Monday, December 18, 2006
1/ I saw the Al Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth. It was a real eye-opener. I highly recommend it.
2/ I watched 60 Minutes last night. I was struck by how little real journalism there is in the show. There was a (very moving and interesting) human interest story about the release to the public of Germany's Holocaust documentation. Then Lesley Stahl had a piece called Lost and Found, about attempts to reunite kids in foster care with their biological families. Stahl's piece was played almost completely as an infotainment human interest story, with little effort made to provide viewers with basic information about the subject matter of the story.
Then Bob Simon did an infotainment bit on comedian Larry the Cable Guy. Simon actually asked him, "Do you think political correctness has gotten out of control?" (The guy said yes.) And then there was another unwatchable Andy Rooney bit.
3/ Yesterday, I watched both the Chris Matthews Show and Meet the Press. A few drive-by observations:
- Chris Matthews' panel was incredibly weak yesterday: David Brooks (NYT), Howard Fineman (Newsweek), Michele Norris (NPR) and Jennifer Senior (New York Magazine). The best of the bunch was Howard Fineman, who obviously isn't a policy guy, but is a fairly astute commenter on the politics of national politics. David Brooks is a GOP operative/columnist hack, and Michele Norris and Jennifer Senior are by-the-numbers conventional wisdom script-following pseudo-journalists.
- Tim Russert interviewed Newt Gingrich, and then had a discussion with Tom Friedman and David Brooks. Now that's fair and balanced!
- It really looks like Newt Gingrich is preparing to run for the GOP nomination. He has been a feverish supporter of the Iraq fiasco -- it'll be interesting to see him try and distance himself from the Bush policy and the Saint John McCain position. He continues to be an enthusiatic promoter of the "9/11 Requires America to become a Police State" world view.
- Tom Friedman is a buffoon. Why does this guy continue to be taken seriously?
- What's wrong with Tim Rusert? What thought process leads the guy to book Brooks (totally wrong about the war, a GOP hack) and Friedman (totally wrong about the war, a demonstrable flake) for a discussion about the war?
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Dowd leads off her column by repeating Botox jokes about Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton:
Ted Olson, the former solicitor general and eloquent Republican lawyer who argued the Bush v. Gore case before the Supreme Court, was warming up the rabidly conservative Federalist Society crowd for John McCain with a few sexist cracks about Botox.Let's be clear about what Dowd is doing here: she's circulating these sexist memes about Pelosi and Clinton. Her column isn't about the "eloquent" Ted Olson or the "rabidly conservative Federalist Society Crowd" -- it's about Nancy Pelosi. And these are the ideas Dowd chooses to push in that context. Of course, immediately after pimping the Botox jokes, Dowd adds:
The new Congress could amuse itself, he said, by “searching for any sign of movement in Speaker Pelosi’s forehead.” The Senate, he added, would be entertained by “the expressionless, Pelosi-like forehead of Senator Clinton.”
It reminded you of just how idiotic Republicans can act sometimes.Idiotic? I'm not so sure. Rather, I'd say these "rabid conservatives" have Dowd's number -- they know they can count on her, and twits like her, to repeat and promote this hateful stuff.
The only thing worse than hearing the first female speaker of the House filleted in such a lame way was seeing the first female speaker of the House flail around in her first big week in such a lame way. It reminded you of just how idiotic Democrats can act sometimes.Here's Dowd's argument: Even worse than Ted Olson's sexist cracks about Pelosi and Clinton is the fact that sexist stereotypes about the shortcomings of women in professional settings are actually true of Pelosi, judging by Pelosi's conduct to date as Speaker-elect of the House of Representatives. The sexists are right about Pelosi! Politically speaking, she "throws like a girl." Wow! That's quite a charge. But here's what Dowd comes up with by way of evidence for this startling claim:
Nancy Pelosi’s first move, after the Democratic triumph, was to throw like a girl. Women get criticized in the office for acting on relationships and past slights rather than strategy, so Madame Speaker wasted no time making her first move based on relationships and past slights rather than strategy.
Instead of counting votes behind closed doors or even just choosing the best person for majority leader, Ms. Pelosi offered an argument along the lines of: John Murtha’s my friend. He’s been nice to me. I don’t like Steny. He did something a long time ago that was really, really bad that I’m never, ever going to tell you. And I’m the boss of you. So vote for John.Let me be charitable about this: Maureen Dowd has no idea what she's talking about. Let me be uncharitable about this: Maureen Dowd is a sexist idiot.
Dowd stumbles across the phenomenon of politics, as if for the first time. Had she given this a moment's thought, or had she consulted with someone with an actual interest in politics, she would surely have discovered that loyalty is an exceedingly important factor in making political decisions, that "just choosing the best person" is not a meaningful option in this context, any more than it would be in the context of choosing a husband or a wife.
Dowd takes this mundane reality about politics and the political process -- that loyalty and a history of cooperation are important factors in forging political alliances -- and renders it in crude, sexist terms for the sole purpose of belittling Pelosi. Consider Dowd's trademark manufactured quotes. Apparently Pelosi said something "along the lines of" "He’s been nice to me. I don’t like Steny." Where does this come from? It comes from Maureen Dowd. Maureen Dowd literally invents quotations to mock Pelosi as an irrational schoolgirl! Could Dowd be more of a hack?
Dowd then considers Nancy Pelosi's opposition to Jane Harman as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Dowd writes:
Everyone in Washington was perplexed at Ms. Pelosi’s ham-handed effort to sabotage not only Mr. Hoyer but her former friend and fellow Californian, Jane Harman. In what looks like another self-defeating personality clash, she has been maneuvering to bypass the senior member of the House Intelligence Committee and give the chairmanship either to the ethically challenged Alcee Hastings of Florida or a compromise candidate, Silvestre Reyes of Texas.Everyone in Washington was perplexed by this? Of course, that is an outright falsehood. Pelosi is widely known to disapprove of Harman's performance on the House Intelligence Committee, on the grounds that Harman has been insufficiently partisan and has demonstrated a Lieberman-like propensity to defend the Bush Administration, notably over the warrantless wiretapping program. That Pelosi doesn't like the idea of Jane Harman -- a prominent Democratic hawk and feverish early supporter of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy -- as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee indicates good judgment on Pelosi's part. It doesn't make sense to entrust the leadership of key House Committees that will be tasked with investigating the Bush White House to Democrats who have been fellow-travellers of the Bush Administration and whose reputations could be damaged as a result of these investigations.
And what does Dowd offer up by way of evidence that Pelosi's opposition to Harman amounts to nothing more than a "self-defeating personality clash"? She quotes "one top Democrat who knows both women". Here's the quote:
“Jane was very aggressive about going on TV; she was on TV so much she could have gotten a SAG card,” said one top Democrat who knows both women. “Nancy resented that and felt Jane was leeching attention away from her leadership role. That had a lot to do with poisoning the relationship.”What do you even say about this kind of stuff?
So we've come full-circle. We're back to the good old Bill-and-Monica, War-on-Gore days. Maureen Dowd is back, in full form. Yuk.
UPDATE @ 6:00 PM
A few of Maureen Dowd's Greatest Hits:
* Maureen Dowd comlains that Gore and Kerry "allowed themselves to be painted as girlie men" -- having herself been an incessant portrayer of Gore and Kerry as girlie men.
* Maureen Dowd makes up the phony "Who among us doesn't like NASCAR" quote.
* Maureen Dowd writes that Kerry is struggling to prove his manhood to George W. Bush.
* Maureen Dowd says that Kerry is coming off as "Bush's woman" on Imus.
* Maureen Dowd writes of Gore that he "has to pay a fortune to a woman [Naomi Wolf] to teach him how to be a man," and generally makes stuff up to push the meme of Gore as a phony.
