The Misunderestimated Man - How Bush chose stupidity. By Jacob Weisberg
"But if "numskull" is an imprecise description of the president, it is not altogether inaccurate. Bush may not have been born stupid, but he has achieved stupidity, and now he wears it as a badge of honor."
"The most obvious expression of Bush's choice of ignorance is that, at the age of 57, he knows nothing about policy or history. After years of working as his dad's spear-chucker in Washington, he didn't understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, the second- and third-largest federal programs. Well into his plans for invading Iraq, Bush still couldn't get down the distinction between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, the key religious divide in a country he was about to occupy. Though he sometimes carries books for show, he either does not read them or doesn't absorb anything from them."
"As the president says, we misunderestimate him. He was not born stupid. He chose stupidity. Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt. On consideration, he's something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool."
Saturday, May 08, 2004
Road to Fallujah
Matthew Fisher's article Iraqis reject Rumsfeld's apology contains two telling quotes:
Schoolteacher Saad al-Jabori: "How can they possibly congratulate each other about their democracy at this moment? The first question to be answered is why we are only being told about this now. The answer is not because their democracy is so wonderful. It is because the media released photographs of what had happened. Otherwise, we still wouldn't know. If this scandal is part of the freedom the Americans have always been telling us about, Iraqis want no part of it.'
Astronomer Mohammed Saleh: "It is clear they are trying to change the reality on the ground here to those disgusting photos by having Rumsfeld testify, but it won't work. Rumsfeld and others have apologized. But what Iraqis want is an apology from every American for all the chaos and sectarianism they have created since they came here. They seem to think these hearings will show us that the road to freedom and human rights. The road they have really been on in Iraq has just led them to Fallujah."
Schoolteacher Saad al-Jabori: "How can they possibly congratulate each other about their democracy at this moment? The first question to be answered is why we are only being told about this now. The answer is not because their democracy is so wonderful. It is because the media released photographs of what had happened. Otherwise, we still wouldn't know. If this scandal is part of the freedom the Americans have always been telling us about, Iraqis want no part of it.'
Astronomer Mohammed Saleh: "It is clear they are trying to change the reality on the ground here to those disgusting photos by having Rumsfeld testify, but it won't work. Rumsfeld and others have apologized. But what Iraqis want is an apology from every American for all the chaos and sectarianism they have created since they came here. They seem to think these hearings will show us that the road to freedom and human rights. The road they have really been on in Iraq has just led them to Fallujah."
Thursday, May 06, 2004
The right to choose but no place to choose it
Canadians For Choice is taking on the fight for access to hospital abortions
When my daughter told me that Canadian women were losing the right to chose, I didn't understand what she meant. I had no idea things were this bad. Now I read Peter Wilson's article in the Globe -- " A CARAL study last year concluded that more than four out of five Canadian hospitals do not perform abortions. In Prince Edward Island not a single hospital provided the service. Across the Prairies, women can obtain abortions in only 5 per cent of hospitals. Finding a hospital that performs abortions is hard enough, but in many cases that's just the first of many obstacles. Gestation limits range from 10 to 23 weeks, CARAL found, noting that inconsistencies exist even within individual hospitals. In New Brunswick, in direct contravention of the law, the approval of two doctors is required. When a CARAL researcher posed as a woman needing an abortion, 95 per cent of B.C. hospitals told her to contact a family physician or go to a walk-in clinic. Fifteen hospitals nationwide referred her to an anti-choice agency and 16 hung up outright."
This is deja-vu all over again -- we FOUGHT this battle 30 years ago. We WON it 20 years ago. And now we have to fight it again?
Well, OK, I guess we do, and we will win again. Because what other choice do we have? Access to abortion is the cornerstone of women's rights, pure and simple.
When my daughter told me that Canadian women were losing the right to chose, I didn't understand what she meant. I had no idea things were this bad. Now I read Peter Wilson's article in the Globe -- " A CARAL study last year concluded that more than four out of five Canadian hospitals do not perform abortions. In Prince Edward Island not a single hospital provided the service. Across the Prairies, women can obtain abortions in only 5 per cent of hospitals. Finding a hospital that performs abortions is hard enough, but in many cases that's just the first of many obstacles. Gestation limits range from 10 to 23 weeks, CARAL found, noting that inconsistencies exist even within individual hospitals. In New Brunswick, in direct contravention of the law, the approval of two doctors is required. When a CARAL researcher posed as a woman needing an abortion, 95 per cent of B.C. hospitals told her to contact a family physician or go to a walk-in clinic. Fifteen hospitals nationwide referred her to an anti-choice agency and 16 hung up outright."
