Finally, the US media is starting to understand that the Iraq war is unwinnable -- Fred Kaplan's article in Slate entitled "No Way Out. Is there any hope of avoiding catastrophe in Iraq?" will be the first of a series of articles we will see over the next two months.
This is exactly what Dean and Kerry and the left-wing bloggers and the rest of the democrats saw a year ago, even two years ago. For Dean, it made him an anti-war candidate.
Kerry, a more strategic thinkier, realized that the American economic position and interests in the Middle East required a more complicated posture now than the simpler anti-war Vietnam approach of 30 years ago -- see my "Kerry-think" post from last weekend on how he would try to handle this mess.
The US could afford an ignominious end to Vietnam -- the whole idea of that war, remember, was to protect South Vietnam from North Vietnam and hence prevent big bad old China from taking over southeast Asia. But by the time America plucked its last soldier off the embassy roof, it was clear that China had enough trouble just running its own country, never mind Vietnam.
Abandoning Iraq, however, would destabilize both Israel and oil interests. (Yes, I know, I know, they made their bed and maybe they should have to lie in it -- but the world doesn't need another Arab/Israeli war now, particularly with the American army in the middle.)
Kaplan starts with the same dilemna that Kerry saw:
"There might be nothing we can do to build a path to a stable, secure, let alone democratic regime. And there's no way we can just pull out without plunging the country, the region, and possibly beyond into still deeper disaster."
And then Kaplan finds himself going in Kerry's direction:
". . . with the right mix of incentives, Russia and France might be persuaded to send troops. One key would be to play on their commercial ambitions. Give both countries—and any others—favored status to bid on vital contracts. Iraq's oil reserves alone might prove tempting. The other key would be to turn over the occupation, including its military command, to an outside entity: NATO, the European Union, the United Nations, the Arab League—anything, as long as the general in charge is not an American."
Kaplan concludes ". . . the best we can hope for, at this point, is an Iraq that doesn't blow up and take the region with it. The dismaying, frightening thing is how imponderably difficult it will be simply to avoid catastrophe."
Once again, Kerry has been ahead of the curve.
Saturday, August 14, 2004
More up is downism
No wonder the Bush administration wants more of its judicial appointments to go through -- the courts have been the only place which has stopped its rampant pro-business regulatory changes which have been proceeding at a furious pace and without any particular respect for public input or safety, apparently.
Is anyone surprised?
Is anyone surprised?
Friday, August 13, 2004
Blowing up the money
One of the problems old-time bank robbers used to have was blowing up the money -- using so much explosive to blow open a safe that they destroyed both the safe and the money in it.
This is what the US is now doing in Iraq -- the fighting in Najaf is a no-win situation for the US military, for Iraq's so-called government, and for the Bush administration.
Half of the new Iraq government just resigned over the US attacks on Najaf and Kut. And, as they did in Fallujah in April, perhaps US commanders in the field are having second thoughts again about the impossible situation their troops are in, with the New York Times reporting they appear to be stopping their advance again
Now Cheney is trying to ridicule Kerry for using the word "sensitive" in describing how he would deal with the war on terror. Well, as the Daily Show demonstrated, Bush himself has also used this word in the past to describe how the US should be acting. Not, of course, that the Pentagon has behaved with any actual sensitivity toward Iraq, so maybe it doesn't count.
This is what the US is now doing in Iraq -- the fighting in Najaf is a no-win situation for the US military, for Iraq's so-called government, and for the Bush administration.
Half of the new Iraq government just resigned over the US attacks on Najaf and Kut. And, as they did in Fallujah in April, perhaps US commanders in the field are having second thoughts again about the impossible situation their troops are in, with the New York Times reporting they appear to be stopping their advance again
Now Cheney is trying to ridicule Kerry for using the word "sensitive" in describing how he would deal with the war on terror. Well, as the Daily Show demonstrated, Bush himself has also used this word in the past to describe how the US should be acting. Not, of course, that the Pentagon has behaved with any actual sensitivity toward Iraq, so maybe it doesn't count.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Teflon Kerry
One of the attributes of a winning politician is his ability to fall on both sides of an issue, to the extent that both sides can think he is supporting their view? This ability, properly used, creates a "teflon" politician -- one to whom bad news does not stick. It drives opponents crazy, because there is nothing they can get a handle on. Reagan had it, and so did Clinton. Bush has tried to develop it, but with the usual clumsy incompetence of his administration has too often revealed the ventriloquist behind the curtain.
