~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
We have the goods on how government officials are trying to keep those who aren't toeing the official line from speaking freely. There is a coordinated effort to manage the information on the Uranium/Africa story by senior officials in the government, and to prevent those who might break from their version of events from being heard. It's all layed out right here:
Senators Tom Daschle and Harry Reid, the Senate's Democratic leader and whip respectively, were both bad-mouthing Rockefeller, and let it be known in a meeting of all Democratic press secretaries that they, along with Sen.Bob Graham, were to be the only conduits for official Senate Democratic statements on either issue.
"This is the first time this White House has made a misstep we can capitalize on, and Rockefeller is out there soft-peddling the stuff like it is no big deal," says a Senate leadership staffer. "If Bush emerges from this unscathed, Rockefeller deserves a lot of the blame from our end."
Daschle and Reid had both told party caucus members that the past ten days have given them the best chance at wounding the White House. They asked for a coordinated communications effort, in line with their House counterparts and the Democratic National Committee. But then Rockefeller, who serves as ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, went off the reservation and told reporters that before there was any serious finger-pointing, the committee had to take in all the information. That was not the spin Daschle and company wanted.
Economic revitalization is underway in Russia, thanks in no small part to good tax policy:
hile most global stock markets have been in the doldrums for most of the last three years, Russian stocks have more than tripled in value since January 2001. During the same period, Russia's 20-year dollar bond yield has fallen to 7 percent from 18 percent. This is no accident.
Russia's complex and burdensome income-tax system was scrapped and replaced with a 13 percent flat income-tax rate in 2001. Corporate tax rates were slashed to 24 percent from 35 percent last year. The reforms resulted in a 33 percent boost in after-tax incentives on labor and a 17 percent rise in the after-tax rate of return on corporate earnings. The combination amounts to a 50 percent increase in the after-tax rate of return on labor and business.
What's more, as a result, not only is the economy growing again, but government revenues are surging as well:
It should be no surprise that if you tax labor and business less, there will be more labor and business to tax. In short, the size of the tax base varies inversely with the height of the tax rate. If the incentive change from tax cutting is big enough, it actually could produce a net rise in tax revenues, which is exactly what has happened in Russia.
Tax revenues in dollar terms were up 19 percent last year and have shot up 50 percent since 2001! Faster growth and more tax revenues have produced three consecutive years of fiscal surpluses. This has reduced the government's overall external debt to $112 billion in 2003, or just 34 percent of GDP.
And they aren't finished:
Importantly, Russian president Vladimir Putin is bucking the neo-Malthusian impulse to hoard "government revenues" and instead plans to continue deploying surpluses to buy down tax rates. Putin plans to slash the Value Added Tax (VAT) to 16 percent from 20 percent next year and reduce the Unified Social Tax (UST) to 25 percent from 35 percent. Talk of a free-trade zone with former Russian republics is also in the air.
I'm glad this is working out for Russia. But of course such things shouldn't be tried here; it would be "fiscally irresponsible".
I thought the NOW gang was opposed to having government come between a woman and her doctor in medical decisions, but I thought wrong. Isn't it up to a woman to make these decisions for herself and the government should keep its laws off her body? I thought that their position was that it's completely up to the woman to decide what to do with her own body and no government should interfere with her making these decisions, in consultation with her doctor.
By the by, I know most guys like, um, enhanced women. But personally I think that in almost all cases the "before" is better than the "after". But to each their own.
Neo-McCarthyite (N) - Person or persons who quote the words of Leftists in a manner that disagrees with or is critical of their views or statements, rather than favorable.
See also "stifling dissent" and "chilling effect on free speech". People who disagree with the dissenting Left need to know their place and keep their own opinions quiet, because their expressed opinions threaten the free speech of Leftists. Refers to theories of Liberating Toleration (c.f. Marcuse, Herbert). As stated here:
"That the death camp was one of tolerance highlights a truism about liberalism, which is all for tolerance - that liberals only support tolerance so that their voices - and only their voices - can be heard. Anyone disagreeing with them might as well shut up, such is their intolerance to other views. It follows that extreme tolerance leads to forced acceptance."
I decided to go through the Gephardt speech from yesterday and break it down. Because, as much as I've ripped on it a bit, one of the topics I've been hitting is the need for a renewal in the Democratic Party, a revitalization of some of its past strengths. These were buried when the New Left became a key and vocal constituency for the Democrats, but their recovery will - in my opinion - make the Democratic Party stronger and American politics more healthy.
From a narrow, partisan perspective seeing the Democrats drift into catering to bitter, paranoid reactions when good things happen to the country and glee when setbacks occur might be in the interest of folks on my side of the political divide, but I don't think it's good for the country as a whole. I think that one of the things we'll all need to keep in mind if we want to avoid destructively hostile internal strife is that we can and should be pleased, not upset and dispirited, when the "other side" accomplishes something that is benefitial to all of us. I doubt Charles Rangel would have characterized the killing of Uday & Qusay in a fire fight as an "assassination", as he did last night on Hannity & Colmes, if there was a Democratic President instead of a Republican one. We should want to see the nation succeed in its international conflicts, not get bent out of shape that it might reflect well on whoever is in charge, much less negatively compare them to wicked, torturing despots. A renewed Democratic Party that remembers its Truman, Kennedy, and Scoop Jackson heritage will be one that will serve us all better, regardless of our own personal politics.
Now, I have to remind everyone, myself included, that we're not necessarily looking for the Democratic Party to reflect what a conservative like myself would prefer, but rather something that people like Armed Liberal seek to see in the Democratic Party. Given that, there are actually some positive elements in Gephardt's speech from yesterday.
