he's received since the election)...controversal issues should have the overwhelming support of the American people...thus painting GW as the "Daschle Obstructionist."
As of now, it appears 2008 is going to be a fight for the middle. Both parties are going to be looking for an early critic of the war, who is a fiscal conservative and "clean." Sooo...at least through 2008, the old Democratic liberal warhorses are going to have to fake it and at least appear like normal people.
An Iraq Perspective & The Democratic Opportunity
Ok. Here is my take on Bush and Iraq in a few paragraphs - the Democratic Opportunity will come in the next Post.
Bush was a rich kid struggling in the shadow of his father and trying to find his own identity. He was a playboy, frat guy in his youth; he made a mess of his Air National Guard service; failed at an early attempt at politics; failed in the oil industry and was rescued by the Texas establishment. They allowed him to buy in to the Texas Rangers baseball franchise and put him in the front office as the "front man." If he was lucky, he may have gotten to be Baseball Commissioner someday. Then he met Karl Rove.
Rove took him (but primarily his name) back into Texas politics. He won the Governorship of Texas and did a reasonably good job, in an essentially weak office. He proved adept at co-opting the achievements of others in the Texas legislature. And, with the name, Rove, and a lot of slick marketing wins the Republican nomination for President. Following one of the closest and most contentious elections in our history and thanks to his younger brother in Florida and the Supreme Court, he wins the Presidency.
But, did it really matter to most of the country? The economy looked great on paper and the rich were getting richer, following eight years of Clinton and a cozy relationship with Wall Street and Globalization. So...unless you were a die-hard Democrat, pissed because you believe you've had an election stolen from you...the answer is no. And main street America looks at Bush and thinks: "OK, he's not the brightest star in the sky, but basically a nice guy, who has overcome personal problems and whose values reflect the mainstream. What can go wrong?"
The first thing to go wrong is the economy. The Wall Street "house of cards" takes a tumble. An over valued market and corporate corruption - all of which grew worse and worse under Clinton - puts the economy in the tank and it's up to GW to do whatever he can to fix it.
He falls back on the Republican theory of "trickle down economics." It worked with Kennedy; it worked with Reagan. Big tax cuts to investors allows for more investment. Increased investments leads to new enterprises and new jobs. And, it works...but with a big caveat. Kennedy and Reagan were dealing with a national economy; now the economy (and investment) is global. Without enforcement of anti-trust and new restrictions on the outflow of manufacturing and high tech jobs, the effect of "trickle down economics" only creates more hamburger flippers and Wal Mart employees. The economy looks great on paper; unemployment goes down and the middle class (whose demise began under Clinton) continues to suffer. But, politicians on both sides of the aisle fail to notice, or if they do, simply ignore it - they know who butters their bread. The Democrats attack the tax cuts as simply making the rich, richer (which is no great surprise to anyone) and the Republicans point to the raw data that shows that the tax cuts are working and avoiding increases in unemployment...and they have the added advantage in a procedure that only counts those drawing unemployment insurance as the "unemployed." And, of course, both parties wish the Immigration problem would simply go away - and it won't, because now a sizable number of formerly middle class voters are competing with illegal aliens for jobs as hamburger flippers.
Then, comes 9/11. Had either Party taken Al Qaeda seriously 9/11 in all likelihood would have never occurred. On balance, Clinton may have paid more attention, but didn't want (or couldn't) go through the hassle of invading Afghanistan two years earlier and taking them out. I was never a great fan of the Clinton foreign policy. Homeland security was non-existent. The walls between the FBI and CIA, created in the aftermath of Vietnam and the Church Committee, remained. Our European allies did draw us into the Balkans to prevent genocide in Europe, but we ignored the same in Rwanda and turned tail and ran in Somalia. In my opinion, the Clinton administration forgot to note that U.S. embassies abroad and warships are considered "sovereign U.S. territory" and as much of an attack on the United States as flying airplanes into the World Trade Center. On the other hand, I do not blame Clinton entirely. Until 9/11 all recent U.S. Presidents, when it comes to U.S. military foreign deployments, have lived in the shadow of Vietnam. Carter failed to react in Iran; Reagan in Lebanon. Ironically, and aside from Reagan's poker like bluff that brought an already teetering Soviet Union down, the only savvy post-Vietnam U.S. President (i.e. since Nixon and Kissinger) we've had was, in my opinion, Bush Senior.
But, the story of 9/11 and George W begins, as Bill Maher has noted, with the seven or so minutes of video tape of GW before the elementary school kids in Florida, when he was told "the country is under attack." While I don't make as much of this tape as Michael Moore or Maher, there is little getting around the impression that here is a clueless guy, wondering, "what the hell do I do now?"
By his own admission, GW was neither an intellectual or foreign policy wonk. He didn't read much and when he did, again by his own admission, it was chiefly "sports biographies." [He's tried to change this image over the last few years.] At best, his Vietnam-era service in the Air National Guard was an indication that he had no great interest, at the time, in foreign policy and was chiefly motivated by trying to stay out of harm's way. I don't hold that against him. He was just not interested or involved and struggling at that time apparently with his own personal demons. I believe, other than one brief trip to Europe and several trips to Mexico, as Governor of Texas, he had never traveled abroad. He was just not interested in foreign policy. The closest he came in the 2000 election was a reasonably firm stance against "nation-building."
So, when 9/11 occurred, after the initial 7 or so minute shock, captured on tape, his first thoughts must have turned to his national security advisers, chief among them, Dick Cheney.
Here, aside from Powell (whom, I would suggest, no one took very seriously because of jealosy), there was a distinct vacuum. Neither Cheney or Rumsfeld were "policy wonks." Both were known, not for their enormous intellects, but for their administrative talents. They were good corporate guys and, I suspect, in the failure to anticipate 9/11 or a similar incident, had been put on the ticket and appointed because of these talents. Rumsfeld to clean-up the Pentagon and bring it into the 21st century; Cheney to clean-up the federal government in general, reduce its size and get it to run more efficiently - as well as being the political point man with the oil industry. The overall emphasis was on good "management" and not major policy shifts.
And, overall, until 9/11 this was pretty much of an Administration without a foreign policy... on September 12th, they needed to get one...fast.
Within the broader Republican Party, most were still basking in the sun of Ronald Reagan as the Victor of the Cold War. Aside from sort of generalized dissatisfaction with Marylin "Halfbright" and a perception of weakness in the Clinton administration, "foreign policy" to Republicans was basically defined in terms of dislike of the UN, greater leverage befitting our status as the remaining super power in international organizations (the WTO, et al) and free trade. In actual military terms, Republican interest seemed to be in force modernization and Star Wars...a Reagan legacy.