This is deja-vu all over again -- we FOUGHT this battle 30 years ago. We WON it 20 years ago. And now we have to fight it again?
Well, OK, I guess we do, and we will win again. Because what other choice do we have? Access to abortion is the cornerstone of women's rights, pure and simple.
Bad apple talking points
Well, I guess the Republican talking points about Iraq prisoner abuse have been distributed.
I heard the chairs of the House armed services and Senate foreign relations committees (or maybe it was the other way around) on Lou Dobbs and on Hardball respectively. But they might as well have been the same person speaking -- "It was only six soldiers blah blah blah it wasn't Rumsfeld's fault blah blah blah in a war you have to expect these kinds of isolated incidents blah blah blah it was only six bad apples blah blah blah we are in an insurgency situation and we have to press hard to protect our troops blah blah blah Saddam was a lot worse than this blah blah blah the brigade commander should be held accountable but no one any higher is to blame blah blah blah and did I mention that it was only six bad apple soldiers?" The stress on the number six echoed the talking points last summer --"it was only 16 words". And Chris Matthews has got the message, he was repeating these talking points himself.
But Lou Dobbs hadn't read the memo -- I could tell he was particularly unimpressed with the "Saddam did it too" justification after two years of arguments that America represents a higher standard. And Dobbs pointed out the absurdity of the idea that we should blame it all on the brigade commander but no one any higher in the chain of command should have to fall on their sword.
What was particularly silly, too, was the repeated reference to "only six" soldiers, when the Washington Post photos today clearly show many soldiers standing in the hallways watching as the naked Iraqi prisoners are being bound together.
I heard the chairs of the House armed services and Senate foreign relations committees (or maybe it was the other way around) on Lou Dobbs and on Hardball respectively. But they might as well have been the same person speaking -- "It was only six soldiers blah blah blah it wasn't Rumsfeld's fault blah blah blah in a war you have to expect these kinds of isolated incidents blah blah blah it was only six bad apples blah blah blah we are in an insurgency situation and we have to press hard to protect our troops blah blah blah Saddam was a lot worse than this blah blah blah the brigade commander should be held accountable but no one any higher is to blame blah blah blah and did I mention that it was only six bad apple soldiers?" The stress on the number six echoed the talking points last summer --"it was only 16 words". And Chris Matthews has got the message, he was repeating these talking points himself.
But Lou Dobbs hadn't read the memo -- I could tell he was particularly unimpressed with the "Saddam did it too" justification after two years of arguments that America represents a higher standard. And Dobbs pointed out the absurdity of the idea that we should blame it all on the brigade commander but no one any higher in the chain of command should have to fall on their sword.
What was particularly silly, too, was the repeated reference to "only six" soldiers, when the Washington Post photos today clearly show many soldiers standing in the hallways watching as the naked Iraqi prisoners are being bound together.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Bush can't understand the story without the photos
Rumsfeld Chastised by President for His Handling of Iraq Scandal
So was it the abuse that Bush was upset about, or just the photos of the abuse? From this story, it appears that it was the photos, not the events, that Bush worried about. The story reports that unnamed officials ". . . said the president had expressed his displeasure to Mr. Rumsfeld in an Oval Office meeting because of Mr. Rumsfeld's failure to tell Mr. Bush about photographs of the abuse, which have enraged the Arab world." Then down in the 19th paragraph, the story reports that Bush was told about the abuse "within weeks" of the mid-January noficiation to Rumsfeld. "Mr. Rumsfeld told the president about the case" the story says, "But it is not clear, the official said, whether Mr. Rumsfeld mentioned the photographs or their basic content to Mr. Bush at that point."
Of course, a picture is worth a thousand words.
So was it the abuse that Bush was upset about, or just the photos of the abuse? From this story, it appears that it was the photos, not the events, that Bush worried about. The story reports that unnamed officials ". . . said the president had expressed his displeasure to Mr. Rumsfeld in an Oval Office meeting because of Mr. Rumsfeld's failure to tell Mr. Bush about photographs of the abuse, which have enraged the Arab world." Then down in the 19th paragraph, the story reports that Bush was told about the abuse "within weeks" of the mid-January noficiation to Rumsfeld. "Mr. Rumsfeld told the president about the case" the story says, "But it is not clear, the official said, whether Mr. Rumsfeld mentioned the photographs or their basic content to Mr. Bush at that point."