* Maureen Dowd ridicules Gore's beard in 2001, likens him to Pepe Le Pew.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Broder writes that just about everyone saw the Democrats' victory coming:
Never was a political wipeout better advertised in advance than the one that hit the Republican Party on Tuesday and cost Don Rumsfeld his job. From the first of my political soundings in the Midwest in early spring, it was clear that the public's frustration with the war in Iraq, the inept performance of the Bush administration after Hurricane Katrina, and the stunning partisanship and tawdriness of the Republican Congress was reaching explosive levels.He then notes that Bush and Rove are among the only people on the planet who did not see this coming:
The only people who seemed oblivious to the warning signs were President Bush and his political adviser, Karl Rove. Against all evidence, including the warnings of other Republicans, they kept insisting that Republicans would hold the House and Senate. Bush said at his news conference yesterday, "I knew we were going to lose seats," but he acknowledged he was shocked that the twin themes he kept pushing -- taxes and security -- didn't save the GOP from "a thumping."Broder then uses Bush's obliviousness about political reality in the United States as an occasion to question Bush's grasp of reality in Iraq. Fair enough. But here's what Broder comes up with:
The Democrats will offer Bush alternatives for Iraq and so, presumably, will the Baker-Hamilton commission when it meets with him next week and issues its report in December. James A. Baker III and Lee Hamilton and their colleagues are perfectly positioned to help break the deadlock on that policy -- if Bush is looking for an out.The question is whether Bush will be able to spot a policy and political disaster in the making? The answer is not at all clear? Broder may be the only guy on this planet who still hasn't figured out that Bush's Iraq adventure is not a potential disaster or a disaster "in the making," but a complete and actual disaster right now. And what are we supposed to make of Broder's statement that Bush's ability to be "discerning" with respect to Iraq is an open question that will be resolved next week?
The question is whether a president who couldn't recognize the reality of an approaching political landslide is any more discerning about spotting a policy and political disaster in the making in a far-off land.
The answer is not at all clear.
"Facing up to Reality" indeed!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: it really says something about contemporary journalism and punditry that a guy as vacuous as David Broder can achieve near-universal recognition as the "Dean" of Washington journalists.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
So the Democrats have won control of both the House and the Senate!
Coming soon: a post-election wrap-up post, an "I got it totally wrong" confession on the Showdown with Iran October Surprise that did not materialize, and a boatload of contempt for Joe Lieberman.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Here is the first promising exit path indentified by Ignatius:
The first path is a more federal Iraq -- with power devolved to the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions. But this presupposes a national government strong enough to formulate rules for, say, the sharing of oil revenue. If such a national framework existed, Iraq wouldn't be such a mess in the first place. Another tricky problem is stabilizing the Sunni areas that would be a potential safe haven for terrorists. If the Iraqi army can't control these areas, the only alternative may be, in effect, a Sunni militia drawn from the ranks of the insurgency. U.S. officials have been meeting secretly outside Iraq with insurgent leaders in an effort to draw them into such a framework. (Emphasis added)Why does Ignatius find this path "promising," given his acknowledgment that it presupposes an Iraqi "national framework" that does not exist? What are the prospects for creating such a framework, which Ignatius recognizes is a necessary condition for the success of promising path number one? He doesn't say.
Promising path number two:
The second exit ramp passes through Iran and Syria. Talking with Tehran and Damascus could be helpful in stabilizing Iraq, but we should recognize at the outset that their influence is limited -- and that it may carry an unacceptable price. Iran's goal in Iraq is a decisive Shiite victory and Sunni submission, but that's a formula for continuing civil war -- and in any event, it's not an agenda the United States should endorse. Syria could be helpful in curbing al-Qaeda in Iraq, but there are limits and drawbacks to Syrian power -- as was clear during its long and brutal occupation of Lebanon.(Emphasis added)So the second promising path passes through Tehran, which Ignatius says has as it central goal in Iraq a "decisive Shiite victory" that America should not endorse and that amounts to a "formula for endless civil war." And in any case we need to acknowledge at the outset that its influence is limited. How does that remotely constitute a "promising path?" Plainly, it doesn't.
Now consider Ignatius's conclusion:
The real opportunity presented by the Baker-Hamilton process is that it's bipartisan. To get most American troops out of Iraq over the next year will require more patience at home, and a lot less partisan bickering. And our politicians will need strong stomachs: They must manage an orderly retreat under fire. There is a path out of this mess, but we will be lying if we call it victory.So, to summarize: there are two "promising paths" for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, both of which Ignatius acknowledges are unrealistic, and what's required in order to accelerate the progress of U.S. troops along one or both of these unrealistic promising paths out of Iraq is "more patience at home" and "less partisan bickering." This is pretty incredible stuff.
Ignatius skates right by the core reality determining America's options in Iraq at this point: the United States does not have the ability to control the political outcome in Iraq, and is losing its remaining influence at an accelerating rate. The U.S. can begin redeploying troops (along the lines of the Levin-Reed or Murtha plans, or the substantially similar plan I assume Baker-Hamilton will propose after the November election) sooner or later. The main reason for beginning redeployment later rather than sooner is to give political cover to the White House and its Republican "stay the course" backers. That isn't a legitimate reason to postpone redeployment, and it isn't a consideration worthy of "patience at home". If pointing this out is "partisan," fine. Let's have more partisanship. Phony "bipartisanship" is one of the factors that made Bush's Iraq fiasco possible in the first place.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Life itself -- its hard lessons -- cautions me to look with consummate cynicism on the Obama trial balloon. After all, the man has been in the United States Senate for a mere two years, and before that he served -- with distinction, we are told -- in the Illinois legislature, where, it seems, just staying out of jail is distinction enough. We know little about Obama's political performance, since he has performed so little. He is only 45, which is about the age of some of my suits. On the world stage, he would be a child.Shorter Richard Cohen: I haven't bothered to do any research on Obama's record in the Senate or in the Illinois legislature, but I'll join everybody else in noting that he doesn't have much experience. But in Cohen's case, it's "consummate cynicism" based on "hard lessons" learned from "Life itself" talking, so you'd better pay attention. Never mind that this consummate cynicism only kicks in when it happens to agree with the conventional wisdom du jour. For starters, where was all that world-weary cynicism when Cohen was working himself into a bellicose frenzy in support of the Iraq war?
And yet I cheer his announcement that he might announce he is going to announce -- something like that. I say this not just because I have been following his career out of the corner of my eye -- my, my, ain't he a natural! -- but because I've actually been reading his speeches. The one he gave on the role of religion in politics was as smart a speech as I've ever read. It's the sort of thing John F. Kennedy could have given, only his would have been written by someone else, probably Ted Sorensen.I wasn't crazy about Obama's religion speech. It struck me as a fairly maudlin embrace of public religiosity for the purpose of currying favor with the religious right. But that's neither here nor there. Cohen liked the speech, fair enough. But it's the sort of thing John F. Kennedy could have given? Except Ted Sorensen ("Ask not what your country can do for you...") would have written it? Meaning what exactly? I guess it means that Cohen really liked Obama's speech, and he's pimping the idea of Obama as a charismatic Democratic savior, so there's a natural tie-in with another speech he really liked by an established charismatic Democratic savior. But the comparison is ridiculous, and not just because religiosity was totally foreign to Kennedy's style. Kennedy was calling on people in the United States and throughout the world to transcend self-interest and work together to make the world a better place. Obama was saying "Vote for me, I'm not like those other Democrats who don't appreciate the legitimate role of religion in public life." Here's a link to the JFK speech. Here's a link to the Obama speech. JFK's inaugural address is to Obama's speech what The Brothers Karamazov is to The Pelican Brief.