Well, it looks like John Kerry has developed this ability as well.
Here is arch-right-winger Glenn Reynolds actually supporting Kerry for his Iraq war stance and his stem cell research stance -- its stunning, amazing, that Reynolds would actually think Kerry supports the Iraq war. But its a tribute to how slippery Kerry has become on this issue, refusing to give his opponents a handle for attacks -- Bush was reduced to the ridiculous posture of "blasting" Kerry for a vote which actually supported Bush's own position!
Keep it up, John.
Well, it looks like John Kerry has developed this ability as well.
Here is arch-right-winger Glenn Reynolds actually supporting Kerry for his Iraq war stance and his stem cell research stance -- its stunning, amazing, that Reynolds would actually think Kerry supports the Iraq war. But its a tribute to how slippery Kerry has become on this issue, refusing to give his opponents a handle for attacks -- Bush was reduced to the ridiculous posture of "blasting" Kerry for a vote which actually supported Bush's own position!
Keep it up, John.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
The hand is quicker than the eye
The New York Times nails it in this editorial Sidestepping reform at the CIA By naming a new CIA director now, Bush is trying to pull off a bit of hocus-pocus, whisking the focus of Congress and the country away from the 9.11 commission recommendations. It will be interesting to see whether the commission members and Congress will be bamboozled.
Sunday, August 08, 2004
The Son also rises
Ron Reagan writes The Case Against George W. Bush in September's Esquire magazine.
Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.
Reagan is particularly mad about the constant lying:
All administrations will dissemble, distort, or outright lie when their backs are against the wall, when honesty begins to look like political suicide. But this administration seems to lie reflexively, as if it were simply the easiest option for busy folks with a lot on their minds. While the big lies are more damning and of immeasurably greater import to the nation, it is the small, unnecessary prevarications that may be diagnostic. Who lies when they don't have to? When the simple truth, though perhaps embarrassing in the short run, is nevertheless in one's long-term self-interest? Why would a president whose calling card is his alleged rock-solid integrity waste his chief asset for penny-ante stakes? Habit, perhaps. Or an inability to admit even small mistakes.
The article includes what the democrats should be codifying and calling The List: not just Iraq, but also climate change, energy policies, security failures, no child left behind underfunding, medicare bungling -- and Reagan also notes all of the people now against Bush - scientists, diplomats, generals. Its an impressive list.
I wonder whether anyone at the republican convention will dare to mention Reagan's legacy.
Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.
Reagan is particularly mad about the constant lying:
All administrations will dissemble, distort, or outright lie when their backs are against the wall, when honesty begins to look like political suicide. But this administration seems to lie reflexively, as if it were simply the easiest option for busy folks with a lot on their minds. While the big lies are more damning and of immeasurably greater import to the nation, it is the small, unnecessary prevarications that may be diagnostic. Who lies when they don't have to? When the simple truth, though perhaps embarrassing in the short run, is nevertheless in one's long-term self-interest? Why would a president whose calling card is his alleged rock-solid integrity waste his chief asset for penny-ante stakes? Habit, perhaps. Or an inability to admit even small mistakes.
The article includes what the democrats should be codifying and calling The List: not just Iraq, but also climate change, energy policies, security failures, no child left behind underfunding, medicare bungling -- and Reagan also notes all of the people now against Bush - scientists, diplomats, generals. Its an impressive list.
I wonder whether anyone at the republican convention will dare to mention Reagan's legacy.