The Good
Gephardt perceives the conflict as one not just against al-Qaeda or terror, but against what spawns it. He also seems to understand that it isn't poverty or the fact that we failed to ratify Kyoto or our support of Israel, but that its origins are in tyranny, and that the solution is a defense of and fostering of liberty:
"The horrific acts of September 11th have heightened our purpose as a nation. More than ever, our fundamental safety cannot be taken for granted. More than ever, America must be the guardian of liberty and security for the world. Our strength must be unquestioned, our resolve unwavering. More than ever, the American president has a profound obligation to our people — to all people — to make our homes and our homeland safe and secure.
"It's a new world, with manifold new dangers — from global terror, to the recklessness of rogue dictators, to international crime and drug-running that rips at the very fabric of freedom.
Also:
if we don't honor and embrace the principles of democracy and self-determination as we battle tyranny and dictatorship — then we're just turning America into a global vigilante, cracking heads but unwilling to address the real causes of terror, of instability, of autocracy in the world.
He also wants to bury the soft-on-defense Democrat image. I hope he means do that in substance, and in this paragraph he appears to:
So, let's bury the partisan parody once and for all. As president, I'll begin and end with an unshakable commitment to keep our defenses strong. It's no accident that our troops — the finest in the very history of conflict — performed so bravely and admirably, with so few casualties, during the three-week war against Iraq.
"I'll make sure our armed forces remain the best-equipped, best-trained, best-led fighting force in the entire world. And I'll never settle for a quick psychic victory. I'll never lead this nation into war without a serious, candid assessment of the risks and costs — and a commitment to see it all the way through.
He also harshes on the cozy relationship with the Saudis:
"Meanwhile, there's one alliance these days that's far too cozy: the Bush-Cheney administration remains shackled to Saudi oil producers. That's why this administration tolerated Saudi silence when we struck back against the Taliban. It's why this administration never spoke out about the clear evidence that Saudi citizens were funding Al Qaeda. And our gusher of oil-buying dollars is why Saudi Arabia has no incentive to reform its oppressive government and build a real civil society — one that treats women as equals, not as ninth-class citizens.
Now, I suspect that the Administration is making moves on the Saud front. But they certainly haven't been clear on that and it's a good thing, not a bad thing, to have Gephardt out there hammering the Saudis and asserting that he will deal with them differently. But moving on, there are parts of the speech where he speaks positively of America's role in the world, something that Democrats should more actively insist upon, especially in ways that confront those in their ranks who do not share this view:
"You see, I love America, and I love it not merely for the strength of our arms, but for the strength of our ideals. We need the strongest, best-prepared military in human history not for its own sake; not for the global equivalent of a schoolyard taunt, but to uphold liberty and self-determination, to defend the freedoms that are the fullest expression of the human spirit. . .
. . .Let us rededicate ourselves to a world where America embodies the might, and grace, and leadership bestowed upon us — or the safety and security of peoples everywhere.
It's just too bad that he clouds these statements in rhetoric that appeals to the negative wing of the Democratic Party.
The Bad
He harps disingenuously on the Uranium-Yellowcake canard:
There's another reason we're losing the peace, and it's a reason that's been getting quite a bit of public attention lately. I'm talking about a growing credibility gap. It is now crystal clear that the President of the United States made a claim in his State of the Union address — a claim which was a major part of his justification for invading Iraq — that was widely known within his own administration to be untrue.
It's disingenuous to assert that the Africa-Uranium link was a major justification for invading Iraq.
Well as the columnist Michael Kinsley put it last week, asking the question 'who lied in President Bush's State of the Union address' is a lot like asking the question, 'who's buried in Grant's tomb?'
It might be more apt to ask "who's lying about the State of the Union speech. The answer would be Kinsley and Gephardt.
Again, I supported the war on Iraq. There was a case to be made, above and beyond any uranium purchases from Niger. That's not the issue here. The American president must never commit American troops on the basis of half-truths, of White House briefing-room spin, of carefully-parsed and cleverly-tailored claims. That denigrates every just cause for which the president and I have fought.
Emphasis added, because Gephardt is being particularly deceitful here in implying that Bush did not make a case above and beyond any attempts to purchase uranium. Can a candidate who's campaigning on the basis of truth-telling engage in cleverly-tailored half-truths, manipulations of fact, and deceptive charges?
It concerns me — and it should concern all Americans — because we've been down this road before. How can we claim to be defending democracy abroad, even as our administration denies a full and straightforward public debate about the war in Iraq?
Actually, it was you all who denied a straightforward and honest debate by insisting that it "not be politicized" last fall and by catering to the Left effectively demanding that it be carried out on strained premises rather than the articulation of a War on Bad Philosophy rationale. The Democratic Party needs to confront its Left fringe for this reason; straightforward debate on the issues, which Gephardt certainly isn't engaging in himself, would be more viable if they were willing to speak bluntly themselves rather than being coy and flirting with the Left. This is the difference between Blair and his allies in the Labour Party in Britain, who were willing to stand up to their Left, and Democrats here.
Now, there's a parody of Democratic foreign policy that's developed over the years — a partisan cartoon, if you will — and I think it's important to address it: It's that Democrats skimp on the military, don't care about a strong national defense and think everyone should just hold hands around a campfire. Well, I'm sick and tired of hearing it, because it was the Clinton-Gore military that defeated the Taliban after September 11th.
"That's right — the same military that the Bush-Cheney crowd said had been 'gutted' and 'hollowed out' by a Democratic administration, allegedly brought to its lowest level of readiness since Pearl Harbor. Nearly a year before the first Bush-Cheney defense budget kicked in, that same Clinton-Gore military had beaten the Taliban in a matter of weeks.
"And if this administration listened to Democrats, who were urging more peacekeepers and better follow-through in Afghanistan, maybe elements of the Taliban wouldn't be regrouping this very minute.
This is a rhetorical assault on the image the Democrats have, but it rests on a flawed premise. Lets go over the record
First, remember the 2000 campaign, when Gore supporters also countered these charges by Bush, asserting, in effect, that "there's nothing wrong with our military and Gore will do more to fix it than Bush". Which was a strange tack to take.