But it gets better:
I cheer also because Obama is an African American -- an African father, an American mother. For someone like him to be a presidential candidate -- maybe even president -- says oodles about this country. After eight years of George W. Bush and his narcissistic foreign policy -- me, me, us, us -- it would be great to have a president who presents a different message just by his complexion and who compensates, if anything can, for how Iraq has tarnished America's reputation, particularly in the Third World.(Emphasis mine)Cohen's crude and moronic tokenism pretty much speaks for itself, so I'll move on.
Here is the best part:
But mostly I want Obama to run because he would come into the race with no baggage on Iraq. Not from him would we hear excuses about how he was misled by the Bush administration into thinking there were weapons of mass destruction there. Obama not only was against the war when he ran for the Senate but he can claim -- as could the 21 Democratic senators who voted against the war resolution -- that it was possible to accept the "facts" at the time and still see that the war was unnecessary, if not downright stupid. It just makes me wince every time I hear John Kerry or John Edwards or Joe Biden or Chris Dodd or Hillary Clinton say they were misled, fooled, lied to or some other version of seduced and abandoned -- otherwise they would have voted the right way. This is disingenuous.So it makes Cohen "wince" to hear this, does it? He thinks it is disingenuous for these politicians to claim they were had by the Bush Administration? Now see if you don't find it a bit disingenuous for Cohen to level this criticism at Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Clinton given that he himself wrote this on February 6, 2003, on the eve of war, in the wake of Colin Powell's over-the-top performance at the U.N.:
The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise. [...]Did you get that? "Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude" that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. What did Cohen say at the time about the prospect of war on Iraq? "There is no choice."
North Korea probably already has nuclear bombs. Iran may have a nuclear weapons program. Pakistan has the bomb, India and China too. All kinds of states -- stable, unstable and just plain nutty -- are making weapons of mass destruction. Pretty soon, any collection of fanatics with a chemistry set will pose a horrific threat. The world is steadily becoming less and less secure. Now is not the time for the United Nations to flinch.
As with Tevye, there is no "other hand" when it comes to Iraq. If anyone had any doubt, Powell proved that it has defied international law -- not to mention international norms concerning human rights -- and virtually dared the United Nations to put up or shut up. There is no other hand. There is no choice.
[Minor edits after initial posting.]
Monday, October 23, 2006
U.S. media sources generally report on the politics of Iran's nuclear program at the Security Council as if the definition of the problem were uncontroversial -- U.S. press accounts generally assume that the issue before the Security Council is how the world ought to respond to the prospect of nukes in the hands of a menacing Iranian regime.An editorial in today's USA Today, titled "As China pressures N. Korea, will Putin face down Iran?" illustrates the point I was making. According to the USA Today editorial board, if Putin isn't gung-ho to enlist in American efforts to "face down" Iran, it's because he's too focused on regaining superpower status for Russia to pay attention to other issues, no matter how important:
In reality, China, Russia and France (i.e. the permanent members of the Security Council other than the U.S. and the U.K.) may well perceive the central problem facing the Security Council in the following way: How to keep the United States engaged in the Security Council process and prevent it from operating as a rogue superpower outside of the institutional framework of the United Nations, while at the same time being careful to avoid any Security Council action that could be used by the United States as a justification or pretext for executing its fundamentally unilateral plans (especially military plans).
On Saturday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went to Moscow hoping to turn the "momentum" of sanctions against North Korea into similar action against Iran. Russia was having none of it. "We won't be able to support and will oppose any attempts to use the Security Council to punish Iran" to promote regime change, said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.The USA Today editorial goes on to assert that Putin's conduct is "unconscionable," in view of the dire consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons:
What's happening is that Russian President Vladimir Putin's agenda is driven by a single obsession: to regain as much of the former Soviet Union's superpower status (and territory) as possible. Iran holds a key to restoring Russia's once-considerable influence in the Middle East. The two have strong trade ties, and Moscow is helping Iran build a nuclear power plant. So other priorities have shrunk to invisibility, including Russia's once-intense interest in deterring the spread of nuclear weapons.
His actions with regard to Iran are particularly unconscionable because Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons could easily set off a regional arms race that would threaten everyone. Israel, which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad routinely threatens with annihilation, already has a nuclear stockpile. Other nations in the region, most of them Sunni Arab states distrustful of Iran's Shia version of Islam, would feel the pressure to build their own weapons in what is already the most unstable region on earth. The potential for terrorists to get nukes would rise dramatically.Conspicuously absent from the editorial is any mention of the Bush Administration's central role in creating this mess. Simply put, the U.S.-led Iraq war did more to aggravate the instability of the "most unstable region on earth" than any other action in recent history. The Iraq war, combined with the Bush Administration's decision to publish an official enemies list (in the form of its "Axis of Evil") created an incentive for Axis of Evil states to develop a nuclear deterrent capability on an urgent basis. Pre-invasion, Iraq was a secular dictatorship without any nuclear weapons capability whatsoever, whose ability threaten its neighbors through conventional military means had been eliminated in the first Gulf War. In the wake of the Bush Administration's Iraq war, Iraq is or is on the way to becoming a failed state, a training ground and recruiting opportunity for terrorists determined to strike at the U.S. and its allies.
Also conspicuously absent from the USA Today editorial is any acknowledgment or discussion of Russia's concern -- explicitly cited by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and quoted in the USA Today editorial itself-- that the United States might use a Security Council resolution as a pretext or justification for embarking on yet another regime change adventure, this time with Iran. In addition to any concern it may have about Iranian nukes, Russia is also worried that the U.S. could be gearing up for another wild man act in the Middle East. Incredibly, the USA Today editorial board misses that concern -- or ignores it -- completely.
With this in mind, consider the sanctimonious obliviousness and unintended irony of the editorial's conclusion:
Either way, the world is likely to get a lot more dangerous unless Putin can be persuaded to act in the way that the leader of a responsible world power should.Today's USA Today editorial needs to go into the October 2006 time capsule, to give historians a few hundred years from now a sense of what public discourse about international relations was like in the United States in the George W. Bush era.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
1) The average high temperature in Montreal in November is 41 degrees -- which is below the average high temperature in New York in November (54) and December (44).
2) The lowest monthly average high temperature in New York is 39 degrees, in January. In Montreal, four months have an average high temperature below that mark: December (26), January (21), February (24) and March (35).
3) Montreal has five months with average high temperatures below 45 degrees -- November (41), December (26), January (21), February (24) and March (35). In New York, there are just three: December (44), January (39) and February (42).
4) Montreal has three months with average high temperatures below 30 degrees -- December (26), January (21) and February (24). New York has none.
5) The lowest monthly average low temperature in New York is 26 degrees, in January. In Montreal, four months have an average low temperature below that mark: December (12), January (5), February (7) and March (19).
6) New York has two months with an average low temperature below 32 degrees -- January (26) and February (29). Montreal has five -- November (28), December (12), January (5), February (7) and March (19).
In conclusion: Montreal is way colder than New York.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
The online edition of the Washington Post is running an Associated Press report by Anne Gearan with the headline "Rice Confident of U.N. Action on Iran". Gearan writes:
The swift decision to impose international sanctions on North Korea for its rogue nuclear test could grease the skids for sanctions on Iran over its disputed nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.Contrast that with another Associated Press report, this one by AP writer Vladimir Isachenkov, running on the Yahoo! News site under the headline "Russia minister: No punishment for Iran". Isachenkov writes:
"It really does help to create a momentum," Rice said after leaving four days of crisis talks in Asia in response to the North's test.
Russia will not allow the U.N. Security Council to be used to punish Iran over its nuclear program, the foreign minister said. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia was ready to discuss ways to pressure Iran into accepting a broader international oversight of its nuclear program, but added that "any measures of influence should encourage creating conditions for talks."Juxtaposing these quotations throws into relief an interesting point about the politics of Iran's nuclear program at the Security Council.