Now, when a foreign policy was needed, the key players...Cheney and Rumsfeld turned to their staffs...sort of the House intellectuals...the people who were actually policy wonks. And, they found neo-conservatives. People, who without getting into the fine print or messy details, had obtained their jobs through a general agreement with their bosses that the Clinton foreign policy had been a failure and that the United States needed to exercise its power more effectively within the international community. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld are "doers" and not particularly "thinkers." They might know the latest in management techniques, but I doubt either had ever read a book on political theory, or if they had, they skimmed it, took away the facts and never gave it another thought...hurrying back to "doing." But, it was the policy wonks beneath them who had.
In Cheney's office this was "Scooter" Libby. In DoD, it was Paul Wolfwitz and a host of others. Only the State Department had avoided placing neo-cons in policy positions and that didn't matter much to the neo cons, who for the most part considered the State Department useless anyhow.
I suspect that when the histories are written, they may be kinder to Cheney and Rumsfeld than public opinion is now. And, I suspect that both men were largely duped by their own neo-con staffs...the policy wonks. 9/11 required a dramatic statement of U.S. power. I would contend that Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden would have sufficed. But the neo cons, assisted by cherry-picked phony intelligence saw 9/11 as an opportunity to fill a vacuum and seize control of U.S. foreign policy...and Rumsfeld and Cheney, not familiar with the neo-con "fine print" went along. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time.
So, to Rumsfeld and Cheney, whom Bush relied almost entirely upon for advice, the adoption of neo-con principles was simply a sort of visceral, knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. For the die-hard neo-cons who advised them, it was confirmation of everything they'd been preaching since John Foster Dulles argued for "roll-back" in Communist Eastern Europe in the post WWII period and the opportunity to bring about a major post World War II change in American foreign policy.
Rove simply tailored the politics to fit. I seriously doubt he had a major input to the foreign policy shift, but merely structured the political arguments around the Cheney/Rumsfeld policies, in the vein of "selling ice to Eskimos."
And so, largely unconsciously, Bush abandoned 50 some years of successful containment policies and multlateralism, isolated us from much of the world and took us into what has delicately come to be known as, "a war of choice."
The "War on Terror," is really in my opinion not so much the issue with the American people as is Iraq - and they've come to understand the difference. The Iraqi prison scandal, the torture scandal and debate, the civil liberties issues regarding surveillance are certainly important collateral issues, but would not be as large as they are without Iraq or the evidence of Administration incompetence - i.e. public opinion would say, "OK...temporarily...but be very, very careful." But faced with a war instituted on false premises and the examples of Katrina, EVERYTHING, now became suspicious and important.
There has been a colassal, but understandable mistake in American foreign policy. And, there is some indication that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld came to acknowledge this during the 2004 election campaign. Most, if not all, of the neo-cons are now gone from government. Quietly, without fanfare they've either been dismissed or, in Wolfwitz's case, kicked upstairs. Their departures are an indication that Republican leadership finally realized what exactly they were being asked to buy into and turned away. The neo-con hijacking of foreign policy failed...and now we have the mess they made to clean-up. It ain't going to be easy...for either Republicans or Democrats.
Bush was a rich kid struggling in the shadow of his father and trying to find his own identity. He was a playboy, frat guy in his youth; he made a mess of his Air National Guard service; failed at an early attempt at politics; failed in the oil industry and was rescued by the Texas establishment. They allowed him to buy in to the Texas Rangers baseball franchise and put him in the front office as the "front man." If he was lucky, he may have gotten to be Baseball Commissioner someday. Then he met Karl Rove.
Rove took him (but primarily his name) back into Texas politics. He won the Governorship of Texas and did a reasonably good job, in an essentially weak office. He proved adept at co-opting the achievements of others in the Texas legislature. And, with the name, Rove, and a lot of slick marketing wins the Republican nomination for President. Following one of the closest and most contentious elections in our history and thanks to his younger brother in Florida and the Supreme Court, he wins the Presidency.
But, did it really matter to most of the country? The economy looked great on paper and the rich were getting richer, following eight years of Clinton and a cozy relationship with Wall Street and Globalization. So...unless you were a die-hard Democrat, pissed because you believe you've had an election stolen from you...the answer is no. And main street America looks at Bush and thinks: "OK, he's not the brightest star in the sky, but basically a nice guy, who has overcome personal problems and whose values reflect the mainstream. What can go wrong?"
The first thing to go wrong is the economy. The Wall Street "house of cards" takes a tumble. An over valued market and corporate corruption - all of which grew worse and worse under Clinton - puts the economy in the tank and it's up to GW to do whatever he can to fix it.
He falls back on the Republican theory of "trickle down economics." It worked with Kennedy; it worked with Reagan. Big tax cuts to investors allows for more investment. Increased investments leads to new enterprises and new jobs. And, it works...but with a big caveat. Kennedy and Reagan were dealing with a national economy; now the economy (and investment) is global. Without enforcement of anti-trust and new restrictions on the outflow of manufacturing and high tech jobs, the effect of "trickle down economics" only creates more hamburger flippers and Wal Mart employees. The economy looks great on paper; unemployment goes down and the middle class (whose demise began under Clinton) continues to suffer. But, politicians on both sides of the aisle fail to notice, or if they do, simply ignore it - they know who butters their bread. The Democrats attack the tax cuts as simply making the rich, richer (which is no great surprise to anyone) and the Republicans point to the raw data that shows that the tax cuts are working and avoiding increases in unemployment...and they have the added advantage in a procedure that only counts those drawing unemployment insurance as the "unemployed." And, of course, both parties wish the Immigration problem would simply go away - and it won't, because now a sizable number of formerly middle class voters are competing with illegal aliens for jobs as hamburger flippers.