Saturday, August 07, 2004
Kerry-Think about Iraq
One of the primary characteristics of the way Bush thinks about issues is the simplistic black/white comparison - you're either for us or against us. The attraction of this kind of thinking is exactly its simplicity -- its easy to grasp, easy to apply to just about any situation.
The media gets sucked into this, as do the rest of us.
I have seen some media stories recently which conclude, because Kerry is not vocally opposed to the Iraq war, that therefore Kerry's position on the war is the same as Bush and there is no difference between them. Sometimes this comes from right-wing commentators who conclude without any evidence that Kerry would have no more success than Bush would in disentangling America from this mess, and I see it also from left-wingers who themselves are opposed to the war and who want Kerry to state some kind of anti-war position.
But its all Bush-Think -- simplistic, easy, wrong.
The Iraq war is too much of a mess now for any more Bush-Think, either by Bush himself or by the media -- or by me. So I looked into what Kerry actually does plan to do in Iraq.
Sure enough, its complicated. It is also uniquely Kerry. Call it Kerry-Think -- complex, challenging, strategic, and goal-oriented.
Kerry's goal is to extricate America from this mess before they actually lose the war, and simultaneously to make America safer by ensuring that Iraq does not descend into anarchy. Talk about complex -- it could be one of those Mission Impossible scripts -- "Your mission, Mr. Kerry, if you chose to accept it, is to get the American troops safely home while also ensuring that the country they leave behind will not be a danger to America or to its neighbours."
And as I am beginning to appreciate what Kerry wants to do, I am beginning to think that perhaps this actually is possible -- maybe Kerry can actually pull this off.
Here is the key part of Kerry's Plan for America:
Having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. We must take immediate measures to prevent Iraq
from becoming a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in
the Middle East. We must now forge a new policy based on what we know and on what will be most effective. We still have an opportunity to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state and a haven for global terrorists and Islamic
extremists. We can still succeed in promoting stability, democracy, protection of minority and women’s rights,
and peace in the region if we construct and follow a realistic path. To accomplish this, America must do the hard work
to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. We must build a real coalition of countries to
work together to achieve our mission in Iraq; the international community shares the stakes—they should
share the political and military burdens. To do that, of course, we must share responsibility with those nations
that answer our call, and treat them with respect. We must lead—and we must listen.
Bush and the people around him are incapable of undertaking such a complex task and so will ridicule anyone who would attempt it -- but basically this approach is America's only hope to achieve any kind of success with this misbegotten war, and I think Kerry has both the leadership skills and the international credibility to do it.
The media gets sucked into this, as do the rest of us.
I have seen some media stories recently which conclude, because Kerry is not vocally opposed to the Iraq war, that therefore Kerry's position on the war is the same as Bush and there is no difference between them. Sometimes this comes from right-wing commentators who conclude without any evidence that Kerry would have no more success than Bush would in disentangling America from this mess, and I see it also from left-wingers who themselves are opposed to the war and who want Kerry to state some kind of anti-war position.
But its all Bush-Think -- simplistic, easy, wrong.
The Iraq war is too much of a mess now for any more Bush-Think, either by Bush himself or by the media -- or by me. So I looked into what Kerry actually does plan to do in Iraq.
Sure enough, its complicated. It is also uniquely Kerry. Call it Kerry-Think -- complex, challenging, strategic, and goal-oriented.
Kerry's goal is to extricate America from this mess before they actually lose the war, and simultaneously to make America safer by ensuring that Iraq does not descend into anarchy. Talk about complex -- it could be one of those Mission Impossible scripts -- "Your mission, Mr. Kerry, if you chose to accept it, is to get the American troops safely home while also ensuring that the country they leave behind will not be a danger to America or to its neighbours."
And as I am beginning to appreciate what Kerry wants to do, I am beginning to think that perhaps this actually is possible -- maybe Kerry can actually pull this off.