"We won't be able to support and will oppose any attempts to use the Security Council to punish Iran or use Iran's program in order to promote the ideas of regime change there," Lavrov said Friday in an interview with the Kuwaiti News Agency KUNA which was posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry Web site Saturday.
Rice and Lavrov -- and their respective governments -- do not define the problem facing the Security Council in the same way. For Rice and the United States, the objective is to restrict Iran's nuclear program and prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. For Lavrov and Russia, restricting Iran's nuclear program may be an objective, but so is constraining U.S. power and restricting its ability to confront Iran militarily.
U.S. media sources generally report on the politics of Iran's nuclear program at the Security Council as if the definition of the problem were uncontroversial -- U.S. press accounts generally assume that the issue before the Security Council is how the world ought to respond to the prospect of nukes in the hands of a menacing Iranian regime.
In reality, China, Russia and France (i.e. the permanent members of the Security Council other than the U.S. and the U.K.) may well perceive the central problem facing the Security Council in the following way: How to keep the United States engaged in the Security Council process and prevent it from operating as a rogue superpower outside of the institutional framework of the United Nations, while at the same time being careful to avoid any Security Council action that could be used by the United States as a justification or pretext for executing its fundamentally unilateral plans (especially military plans).
This may well be the true achievement of the Bush Administration: bringing about a New World Order in which the central organizing principle in international relations is constraining U.S. power.
UPDATE, 5:35 PM: The WaPo link now takes you to a different story by Anne Gearan, filed later in the day. As of 5:35 PM, versions of the original story can be found on the websites of ABC News, Forbes, CBS News and others (except that "grease the skids" has been changed to "clear the way").
Monday, October 16, 2006
"I had always thought `poli' means `many,' and `tics' means `blood sucking insects,'" she said. "So I barely understood why the separation of church and state is so bad.Quite the political philosopher, isn't she?
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Katie Couric is anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric and also a 60 Minutes correspondent and the anchor of CBS News primetime specials.As you may know, the anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News has a blog, Couric & Co, hosted on the CBS News website. Here are the first two paragraphs from her latest blog entry, on the joys of apple-picking in the Fall:
Hi everyone! Fall is definitely in the air (winter in Buffalo!) so I thought I’d tell you a fun family activity that I enjoy every year around this time with my girls. We go apple picking …(God, I am as American as apple pie!) It’s such a fun thing to do. It’s great to get outside and soak up the fall air, get back to nature and enjoy an apple as you pick bushels more! I always get weirdly hoardish (is that a word?) and carried away whenever I do this kind of thing. One time I picked enough strawberries to make jam for the entire island of Manhattan! Weird.Katie Couric, anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News. 60 Minutes correspondent. Dimwit.
Oh well, anyway, as I was saying, it’s a wonderful activity…and the apple varieties that are available change ALL THE TIME! I was slightly bummed out when we went last weekend we missed my very favorite kind of apple: it’s called a Honeycrisp and it’s a fantastic eating apple. Mushy apples are the most disappointing, “un-a-peeling” (HA HA) culinary experience there is. My other favorite apples are the Macoun and Fuji.. Then there’s the MacIntosh…which borders on mushy but has enough tartness to make up for that fact. But I digress. (I think I need a real hobby!)
Monday, October 09, 2006
North Korea announced today that it has tested a nuclear weapon, a claim verified by China and South Korea. And with this news, North Korea joins the increasingly less exclusive club of nuclear powers.
How will the Bush Administration react to this ominous development, which constitutes a monumental failure of its foreign policy? My prediction:
The Cheney/Rove/Bush White House will incorporate North Korea's nuclear test into its list of reasons for confronting Iran militarily.
UPDATE 7:52 am:
Haaretz is running a story titled "MK: N. Korean test shows West must act fast on Iran," featuring a statement by former IDF brigadier general and current senior Labor MK Ephraim Sneh that North Korea's nuclear test presents an opportunity to sell the international community on the importance of confronting Iran. Says MK Sneh:
Senior Labor lawmaker and former IDF brigadier general Ephraim Sneh said Monday that North Korea's test of an atomic weapon reflected the weakness of the international community and "its inability to address pariah states," in a direct reference to the Western world's response to the Iranian nuclear threat.My guess is we'll be seeing lots of quotes like this from GOP lawmakers in U.S. newspapers pretty soon.
"Perhaps this case, that of North Korea, will teach them a lesson regarding the Iran issue," Sneh told Israel Radio, referring to the West. "Israeli policy should take advantage of what happened, in order to explain and persuade the international community, saying to it, 'Do something, before it's too late.'"
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Brian Whitaker, the Guardian's Middle East editor, thinks it was about the U.S. trying to build a coalition against Iran. In a column in Friday's Guardian titled "Condi's top priority," Whitaker writes:
The purpose of Condoleezza Rice's visit to the Middle East is becoming clear - to encourage Arab states to form an alliance against Iran. […] The idea is to form a "moderate" alliance in which Israel and some of the Arab countries (principally Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states) would join forces to combat Iranian influence, and Shia influence more generally.And how does the U.S. propose to sell this plan to moderate Arab regimes?
The bones of the emerging package are that Arab support for the US and Israel against Iran would be rewarded by progress - or at least the prospect of progress - on the Israeli-Palestinian front. So now, for example, we have the Israeli justice minister, Meir Sheetrit, testing the water with a hint that Israel might finally be prepared to discuss the Arab Peace Initiative after ignoring it for the last four years.Whitaker is understandably skeptical of the U.S.’s ability to sell this package to Arab leaders. He quotes Michael Hudson, a Middle East specialist at Georgetown University, for the proposition that the U.S. is short on credibility on the Palestinian-Israeli file:
"We are talking about a full peace," he said encouragingly. "We want a full peace. We do not necessarily have to accept every detail of the initiative - withdrawal to the 1967 borders. But let's talk."
There's no doubt that there are people in the Gulf, especially, who are very worried about Iran, but the idea that they would be enlisted in an alliance with the US and Israel is just not a politically inviting prospect.
Until the US starts getting actively and even-handedly involved in bringing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to an end, it's really politically impossible for the so-called moderate Arab leaders to sign on to the [anti-Iran] project.
The BBC’s John Leyne also sees Condi’s Middle East tour as part of a U.S. anti-Iran strategy. In a piece on the BBC’s website titled, “Iran behind Rice's Mid-East tour,” Leyne writes that:
By all accounts, the US secretary of state had no fresh ideas to offer to revive what used to be called the Middle East peace process. Both the Palestinian and Israeli sides have governments too weak to handle any major initiative. Aides on all sides played down the prospects of any progress. It seems they were right. So why come at all? Many Arab and Israeli commentators have found the same answer: Iran.
As the columnist Saul Singer wrote in the Jerusalem Post on Friday: "Every time the White House decides to confront a rogue regime, the state department decides it's time to build a coalition."
Another writer, Abdallah Iskandar, put it this way in Al Hayat newspaper on Monday: "Condoleezza Rice arrives in the region today. Her announced aim is to revive the Middle East peace process and stiffen the Arab position against Iran. In other words, the US administration is linking the Middle Eastern conflict to the Iranian file." (paragraph breaks and headings omitted)
Now, here’s where Leyne’s piece gets really interesting. Why is Rice trying to sell Arab allies of the U.S. on joining an anti-Iran coalition now? And what does all this tell us about what the U.S. is planning? Here is Leyne's answer:
If Iran was the real reason behind this visit, there is another implication. If the US wants to pursue the diplomatic route in the dispute with Iran, Arab support is not exactly critical. The only Arab country on the Security Council is Qatar, hardly a crucial vote to be lobbied for. No, the logic of this line of reasoning is that military action against Iran is now being very seriously considered in Washington.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has now been unmasked, by Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial, as someone to whom President George W Bush turns for advice. So his words should be taken very seriously. In an article in the Washington Post two months ago, Dr Kissinger argued for taking a tough line against Iran's nuclear programme. Otherwise, he warned, "every country... will face growing threats, be they increased domestic pressure from radical Islamic groups, terrorist acts or the nearly inevitable conflagrations sparked by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction".