Then, comes 9/11. Had either Party taken Al Qaeda seriously 9/11 in all likelihood would have never occurred. On balance, Clinton may have paid more attention, but didn't want (or couldn't) go through the hassle of invading Afghanistan two years earlier and taking them out. I was never a great fan of the Clinton foreign policy. Homeland security was non-existent. The walls between the FBI and CIA, created in the aftermath of Vietnam and the Church Committee, remained. Our European allies did draw us into the Balkans to prevent genocide in Europe, but we ignored the same in Rwanda and turned tail and ran in Somalia. In my opinion, the Clinton administration forgot to note that U.S. embassies abroad and warships are considered "sovereign U.S. territory" and as much of an attack on the United States as flying airplanes into the World Trade Center. On the other hand, I do not blame Clinton entirely. Until 9/11 all recent U.S. Presidents, when it comes to U.S. military foreign deployments, have lived in the shadow of Vietnam. Carter failed to react in Iran; Reagan in Lebanon. Ironically, and aside from Reagan's poker like bluff that brought an already teetering Soviet Union down, the only savvy post-Vietnam U.S. President (i.e. since Nixon and Kissinger) we've had was, in my opinion, Bush Senior.
But, the story of 9/11 and George W begins, as Bill Maher has noted, with the seven or so minutes of video tape of GW before the elementary school kids in Florida, when he was told "the country is under attack." While I don't make as much of this tape as Michael Moore or Maher, there is little getting around the impression that here is a clueless guy, wondering, "what the hell do I do now?"
By his own admission, GW was neither an intellectual or foreign policy wonk. He didn't read much and when he did, again by his own admission, it was chiefly "sports biographies." [He's tried to change this image over the last few years.] At best, his Vietnam-era service in the Air National Guard was an indication that he had no great interest, at the time, in foreign policy and was chiefly motivated by trying to stay out of harm's way. I don't hold that against him. He was just not interested or involved and struggling at that time apparently with his own personal demons. I believe, other than one brief trip to Europe and several trips to Mexico, as Governor of Texas, he had never traveled abroad. He was just not interested in foreign policy. The closest he came in the 2000 election was a reasonably firm stance against "nation-building."
So, when 9/11 occurred, after the initial 7 or so minute shock, captured on tape, his first thoughts must have turned to his national security advisers, chief among them, Dick Cheney.
Here, aside from Powell (whom, I would suggest, no one took very seriously because of jealosy), there was a distinct vacuum. Neither Cheney or Rumsfeld were "policy wonks." Both were known, not for their enormous intellects, but for their administrative talents. They were good corporate guys and, I suspect, in the failure to anticipate 9/11 or a similar incident, had been put on the ticket and appointed because of these talents. Rumsfeld to clean-up the Pentagon and bring it into the 21st century; Cheney to clean-up the federal government in general, reduce its size and get it to run more efficiently - as well as being the political point man with the oil industry. The overall emphasis was on good "management" and not major policy shifts.
And, overall, until 9/11 this was pretty much of an Administration without a foreign policy... on September 12th, they needed to get one...fast.
Within the broader Republican Party, most were still basking in the sun of Ronald Reagan as the Victor of the Cold War. Aside from sort of generalized dissatisfaction with Marylin "Halfbright" and a perception of weakness in the Clinton administration, "foreign policy" to Republicans was basically defined in terms of dislike of the UN, greater leverage befitting our status as the remaining super power in international organizations (the WTO, et al) and free trade. In actual military terms, Republican interest seemed to be in force modernization and Star Wars...a Reagan legacy.
Now, when a foreign policy was needed, the key players...Cheney and Rumsfeld turned to their staffs...sort of the House intellectuals...the people who were actually policy wonks. And, they found neo-conservatives. People, who without getting into the fine print or messy details, had obtained their jobs through a general agreement with their bosses that the Clinton foreign policy had been a failure and that the United States needed to exercise its power more effectively within the international community. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld are "doers" and not particularly "thinkers." They might know the latest in management techniques, but I doubt either had ever read a book on political theory, or if they had, they skimmed it, took away the facts and never gave it another thought...hurrying back to "doing." But, it was the policy wonks beneath them who had.
In Cheney's office this was "Scooter" Libby. In DoD, it was Paul Wolfwitz and a host of others. Only the State Department had avoided placing neo-cons in policy positions and that didn't matter much to the neo cons, who for the most part considered the State Department useless anyhow.
I suspect that when the histories are written, they may be kinder to Cheney and Rumsfeld than public opinion is now. And, I suspect that both men were largely duped by their own neo-con staffs...the policy wonks. 9/11 required a dramatic statement of U.S. power. I would contend that Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden would have sufficed. But the neo cons, assisted by cherry-picked phony intelligence saw 9/11 as an opportunity to fill a vacuum and seize control of U.S. foreign policy...and Rumsfeld and Cheney, not familiar with the neo-con "fine print" went along. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time.
So, to Rumsfeld and Cheney, whom Bush relied almost entirely upon for advice, the adoption of neo-con principles was simply a sort of visceral, knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. For the die-hard neo-cons who advised them, it was confirmation of everything they'd been preaching since John Foster Dulles argued for "roll-back" in Communist Eastern Europe in the post WWII period and the opportunity to bring about a major post World War II change in American foreign policy.
Rove simply tailored the politics to fit. I seriously doubt he had a major input to the foreign policy shift, but merely structured the political arguments around the Cheney/Rumsfeld policies, in the vein of "selling ice to Eskimos."
And so, largely unconsciously, Bush abandoned 50 some years of successful containment policies and multlateralism, isolated us from much of the world and took us into what has delicately come to be known as, "a war of choice."
The "War on Terror," is really in my opinion not so much the issue with the American people as is Iraq - and they've come to understand the difference. The Iraqi prison scandal, the torture scandal and debate, the civil liberties issues regarding surveillance are certainly important collateral issues, but would not be as large as they are without Iraq or the evidence of Administration incompetence - i.e. public opinion would say, "OK...temporarily...but be very, very careful." But faced with a war instituted on false premises and the examples of Katrina, EVERYTHING, now became suspicious and important.
There has been a colassal, but understandable mistake in American foreign policy. And, there is some indication that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld came to acknowledge this during the 2004 election campaign. Most, if not all, of the neo-cons are now gone from government. Quietly, without fanfare they've either been dismissed or, in Wolfwitz's case, kicked upstairs. Their departures are an indication that Republican leadership finally realized what exactly they were being asked to buy into and turned away. The neo-con hijacking of foreign policy failed...and now we have the mess they made to clean-up. It ain't going to be easy...for either Republicans or Democrats.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Did Bush Really Get the Message?
Why do I have the dark growing impression that the post election prouncements and actions of the President have a scary similarity to those of his late friend, Kenneth Lay following the ENRON revelations?