Here is the key part of Kerry's Plan for America:
Having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. We must take immediate measures to prevent Iraq
from becoming a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in
the Middle East. We must now forge a new policy based on what we know and on what will be most effective. We still have an opportunity to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state and a haven for global terrorists and Islamic
extremists. We can still succeed in promoting stability, democracy, protection of minority and women’s rights,
and peace in the region if we construct and follow a realistic path. To accomplish this, America must do the hard work
to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. We must build a real coalition of countries to
work together to achieve our mission in Iraq; the international community shares the stakes—they should
share the political and military burdens. To do that, of course, we must share responsibility with those nations
that answer our call, and treat them with respect. We must lead—and we must listen.
Bush and the people around him are incapable of undertaking such a complex task and so will ridicule anyone who would attempt it -- but basically this approach is America's only hope to achieve any kind of success with this misbegotten war, and I think Kerry has both the leadership skills and the international credibility to do it.
Clumsy incompetents
So -- the recent terrorist arrests apparently have little to do with protecting the US from terrorism, and a lot to do with protecting terrorist investigations from the ham-handed Bush administration.
See MSNBC's Pakistan: US blew undercover operation story.
When will the media realize how clumsy, incompetent and self-serving this administration is?
Can anyone name ONE THING they have actually handled well in the last four years?
See MSNBC's Pakistan: US blew undercover operation story.
When will the media realize how clumsy, incompetent and self-serving this administration is?
Can anyone name ONE THING they have actually handled well in the last four years?
Bad moon rising
One line I read in some book said there are seven things that can happen when a quarterback drops back to throw a pass, and six of them are bad -- the good one is that the pass is accurately thrown and successfully caught; the bad ones are quarterback sack, interception, quarterback injury, receiver injury, incomplete pass, and fumbled catch.
Anyway, I was reminded of this in relation to the stories I am reading now about Bush's campaign -- Slate's article about the pseudo-religious persona that Bush is using on his campaign stops had an aura of desperation about it in spite of the reporter's own warm fuzzies. Note the description of his audience as "hand-picked Ohioans intended to represent a particular Bush policy". Both Bush and Cheney now seem to prefer to speak only to the previously converted -- and these will become fewer in number as a cascade of bad things happens in the next three months:
- the Afghan election Oct. 9 will likely be a mess.
- the Iraq insurgency will continue to get worse. By the end of October, there will be 1,200 American troops dead.
- US job numbers will continue to tank, the market will continue to fall. The market usually falls anyway from mid-September to the end of October. This year will be worse because of oil prices.
- the Plame inquiry will report and, considering how many of top Bush administration people they have interviewed, its unlikely (though possible, I suppose) that the result will be innocuous.
- chances are that more prisoner abuse photos will emerge.
- and if there is a terrorist attack on US property anywhere in the world, it may not turn out to be a positive for Bush. In fact, it could be a negative, particularly if it concerns some area like chemical plants, about which the Bush administration has been warned but has done nothing to fix (and considering how much has been neglected, the odds are that this will be the case.)
Now, Kerry could blow it somehow, and he will need to present himself well in the debates. We'll have a better idea after the Republican convention how their speaking styles will compare.
But for the most part, the indicators for Bush are pretty bad.
Clinton said in last night's CBC interview that Bush had already lost, and this is certainly the sense I get when I see news coverage of his campaign appearances -- though most of the media are still trying to be "balanced" about it.
Anyway, I was reminded of this in relation to the stories I am reading now about Bush's campaign -- Slate's article about the pseudo-religious persona that Bush is using on his campaign stops had an aura of desperation about it in spite of the reporter's own warm fuzzies. Note the description of his audience as "hand-picked Ohioans intended to represent a particular Bush policy". Both Bush and Cheney now seem to prefer to speak only to the previously converted -- and these will become fewer in number as a cascade of bad things happens in the next three months:
- the Afghan election Oct. 9 will likely be a mess.
- the Iraq insurgency will continue to get worse. By the end of October, there will be 1,200 American troops dead.
- US job numbers will continue to tank, the market will continue to fall. The market usually falls anyway from mid-September to the end of October. This year will be worse because of oil prices.