It sounds almost identical to the argument put forward by Vice-President Dick Cheney on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. Only tough action will make us safe. The implication of that theory is already being played out in Iraq. There is growing evidence Iran may be its next test. (paragraph breaks and headings omitted)
So far, I've been considering the likelihood of a pre-election Showdown with Iran as a Rovian political stunt. I continue to think the odds are on an October Surprise, and that a Showdown with Iran is the form it would be likely to take. But there may be a different calculation favoring a pre-election confrontation with Iran as well.
Simply put, key White House and neo-con players may view the next month or so as their last chance to confront Iran military. If they become convinced (as now increasingly seems to be the case) that the Democrats are likely to take back either the House, the Senate, or both, and if they believe that confronting Iran militarily would become significantly more difficult or impossible to achieve with a Democratic-controlled Congress, they may be under tremendous pressure to act quickly, before their window of opportunity closes.
So here we are. The White House may be planning a Showdown with Iran as a last-gasp election stunt to avert an electoral disaster in November. And the White House may be planning a Showdown with Iran because it faces the prospect of an electoral disaster in November.
Friday, October 06, 2006
1) Having returned from her Middle East tour, Condi Rice reports that the take-away from her meetings with Arab leaders is that resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the key to achieving a lasting Peace in the Middle East, but that Iran's nuclear program and its support for Hezbollah make solving that conflict impossible, so Red Alert Urgent Priority #1 for the White House is staring Iran down.
2) Rice and other U.S. officials indicate that the U.S. is done negotiating with Iran, and if the Security Council "fails to act," i.e., fails to ratify the White House's list of robust sanctions first thing next week, the U.S. is prepared to act on its own. In order to stage the Showdown with Iran, the White House needs to take the Iran file away from the Security Council.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
My guess is the White House will make Hastert hold on as Speaker to serve as a Foley scandal shit-magnet until they're ready to launch a subject-changing pre-election stunt, at which point they'll flush him down the toilet and hope he takes as much of the Foley scandal with him as possible. I've been speculating that the stunt is going to be a Showdown With Nuclear Iran to Stand With Israel against Hezbollah and Pave the Way for Lasting Peace in the Middle East, which I bet they'll roll out early next week. On that schedule, Hastert probably gets thrown overboard tomorrow, though they could make him stick around until as late as Monday.
In one respect, it's a typical Broder column: there's absolutely no reasoning in it. But today's op-ed marks a departure from textbook Broderism in that it doesn't contain any conclusory statements by Broder about what ails the republic (Democratic incivility) or What Must be Done (restore bi-partisanship by handing the reins of government over to independent-minded "moderate" pro-war right wingers like Maverick Saint John McCain and Joe Lieberman).
This is the essence of Broderism: a series of statements by Broder of his political preferences, for which he gives no reasons or supporting arguments, combined with quotations and descriptions that purport to document whether his preferences are on the way to being realized or not. By contrast, in his latest column, he doesn't state any political preferences, so readers are left with quotations and descriptions of Deval Patrick. Fair enough, but what's this doing on the op-ed page?
I'll say it again: it really says something about contemporary journalism and punditry that a guy as vacuous as David Broder can achieve near-universal recognition as the "Dean" of Washington journalists.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Here are some America is Heading for a Showdown With Iran quotes from recent news articles. If my prediction is correct, we'll be seeing way more of these articles in the coming days, with increasingly ominous headlines and increasingly hysterical official quotes. And the wingnuts will start typing up feverish op-ed pieces about the importance of invading Iran immediately.
1) Iran’s Proposal to End Nuclear Standoff Is Rejected by the West, by Elaine Sciolino, NYT, October 4.
The United States, meanwhile, is giving Iran until the end of the week to declare whether it will agree to fully stop making enriched uranium or face sanctions. Enriched uranium can be used to make energy or to fuel weapons, and Washington has consistently taken the position that any uranium enrichment on Iranian soil is out of the question because it could give Iran the ability to master the nuclear fuel cycle.
2) PM: Iranian nukes threaten our existence, by Aluf Benn, Yoav Stern and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz, October 4.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told visiting members of the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday that "for the first time in my life I feel that there is an existential threat against the state of Israel." Olmert will reiterate this message when he meets Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Wednesday. Rice is due to arrive Wednesday for a visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Olmert is expected to stress in talks with Rice that the United States must play a central role in countering the threat posed by Iran and its nuclear ambitions.3) Rice says time running out over Iran nuclear programme, Reuters, October 3.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday the international community is running out of time to act on Iran's nuclear ambitions and risks losing credibility.4) US: Iran Could Have Nuclear Bomb in Four Years, by Gary Thomas, Voice of America News, October 3.
"I hope that there is still room to resolve this, but the international community is running out of time because soon its own credibility ... will be a matter of question," Rice said at a joint news conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit.
The top U.S. intelligence official says Iran could have a nuclear weapon within four to nine years, but that it still has time to turn away from that path.5) Arabs Pressure Rice On U.S. Peace Efforts, By Robin Wright, WaPo, October 4.
Speaking in his top floor office overlooking the Potomac River, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte says Iran is determined to get nuclear weapons and will have them soon if not deterred from its current course.
Arab officials also expressed frustration that the United States seems far more focused on the issue of Iran's nuclear program. Although Arab states share concern about Iran's nuclear potential, Rice and her Arab interlocutors sometimes seemed to be talking at cross-purposes, according to Arab officials involved in the talks in Cairo. One senior Arab official described the talks as warm but unproductive.
UPDATED 8:32 am
6) Peres: Iran also has a human bomb, by Ronny Sofer, Ynet News, October 4.
Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Wednesday morning during a press conference in Berlin that "Iran constitutes a danger due to two bombs, one nuclear and the other human – Ahmadinejad."
According to Peres, Iran's strength is a consequence of the international weakness.
"If the countries of the international community countries would have acted, we could have cancelled the Iranian danger. The great fear is that the Iranian nuclear capabilities would be used for terror. All world leaders should unite in order to stop Iran," he said.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
While I'm confident that the Cheney/Rove/ Bush White House will try to pull some kind of Wag the Dog October Surprise stunt, I don't have a great deal of confidence as to the specific form it will take. That said, I think the likeliest candidate for an October Surprise is a Showdown With Iran (and maybe Syria too) to Stand With Israel against Hezbollah and Pave the Way for Lasting Peace in the Middle East. For better or worse, we'll know pretty soon what they're up to, given that we're into the first week of October.
This morning, while scanning the front page of the on-line edition of Haaretz, I came across an article by Ze'ev Schiff titled "Syria, Iran intelligence services aided Hezbollah during war". One thing to watch in the next couple of weeks will be the extent to which this theme is emphasized by U.S. officials and highlighted by U.S. media.
Another thing to watch is what Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice says when she wraps up her Middle East tour. Specifically, will she link resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with "solving" the Iran problem?
Today in Saudi Arabia, Rice got an earful from Saudi Foreign Minister prince Saud al-Faisal about the importance to the region of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I imagine she'll hear this from every Arab official she meets.
Today in Saudi Arabia, Rice also "warned" Iran about its nuclear program:
"We are continuing to hope that Iran will suspend its enrichment activities but we have no evidence that it is (going) to do so,'' U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a news conference during a visit to Saudi Arabia.If Condi Rice returns from her Middle East trip, and (1) announces that the U.S. and all its Arab allies agree that the most important thing in the world is solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but (2) Iran's support for Hezbollah and its crazy nuclear program make it impossible to solve that conflict, well then there's the subject matter of your October Surprise right there.