The fact is, the Clinton Administration gave the military many more missions and deployments with fewer resources, and it was under strain even before 9/11. An apt criticism would be that Bush hadn't done enough to redress that, but to assert he was left a military capable of doing everything we need is either a display of ignorance, or disingenuous.
Clinton allowed stocks of munitions and spare parts to decline to dangerously low levels. Much of the supplementary defense appropriations over the last couple years was to make up for this deficiency.
It's a matter of public record that though what we have, for good and ill, is a "Clinton era military", many of the tools that make it function so magnificently were supported by a majority of Republicans in Congress and opposed by a majority of Democrats in Congress. Indeed, the Clinton Administration not infrequently complained that (the Republican) Congress was "shoving programs down their throat that we don't want and don't need".
Democrats are insisting that we deploy more troops - to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Liberia, to who knows where else next, without reflecting on whether we have the troops to send in the numbers they are asserting we should send. Perhaps they should also reflect on why we don't have sufficient troops. Enough of that is Bush's fault, but he is working with the forces Clinton left him. That's the problem Gephardt should focus on - which means dropping the assertion that the Clinton-era military is perfectly sufficient for our needs.
The point of this is that in acting as if this is just an image problem, a matter of Republican parody of Democrat behavior on the issue, rather than one of substance, Gephardt isn't dealing with it except on the level of propaganda. Democrats have to be substantively strong on defense, not just rhetorically strong while voting for cutbacks and against new (often expensive) R & D programs, the kind that a majority of Democrats opposed in the '80s and which resulted in our ability to supply these things to our units in the '90s and oughts.
The '90s were, actually, a missed opportunity - we had a decade-long breathing-space in which we could have transformed our military from one designed to fight the Cold War to one designed around the sort of missions it was and is being given. Only small, halting steps were taken. The much-criticized Rumsfeld is taking stronger steps - not strong enough - but in this the Democrats are tending to side with the Generals who resist these changes and are wedded to the Cold War era model. Related to the military issue is:
By improving our intelligence capabilities
Again, rhetoric needs to be matched to reality; throughout the Democrats have on the whole voted to cut funding for intelligence and hamstring it, to treat the intelligence agencies as an enemy rather than an asset. This is certainly an issue to raise, but Democratic behavior on this needs to alter, to match this sort of assertion. Kerry is also talking this way, but throughout the '90s he sponsored bills to cut funding for intelligence. Gephardt should go after him on that - and reflect on his own mixed record.
Allies and Diplomacy is another thing:
But if we rebuild the trust of our allies; if we prove that we have the means and the methods not just to invade rogue states, but make them peaceful, thriving democracies; if we insist on the highest standard of intelligence, and the full use of diplomatic means before taking up arms then we'll have the free world behind us, sharing the burdens and the costs, even if they occasionally disagree.
Remember Gephardt mentioning that he thinks America needs to send more peacekeepers and better follow-through in Afghanistan?
Well, lets remember that Afghanistan is on the diplomatic track that Gephardt is harping upon here: it's the "International Community" with full UN backing in Afghanistan, full "burden sharing". The fact of the matter is, though, that it really is America that is essential. In my opinion, Democrats need to be more realistic about the capacities and intentions of the "world community". They are treating it in too many ways as sacrosanct and acting as if it were axiomatic that if they were involved more then a miracle would occur and the problems we're facing in Iraq would disappear.
The simple truth is that in Afghanistan as in Iraq, the real burden is on us; and the Democrats certainly act this way in putting the onus for all the problems that there may be in Afghanistan at our feet and absolving the "world community" of any responsibility - it gets only credit and positive remarks. Successive Administrations, Democrat and Republican, up to and including the Bush Administration, have tried to persuade our allies in Europe to invest in developing and maintaining the means to really share the burden when the chips are down, like Britain can. Successive Administrations have been unable to get much progress here - though Bush has managed to get them to agree to create a NATO reaction force (something that will take time). This is a bipartisan matter, not just a Bush thing. Democratic candidates need to understand the really limited capabilities these countries could offer, rather than acting as if only we could get more of them involved the main burden wouldn't still be on us. Again, they need to be more realistic on this score, and also reflect on the experience of the last Democratic President on these matters. Which brings me to:
In fact, I crafted the resolution that helped lead the president to make his case at the U.N., when he eventually did so. That resolution also demanded that the president not undermine our broader efforts against terrorism in his zeal to act against Iraq. It urged the president to work with Congress and with the world on a real plan to stabilize and rebuild post-war Iraq, so our troops wouldn't have to spend the next 50 years dodging bullets there.
"President Bush chose to ignore these steps. And I believe that's why his Iraq policy is foundering today. We were right to prevent the day when Saddam Hussein could threaten his adversaries with nuclear or biological weapons. But we were wrong to short-circuit the world community, to effectively shut them out when they felt we hadn't made the case.
Remember, this is what Clinton did during the Iraq crisis of '98. He used the model Gephardt is saying would work here - worked multilaterally through the UN to convince them to take strong action in the face of Saddam's intransigence and violation of the UN Resolutions and Gulf War cease-fire terms. I am sure Gephardt believes Clinton was not crude in his diplomacy, as Gephardt characterizes Bush as being. This is also when regime change in Iraq became national policy (see also here), with far less controversy than when Bush continued that policy.
So, Clinton followed the path that Gephardt is saying Bush did not, and Gephardt is implying that if we did it that way then the result would be that Iraq was dealt with by a broad coalition and the problem solved. What was the actual outcome? Inspections were thwarted, the UN passed Resolutions weakening the inspection protocols rather than strengthening them. Instead of supporting us against Saddam, the allies in the "world community" that Gephardt says Bush alienated pushed to get sanctions on Iraq suspended and refused to support the authorization of strong action. Clinton couldn't get them to support a Resolution as strong as Resolution 1441, the Resolution Bush pushed for and got unanimous UN approval for.