Of course, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Only the soldiers will get the blame
MSNBC has posted the U.S Army report on prisoner abuse. This is the report that Bush, Rumsfeld and Myers have spent the last two months NOT reading. The damning parts, I think, are not just the well-publicized descriptions of how prisoners were tortured, but also the unreported descriptions of how the US Army was treating its own soldiers. Tabula writes:
. . . members of the 800th MP Brigade believed they would be allowed to go home when all the detainees were released from the Camp Bucca . . . on May 2003. . . . In late May-early June 2003 the 800th MP Brigade was given a new mission to manage the Iraqi penal system and several detention centers. . . Morale suffered, and over the next few months there did not appear to have been any attempt by the Command to mitigate this morale problem. . . . soldiers throughout the 800th MP Brigade were not proficient in their basic MOS skills, particularly regarding internment/resettlement operations . . . not adequately trained for a mission that included operating a prison or penal institution . . . Brigade personnel relied heavily on individuals within the Brigade who had civilian corrections experience, including many who worked as prison guards or corrections officials in their civilian jobs. . . . the 800th MP Brigade as a whole, was understrength for the mission for which it was tasked. . . . the quality of life for Soldiers assigned to Abu Ghraib was extremely poor. There was no DFAC, PX, barbershop, or MWR facilities. There were numerous mortar attacks, random rifle and RPG attacks, and a serious threat to Soldiers and detainees in the facility. The prison complex was also severely overcrowded and the Brigade lacked adequate resources and personnel to resolve serious logistical problems. Finally, because of past associations and familiarity of Soldiers within the Brigade, it appears that friendship often took precedence over appropriate leader and subordinate relationships. . . . In addition I find that psychological factors, such as the difference in culture, the Soldiers’ quality of life, the real presence of mortal danger over an extended time period, and the failure of commanders to recognize these pressures contributed to the perversive atmosphere . . . we observed many individual Soldiers and some subordinate units (who) overcame significant obstacles, persevered in extremely poor conditions, and upheld the Army Values. We discovered numerous examples of Soldiers and Sailors taking the initiative in the absence of leadership and accomplishing their assigned tasks. . . .
I wonder how many other aspects of the occupation of Iraq have been as half-assed, patched-together, and poorly-managed as the prison operation apparently was? The PR hype portrays the American army as the best Army in the world, but the performance of the military command in many aspects of the occupation of Iraq will trash that reputation, leaving the soldiers to bear the blame and the shame.
. . . members of the 800th MP Brigade believed they would be allowed to go home when all the detainees were released from the Camp Bucca . . . on May 2003. . . . In late May-early June 2003 the 800th MP Brigade was given a new mission to manage the Iraqi penal system and several detention centers. . . Morale suffered, and over the next few months there did not appear to have been any attempt by the Command to mitigate this morale problem. . . . soldiers throughout the 800th MP Brigade were not proficient in their basic MOS skills, particularly regarding internment/resettlement operations . . . not adequately trained for a mission that included operating a prison or penal institution . . . Brigade personnel relied heavily on individuals within the Brigade who had civilian corrections experience, including many who worked as prison guards or corrections officials in their civilian jobs. . . . the 800th MP Brigade as a whole, was understrength for the mission for which it was tasked. . . . the quality of life for Soldiers assigned to Abu Ghraib was extremely poor. There was no DFAC, PX, barbershop, or MWR facilities. There were numerous mortar attacks, random rifle and RPG attacks, and a serious threat to Soldiers and detainees in the facility. The prison complex was also severely overcrowded and the Brigade lacked adequate resources and personnel to resolve serious logistical problems. Finally, because of past associations and familiarity of Soldiers within the Brigade, it appears that friendship often took precedence over appropriate leader and subordinate relationships. . . . In addition I find that psychological factors, such as the difference in culture, the Soldiers’ quality of life, the real presence of mortal danger over an extended time period, and the failure of commanders to recognize these pressures contributed to the perversive atmosphere . . . we observed many individual Soldiers and some subordinate units (who) overcame significant obstacles, persevered in extremely poor conditions, and upheld the Army Values. We discovered numerous examples of Soldiers and Sailors taking the initiative in the absence of leadership and accomplishing their assigned tasks. . . .
I wonder how many other aspects of the occupation of Iraq have been as half-assed, patched-together, and poorly-managed as the prison operation apparently was? The PR hype portrays the American army as the best Army in the world, but the performance of the military command in many aspects of the occupation of Iraq will trash that reputation, leaving the soldiers to bear the blame and the shame.
Rising above the smear
Liberal Oasis links to the new Kerry ads - JohnKerry.com - Heart & Lifetime which LO likes a lot -- so do I -- simple, direct, and positive.