"Should it not, then the only choice for the international community is to live up to the terms of resolution 1696 ... and that means to bring sanctions.''
A couple more notes on this:
1) The person to watch is Condi Rice, not Rumsfeld or Cheney. Neither Rumsfeld nor Cheney has enough credibility to front a Wag the Dog operation.
2) I don't take much comfort from the fact that Condi Rice is defining the consequence for Iran of defying the international community on its nuclear program in terms of "sanctions". It's true that this appears on its face to rule out a military response. But it doesn't speak to the issue of whether the U.S. could purport to impose sanctions of its own, or whether the U.S. could appoint itself as the enforcer of those sanctions, including by way of a naval blockade.
3) If I were Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, I would meet with each and every Democrat serving on any national security committee that has access to classified information and briefings. It's important for people like Jane Harman to get the following message: Jane, I understand that you can't discuss the super secret information they're giving you right now, but make no mistake: if they pull some kind of October Surprise stunt, they're going to point to you and say, "See, we told Jane Harman all about this at the time, and she was ok with it."
Democrats like Jane Harman need to take steps now, consistent with their obligations to keep secret info secret, to ensure that they aren't being coopted or played by the White House. One way to do this is to write secret letters to the White House and to their Republican counterparts that clearly and unambiguously establish their opposition to any election season military adventures. Harry Reid should tell Joe Lieberman in no uncertain terms that if he enables a Bush stunt, he will be forever banned from serving on any Senate committee as a Democrat, in any capacity and for any purpose, full stop.
Monday, October 02, 2006
1) The White House lets it "leak" that the Preznit has been having super secret high level crisis meetings with Israeli officials. Select reporters are warned that they aren't allowed to write about these meetings. Even better: the White House brings in senior management of the WaPo and the NYT and begs them not to let the public know about any of this for national security reasons. Ambassadors are seen to be summoned from far away. You get the idea: for a couple of days, the White House acts mysterious and shows all-purpose national security-style "resolve".
2) In a Prime Time address, the Preznit categorically demands that Iran and Syria cut off all arms shipments, financial support and other material assistance to Hezbollah, full stop. He allows that some politicians hate Israel and may try to make a partisan fuss about this, but for his part, he's standing with Freedom and Democracy and Israel against the Evildoers.
3) The White House imposes a one week deadline for Iran and Syria to establish conclusively that they have fully and completely complied with #1. The onus is on them to prove they've dismantled all the supply networks, turned over all the Evildoers to the appropriate Israeli authorities, etc.
4) The Preznit orders half the U.S. fleet to steam full-speed for the Persian Gulf to put in place a naval blockade of Iran and generally look for trouble. He orders every other boat that floats to steam full-speed for the Mediterranean to monitor the Lebanese coast.
Yeah, I think that works ok as an opening gambit.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
As I've said before, I think it's extremely likely that the White House will try to put the country on Red Alert before election day. I stand by the following prediction:
If it looks like they're going to lose the mid-term elections, these guys will try to sweep the pieces off the chessboard, whatever it takes. Bombing Iran? Yes, absolutely. Bombing, blockade, whatever it takes. Mounting some sort of fantasy land special forces commando raid snipe hunt to capture Bin Laden based on "new actionable" evidence? Yes, absolutely. Foiling a trumped up domestic terror plot? Yes, they would do it. Using tactical nuclear weapons? If they thought it would help, Yes, they would do it.
So, where are we now? Well, let's see. Gas prices have been coming down. Score 1 for the GOP. The Republicans succeeded in passing the Preznit's torture legislation, which counts as a political victory in this election cycle, even if history and the popular culture will ultimately record it as an abject betrayal of American values. Score another point for the GOP.
On the other side of the ledger, the murderous civil war in Iraq has blasted its way back into the headlines, courtesy of the latest semi-suppressed NIE and Bob Woodward's latest book (in which Woodward apparently re-acquaints himself with the practice of journalism, having served as a hagiographer for the Bush Administration in his previous two books.) Anything else going on that might affect the Cheney/Rove/Bush calculus?
Well, yes. It turns out that the House Republican leadership has been complicit in six-term Republican sexual predator and Congressman Mark Foley's sexual abuse of underage boys under their care. Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert and Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner each had specific information that Foley was engaged in the sexual abuse of boys under their care, and they covered it up and allowed it to continue. The scandal is widening. This is an absolute disaster for the GOP.
I think it's pretty much a sure thing the White House is going to try to sweep the pieces off the chess board somehow. But what are their options? How can they push Iraq and the Foley/Hastert/Boehner scandal off the front pages?
They need to do something that isn't transparent show business and that can't be shrugged off by Democrats. The success of a stunt like this depends in part on its effectiveness in dividing the opposition. Cheney/Rove/Bush need to do something that (i) a substantial Democratic constituency already supports, or is disposed to support; (ii) can't just be "undone", i.e. changes the political landscape so that the mere doing of it automatically constrains the remaining options, so the debate can be structured as being about "what America does next" rather than "was it a good idea for Bush to do this?"; (iii) provides the media with an easy-to-understand GOP-friendly frame and story-line, preferably one they're already familiar with; and (iv) can be presented as a response to one or more problems the existence and urgency of which Democrats have already acknowledged.
UPDATE: I'm thinking through manufactured crisis scenarios in which the White House would try to position itself as standing with Israel against Iran. There are at least three necessary elements for this kind of stunt: (1) the White House needs to make an urgent, categorical, non-negotiable demand that Iran (or some other sufficiently menacing Enemy) obey the White House on some point or other; (2) the demand has to be structured so that there is zero risk that Iran (or the other Enemy) could accede to the demand without utterly humiliating itself and handing Bush a massive victory; and (3) the urgency of the demand has to be evidence-proof, i.e. there can't be any way to discredit the legitimacy of the demand through objective evidence.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Here's my favorite part of the op-ed:
To his eternal credit, after 9/11 George Bush quickly understood that the terror threat was fundamentally an ideological threat, a product of deep historical consciousness.What do you even say to a guy who thinks Bush deserves "eternal credit" for understanding the fundamental nature of the terror threat? Isn't that just completely and totally wrong, in an Orwellian up-is-down way? Isn't the truth of the matter that Bush's "understanding" of the terror threat is fundamentally cartoon-like? Look, you may or may not agree with me that Bush is an imbecile and that his access to objective reality appears to be so tenuous as to be virtually non-existent. But to claim that Bush deserves "eternal credit" (eternal!) for apprehending some elusive truth about the real nature of the "terror threat" is just, well, boneheaded.
The tip of the iceberg is all over the news. As the WaPo puts it:
Six-term Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) resigned yesterday amid reports that he had sent sexually explicit Internet messages to at least one underage male former page.First, the Entertainment. ABC News just owns the fun creepy old man teen gay porn details part of this story. Here are some of the instant message exchanges with underage boys that sealed Republican Congressman Foley's fate. Foley goes by the screenname "Maf54":
Maf54: You in your boxers, too?But here's where this thing turns into Christmas Morning for people who yearn for a Democratic takeover of the House. It turns out the Republican leadership knew about Foley's sexual misconduct for months and allowed it to continue. It's not just that they were generally aware that Foley had a thing for underage boys. No, it's way worse than that. It looks like they were specifically told about specific instances of predatory sexual misconduct by Foley concerning underage boys working as Congressional pages. The WaPo writes:
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.
Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.
Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.
So let's be clear about this. The real scandal is not that a creepy Republican Congressman was chasing after underage boys in his care -- though hey, I'll take it. The real scandal is this: Republican Congressional leaders -- specifically Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner and Republican Speaker Denny Hastert -- appear to have aided and abetted Rep. Foley's sexual abuse of underage boys under their care. They knew it was going on, they covered up reports that it was going on, and they allowed it to continue. At a minimum, they should resign immediately.