- the Plame inquiry will report and, considering how many of top Bush administration people they have interviewed, its unlikely (though possible, I suppose) that the result will be innocuous.
- chances are that more prisoner abuse photos will emerge.
- and if there is a terrorist attack on US property anywhere in the world, it may not turn out to be a positive for Bush. In fact, it could be a negative, particularly if it concerns some area like chemical plants, about which the Bush administration has been warned but has done nothing to fix (and considering how much has been neglected, the odds are that this will be the case.)
Now, Kerry could blow it somehow, and he will need to present himself well in the debates. We'll have a better idea after the Republican convention how their speaking styles will compare.
But for the most part, the indicators for Bush are pretty bad.
Clinton said in last night's CBC interview that Bush had already lost, and this is certainly the sense I get when I see news coverage of his campaign appearances -- though most of the media are still trying to be "balanced" about it.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
The choice
Clinton put it simply and clearly in his CBC interview:
The Bush administration has outsourced the war against Al Quaeda to Pakistan while it went to war against Iraq. If Americans agree with those priorities, they will vote for Bush. If they do not agree with those priorities, they will vote for Kerry.
The Bush administration has outsourced the war against Al Quaeda to Pakistan while it went to war against Iraq. If Americans agree with those priorities, they will vote for Bush. If they do not agree with those priorities, they will vote for Kerry.
Sorry, slowdown in posts for a couple of weeks
Hi -- well, my laptop has apparently died, and it will take a while to revive it -- in the meantime, I will try to keep up, using my son's computer -- but unfortunately, he likes to use it sometimes too. So expect fewer posts until I can get it fixed.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Alternate realities
A Record of Recovery
Hmmm -- Reagan's former secretary of state says that the charts show Clinton inherited prosperity and bequeathed recession.
Just as logically, one could say that the charts show the economy tanks during Republican administrations - particularly Bush administrations -- and begins showing signs of life again when the prospect looms of being able to vote them out.
Hmmm -- Reagan's former secretary of state says that the charts show Clinton inherited prosperity and bequeathed recession.
Just as logically, one could say that the charts show the economy tanks during Republican administrations - particularly Bush administrations -- and begins showing signs of life again when the prospect looms of being able to vote them out.
Laughing while Rome burns, I guess
Dem pundits plan to lose this race the same way they did in 2000
So it turns out that the republican strategy to make fun of the democratic candidate was also used against Gore in 2000.
I though "everything changed" after 9/11, but I guess not.
And the dems had better react his time, as the Howler points out -- they need their own talking points and they need to get their people to use them.
So it turns out that the republican strategy to make fun of the democratic candidate was also used against Gore in 2000.
I though "everything changed" after 9/11, but I guess not.
And the dems had better react his time, as the Howler points out -- they need their own talking points and they need to get their people to use them.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Window-dressing with a fall-guy
Bush Calls for New Intelligence Director
"President Bush urged creation of a national intelligence director Monday to coordinate the war on terrorism but without the sweeping powers for hiring, firing and spending at the CIA, FBI and other agencies as recommended by the Sept. 11 commission . . . Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, questioned Bush's decision. "The power and authority given to these new entities will determine whether these changes actually fix the problem or make it worse," he said. If the new director cannot control the budgets of intelligence agencies, he said, "this new position will be no more than window dressing."
How can newspaper headlines credit Bush for enacting the 9/11 commission recommendations? This is NOT what they said they wanted. This is just a new fall-guy.
"President Bush urged creation of a national intelligence director Monday to coordinate the war on terrorism but without the sweeping powers for hiring, firing and spending at the CIA, FBI and other agencies as recommended by the Sept. 11 commission . . . Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, questioned Bush's decision. "The power and authority given to these new entities will determine whether these changes actually fix the problem or make it worse," he said. If the new director cannot control the budgets of intelligence agencies, he said, "this new position will be no more than window dressing."
How can newspaper headlines credit Bush for enacting the 9/11 commission recommendations? This is NOT what they said they wanted. This is just a new fall-guy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)