In the end, as a result of this more multilaterally diplomatic path, Clinton ended up taking unilateral military action without the support or sanction of the UN or "world community" (Britain participated, but apparently that doesn't count), but essentially the problem was left unsolved.
A man campaigning on the premise that we should be straightforward with the American people, lay all the facts on the table, and tell the truth needs to do that himself. Gephardt is giving a misleading account. He - and the Democrats - need to be more honest and candid about the diplomatic efforts that were made and understand that the failure of the French to support the mission is not all America's Fault. This was a bipartisan experience; the same nations failed to support Clinton's efforts too. What this should lead to is a candid and honest assessment of who we can count on in what situations and who we can't. Failure to do that and attempting to score partisan points by putting all the blame on us for this outcome is damaging. There used to be a concept of a "bipartisan foreign policy", at least on major subjects.
Likewise, they need to be more forthcoming than they have been on just what defines multilateralism and which is just "the crew of a pirate ship", and if by multilateral they mean "only with the support of France and Russia", then they need to be straightforward with the American people and say that - and also honest with themselves about what the real chances of that were with respect to Iraq.
On North Korea Gephardt says:
Rather than unilaterally 'pre-empting' threats from arriving on our shores, I'll lead an administration and an alliance that will work to prevent threats from emerging in the first place by securing nuclear materials and facilities worldwide, as we began to do in post-Cold War Russia — a far cry from this administration's approach to North Korea. By working with other nations. . .
On this, Gephardt is dissembling quite a bit, to use a word he used in his speech. It is the Bush Administration who has tried to make North Korea a multilateral issue, but the "world community" has been insistent that we handle it ourselves. Claiming otherwise is deceptive. Likewise with the assertion that Bush isn't trying to get other nations to agree to more stringent controls over the dangerous materiels that make proliferation possible.
In repeatedly going for the low, dishonest blow, Gephardt misses the opportunity to speak to real issues and real problems with Bush's approach.
The Ugly
It's definitely not as eloquent as Tony Blair's speech before Congress. The reason is partly because it seems clear that Gephardt is still groping and grappling with the ideas he is talking about. It's also partly because it is a very internally conflicted speech, on the one hand articulating in a subdued manner what would be an even more robust response in the war, but on the other hand trying to appeal to and placate an anti-war constituency instead of confront them and argue his position strongly, like Blair has. It is possible to both distinguish oneself from Bush and also the Left without being "Republican lite".
But the other reason that it doesn't rise to the level Blair does is that Blair's speech is upbeat in tone, positive, while the tone of Gephardt's speech is harsh and at times shrill. Where is the "happy warrior"? Again, it is quite possible to present a vision that differs from your opponent while being uplifting about it. Here are some examples:
When President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and declared victory in Iraq, I think he chose the wrong back-drop for his photo-op. If you ask me, if he really wanted to show us the state of affairs in Iraq, he should have landed on a patch of quicksand. . .
. . .This looming quagmire is on our shoulders alone. . .
Such "quagmire" rhetoric isn't really helpful if you sincerely think we should have gone into Iraq and sincerely want us to succeed. I'm also quite sure the British, Poles, Australians, Italians, &tc &tc would all be less than happy to see that Gephardt dismisses and ignores the contributions they have made and contiue to make. If Bush said "we're doing everything in Iraq alone", I wonder what Gephardt's response would be? I'm sure he'd suddenly remember the contributions of other countries. Perhaps he should do so in his next speech even if Bush doesn't say that Iraq is "on our shoulders alone."
After claiming we went it alone throughout the speech, Gephardt effectively calls it a piratical enterprise and compares those who were by our side, like Blair, Howard, Aznar, and the rest to pirates:
It was never going to be easy. But now, with scant planning — even after all we learned in Kosovo, in Bosnia and in Afghanistan — with almost no burden-sharing, with a so-called 'coalition of the willing' that was recruited like the crew of a pirate ship.
And he says that it's the "Bush-Cheney crowd [that] never met an ally they didn't want to turn into an adversary"?? This is really ugly from a man who says we should be more diplomatic and less strident in order to convince people to help us. It's a good thing that few of our actual friends overseas, who are helping us in Iraq with their blood and treasure, will have taken much notice of this speech. Lets hope Gephardt doesn't fly off the handle using "macho, bullying rhetoric" like this if he becomes the nominee, much less if he becomes President.
The dissembling, shading of truth, and outright falsehoods within the speech can also be characterized as "ugly", but since I've included them in "bad" I won't repeat them here. I'll just note that if we want the healthier politics I was talking about at the beginning of this post and avoid extremely hostile infighting and strife, then this kind of stuff should be avoided. Also, it's ugly in the sense I mentioned here; the tone of this speech should be remembered the next time someone talks about how Democrats are too committed to civil discourse for their own good and don't resort to harsh and misleading generalizations like their opponents do. This speech is an example of harsh and misleadingly deceptive rhetoric at its worst. Well, nearly its worst; for that we'd have to go to a speech by Dean.
On Balance
Does the "good" outweigh the "bad" and the "ugly"? I don't think so. But there are some positive elements. I think that there are strains that show that the sort of thing I've been advocating that Democrats and Liberals who are in favor of a reformed Democratic Party could work. At least it would be worth the effort to try.
All of the Democrats could have taken this line and instead focused on more valid criticisms - if they wanted, and if they weren't catering to a certain audience. Too bad they didn't.
Update On Lies and Lying: Randy Barnett making my point about who's lying now (apologies to Patsy Cline), and who is embracing a fantasy ideology, I might add.
Members of the Assembly Democrats' progressive caucus were heard making candid, if not intemperate, statements such as one by Los Angeles Assemblyman Fabian Nunez that they may want to "precipitate a crisis" over the budget this year. That might persuade voters to lower the two-thirds vote threshold needed to pass a spending plan, he reasoned.