Here are the talking points I would give to Democratic surrogates to deliver on TV and in press interviews:
1) Given what is already known, both Boehner and Hastert appear to have been complicit in Foley's abuse of underage boys under their care. They should resign immediately.
2) A police investigation (not an "inquiry" or anything like that) needs to determine whether they broke the law.
3) Even though Boehner and Hastert need to resign immediately, we still need to know: What did they know, when did they know it, and who else in the GOP did they tell about it.
And now that the GOP has disappeared Rep. Foley, here is how I'm betting they run the damage control operation:
1) Vigorously denounce Foley's misconduct. "We're just as disgusted as you are, probably more so." "How were we supposed to know this guy was a closet Democrat?" If necessary, bring Foley back from his new digs in Guantanamo Bay for a public confession, in which he completely absolves Roehmer and Hastert of any possible knowledge of what he was up to.
2) Go on the offensive.
(i) Attack the Demorats: "But the Democrats are the ones who are pushing the Homosexual Agenda!" "Barney Frank had a gay prostitution scandal and the Democrats stood behind him." "The Democrats were hearing the same rumors we were hearing."
(ii) Attack the media: "You never go after Barney Frank for being gay. You're a bunch of hypocrites." "The people would rather talk about the issues." "The Beltway media was hearing the same rumors we were hearing. Why didn't you write about it?"
(iii) Attack homosexuals. The strategic objective for the GOP here is to get the media to repeat homophobic memes in questions to Democrats, and generally to get the media to conflate the sexual exploitation of teenagers with homosexuality. For example: "But how do you respond to the charge that it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who support gay rights?"
3) Put big pressure on the media not to refer to Foley as a "Republican." After all, he's an "ex-Republican" now, right? And isn't he objectively more of a Democrat than a Republican? He was never really one of us. See number 2.
4) Boehner and Hastert would love to comment on this and show you the super secret paperwork showing all the hard work they did to shut this guy down, but it would be inappropriate for them to discuss the matter while the Ethics Committee investigates. The Chairman of the Ethics committee could even specifically request that nobody talk about the matter publicly until the Committee has a chance to fully review the evidence... in December.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
1) If the Dems pick up the House, they thereby pick up the ability to effectively investigate White House and White House-sponsored misconduct.
2) Democratic investigations of White House and White House-sponsored misconduct are likely to uncover serious wrongdoing and egregious misconduct. Obviously there's no way for outsiders to know ahead of time what aggressive investigations might uncover, but the White House knows. As a general proposition, we know that this gang is disposed to lawlessness, radicalism and corruption. They've been operating without Congressional oversight for years, in a war- and propaganda-induced climate of fear. With a few notable exceptions, the press has been AWOL. Given what we know about these guys, and given that they've been operating essentially without any constraints on their conduct for so long, my speculation is that there is lots and lots of misconduct waiting to be uncovered. How afraid is the White House of facing a Dem-controlled House? Very, very afraid.
3) If the White House were constrained by either respect for the rule of law or adherence to the conventions and traditions undergirding the American system of government, it would be Document Shredding Time at the White House. If these were traditional wrongdoers facing the prospect of being caught, they would be trying to cover up the evidence of their wrongdoing.
4) This White House does not operate on the basis of respect for the rule of law or adherence to the institutional traditions and customs underlying the American system of government. These guys are lawless radicals. Sure, if it comes to that they'll try to cover up evidence. But whereas traditional wrongdoers might cut straight to that step, this gang has a more primal impulse: holding onto power and retaining total control.
5) If it looks like they're going to lose the House, let alone the House and the Senate, the White House will resort to extraordinary means to change that outcome. There is almost nothing they won't do. To put it mildly, this White House does not distinguish between domestic electoral politics and foreign policy, even in matters of war.
6) Please take a moment to let this sink in. If it looks like they're going to lose the mid-term elections, these guys will try to sweep the pieces off the chessboard, whatever it takes. Bombing Iran? Yes, absolutely. Bombing, blockade, whatever it takes. Mounting some sort of fantasy land special forces commando raid snipe hunt to capture Bin Laden based on "new actionable" evidence? Yes, absolutely. Foiling a trumped up domestic terror plot? Yes, they would do it. Using tactical nuclear weapons? If they thought it would help, yes they would do it.
7) For clarity and emphasis: if it looks like the GOP is going to lose the House, the White House will take the country to Red Alert. Wag the dog? Sure, but it won't just be show business. These guys are prepared to do the real thing, on a big scale if necessary.
8) Are Dem leaders prepared for this? They need to be. What happens if we wake up one morning and the White House announces that Operation Bomb Iran to Freedom has begun, what will Dem leaders do? Will they salute? Will they "give the President the benefit of the doubt?" Will they be considering the issue for the first time?
Dems need to be ready for this. We all need to be ready for this.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Others have commented on the interview. They've nailed it. I don't have much to add on that front. So let me speculate as to what the Katie Hearts Condi 60 Minutes fiasco tells us about Katie Couric as Serious Journalist.
I'm sure that Katie Couric is fairly smart. I'd seen her on the Today show a few times, and she seemed pretty quick on her feet. And as trite as this sounds, it's hard to see how someone can be as successful as she's been in the media game without being at least reasonably intelligent.
So how do you explain her performance on 60 Minutes? How do you explain her decision to treat an interview with the Secretary of State of the United States, a key player in the Bush Administration, in the middle of an election campaign, at a time when America is bogged down in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and may well soon initiate a war with Iran, as an opportunity to produce a campaign commercial-style fluff piece for the benefit of her subject?
You can rule out any "management made her do it" theory right off the bat. No, her Condi interview was part of the CBS News Katie Couric Product Launch, and she's got a major say in how that campaign in run. Now, I have no insight into or interest in how Katie Couric made the decision as a psychological matter. But here's what the fact of the decision tells us:
As a journalist, as a serious newsperson, Katie Couric is incompetent. Utterly, completely and irredeemably incompetent.
How did this come to pass? I don't know, but allow me to speculate. The likely explanation is that she lacks relevant domain-specific experience and knowledge. How do you think she would do if you plucked her up from the CBS newsroom and gave her a shot at being a real estate partner in a law firm? Would you hire her as a heart surgeon?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that reading the news requires as much training or knowledge as something like heart surgery. And to the extent Couric's anchor job just requires her to read from a teleprompter, I'm sure she'll manage just fine. But as the 60 Minutes fiasco demonstrates, she has terrible journalistic judgment. To the extent that her job requires her to make distinctions, to exercise discretion in order to make tough calls about what's important and what isn't, forget it.
Now, maybe you think I'm being a bit harsh. After all, I didn't just say that she is "incompetent", but that she is "irredeemably incompetent." Well, I think I can resolve any doubts you may have. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I give you (h/t to Charles Pierce) Katie Couric's blog, Couric & Co. Read this and then tell me if you disagree.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
As Josh Marshall points out, Broder doesn't mention the torture debate at all in his latest column, let alone the fact that the "compromise" was in effect the Bush position, despite having pointed to Independent Maverick McCain's Brave Strand as a watershed moment in the transformation of the American political landscape in his previous boneheaded column. Here's why I'm not surprised.
The essential feature of Broderism is a disregard for political substance. I'm not a mind reader, and I don't pretend to have any insight into (or interest in) how the guy comes to his views as a psychological matter. But if you read a few of his columns, you'll see a pattern: the reasons he gives for the views and preferences that he expresses generally have nothing to do with substantive issues. War, peace, Iraq, Iran, the economy, social security, whatever. He doesn't seem to care.