Firing Don Rumsfeld strikes me somewhat like firing Andrew Fastow, the errant ENRON CFO. Did Bush REALLY get the message sent on Tuesday? Lay's firing Fastow for having had his hand in the cookie jar is like firing Rumsfeld for incompetence.
Thus far, the President has given no hint that it isn't only that things aren't going well in Iraq, but it is the entire policy of "democratizing the world," preemptive war and the confusion of complex intra Muslim faith battles with terrorism directed against us.
Rumsfeld was primarily simply another victim of the lousy intelligence...the part about being greeted in the streets with flowers...the part about how Iraqi oil revenues would pay the cost of the war. If these two falsehoods had been true, today we'd have around 20,000 troops in Iraq, chiefly stationed on Iraqi sanctioned U.S. air bases, and be in the process of recovering the relatively small cost of getting to Baghdad. Rumsfeld would be a hero, the neo-cons would be estatic and Republicans would still be in control of Congress. No one but a few anti-war extremists and misguided international law professors would be complaining. And, in the greater pragmatic realm of international diplomacy, even our traditional European allies (France, Germany, et al) might be kicking themselves and thinking, "damn, Bush was right."
But, a funny thing happened on the way to Baghdad. Both of those critical assumptions turned out to be false and in the absence of finding weapons of mass destruction and the discredited linkage between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists, the President got "religion," sort of.
Curiously, it was only after failing to find WMD and the initial stirrings of a civil war, encouraged by a series of dumb post war occupation decisions (e.g. "deBathification" - thus preventing the strongest post-Hussein secular component of Iraqi society from staffing the government- sending the Iraqi Army home and failing to disarm them, etc.), we heard the first of "God wants the world to be free." I can reach only two conclusions from this. Either the President is insane or it was a cynical ploy to maintain a base of political support at home, among Christian fundamentalists, in the face of anticipated opposition to the war, based on the failure of intelligence.
To return to my scary analogy...today we seem to be on Iraq at about the same point ENRON was after Skilling had resigned, the stock had begun to fall and Kenneth Lay was reassuring the employees that although the stock was down, this was due to the market environment, that everything was under control and that the company was in good hands and had excellent plans for the future. If I remember correctly this was also shortly before the collapse, eventually followed by the indictments. For both the President and the country's sake (both ours and Iraq) let's hope that I am wrong. Let's hope that the neo-cons are truly gone and that the President is now talking to his father at least as much as he talks to God. Let's hope that the Baker-Hamilton intervention has not come too late and that the President has really gotten the message the American voter has sent him.
Firing Don Rumsfeld strikes me somewhat like firing Andrew Fastow, the errant ENRON CFO. Did Bush REALLY get the message sent on Tuesday? Lay's firing Fastow for having had his hand in the cookie jar is like firing Rumsfeld for incompetence.
Thus far, the President has given no hint that it isn't only that things aren't going well in Iraq, but it is the entire policy of "democratizing the world," preemptive war and the confusion of complex intra Muslim faith battles with terrorism directed against us.
Rumsfeld was primarily simply another victim of the lousy intelligence...the part about being greeted in the streets with flowers...the part about how Iraqi oil revenues would pay the cost of the war. If these two falsehoods had been true, today we'd have around 20,000 troops in Iraq, chiefly stationed on Iraqi sanctioned U.S. air bases, and be in the process of recovering the relatively small cost of getting to Baghdad. Rumsfeld would be a hero, the neo-cons would be estatic and Republicans would still be in control of Congress. No one but a few anti-war extremists and misguided international law professors would be complaining. And, in the greater pragmatic realm of international diplomacy, even our traditional European allies (France, Germany, et al) might be kicking themselves and thinking, "damn, Bush was right."
But, a funny thing happened on the way to Baghdad. Both of those critical assumptions turned out to be false and in the absence of finding weapons of mass destruction and the discredited linkage between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists, the President got "religion," sort of.
Curiously, it was only after failing to find WMD and the initial stirrings of a civil war, encouraged by a series of dumb post war occupation decisions (e.g. "deBathification" - thus preventing the strongest post-Hussein secular component of Iraqi society from staffing the government- sending the Iraqi Army home and failing to disarm them, etc.), we heard the first of "God wants the world to be free." I can reach only two conclusions from this. Either the President is insane or it was a cynical ploy to maintain a base of political support at home, among Christian fundamentalists, in the face of anticipated opposition to the war, based on the failure of intelligence.
To return to my scary analogy...today we seem to be on Iraq at about the same point ENRON was after Skilling had resigned, the stock had begun to fall and Kenneth Lay was reassuring the employees that although the stock was down, this was due to the market environment, that everything was under control and that the company was in good hands and had excellent plans for the future. If I remember correctly this was also shortly before the collapse, eventually followed by the indictments. For both the President and the country's sake (both ours and Iraq) let's hope that I am wrong. Let's hope that the neo-cons are truly gone and that the President is now talking to his father at least as much as he talks to God. Let's hope that the Baker-Hamilton intervention has not come too late and that the President has really gotten the message the American voter has sent him.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Election
Before returning to the Rumsfeld Dilemma, a few late thoughts on Tuesday's election.
Last evening I decided to check in on the Republican gameplan and watched Fox News's Hannity and Alan What's His Face...the Fox token liberal. Thought I'd gotten a re-run; the subject was Kerry. Two days after the Kerry gaff had departed from national news, Fox was still talking about it as if it was going to change the entire election. Hannity couldn't leave it alone; that and the "Where's Nancy?" line.
The general consensus among neutrals and even Democrats is that the Kerry incident probably cost Democrats two-three days of "news cycle," but wouldn't have a significant impact on the election. A) He's not running for anything; B) It was clearly a bad joke and not an attack on our troops in Iraq. The only way you can even come close to the Republican "talking point," is by taking one paragraph out of context.
My conclusion is that they have stayed focused on Kerry because they have nothing else to talk about. Even the "economy" seems to have taken a back seat on the Republican agenda. Values? Hardly...with the Reverend's problems, Nye's resignation, lingering Foley stories, etc. Iraq? With the President standing behind the only two politicians less popular than himself, Cheney and Rumsfeld...nope. And, terrorism isn't a popular subject when you've failed to come up with a plan to establish border controls.
Meanwhile, the consensus seems to be that a Democratic "wave" is building. Part of that is certainly Democratic wishful thinking, but it is also based on some reasonably objective analysis. Tim Russett interviewed three leading and supposedly non-partisan voting gurus: Rothenburg, Cook and a third from the "National Standard," whose name escapes me. Their consensus was that while the Bush base is holding, Independents are going Democratic 2:1.