"It seems to me if there's going to be a crisis, the crisis should be this year," Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, said during the meeting. "What you do is you show people that you can't get to this without a 55 percent vote."
Sleezy doesn't cover it.
In related news from another state, we have an example of how Democrats focus on the issues and refrain from name-calling and personal attacks - unlike Republicans:
The people of Michigan have a simple message to you: go home and stay there. We do not need you stirring up trouble where none exists.
Michiganders do not take kindly to your ignorant meddling in our affairs. We have no need for itinerant publicity seekers, non-resident troublemakers or self-aggrandizing out-of-state agitators. You have created enough mischief in your own state to last a lifetime.
We reject your “black vs. white” politics that were long ago discarded to the ash heap of history. Your brand of divisive racial politics has no place in Michigan, or in our society. So Mr. Connerly, take your message of hate and fear, division and destruction and leave. Go home and stay there, you’re not welcome here.
The only phrase missing was "outside agitator", which was a favorite phrase of the Bull Connor South. Remember this the next time someone like, say, oh, I donno, Mario Cuomo gets on TV and talks about how "we write with quill pens, they with crayons". Remember it when someone writes about how Democrats are just too committed to positive civil discourse focused on seeing the issue from all sides for their own good and too kind in how they discuss issues, unlike those nasty Republicans.
REMEMBER WHEN Democrats warned President Bush against “politicizing” the war in Iraq?
It all seems like such a long time ago now, easily a year, an eternity by political standards. It was nonsense at the time, of course, as Democrats were all too eager to politicize the war themselves. . .
But now the politicization has reach absurdist heights, with Democrats
Yah. Notice how the news media was with the Dems on the "oh, the war shouldn't be politicized" line back then, but we don't hear that mentioned these days. . .
Much of the current reporting on Iraq warps the public perception of the past, as well as the present. The media plays down the fact that resistance from Sunni Arabs was widely discussed in the Pentagon before the war. But that wasn't a sexy story then, even though it is now. . .
An intrepid reporter could have discovered that the Pentagon knew all about the political, ethnic and religious complexities of Iraq. Numerous PowerPoint briefings on the subject have circulated in Washington for over a decade. SOCOM (Special Operations Command) has more Civil Affairs troops than it does Special Forces. And that's no accident. Special Forces has been practicing, for over half a century, to deal with what is happening in Iraq today.
All the Democratic candidates are going around claiming that we weren't prepared for this and were caught off guard and we need to go hat in hand to apologize to the Holy and Apostolic World Community, beg their forgiveness and have them come in and fix it for us - as if French troops would be better suited to handle this than American troops are. The guys who are holed up in a compound in Congo while massacres go on all around them will be the silver bullet, eh?
Well, when the Democrats claim that we didn't expect the difficulties we're facing in Iraq, they're making a false claim, and when they imply to people that if only we get the blessing of our betters in the International Community then a miracle will occur and all these difficulties will vanish, they're misleading the American people. Andrew Sullivan has more on the attitudes behind this.
Well, perhaps the cloud of pessimism and gloom that has hung over this site like a heavy shroud for the last couple weeks will lift. I'm gonna try; all-gloom-all-the-time can be left to the news networks and newspapers.
Certainly the demise of the evil duo is good news. Oh, and don't give me any of that "well, we shouldn't use words like evil" crap; these guys were vile and villianous. They make fictional villians look like kindly uncles. These guys were sick and twisted, demented psychopaths who thought torture was a motivational tool and fun recreation.
I'm wondering how long it will take for someone on the Left to start talking about how we "assassinated" them, the way they call the killing of Palestinian terrorist masterminds "assassination". (Update: Den Beste has a round up of how the usual suspects are taking the good news). As for me? It may be unChristian of me, but I find the deaths of Uday and Qusay to be uplifting.
Likewise, in Afghanistan there is progress - too slow for those who act as if we should be able to snap our fingers and fix everything, but significant improvement. I note that it is coming not due to the UN or NGOs, but because of American efforts. All too often people are getting away with claiming that if we involved the UN and the Holy and Apostolic International Community more, then everything would be solved because clearly they are not bunglers like we are - when the opposite is generally the case. At issue in those assertions is not so much actual on-the-ground-help, but who will control the situation; those involved with the UN and with NGOs are clearly more focused on a felt need to be in charge than on doing what needs to be done.
They are also much less flexable and willing to adapt methods to a situation - they tend to have very fixed preconceptions and unwilling to admit mistakes. So, naturally, the Democratic candidates are demanding that we turn over the reins to them and that Bush should bow his head in shame for not accepting the Authoritah of our betters.
In other news, via Winds, further evidence that North Korea was violating the "agreed framework" for a long time, not just since Bush said mean things about Kim Jong Il as some would have you believe.
You've outdone yourself this past week, making one insightful post after another, both on your own website and on WoC. Thank you!
Thank you; I'm glad you've liked it.
I've been thinking about the Niger story and how the Democrats are handling it. While it's obvious how it benefits the Dems in the short run (say, the next six months), I'm wondering if they have thought about the long-term consequences of their acts.
To the degree to which they have, I'm fairly sure they believe that only good can come from their success. The reason they see things so differently than you or I do on this is that their priorities are different. For them the war is less of a big deal. This is why they make a big fuss over whether Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda or not rather than ties to terrorism in general and the like. This is the same as the attitude on display when they wondered aloud if going through the Iraq crisis was a distraction from finding Osama or not.
They don't see the scope of the war the same way Armed Liberal does, or the way Steven Den Beste outlined, and this is why no Democrat can speak on this issue as Tony Blair does. This is also why people like Kevin Drum see the problem as relatively smaller than we do. Many see it as one that will be wrapped up fairly quickly with relatively minimal effort compared to what we think is needed. To them the main danger is that folks like ourselves will kick over too many anthills in the process and make a hash out of things by creating a larger problem where none exists.