I just posted a Kvetch at Counterspin about the importance of Dems talking about what a great leader Kerry has been and will be, to counter the message of the RNC smear campaigns. The RNC and Tricky Dicky Dubya are trying to bury Kerry's outstanding Vietnam record with dirty tricks -- the stupid medals controversy last week, the swiftboat stuff this week fronted by a veterans group of closet republicans who didn't even serve with Kerry. Joe Conason reports the background on how this group was manufactured by a Texas PR firm with close links to Bush. Connason writes "Arguments about the war in Vietnam seem destined to continue forever. For now, however, the lingering bitterness and ambiguity of those days provide smear material against an antiwar war hero with five medals on behalf of a privileged Guardsman with a dubious duty record. The president's Texas allies -- whose animus against his Democratic challenger dates back to the Nixon era -- are now deploying the same techniques and personnel they used to attack McCain's integrity four years ago. Bush's "independent" supporters would apparently rather talk about the Vietnam quagmire than about his deadly incompetence in Iraq."
But I think the pattern is broader than just Vietnam. Yes, Vietnam is still a bad memory for many Americans, but for anyone under 45, its ancient history. For the Bush campaign, its just a convenient hook for smears.
Rather than arguing factoids and conspiracies, Kerry and the Dems must maintain their focus on the main message -- that Kerry would be a great leader for America.
I just posted a Kvetch at Counterspin about the importance of Dems talking about what a great leader Kerry has been and will be, to counter the message of the RNC smear campaigns. The RNC and Tricky Dicky Dubya are trying to bury Kerry's outstanding Vietnam record with dirty tricks -- the stupid medals controversy last week, the swiftboat stuff this week fronted by a veterans group of closet republicans who didn't even serve with Kerry. Joe Conason reports the background on how this group was manufactured by a Texas PR firm with close links to Bush. Connason writes "Arguments about the war in Vietnam seem destined to continue forever. For now, however, the lingering bitterness and ambiguity of those days provide smear material against an antiwar war hero with five medals on behalf of a privileged Guardsman with a dubious duty record. The president's Texas allies -- whose animus against his Democratic challenger dates back to the Nixon era -- are now deploying the same techniques and personnel they used to attack McCain's integrity four years ago. Bush's "independent" supporters would apparently rather talk about the Vietnam quagmire than about his deadly incompetence in Iraq."
But I think the pattern is broader than just Vietnam. Yes, Vietnam is still a bad memory for many Americans, but for anyone under 45, its ancient history. For the Bush campaign, its just a convenient hook for smears.
Rather than arguing factoids and conspiracies, Kerry and the Dems must maintain their focus on the main message -- that Kerry would be a great leader for America.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
The shot heard round the world
Google reports more than 2300 stories about the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal,
Do your mom a favour and stay in
Share a meal, and time, with your Mom I got a chuckle out of this article -- I've been to restaurants on Mother's Day and the experience leaves a lot to be desired -- crowded, noisy, irritable waitstaff, rushed service so they can get to the next sitting.
Waitstaff hate Mother's Day, because so many customers are newbies at restaurant dining on that day, and they don't know how to behave in a restaurant or how restaurants usually do things. Mother's Day gets a whole chapter in Waiters:Waiters True Tales of Crazed Customers, Murderous Chefs, and Tableside Disasters
So anyway, cook a meal or bring a deli one to Mom's and go out to eat a week later when everything has quieted down.
Waitstaff hate Mother's Day, because so many customers are newbies at restaurant dining on that day, and they don't know how to behave in a restaurant or how restaurants usually do things. Mother's Day gets a whole chapter in Waiters:Waiters True Tales of Crazed Customers, Murderous Chefs, and Tableside Disasters
So anyway, cook a meal or bring a deli one to Mom's and go out to eat a week later when everything has quieted down.
Will finally gets it
George Will: Time for Bush to See The Realities of Iraq (washingtonpost.com)
Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.
Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.
Monday, May 03, 2004
Gonzo
Hugh Winsor: Martin may yet regret decision to jump on cities' bandwagon
Winsor writes "By embracing 'a new deal for cities' in the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister raised expectations he is already finding difficult to deliver -- note the flip-flop around transferring gasoline taxes to municipal governments. And if he continues in power after an election, the challenge of developing policies that can make a difference in urban areas will increase."
Oh, come on! What is Winsor actually saying here -- Martin has been Prime Minister for five whole months and he hasn't yet solved the problems of Canada's cities so he's just a hopeless wanker after all.
This is the kind of gonzo journalism that we see all the time in the US now, where every politican except Bush and Schwartzenegger get raked over the coals for not walking on water. I thought Canadian reporters had a little more perspective.