If all of this holds and it turns into a Democratic landslide, we may want to thank Kerry, who gave Republicans a chance "too good to pass up" and took THEM off message for 4-6 key days. Was Rove outfoxed?
Last evening I decided to check in on the Republican gameplan and watched Fox News's Hannity and Alan What's His Face...the Fox token liberal. Thought I'd gotten a re-run; the subject was Kerry. Two days after the Kerry gaff had departed from national news, Fox was still talking about it as if it was going to change the entire election. Hannity couldn't leave it alone; that and the "Where's Nancy?" line.
The general consensus among neutrals and even Democrats is that the Kerry incident probably cost Democrats two-three days of "news cycle," but wouldn't have a significant impact on the election. A) He's not running for anything; B) It was clearly a bad joke and not an attack on our troops in Iraq. The only way you can even come close to the Republican "talking point," is by taking one paragraph out of context.
My conclusion is that they have stayed focused on Kerry because they have nothing else to talk about. Even the "economy" seems to have taken a back seat on the Republican agenda. Values? Hardly...with the Reverend's problems, Nye's resignation, lingering Foley stories, etc. Iraq? With the President standing behind the only two politicians less popular than himself, Cheney and Rumsfeld...nope. And, terrorism isn't a popular subject when you've failed to come up with a plan to establish border controls.
Meanwhile, the consensus seems to be that a Democratic "wave" is building. Part of that is certainly Democratic wishful thinking, but it is also based on some reasonably objective analysis. Tim Russett interviewed three leading and supposedly non-partisan voting gurus: Rothenburg, Cook and a third from the "National Standard," whose name escapes me. Their consensus was that while the Bush base is holding, Independents are going Democratic 2:1.
If all of this holds and it turns into a Democratic landslide, we may want to thank Kerry, who gave Republicans a chance "too good to pass up" and took THEM off message for 4-6 key days. Was Rove outfoxed?
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Don Rumsfeld and the Beginning of the End
Today's announcement that the Military Times publishing group will come out on Monday with editorials calling for Rumsfeld's firing/resignation mark the beginning of the end of a failed Iraqi policy, which had always been premised on too many false assumptions...and yes, one could argue the beginning of that failure was when we invaded in the first place.
The Army Times, the Navy Times, the Air Force Times and the Marine Times are essentially newspapers sold on our military bases and generally reflect the sentiments and opinions of our armed forces. The underlying message is, "don't blame us; blame the politicians." And, it is also an indictment of the Bush management style. Rumsfeld is only the "proxy." The Commander-in-Chief has failed to stay close to his generals.
Short of the resignations of those generals, the Military Times editorials will be as close to a revolt of the uniformed military as we shall probably see...it is that significant.
Coupled to the editorials is the desertion of several prominent neo-cons, Richard Pearle among them, and their recent comments regarding the incompetence of the Administration in implementing their own failed policies...i.e. "we have been right, but these boobs didn't execute our ideas correctly." I noted earlier the relatively silent departure of the neo-cons and suggested that this was an unstated White House admission of policy failure. Add to the departure of the neo-cons and the lack of military support, the forthcoming Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report and the President's recent disclaimer regarding "staying the course," and one could conclude that the President's campaign speeches are pretty much bravado, trying to hold things together through November 7th.
I never really disliked Rumsfeld. Never felt he was a dyed in the wool neo-con, although he apparently initially bought in to their arguments. Instead, Rumsfeld impressed me as a technocrat, similar to Robert MacNamara - i.e. "I can accomplish the impossible by applying the latest in technology along with pragmatic business management." And, the loyalty part also seemed to reflect the corporate world more than the political...Bush is the Chairman of the Board, Cheney, the CEO, and Rumsfeld the VP for Defense. And, like MacNamara, I suspect when the post-Administration books are written, Rumsfeld will emerge as something of a Shakesperean tragic figure. He is certainly wise enough to be fully aware of his own mistakes and failures. The same may not be true of Bush and Cheney.
Bringing Powell into the Administration may, in a curious way, have been a fundamental error. Not that Powell was incompetent, but as a military hero and strategist, he was from the beginning, also a "competitor." One suspects that he was included in the Administration because of two factors: 1) he was a potential political rival and 2) the old Texas adage, made famous by LBJ, "it is better to have someone inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in."
Given the Administration's suspicions about the competency of the U.S. military, it is ironic they would attack Kerry recently over a bad joke and entirely probable that they were attributing to Kerry their own dark thoughts on military competence.
I also believe that while much of what Rumsfeld tried to do in "reforming" the services was positive, but that he failed to understand that changing minds was far more difficult than changing tools. Not too surprising, inasmuch as American business today rests on the same misunderstandings. Certain military maxims, like most of human behavior, do not change simply because of new technology. The Powell Doctrine was nothing dramatically different from the thinking of Alexander the Great, Napoleon, or the German military strategist Clausewitz, namely "victory goes to the side which can marshall decisive force at the decisive point."
The Rumsfeld/Tommy Franks strategy in Afghanistan and the March to Baghdad, incorporated this by substituting "technolgy" (in the form of air power and "shock and awe") for boots on the ground. And, in both cases, they did remarkably well in achieving their initial objectives: in Afghanistan, the destruction of the Taliban; in Iraq, the capture of Baghdad. Where they failed was in their assumptions (or lack thereof) regarding the post-war environment. And, in both cases, Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no substitute for fighting insurgent conflicts with boots on the ground to fullfill the old maxim regarding decisive force at the decisive point.
There is another Clausewitzian maxim: "War is a continuation of politics by other means." Insurgencies are exactly this. Failing to understand and plan for the possibility of post-war insurgencies was a critical, and possibily fatal, error. When Bush Senior/Cheney/Powell launched Gulf War I, with a strong coalition and 500,000 troops, they ensured the retention of "options" following the initial destruction of the Iraqi army. They had sufficient boots on the ground to take Baghdad. That they decided not to was recognition of the Clausewitzian maxim and the foresight to ask: "What then?"
In Gulf War II, by the time we fully realized the significance of the unexpected insurgency, we had also recognized that the principal reason for our invasion (WMD) was invalid. This new knowledge disillusioned the American people's support for the war and thus politically prevented any additional build-up of U.S./coalition forces necessary to provide for that decisive force at the decisive point.