So they've largely moved on from the war to other things and believe that defeating Bush is the key. They will then deal with the war on the scale it should be dealt with, having removed the danger of it becoming a larger conflict than they think it should be. Their big fear is that by that time it might already be too late - we'll have provoked the world against us through our over reaction.
So where we're worried about the long-term consequences of their actions, they're worried about the long-term consequences of ours. What we see as the only possible solution, they see as the biggest potential danger - and vice versa. This gets us back to the difference in priorities, perceptions, and viewpoints.
My concern is this: the Democrats are trying very hard to de-legitimize the battle of Iraq in order to harm Bush. But if they are successful, and this helps them win the presidency next year, won't this come back and bite them hard?
Regardless of the outcome of the election next year, Iraq will be an issue, as will any of the other hot spots we'd be discussing now if we weren't in Bizarro world -- North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan.
How will a Democratic president be able to deal with these issues in 2005? Won't the current, short-term strategy of delegitimizing Bush and the battle of Iraq put enormous constraints on a Democratic president, essentially tying his hands, or forcing him to cede decisions about US national interests to foreign powers?
I just don't understand what the Democrats are thinking. Clinton knew better than to cede power over the US to foreign interests -- remember the Europeans' constant bitching over how the military campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo were run -- and I'm sure Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman know it just as well.
Well, lets track back to Clinton for a moment because we need to understand some things to see where the current crop of Democratic candidates are coming from.
There are people on the Right who think that Clinton wanted to surrender our sovereignty to international bodies. The more extreme examples of this view are in the Buchananite wing of the Right and amid the Black Helicopter crowd. But there are also people on the Left, and Liberals, who think that Clinton wanted to move us in a direction like that, too, only where the Right viewed such a thing as a negative, they saw it as a positive. Indeed, a dividing line between whether you're considered a "nut" or "mainstream" by many people isn't whether or not you assert that Clinton wanted to do these things but whether you characterize such them as negative (you're a nut) or positive (you're enlightened). Take as an example Sid Blumenthal's book, The Clinton Wars, in which Sid asserts that Clinton, if he had his way, would have signed us on to the ICC, Kyoto, and other conventions giving the Holy and Apostolic World Community great say over what we could and couldn't do. I'm not saying I agree with Sidney on that - he's particularly delusional on a lot of things. But plenty of people thought Clinton wanted to advance very far in this direction but, especially after '94, took the prudential course and didn't, not from lack of desire but because he couldn't get Congress to ratify them and understood it clearly enough to not press them.
It's also certainly true that Clinton's experience in working multilaterally was as you allude to. Ultimately, he was willing to exercise U.S. power, bucking the "Community" consensus and even dragging it along when he could. Clinton was continually frustrated in this. His experience is rather similar to Blair's on the EU, I suspect. In principle Blair wants closer integration and cooperation but on just about every particular issue there is disagreement between him and - well, the same governments we find ourselves at odds with (in particular, France).
I thus find it a bit of a strain when folks like Armed Liberal assert that we would have had more success diplomatically if Bush hadn't botched things up. Bush's diplomacy isn't perfect, but Clinton didn't get very far with these guys, either. Bosnia was handled the way the Europeans wanted for a long stretch, disastrously, with the pages of the the New Republic alternately urging and lamenting that Clinton wasn't more assertive in pushing that things be handled right. I know - because I subscribed to TNR in that era, and I agreed with their assessment. Clinton didn't push for a long time because he didn't want to risk a breach; it was only when things had gotten demonstrably out of hand doing it the EU way that he took the reins in Bosnia. In Kosovo he didn't wait as long but the diplomacy was hardly pretty. There was less of an open, public breach, But clearly the pot was simmering and there was rather considerable friction. A number of European countries, after it was over, decided they "never wanted to do it [something like Kosovo] again".
The EUropean leaders liked Clinton personally and felt greater ideological and cultural affinity for him than they do with Bush, but lets face it, Clinton didn't have that much more success with them on the policy front and the successes he did have came from difficult struggles - struggles that grew progressively more wrenching each time. Clinton wasn't able to achieve the sorts of compromises he wanted in the language of Kyoto, the ICC, the Land Mines Accord, and other multilateral treaties and he bungled the Seattle trade talks. The divergence in opinion on such agreements goes well beyond who is in the White House. The difference is that Clinton put off a reckoning on all these matters, sliding decisions into the future, where Bush is willing to cut the Gordian knot.
Lets take Iraq '98, when Saddam thwarted the inspectors, and lets presume that Clinton did want to tackle this issue seriously. He certainly pushed for it - the record is all there and we on the Right go to it to mine quotes from this era precisely because it was a crisis point and all sorts of Democrats who are now sounding a different tune were quite hawkish in pointing out the dangers that Iraq posed and the need to take urgent action. Note that there are also plenty of quotes from EUropeans in that period which are not all that dissimilar from the types of things they've been saying over the last year. This is because Clinton faced the same problem getting tough action approved in the Security Council. Indeed, there was a significant press from the folks we've all come to know and loathe to reward Saddam by lifting sanctions, not undertake the sort of strong response Clinton was pushing for. Why was there no major public diplomatic break at the time? No major fracturing of the Security Council? Because, in the end, Clinton backed down - sanctions weren't lifted, but no strong action was taken against Iraq, either. Clinton settled for some cruise missile bombardment and some additional "Last Chance" Resolutions which were passed but then effectively tabled The inspections regime was weakened, at the insistence of France and Russia - and wasn't even implemented until late last year. Clinton's diplomatic efforts achieved nothing resembling Res. 1441. Was this a diplomatic success? I mean, compared with Bush? If diplomatic success is measured as the State Department measures it, as not rocking the boat and upsetting others, then it was. But if diplomatic success is measured in terms of achieving policy goals vital to the security of the country, this was a failure on a grand scale and indeed a reason why many lament the missed opportunities of the Clinton era.
Which brings us to the Bush era and the struggle to determine the policy direction today. I would separate Kerry (D - FR) from Lieberman and Gephardt. They believe they'lll be able to work better with others. This would return to the Clinton era of amity and consensus, where issues that cannot be agreed upon are papered over in the interest of maintaining warm relations with the world community; again, what we see as a major problem, they see as something not worth making such a big deal over - certainly not to the degree that it threatens diplomatic relations with other countries. To us, diplomacy is a means to advance our vital interests. To others, the diplomatic process (like the "peace process") is an end in and of itself. To a man they all castigate Bush over the disagreements with "our allies" over the past year; had it been them, they would have done what Clinton did in '98.
So what gives? Do they hate Bush so much that they are willing to harm the US and their own abilities to run the country, should they win the election, in order to harm Bush now?
I realize you can't answer these questions, but I would imagine you've been thinking along the same lines. Do you have any idea what may be going on?
Well, there is what I say in the above; they don't see what they're doing as harmful to the country because they don't look at the war in the same way we do, and therefore it isn't as much of a priority for them. If discrediting Bush also discredits such activities as invading Iraq, they don't see that as a bug, they see that as a feature. Why? Again, it is because they see the war in narrower terms than we do, and whatever can be done to keep it from becoming wider than it needs to be is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Now, on that premise, I agree with them and think we all should agree: we should keep the war from becoming wider than it needs to be. But they don't think it needs to be very wide at all - our focus should be on eliminating al-Qaeda and finding Osama. Nothing more, nothing less. But others of us see al-Qaeda as one expression of the problem, not the be all and end all source of the problem.
I put the above as politely as possible, but the underlaying premise is really that the biggest danger comes from us, from within America, as always: that we'll lash out, provoking others. That we're bullies, and the like. That there isn't a difference of views between the U.S. and, say, France, that is not amenable to compromise - we just bungled diplomatically and if things had been handled the right way, France, Germany, and Russia would have dispatched troops to help rather than opposing us and would be by our side in Baghdad right now. Those nations don't have their own motivations which differ sharply from ours - they simply respond to inputs from us and we botched it. Now, I don't think Lieberman and Gephardt think this way, but it was Armed Liberal who believes that what we're seeing are the candidates responding to the "buzz" that's out there, being generated by the constituencies they need to appeal to: media organs that potential supporters pay attention to, the potential supporters themselves, and the like. My analysis in turn is that in being driven to respond to these things in the manner that they are, it tells us a lot about the attitude of the audience they are trying to attract at the moment - which isn't the full range of the country, or even of the Democratic party.
This is where what they do sets things up for a problem. I doubt that, left to their own devices, Gephardt and Lieberman would be playing things as they are. But they are being driven by the political exigencies of the moment. Right now to gain traction they have to appeal to an audience that is disproportionately composed of a faction in the country that is largely hostile to the U.S. role in the world. I mean, lets not mince words.
Being charitable, I think Gephardt and Lieberman are doing what they think they have to at the moment. They have to tack Left now but they think they'll be able pick up the pieces later and sort everything out in the end and undo any political damage. They are also refusing to confront the Left the way Blair has, refusing to wage the battle of ideas as he has.
The Left activist-donor-organizational base and Left media that the candidates are catering to will be happy, not upset, to undermine our ability to undertake certain policies and reduce our ability to act independently of the will of the "International Community" when we need to (note the underlaying Communitarian premise). In their eyes, we're the greatest potential danger to humanity's interest and we need to be restrained and then reformed. As Andrew Sullivan writes:
We are still at war over there against the Baathists and much of the current criticism of the occupation as a whole is ultimately designed to weaken domestic support for the vital task in front of us. That's what the anti-war left and right are now trying to do. They lost the battle before the war and during the war. They now desperately need the U.S. to lose the post-war. It's time for those of us who supported the liberation of Iraq to fight back against this potentially catastrophic gambit. For the U.S. to give up now, to withdraw, or to show any vacillation in the face of great progress in the Middle East, would indeed make matters far worse than if we had never intervened in the first place. We have an obligation to make it work. If some Democrats continue to argue that we should cut our losses, they are simply not ready for government.
I think Andrew conflates the Democrats as a whole here a bit with those on Left who are making or implying that we accept Vietnam in Iraq: they aren't just trying to discredit Bush. They want to discredit policies we are following in the war as well. But I lament the fact that none of the current Democratic candidates are a Tony Blair (see also here).
Yes, they really, really hate Bush. But this isn't why they're choosing the means they are to go after him. Yes, they want to discredit him, to tear down the trust that people had in him, a project they have succeeded at through the use of the methods they have accused Bush of is something they are driven to do by the deep antipathy many hard-core Democrats have for him.
But, again, they could have just as easily raised other "questions", ones that would have shown greater concern for success in the war, rather than ones that were aimed not only at discrediting Bush, but the war itself. They could be asking questions and raising doubts over how he's been handling it in ways that would advance rather than hamper our means of waging it, and that were not aimed at undermining confidence in it. Just as their friends in the information business could be giving a fuller picture of what is happening in Iraq rather than just the half of the story that makes people uneasy about it. And they could ask these questions without being such disingenuous, deceptive scummers, playing fast and loose with the facts, "hyping" things, "sexing them up", and being selective with the evidence themselves. As Steven Den Beste describes it:
Right now the Democrats are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, in thrall to their extreme wing, and trying to peddle a message full of recriminations.