Winsor writes "By embracing 'a new deal for cities' in the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister raised expectations he is already finding difficult to deliver -- note the flip-flop around transferring gasoline taxes to municipal governments. And if he continues in power after an election, the challenge of developing policies that can make a difference in urban areas will increase."
Oh, come on! What is Winsor actually saying here -- Martin has been Prime Minister for five whole months and he hasn't yet solved the problems of Canada's cities so he's just a hopeless wanker after all.
This is the kind of gonzo journalism that we see all the time in the US now, where every politican except Bush and Schwartzenegger get raked over the coals for not walking on water. I thought Canadian reporters had a little more perspective.
Another magic bullet
How Ahmed Chalabi conned the neocons
Great article -- its too bad no journalist connected the dots in January, 2003. Key paragraph: Why did the neocons put such enormous faith in Ahmed Chalabi, an exile with a shady past and no standing with Iraqis? One word: Israel. They saw the invasion of Iraq as the precondition for a reorganization of the Middle East that would solve Israel's strategic problems, without the need for an accommodation with either the Palestinians or the existing Arab states. Chalabi assured them that the Iraqi democracy he would build would develop diplomatic and trade ties with Israel, and eschew Arab nationalism.
They thought regime change in Iraq was another magic bullet -- again, the grandiose but incompetent Bush Administration believed that they could quickly and easily fix a problem which had bedeviled the world since 1920s. They really do believe their own press coverage.
Great article -- its too bad no journalist connected the dots in January, 2003. Key paragraph: Why did the neocons put such enormous faith in Ahmed Chalabi, an exile with a shady past and no standing with Iraqis? One word: Israel. They saw the invasion of Iraq as the precondition for a reorganization of the Middle East that would solve Israel's strategic problems, without the need for an accommodation with either the Palestinians or the existing Arab states. Chalabi assured them that the Iraqi democracy he would build would develop diplomatic and trade ties with Israel, and eschew Arab nationalism.
They thought regime change in Iraq was another magic bullet -- again, the grandiose but incompetent Bush Administration believed that they could quickly and easily fix a problem which had bedeviled the world since 1920s. They really do believe their own press coverage.
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Thumbs-up in Baghdad
There's been a lot of stuff in the news lately about torture, particularly now that the news is full of horrible and disgusting photos of American soldiers giving the thumbs-up over the miserable naked bodies of humiliated Iraqis.
The odd thing is, everyone KNOWS that torture doesn't work very well, that the confessions are likely false, and that there's no way to determine whether anything the torturee is saying is true at all. One of the best things that ever happened to police work in the last 40 years was the Miranda Warning -- it forced police to stop trying to beat often-false confessions out of people and start trying to talk them into true confessions (read the book Homicide for a description of how police now do this).
The dirty little secret is that in our popular culture, torture by the people who consider themselves to be the good guys makes the torturer feel righteous -- particularly when he feels justified in taking some kind of revenge on the torturee. Consider the hundreds of movies and TV shows we have seen over the last half-century where the nice-guy police officer finally "snaps", driven to a righteous rage by the heinousness of some crime and the despicableness of the perpretrator, and starts beating the guy's head against the wall -- "I'll wipe that smile off your face" is the cliche line. And doesn't the audience applaud? Doesn't it seem like the righteous thing to do? Isn't it an enormous release when we have an excuse to disobey society's dictate to "be good", when we just let 'er rip and damn the consquences?
The odd thing is, everyone KNOWS that torture doesn't work very well, that the confessions are likely false, and that there's no way to determine whether anything the torturee is saying is true at all. One of the best things that ever happened to police work in the last 40 years was the Miranda Warning -- it forced police to stop trying to beat often-false confessions out of people and start trying to talk them into true confessions (read the book Homicide for a description of how police now do this).
The dirty little secret is that in our popular culture, torture by the people who consider themselves to be the good guys makes the torturer feel righteous -- particularly when he feels justified in taking some kind of revenge on the torturee. Consider the hundreds of movies and TV shows we have seen over the last half-century where the nice-guy police officer finally "snaps", driven to a righteous rage by the heinousness of some crime and the despicableness of the perpretrator, and starts beating the guy's head against the wall -- "I'll wipe that smile off your face" is the cliche line. And doesn't the audience applaud? Doesn't it seem like the righteous thing to do? Isn't it an enormous release when we have an excuse to disobey society's dictate to "be good", when we just let 'er rip and damn the consquences?
Compassion
CBS News: "First lady Laura Bush says U.S. troops are the face of American compassion abroad. " Unfortunately, this may be true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)