I would suggest that there was a time period in early 2004 wherein we knew both of the above - i.e. no WMD, and the need for additional forces to overcome a growing insurgency and that additional troops were not deployed because of the 2004 elections. That policy-makers believed that if additional troops were called up and sent in, in view of the failure to find WMD and other intelligence errors then coming to light, Republicans would have lost the White House. The only other explanation would seem to be the argument Woodward makes, they were in a "state of denial."
[More in a subsequent Post]
The Army Times, the Navy Times, the Air Force Times and the Marine Times are essentially newspapers sold on our military bases and generally reflect the sentiments and opinions of our armed forces. The underlying message is, "don't blame us; blame the politicians." And, it is also an indictment of the Bush management style. Rumsfeld is only the "proxy." The Commander-in-Chief has failed to stay close to his generals.
Short of the resignations of those generals, the Military Times editorials will be as close to a revolt of the uniformed military as we shall probably see...it is that significant.
Coupled to the editorials is the desertion of several prominent neo-cons, Richard Pearle among them, and their recent comments regarding the incompetence of the Administration in implementing their own failed policies...i.e. "we have been right, but these boobs didn't execute our ideas correctly." I noted earlier the relatively silent departure of the neo-cons and suggested that this was an unstated White House admission of policy failure. Add to the departure of the neo-cons and the lack of military support, the forthcoming Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report and the President's recent disclaimer regarding "staying the course," and one could conclude that the President's campaign speeches are pretty much bravado, trying to hold things together through November 7th.
I never really disliked Rumsfeld. Never felt he was a dyed in the wool neo-con, although he apparently initially bought in to their arguments. Instead, Rumsfeld impressed me as a technocrat, similar to Robert MacNamara - i.e. "I can accomplish the impossible by applying the latest in technology along with pragmatic business management." And, the loyalty part also seemed to reflect the corporate world more than the political...Bush is the Chairman of the Board, Cheney, the CEO, and Rumsfeld the VP for Defense. And, like MacNamara, I suspect when the post-Administration books are written, Rumsfeld will emerge as something of a Shakesperean tragic figure. He is certainly wise enough to be fully aware of his own mistakes and failures. The same may not be true of Bush and Cheney.
Bringing Powell into the Administration may, in a curious way, have been a fundamental error. Not that Powell was incompetent, but as a military hero and strategist, he was from the beginning, also a "competitor." One suspects that he was included in the Administration because of two factors: 1) he was a potential political rival and 2) the old Texas adage, made famous by LBJ, "it is better to have someone inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in."
Given the Administration's suspicions about the competency of the U.S. military, it is ironic they would attack Kerry recently over a bad joke and entirely probable that they were attributing to Kerry their own dark thoughts on military competence.
I also believe that while much of what Rumsfeld tried to do in "reforming" the services was positive, but that he failed to understand that changing minds was far more difficult than changing tools. Not too surprising, inasmuch as American business today rests on the same misunderstandings. Certain military maxims, like most of human behavior, do not change simply because of new technology. The Powell Doctrine was nothing dramatically different from the thinking of Alexander the Great, Napoleon, or the German military strategist Clausewitz, namely "victory goes to the side which can marshall decisive force at the decisive point."
The Rumsfeld/Tommy Franks strategy in Afghanistan and the March to Baghdad, incorporated this by substituting "technolgy" (in the form of air power and "shock and awe") for boots on the ground. And, in both cases, they did remarkably well in achieving their initial objectives: in Afghanistan, the destruction of the Taliban; in Iraq, the capture of Baghdad. Where they failed was in their assumptions (or lack thereof) regarding the post-war environment. And, in both cases, Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no substitute for fighting insurgent conflicts with boots on the ground to fullfill the old maxim regarding decisive force at the decisive point.
There is another Clausewitzian maxim: "War is a continuation of politics by other means." Insurgencies are exactly this. Failing to understand and plan for the possibility of post-war insurgencies was a critical, and possibily fatal, error. When Bush Senior/Cheney/Powell launched Gulf War I, with a strong coalition and 500,000 troops, they ensured the retention of "options" following the initial destruction of the Iraqi army. They had sufficient boots on the ground to take Baghdad. That they decided not to was recognition of the Clausewitzian maxim and the foresight to ask: "What then?"
In Gulf War II, by the time we fully realized the significance of the unexpected insurgency, we had also recognized that the principal reason for our invasion (WMD) was invalid. This new knowledge disillusioned the American people's support for the war and thus politically prevented any additional build-up of U.S./coalition forces necessary to provide for that decisive force at the decisive point.
I would suggest that there was a time period in early 2004 wherein we knew both of the above - i.e. no WMD, and the need for additional forces to overcome a growing insurgency and that additional troops were not deployed because of the 2004 elections. That policy-makers believed that if additional troops were called up and sent in, in view of the failure to find WMD and other intelligence errors then coming to light, Republicans would have lost the White House. The only other explanation would seem to be the argument Woodward makes, they were in a "state of denial."
[More in a subsequent Post]
Friday, November 03, 2006
The Reverend Haggard
Well...it seems the Reverend has confessed to purchasing meth once (but not using it) and getting a massage...whew...for a moment there I thought we may have had another Republican pervert on our hands. Hmmm...purchasing but not using? Is that anything like, "but, I didn't inhale?" Hahahah.
This whole thing reminds me of my favorite line in American film. The film was "Some Like It Hot," with Marylin Monroe, Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis. Lemmon and Curtis are trying to escape some Chicago mobsters and join a girl's band, disguised as women. They end up at the Coronado Hotel (in the movie in Florida; in reality in San Diego), playing in the band. Curtis falls in love with Monroe; Lemmon spends the film being chased by an aging wealthy playboy, Joe E. Brown. At the end of the film, Lemmon finally turns to Brown and says, "I have something to tell you; I'm a man." Brown thinks about this a second and replies, "Well, no body's perfect."
Well, Reverend...no body's perfect.
And, actually, when you think about it, even if the sex part turns out to be true, there is nothing necessarily hypocritical about a closet gay drugee opposing the same sex marriage idea. I mean, theoretically one proposition does not lead to the other, right? Not that I'd particularly enjoy trying to explain that logic to 14,000 Evangelical Christian parishioners. "Yes, I am a closet homosexual, but I want you to know that as such, I still honestly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman"...pause..."I mean, if we were married it wouldn't be half as much fun, would it?" Nooo...resignation was probably better.
So much for today's "news cycle." Significant? About as much as Kerry telling a bad joke badly...but certainly a lot more "very interesting."