In his last column, Independence Days, Broder did cite a substantive issue -- the Geneva Conventions / torture issue. But read his column carefully. He wasn't arguing that McCain et al. deserved support because of the particular stand they were taking on that issue. Rather, Broder's argument was that the defiance of their own party by the Mavericks was important in that it "...signaled the emergence of an independent force in elections and government." And what was the meaning of the Rebel Revolt? That torture is wrong? That America is better than this? Er, not even close. Broder: "What it really signals is a new movement in this country -- what you could rightly call the independence party." For Broder, the particular issue at hand was important only to the extent it reinforced the "signal" the Independents were sending: "This movement is not new, but the moral scale of the issue -- torture -- and the implications for both constitutional and international law give it an epic dimension, even if it is ultimately settled by compromise." Epic moral scale bonus points in the cause of restoring civility to Washington!
It follows from his disregard for political substance that Broder isn't interested in evidence or information that has probative value in relation to political substance. Since Broder doesn't particularly care about substantive political issues (again, going by the reasons he gives for the views that he expresses), it shouldn't be surprising that evidence and information don't interest him.
It really says something about contemporary American political life that a guy as vacuous as David Broder can achieve near-universal recognition as the "Dean" of Washington journalists. But I think he's playing out his last bit of string. Broder's "whither civility" schtick worked when you had a grownup like Bill Clinton running the show, so people could convince themselves that Democrats and Republicans were all the same, that Gore was no different from W, that lying about a blowjob was the most important thing in the world and all that.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
You can't make this stuff up. Reports the intrepid Cloud:
In some ways, squash offers a window into Mr. Rumsfeld’s complicated psyche, revealing much about his stubborn competitiveness and seemingly limitless stamina. Pentagon officials and employees say Mr. Rumsfeld’s play closely resembles the way he has run the Defense Department, where he has spent six years trying to break the accepted modes of operating.And this:
On the court, “he is very aggressive and he is very intense,’’ Mr. Di Rita said.“He is very good at getting inside your head. He’s everything you would expectDonald Rumsfeld to be.”And in case you were looking for it, here's the bit they threw in by way of an excuse to put this drivel on the front page of the most valuable newspaper real estate in the entire world:
Mr. Rumsfeld himself has suggested that his ideas about transforming the military into a smaller, more agile force, like the one he pushed for in invading Iraq, were influenced by his squash playing.
In an interview with the military writer Thomas P. M. Barnett last year, Mr. Rumsfeld said, “I play squash with him,” gesturing at Mr. Di Rita. “When I pass him in a shot and it’s a well-played hard shot, I saw [sic] speed kills. And it does. If you can do something very fast you can get your job done and save a lot of lives.”
I'd make a joke about what a crap squash player he must be if military ideas were influenced by his game, but it's obviously just a cheap laugh line the reporter wrote into the article, not even a recent quote.
So what's an article like this doing on the front page of the NYT at the height of election season, with one war raging in the background and another one possibly in the works? I don't know, but this line makes it sound like Cloud thinks this Elizabeth Bumiller-style portrait is the price to pay for lining up a squash date with Rumsfeld: "Mr. Rumsfeld has declined invitations to play against reporters, as well as to describe his game for this article."
There's so much in this Report that is of interest that it's hard to know where to begin. So let me start with this: How does a person become a terror suspect?
One of the ways in which a person can show up on the U.S. national security radar and come to the attention of national security authorities as a potential Evildoer is through tips and information provided by the agencies and officials of foreign governments. Of course, foreign governments aren't the only source of information for U.S. authorities -- other sources include direct tips from informants, information gleaned from the interrogation of captured terror suspects, surveillance, etc. But information sharing with foreign governments plays a major role.
Now consider the case of Maher Arar. From the Report:
Towards the end of October 2001, Canada Customs placed border lookouts for Mr. Arar and his wife [...]. [There were "reasonable grounds" for the lookout itself, but] the lookout for Mr. Arar was designated a "terrorism" lookout. According to a Canada Customs bulletin, that designation is used when someone issuspected of being a member, associate or sympathizer of a known terrorist organization. Mr. Arar did not meet these criteria. He was not suspected ofbeing a member of a terrorist organization and should not have been labelled in this fashion in the lookout. To do so was unfair to Mr. Arar, who was merely a person of interest. It is essential that precise and accurate language be used when describing an individual's role in a terrorism-related investigation, particularly in these times of heightened concerned about public safety and national security. Labels have a way of sticking to individuals, reputations are easily damaged and when labels are inaccurate, serious unfairness to individuals can result. (Report, p.19) (Emphasis mine)
Welcome to the computer system as a guy with a "terrorism lookout," Mr. Arar. Enjoy your flight! The Report goes on:
Project A-O Canada [a Canadian anti-terrorism task force] supplied the American agencies with a good deal of inaccurate information about Mr. Arar, some of which was inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial to him. [...] [I]n its request for U.S. border lookouts, Project A-O Canada described Mr. Arar and his wife as Islamic extremists suspected of being linked to the al-Qaeda movement. Everyone who testified accepts that this description was wrong and should not have been given to the Americans. There was no basis for such an assertion. The request was sent to U.S. Customs in late October 2001, but it was also given directly to the American agencies five months later, in April 2002. The potential consequences of labelling someone an Islamic extremist in post- 9/11 America are enornous. (Report, p.27) (emphasis mine)
So, now you have a guy with a "terrorist lookout" message flashing on every computer screen in U.S. law enforcement, and a bunch of U.S. agencies have been notified that he's an Islamic extremist with ties to al Qaeda. Except it's all bullshit.
With this in mind, consider President Bush's statement yesterday about the necessity of his CIA torture program:
I had a single test for the pending legislation, and that's this: Would the CIA operators tell me whether they could go forward with the program, that is a program to question detainees to be able to get information to protect the American people. I'm pleased to say that this agreement preserves the most single - most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks, and that is the CIA program to question the world's most dangerous terrorists and to get their secrets.
The single most potent tool he has to protect the American people is his program to torture "the world's most dangerous terrorists and get their secrets." And how does he know they're terrorists again?
I never used to do stuff like this -- send letters to the editor, call television stations to complain, etc. But for the past year or so I've been all over it. The Right has been incredibly successful at working the refs. We need to do it too. Over time and in sufficient numbers, it makes a diference.
To Whom It May Concern:
The September 22, 2006 Reuters story titled "Clinton faults Bush for inaction on bin Laden" by Joanne Morrison contains a highly misleading paragraph.
Ms. Morrison writes: "Earlier this month, Clinton dismissed as "indisputably wrong" a U.S. television show that suggested her was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal to confront the Islamic militant threat that culminated in the September 11 attacks." While the quotation may be accurate, Ms. Morrison's presentation of it is bound to mislead readers into believing that there is actually some controversy as to whether President Clinton was too distracted by the Lewinsky scandal to confront al Qaeda. In point of fact, there is no controversy whatsoever on this point.
As the Report of the 911 Commission makes crystal clear, this claim is completely contradicted by all the available evidence. As one hopes Reuters and Ms. Morrison are aware, numerous former Clinton Administration officials involved in the counter-terrorism effort have testified that this claim is completely false.
To the extent that it was appropriate to raise a discredited and demonstrably false allegation against President Clinton in this news report, the counterpoint to the allegation should not have been a denial of the spurious allegation by President Clinton, but the well-established and widely reported facts of the matter. The relevant facts are in the public record. One hopes that Reuters and Ms. Morrison are aware of them.
Do you think, on reflection, that a reader of Ms. Morrison's report who relied upon it without having independent knowledge of its subject matter, would tend to be mislead as to whether or not the allegation against President Clinton might be credible? I would suggest that the answer to that question is a clear, Yes.
In closing, let me say that the primary issue at hand is neither fairness to President Clinton nor "balance" in news reporting. Rather, the issue is fairness to your readers, who deserve not to be mislead as to truth or falsity of allegations that you choose to repeat in your news reports.
I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply.