Politics

Politics

Comments (0)

Permalink

Too Stupid? Too Dangerous? Just Watch!

Josh Marshall worries about the meaning of the sudden resignation of the Saudi ambassador:

The main mistakes I’ve made thinking about foreign policy over the last half decade were, I think, all cases where there were certain outcomes I just didn’t find credible because they were just too stupid and dangerous for anybody in a position of power to try. Good luck on that.

Yeah, whenever you think you’ve figured out just how bad the Bush Administration is, they always find a way to surprise you. I hate those surprises.

Politics

Comments (0)

Permalink

Always the Same, Yet Always Getting Worse

The world of financial services offers us the familiar disclaimer, “Past performance is not an indicator of future results.” It’s a warning against excessive optimism — “irrational exuberance” — and an acknowledgment that nobody really knows what the future holds. Last year’s high-flyer might be next year’s boat anchor. Market predictions that seem brilliant in January can look idiotic in December — and vice versa.

But sometimes I think past performance is an indicator of what to expect from the future. When the past record is one of failure after failure after failure after failure, and the new plan is more of the same, it’s not very reasonable to expect success next time around.

Via Atrios, Jim Henley says the stakes go up every time we fail, but the solution remains the same:

[O]ur mission is no longer preventing “full-blown civil war,” which used to be what we had to prevent, or “increased sectarian strife,” which is what we had to prevent before that, or “increasing insurgent violence” which is what we had to prevent before that. The pattern has always been:

1. Declare that we must stay in Iraq to prevent some Bad Thing from happening.

2. Bad Thing happens anyway.

3. Declare that we must stay in Iraq to prevent some Worse Thing from happening.

4. Worse Thing happens anyway.

5. Reiterate sequence.

At no point does the “Sensible Center” consider that the previous failures implicate our ability to fulfill the new mission, which is always paradoxically grander in scale while being a retreat from previous ambitions.

From the Washington Post:

The administration had said the president would address the nation before Christmas but scrapped those plans as Bush grapples with a host of proposals for adjusting policy in the increasingly unpopular and costly war.

Mostly, I think it’s the speech writers who will be busy, searching for a way to make the same old policy sound like a bold new idea.

Politics

Comments (1)

Permalink

Play Attention

Some people still believe that the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report is the cover story that allows the country to change course in Iraq and George W. Bush to save face. I don’t think so.

Take this Freudian slip from yesterday’s joint press conference with Tony Blair. Bush responded to a question from Los Angeles Times reporter James Gerstenzang. Pay close attention.

I don’t think Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton expect us to accept every recommendation. I expect them — I think — I know they expect us to consider every recommendation, Jim. They — we oughta pay close attention to what they advise. And I told ’em yesterday at our meeting that we would play close attention.

Notice: not “pay close attention,” but “play close attention.”

I don’t like amateur psycho-analysis of people not present, but let’s be honest here — the theory that Bush sees the presidency as a big game of “Pretend” goes a long way toward explaining the past six years.

Politics

Comments (0)

Permalink

Faith Not Blind Enough

I used to be an optimist, but time and experience have cured me of that.

Or so I thought. Recently I learned that there is still a streak of absolute Pollyanna-ish optimism in me. On the day after Election Day, when Bush announced that Donald Rumsfeld was out, for the space of one heartbeat, I dared to hope that this meant a new course in Iraq. Oh, what a fool I was!

Over at TIME magazine, they still believe. Their question, “Can Bush Find an Exit?” is based on a faulty premise — that Bush is looking for an exit.

But Bush has never had to pull off a U-turn like the one he is contemplating now: to give up on his dream of turning Babylon into an oasis of freedom and democracy and instead begin a staged withdrawal from Iraq, rewrite the mission of the 150,000 U.S. troops there as they begin to draw down, and launch a diplomatic Olympics across the Middle East and between Israel and the Palestinians. Even calling all that a reversal is a misnomer; it would be more like a personality transplant.

The TIME writers have already given Bush the personality transplant. Do they really believe he is “contemplating” a change? They must be talking about some other guy.

In Latvia last week, Bush said:

We’ll continue to be flexible, and we’ll make the changes necessary to succeed. But there’s one thing I’m not going to do: I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.

Flexible? Bush is as flexible as a tire iron.

If he’s so inflexible, why did Bush show Rummy the door? Not, I think, for his long record of failure in Iraq. No, I think it was for the memo:

Two days before he resigned as defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged that the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction.

In the end, Rumsfeld’s faith was not sufficiently blind.

Airy Persiflage
Politics

Comments (0)

Permalink

That Thing We Do

Over on the Al Franken Show’s blog, Eric Hananoki asks the uncivil question:

What should we call the Iraq war if we refuse to call it a “civil war”?

E.g. “that thing over there.”

There’s a link where readers can submit their suggestions.

Some of the responses are in a later post. A few of my favorites:

Mark M = Ongoing celebratory gunfire

Alex C = Cross Cultural Exchange of Gunfire

Jim B = CSI – Everywhere

There are also suggestions in the comments of both posts. One commenter suggested “That thing we do.” Before you venture into the comments, be warned: there’s some strong language there.

Funnies
Politics

Comments (3)

Permalink

Neo-Comics

Cartoonist Ruben Bolling shows us the home life of a neoconservative.

Nate, you’re in the wrong house again! You live next door!

Meanwhile, Tom Tomorrow brings us the Ballad of a NeoCon.

Rumsfeld really screwed this up! Not to mention Condi! And don’t get me started on Chalabi! Am I alone in my competence?

Funnies
Politics

Comments (0)

Permalink

Monotonous, Isn’t It?

What a surprise. George W. Bush seems to be rejecting recommendations from the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group before they have even made any recommendations:

Although the president was not asked directly about the panel’s recommendations, which will be made public next week but which were partially leaked to reporters late Wednesday, he did say that “this business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever.”

Hey, if anybody knows about “no realism whatsoever,” it’s George W. Bush.

What Bush says:

President Bush on Thursday dismissed calls for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq as unrealistic, saying American forces would “stay in Iraq to get the job done, so long as the government wants us there.”

What I hear:

One, One, One...

Politics

Comments (1)

Permalink

We’ve Changed, Man

On November 22, 1963, the regular teacher for our sixth-grade class was off in Columbus for some sort of state-wide teachers’ meeting, so it was the school’s principal who took us out to the school playground for phys. ed. We played a disorganized style of soccer that consisted mostly of running, running, running, and occasionally flailing at the ball if it came near. Then we came back inside, and a substitute teacher had us open our science books to an illustration of piano strings, with special emphasis on their different lengths and thicknesses.

In a few minutes, the principal came to the door to ask the teacher to turn on the classroom intercom, which was carrying a radio news report. President Kennedy had been shot. I still remember looking at that drawing of piano strings and listening to the voices on the radio.

On April 4, 1968, I was in the living room at home. The television was on, but I don’t think I was paying much attention until the bulletin flashed on the screen: Martin Luther King, Jr. had been killed. We had never heard the famous civil rights leader called Jr. — could this be his son?

At breakfast on the morning of June 6, 1968, the kitchen radio carried the news that Bobby Kennedy had been shot late the night before. He had just won the Democratic presidential primary in California. He was gunned down in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. He died the next day.

On Monday I saw the new Emilio Estevez movie, Bobby. The movie was disappointing — Grand Hotel, but set at the Ambassador on the day RFK was shot.

The movie invites comparisons to the present day, but what really struck me was how antiquated and quaint the politics of 1968 seem when seen from today. Can you imagine any modern politician of either party standing up for migrant farm workers? Not just talking to poor people, but listening to them? Caring more about a coal miner than a coal company?

It wasn’t just Bobby Kennedy. The whole country has changed, and the ideals of 1968 have been sacrificed for stock options and 401Ks.

It’s the big shocks we remember — the assassinations, the terrorist attacks — but societies change mostly by millions of erosive increments, each one so small we don’t even notice it; all together, transforming us beyond recognition. The Party of Dwight D. Eisenhower becomes the party of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. The Party of Lincoln becomes the party of Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush. The Bill of Rights becomes a mere inconvenience:

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a “different set of rules” may be needed to reduce terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

Gingrich spoke to about 400 state and local power brokers last night at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech.

We lost this country by millions and millions of bad decisions over many years.

Can America be saved? It’s going to take years, and millions upon millions of better choices.

Politics

Comments (0)

Permalink

Psycho Prediction

On September 26, I made the following prediction on this blog:

I feel a psychic prediction coming on: gas prices will stay low until election day, but will be significantly higher three weeks after election day than they were on election day.

It’s now three weeks after election day. So, how did that work out?

Here are the posted prices from four gas stations near my house on election day:

2.29, 2.29, 2.34 and 2.34

Here are the posted prices at the same four stations today.

2.09, 2.09, 2.12 and 2.10

Somehow, my prediction was wrong. I can think of three possible explanations:

  1. Even before taking office, the newly-elected Democratic Congress is somehow correcting six years of Bush and Cheney letting Big Oil run roughshod over consumers.
  2. The oil companies are reading this blog, and deliberately manipulating prices to make me look stupid.
  3. I’m stupid.

I’m inclined to go with “a” or “b”.

If “c” is true, does that mean that Mr. Rumsfeld was right all along? That it’s just too complicated for me to understand, or for him to explain? That things really are going well in Iraq?

Nah. I’m not that stupid.

Update: I’ve been informed that real psychics never remind people of their incorrect predictions. Live and learn.

Politics

Comments (0)

Permalink

1,347 Days

(This is a slightly modified re-run of an earlier post.)

V-J Day, marking victory over Japan and the end of World War II, came on August 15, 1945 — 1,347 days after the United States was drawn into the war by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Today, it’s been 1,347 days since the Bush Administration invaded Iraq. It was, in George W. Bush’s own words, “military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.” The war that began that day has now lasted as long as U.S. involvement in World War II. The administration has often invited comparisons to World War II and the “greatest generation.” So, how have we used our 1,347 days?

When Pearl Harbor was attacked, we were surprised, and ill-prepared for war. Americans across the country rushed to volunteer, and the military draft brought in more. There weren’t enough guns, so recruits drilled with broomsticks, or with dummy wooden rifles.

Taxes were levied to pay for the war, and money was borrowed through the sale of War Bonds. Old factories were converted to wartime production, and new factories were built. We built ships, planes, jeeps, trucks, tanks. New designs moved swiftly from the drawing board, to the factory floor, to the field of battle.

Soldiers, sailors and pilots were quickly trained to use the new weapons. Our British allies had invented radar, and we learned to use it. We sought and exploited countless advances in science and engineering.

The German army was the best in the world. U.S. soldiers were mauled in their first major encounter with crack German troops at the battle of the Kasserine Pass in north Africa. “You go to war with the army you have,” but we understood we weren’t yet good enough. We learned from our failures. We got better.

We fought massive naval battles and fierce island battles across the Pacific, demolishing the Japanese navy and closing in on the Japanese islands.

With our allies, we captured Sicily and landed on the Italian mainland. We fought German and Italian fascist forces as we drove up that country. We landed at Normandy in northern France on D-Day, the largest amphibious assault in history. We liberated France, driving the once unbeatable German army of occupation back mile by brutal mile. We suffered Germany’s devastating counter-attack in the Battle of the Bulge, and we surmounted it.

At home, women worked factory jobs to replace men who had gone to war. Scarce resources were rationed. There were scrap metal drives. Every American was asked to make sacrifices to help win the war. Nearly every American did. In secrecy, tapping the talents of European scientists who had fled Nazi oppression, we developed the atomic bomb.

Americans, British, Canadians, Russians all pushed into Germany. Hitler, trapped, killed himself and the German government capitulated. In the Pacific, Japan’s empire collapsed. American forces were poised for invasion. Russian forces were expected to join the assault, too. Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Tokyo, a military coup was attempted to prevent Emperor Hirohito from surrendering. It failed. The war ended.

World War II was a long hard struggle, and the path was not always as clear as it may seem now in hindsight. But we saw what needed to be done; we didn’t seek diversions. We were realistic; we knew we couldn’t win without a plan. We did not seek dominion; we knew we couldn’t win without our allies. We were humble; we learned from our mistakes. We shared sacrifices; the wealthy were not exempted. Congress investigated reports of war profiteering. The government made post-war plans to bring our defeated enemies back into the community of civilized nations.

All in 1,347 days.

What kind of use have we made of these 1,347 days?

Politics

Comments (1)

Permalink

Keep Your Receipts

Ted Koppel on The Daily Show:

You remember the joke — it wasn’t that much of a joke — before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, we used to say in Washington, “We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. We still have the receipts.”

That was back in the 1980s. When you think about it, the chemical weapons that were used by the Iraqis against the Iranians came from components that were sold to them by the British, the French, the Germans and the United States.

On George W. Bush’s trip to Vietnam:

It’s a sign of the times. Thirty-five years ago he joined the Texas Air National Guard to stay out of Vietnam, and now he’s going to Vietnam to stay out of Washington.

With globalization transforming so much of the world, I got curious. Could Bush be staying at this hotel during his stay in Hanoi?

The real Hanoi Hilton

Gee. When John McCain talks about the “Hanoi Hilton,” it doesn’t sound nearly as nice.

Funnies
Politics

Comments (0)

Permalink

Maintain Current Heading

What we are supposed to believe is this:

  • That George W. Bush totally “gets it” that things aren’t going well in Iraq.
  • That he is ready and eager to make the policy changes necessary to end the spiral of disaster there.
  • That he cannot make those changes if they would cause him to “lose face.”
  • That James Baker’s Iraq Study Group (ISG), a non-partisan group of the nation’s finest minds, will map out a new plan that will save face for Bush, and allow the nation a way out of the Iraq debacle.

Bush met with members of the ISG yesterday:

Bush offered little indication that he is planning to adjust his approach, telling reporters gathered in the Oval Office that “the best military options depend upon the conditions on the ground” in Iraq. The president also met for more than an hour with former secretary of state James A. Baker III, former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) and other members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which is looking to chart a new course in the war.

The White House was extremely guarded yesterday about the round of meetings the study group held with Bush and other members of his administration, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and Vice President Cheney. Bush said he was not going to “prejudge” the group’s report, which is expected in early December. He said that they had a “really good discussion” and that he was looking forward to “interesting ideas.”

Maybe it’s just me. Maybe it’s my cynicism talking, or maybe it’s my years and years of experience watching this guy. But I’m thinking the ISG report isn’t going to make the slightest difference to Bush’s policies in Iraq. Well, maybe he’ll change some slogans: “Stay the Course” becomes “Maintain Current Heading,” perhaps?

Does this remind you of anyone?

Lucy jumps rope, counting 'One, one, one.'

Politics

Comments (0)

Permalink

Rumsfeld Tribute

The Al Franken Show has an audio tribute to Donald Rumsfeld:

We’ll miss you, Mr. Rumsfeld*

*this is not actually true.

Warning: strong language in the site comments. No bad language in the audio file, though. (I was going to say “nothing offensive in the audio file,” but that is not actually true.)

Funnies
Politics

Comments (0)

Permalink

Gotta Do Better

Boy, Howard Dean wasn’t kidding when he said the Democratic victory was won with help from George W. Bush. From Daily Kos:

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that President Bush may have been the deciding factor that killed the GOP’s momentum in some key Senate races over the last week. One Republican consultant is convinced that Bush’s last-minute visit to Missouri on behalf of ousted GOP Sen. Jim Talent did the incumbent in. According to the network exit polls, Democrat Claire McCaskill crushed Talent among those late-breaking voters who decided in the final three days (a full 11 percent of the electorate). Bush also made a last-minute trip to Montana, where anecdotal evidence indicates the president’s rally for Republican Conrad Burns stopped the incumbent’s momentum in Billings.

Via Bob Geiger, political cartoonist Nick Anderson shows how the Democrats won.

If you’re a Republican member of Congress, the election results probably felt like a tsunami — after all, how can you squeeze the big bucks out of corporate lobbyists if you can’t guarantee that they get to write the latest legislation governing their industries? But considering just how horribly the Republicans have fouled up everything they’ve touched, I thought the voters’ rejection of the GOP should have been of more Biblical proportions — say, a hundred seats change hands in the House, eight or nine in the Senate.

Cartoonist Tom Tomorrow says that may become a Republican talking point:

Rove: Given the magnitude of this administration’s failures, the fact that voters were willing to vote for any Republican anywhere was actually a repudiation of the Democrats!

Bush: Snicker! Those losers!

Democrats won the Senate by only one vote, and Joe Lieberman is threatening to switch to the Republicans unless he gets his way in everything:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said yesterday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats in the new Congress, but he would not rule out switching to the Republican caucus if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats.

(Say, wouldn’t it be nice right now if a couple Republican senators switched to the Democratic Party and stole Joe’s spotlight?)

Seriously, I worry. Why was the election so close? Well, cheating helped:

[T]he National Republican Congressional Committee was responsible for repetitive, often harrassing robo calls in more than two dozen districts across the country in the runup to the election.

In at least seven of those districts, the Democrat failed to unseat the incumbent by only a couple thousand votes. The NRCC’s calls may have been the difference in those races.

There’s always going to be cheating in elections. You don’t win in politics unless you win big enough to beat the cheat.

If this is the best the Democrats can do in a year when Republican failures are so inescapably clear, we’ve got a lot of work to do before 2008.

This time, the Republicans lost. Next time, Democrats have got to win.

Update: A contrary opinion — M.J. Rosenberg says the line that the voters didn’t vote for the Dems, but against Republicans is “a load of crap.”

Politics

Comments (0)

Permalink

Umm… I Don’t Want Elton On My Team

Elton John has it all figured out:

Organized religion fuels anti-gay discrimination and other forms of bias, pop star Elton John said in an interview published Saturday.

“I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people,” John said in the Observer newspaper’s Music Monthly Magazine. “Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays.”

“But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion,” he said. “From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn’t seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it’s not really compassionate.”

Yes, if history has taught us anything, it’s that the only way to fight intolerance is with more intolerance. That’s the sure cure!