This whole thing reminds me of my favorite line in American film. The film was "Some Like It Hot," with Marylin Monroe, Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis. Lemmon and Curtis are trying to escape some Chicago mobsters and join a girl's band, disguised as women. They end up at the Coronado Hotel (in the movie in Florida; in reality in San Diego), playing in the band. Curtis falls in love with Monroe; Lemmon spends the film being chased by an aging wealthy playboy, Joe E. Brown. At the end of the film, Lemmon finally turns to Brown and says, "I have something to tell you; I'm a man." Brown thinks about this a second and replies, "Well, no body's perfect."
Well, Reverend...no body's perfect.
And, actually, when you think about it, even if the sex part turns out to be true, there is nothing necessarily hypocritical about a closet gay drugee opposing the same sex marriage idea. I mean, theoretically one proposition does not lead to the other, right? Not that I'd particularly enjoy trying to explain that logic to 14,000 Evangelical Christian parishioners. "Yes, I am a closet homosexual, but I want you to know that as such, I still honestly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman"...pause..."I mean, if we were married it wouldn't be half as much fun, would it?" Nooo...resignation was probably better.
So much for today's "news cycle." Significant? About as much as Kerry telling a bad joke badly...but certainly a lot more "very interesting."
Odds and Ends
The morning papers are filled with interesting stories, the cumulative effect of which could give the heading of this "Can Things Really Get Worse?"
First is a story regarding how the Administration, in an effort to show how we've captured important Al Qaeda intelligence, has managed to put instructions on how to make an atomic bomb on it's internet web site. No additional comment needed.
Second, is the story of how a member of Duncan Hunter's staff (Republican Congressman from California who recently announced his bid for the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination) managed to insert a provision no one apparently knew about into a Conference bill abolishing the Special Inspector General's Office for Iraq Reconstruction; an on-the-ground audit group, which has effectively been uncovering both Pentagon goofs (the lack of weapon accountability) and private contractor corruption (e.g. Halliburton, Parsons, et al) in Iraq. The bill passed and was signed by the President, now Congress is running around trying to figure a way to reinstate money for the audit group.
Third, is a story regarding a lobbying group called the "Alexander Strategy," which was fronting as a non-profit organization, but actually funneling foreign interest money to pay for plush Congressional junkets to the far east (both Democrats and Republicans).
And, fourth is the story about the gay sex and drug escapades of Reverand Haggard, head of some National Evangelical Church Association, representing some 30 million Christian Conservatives. Although, that doesn't surprise me much, I'm cautious on this one...it smells of the Dan Rather story regarding the forged letter on Bush's military service. Sort of "falsifying the truth," and then using the falsification to deny the truth. IOW, before I start rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter over the hypocrasy, I am willing to give Haggard the "presumption of innocence." And, the national media would be wise to do the same. Maybe I've become paranoid, but this story smells of the expected "Karl Rove October Surprise," a couple of days late...i.e. an effort to mobilize the base, by uncovering some liberal plot to discredit Reverand Haggard.
But, if all of the above stories hold up, in fact, perhaps a better heading for this blog would be "Cause and Effect: Sick Societies Produce Sick Leaders." Hmmm? Maybe I'll just stop reading the NYT and Washington Post and stick to the National Inquirer.
First is a story regarding how the Administration, in an effort to show how we've captured important Al Qaeda intelligence, has managed to put instructions on how to make an atomic bomb on it's internet web site. No additional comment needed.
Second, is the story of how a member of Duncan Hunter's staff (Republican Congressman from California who recently announced his bid for the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination) managed to insert a provision no one apparently knew about into a Conference bill abolishing the Special Inspector General's Office for Iraq Reconstruction; an on-the-ground audit group, which has effectively been uncovering both Pentagon goofs (the lack of weapon accountability) and private contractor corruption (e.g. Halliburton, Parsons, et al) in Iraq. The bill passed and was signed by the President, now Congress is running around trying to figure a way to reinstate money for the audit group.
Third, is a story regarding a lobbying group called the "Alexander Strategy," which was fronting as a non-profit organization, but actually funneling foreign interest money to pay for plush Congressional junkets to the far east (both Democrats and Republicans).
And, fourth is the story about the gay sex and drug escapades of Reverand Haggard, head of some National Evangelical Church Association, representing some 30 million Christian Conservatives. Although, that doesn't surprise me much, I'm cautious on this one...it smells of the Dan Rather story regarding the forged letter on Bush's military service. Sort of "falsifying the truth," and then using the falsification to deny the truth. IOW, before I start rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter over the hypocrasy, I am willing to give Haggard the "presumption of innocence." And, the national media would be wise to do the same. Maybe I've become paranoid, but this story smells of the expected "Karl Rove October Surprise," a couple of days late...i.e. an effort to mobilize the base, by uncovering some liberal plot to discredit Reverand Haggard.
But, if all of the above stories hold up, in fact, perhaps a better heading for this blog would be "Cause and Effect: Sick Societies Produce Sick Leaders." Hmmm? Maybe I'll just stop reading the NYT and Washington Post and stick to the National Inquirer.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Postscript on Kerry's BooBoo and the War Issue
OK...Kerry made four mistakes:
1) Wrong joke. "You get stuck in Iraq." Bush may be to blame, etc., etc., but we're ALL stuck in Iraq.
2) Wrong Audience. Had he made this statement in a one-on-one interview or even to the VFW, it MAY have been understood...but not surrounded by school kids. He mixed messages.
3) Wrong Type of Humor. Sarcasm seldom goes over in political speeches...unless very, very heavy handed. If the joke was about Bush, he should have mentioned Bush by name.
4) Wrong Timing...really, really lousy. Democrats are focused on winning elections on Tuesday, not lamenting the 2004 loss or rehashing the issues. John, you lost...we know why and don't need your explanation...get over it!
If Kerry wants to stand a chance in the 2008 Presidential Sweepstakes, my advice would be to fire most of his staff and obtain replacements from somewhere in all of those red fly-over states.
MEANWHILE...why isn't someone noting that while Iraq seems to be entering a crucial phase and that while the Iraqi "government" is standing up...to disagree with U.S. military commanders on the ground...the Commander-in-Chief is out raising political funds and campaigning. The three issues Democrats should be pounding on are:
1) Right or wrong, we are where we are and it is time to "redefine" exactly what "victory" means, because there may be a big, big difference between what a democratic Iraq wants and the objectives of U.S. policy. The Republican argument is filled with holes and increasingly obvious contradictions. For one, a democratic Iraq now probably means a barely secular state, under Shite majority control. Given that on-the-ground reality it in all likelihood also means an Iraq allied with Iran, not a "bulkwark" of defense against terrorism or a hospitable location for a new Mid-East, pro-American "base." IOW, the goals of a democratic Iraq and an ally in the War on Terror may be contradictory.
2) Right or wrong, we invaded Iraq (wrong, in my personal opinion) and ousted Saddam Hussein and destroyed (or tried to) his base - an infrastructure based around the Sunni miniority. It is really no longer our position to even set goals for "victory." Victory is for the Iraq government to define. As long as we keep trying to define "victory" from Washington, D.C. we only dig our hole deeper and confirm the worst suspicions of most of the Muslim world. The "timetable" should not be based on U.S. troop withdrawals, but at what point do we stop trying to "direct" the Iraqi government and start asking them, "what do you need from us?"
3) The combination of trying to "streamline" our military forces for the 21st century and take on the responsibility for Iraq at the same time has proven to be a disaster. When the best military minds suggested we would need 300,000+ boots on the ground to BOTH secure our rear echelons, as we advanced on Baghdad, and to ensure post-war stability and didn't get those numbers, people in the military should have resigned. For that matter, Rumsfeld should have resigned. Resources must always match commitments. Embarking on some global mission to democratize the world, without adequate forces and resources is insanity and a disservice to the men and women we put in harm's way. Bush needs to either "put up" or "shut up." Our current level of "commitment," (a barely marginal force that only just manages to sustain the status quo), despite all of the Republican rheotric about staying the course, actually reflects the growing dissatisfaction of the American people with the War. He has put politics above the protection of American forces in the field, the latter of which may only be secured through reinforcement or disengagement.
If the President REALLY want's HIS "victory," let him go back to Congress, ask for a formal declaration of war on terror, and explain to the American people that his strategy for victory probably means 500,000 troops in the Middle East as an "occupying force" for the next 50 years. Then, let the American voters decide whether or not they want to support the overall policy.
In sum, the President is rapidly arriving at a point wherein he must either radically re-define his Mid-East foreign policy goals or go to the American people and ask for the necessary resources to achieve those goals and protect the people we now have in the field. If he continues to try and run this thing on a shoe string and fails to demand accountability for critical errors in the field (e.g. the failure to record serial numbers of weapons supplied to the Iraqis, the failure to provide adequate armor, the failure to provide adequate forces, etc.), the American people will hold him accountable. It's time for him to stop acting like a politican and to start acting like a true Commander in Chief.
1) Wrong joke. "You get stuck in Iraq." Bush may be to blame, etc., etc., but we're ALL stuck in Iraq.
2) Wrong Audience. Had he made this statement in a one-on-one interview or even to the VFW, it MAY have been understood...but not surrounded by school kids. He mixed messages.
3) Wrong Type of Humor. Sarcasm seldom goes over in political speeches...unless very, very heavy handed. If the joke was about Bush, he should have mentioned Bush by name.
4) Wrong Timing...really, really lousy. Democrats are focused on winning elections on Tuesday, not lamenting the 2004 loss or rehashing the issues. John, you lost...we know why and don't need your explanation...get over it!
If Kerry wants to stand a chance in the 2008 Presidential Sweepstakes, my advice would be to fire most of his staff and obtain replacements from somewhere in all of those red fly-over states.
MEANWHILE...why isn't someone noting that while Iraq seems to be entering a crucial phase and that while the Iraqi "government" is standing up...to disagree with U.S. military commanders on the ground...the Commander-in-Chief is out raising political funds and campaigning. The three issues Democrats should be pounding on are:
1) Right or wrong, we are where we are and it is time to "redefine" exactly what "victory" means, because there may be a big, big difference between what a democratic Iraq wants and the objectives of U.S. policy. The Republican argument is filled with holes and increasingly obvious contradictions. For one, a democratic Iraq now probably means a barely secular state, under Shite majority control. Given that on-the-ground reality it in all likelihood also means an Iraq allied with Iran, not a "bulkwark" of defense against terrorism or a hospitable location for a new Mid-East, pro-American "base." IOW, the goals of a democratic Iraq and an ally in the War on Terror may be contradictory.
2) Right or wrong, we invaded Iraq (wrong, in my personal opinion) and ousted Saddam Hussein and destroyed (or tried to) his base - an infrastructure based around the Sunni miniority. It is really no longer our position to even set goals for "victory." Victory is for the Iraq government to define. As long as we keep trying to define "victory" from Washington, D.C. we only dig our hole deeper and confirm the worst suspicions of most of the Muslim world. The "timetable" should not be based on U.S. troop withdrawals, but at what point do we stop trying to "direct" the Iraqi government and start asking them, "what do you need from us?"
3) The combination of trying to "streamline" our military forces for the 21st century and take on the responsibility for Iraq at the same time has proven to be a disaster. When the best military minds suggested we would need 300,000+ boots on the ground to BOTH secure our rear echelons, as we advanced on Baghdad, and to ensure post-war stability and didn't get those numbers, people in the military should have resigned. For that matter, Rumsfeld should have resigned. Resources must always match commitments. Embarking on some global mission to democratize the world, without adequate forces and resources is insanity and a disservice to the men and women we put in harm's way. Bush needs to either "put up" or "shut up." Our current level of "commitment," (a barely marginal force that only just manages to sustain the status quo), despite all of the Republican rheotric about staying the course, actually reflects the growing dissatisfaction of the American people with the War. He has put politics above the protection of American forces in the field, the latter of which may only be secured through reinforcement or disengagement.
If the President REALLY want's HIS "victory," let him go back to Congress, ask for a formal declaration of war on terror, and explain to the American people that his strategy for victory probably means 500,000 troops in the Middle East as an "occupying force" for the next 50 years. Then, let the American voters decide whether or not they want to support the overall policy.
In sum, the President is rapidly arriving at a point wherein he must either radically re-define his Mid-East foreign policy goals or go to the American people and ask for the necessary resources to achieve those goals and protect the people we now have in the field. If he continues to try and run this thing on a shoe string and fails to demand accountability for critical errors in the field (e.g. the failure to record serial numbers of weapons supplied to the Iraqis, the failure to provide adequate armor, the failure to provide adequate forces, etc.), the American people will hold him accountable. It's time for him to stop acting like a politican and to start acting like a true Commander in Chief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