Steven thinks this isn't going to work, but I'm not so sure. They're attack is aimed at destroying trust in Bush and confidence that the war will be handled as it should be, trust that the policy he's pursuing is the right one. In that same post Steven points out that much of this cannot be openly articulated by a politician because of the ramifications; but that also means that by destroying the trust while also attacking the belief that we're on the right track, they're weakening our ability to apply our efforts fully to accomplishing what we need to. If one looks at the polls and the way Bush's trust numbers have cratered - the main reason for the collapse in his personal approval ratings - one can see that these attacks have worked. Likewise, who is elected having advocated what policies, expressed what attitudes, and appealed to which constituencies will matter. They'll want to cede control over the situation to the "international community" - the very people who want to make sure that a democracy which upsets the status quo in the region does not appear, and which will manipulate the situation to their own advantage and our disadvantage in other ways. They want to cede influence to countries like France that we have kept from having input into decision-making, not out of pride but because their interests in Iraq and the Arab world diverge sharply from ours. They want more say but it's not clear that they're offering any help beyond their leadership over the endeavor and control over its direction. Given how the UN and other "international" organs have cocked things up, this is clearly unwise and yet the Democratic candidates are acting as if it is axiomatic that we let the wookie win and give them what they want - again, on the grounds that we're screwing it up and thus need the blessing of the Holy and Apostolic International Community, the guiding hand of which which will insure success. We already know that this blessing will come with strings attached - at a price not worth paying. Otherwise it would have been granted already. The Democrats are willing to pay that price because their perception of what is at stake is sharply different from our understanding.
I still assert that the manner they are going about things tells us a lot about their attitudes not just towards Bush but the country as a whole, none of it good. Oh; and that they prefer to play it dirty and deceitfully even when there are above-board options that are at least as good and in my opinion better.
I will close with one thing, though. I mentioned Hillary! is probably going to throw her hat into the ring now that it looks like Bush is going down, and he's going down hard. She certainly isn't going to sit around in the Senate baking cookies and having tea until '12. While Hillary has gotten her share of jabs in on Bush, she hasn't really taken center stage in these circuses. Personally, I think Hillary is a New Leftist masquerading as a Liberal. But she voted for the Iraq Resolution last fall - IMO for political positioning. I can't recall the exact context but earlier this year, before the war, she was confronted outside her office by some anti-war activists who were upset at her position on the issue. She told them "I'd love to be with you on this, but I just can't."
As I said with respect to Bill's comments about the '91 Gulf War resolution, where he said "I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made," I take Hillary's statement as a candid expression of her position. She'd love to be with the anti-War crowd but she's too smart to make the mistakes that these other candidates are. Frankly, she also doesn't have to - if she runs, they flock to support her regardless and with much more understanding leniency; not that there won't be problems, but they know her well enough. I'm not one of those people who thinks Hillary is the smartest woman in the world, but neither is she stupid. She's not confronting the Left, as Blair has done - she is, as I say, one of them. But she's not making stupid mistakes, either.
Hillary will make mistakes, to be sure. But they will be the sort of mistakes made by smart people who think they're smarter than they really are. I know - I'm speaking not simply from observation, but from experience. She's not silent on these things, but if you look she's clearly letting others carry most of the water on it while maintaining a decent "supported the effort" record (at least so far). I find that interesting.
Update: Jeff at Caerdroia has some interesting observations on the prospects. He thinks a three-party system is possible. I think that it will stabilize at two parties; the outcome will be either an unreformed Democratic Party, a renewed (or remade) one, or a new Party.
There might be a period of a few election cycles where there are three Parties, but when the dust settles There Can Be Only Two. At least that's how I see it. But go read Jeff's post and his take on things.
N.B. I concede in advance that others will argue over whether Hillary Rodham is a Liberal or a Leftist; lets not get distracted on that point yet. We can argue that later.
So I tune into O'Reilly tonight 'cause someone said that this Judge Merritt dude is gonna be on, so I think I might learn something useful. We get
Segment on how Bush is boned. Has Larry Sabato though - and that dude from the Hotline who's name I always forget, but he's good too - so I'm not too miffed. But tell me something I don't know.
Segment with Dick Morris about how Hillary!!!! is gonna run in '04 'cause there aint no way Billary are going to wait till '12 to get back into the White House. Again, tell me something I don't know.
Long - I mean Loooong - segment with two ballplayers on what a bummer it is to be famous because women are always throwing themselves at you. I feel their pain. Or not. Did I mention this segment was loooonnng?
Next segment (the last one) was going to be something lame. I already forgot what it was gonna be. I tuned out.
No judge though. I feel used. Not really; but that is 45 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
If you know a decent number of people then you probably know someone who is politically and intellectually Liberal, but temperamentally conservative in how they live, day to day. The opposite is also the case: there are people who are politically and intellectually conservative, but have radical temperaments.
There's no real point I'm trying to make insofar as saying one type is better than another - they aren't, so far as I can tell. But I know that even if I had remained a political Liberal, I'm fairly conservative in my temperament. I just got back from my lunch break. Ahead of me in the checkout line was a young mother with two children, fairly close together in age (3-5ish). One was acting up a bit and she calmed him down, saying to him "oh, mommy's little gentleman doesn't behave that way. You're mommy's little gentleman, right? I know you want a sucker. You'll get it when we're done here, if you behave like a gentleman."
A gentleman? I thought that light had gone out of the world already. I was almost as impressed as when I first saw the preview for the latest Lara Croft movie. There was Angelina Jolie, riding sidesaddle.
Some people got infatuated with Lara when they first saw her large. . .polygons. Well, don't get me wrong - that's nice and all. But it's not a solid foundation for a relationship, is it? I mean, unlike infatuation based on seeing her ride a horse at full gallop, guns blazing, on sidesaddle. Now that's true love.
Angelina is very different from the character, though; for one thing, she's festooned with tattoos and probably has piercing where woman was not meant to have piercing. I doubt Lara has those.
I know, I know; one isn't supposed to judge a book by its cover - and, actually, from what little I know about Angelina (and former beaux, William Robert), she seems cool. It's just that tattoos and piercing in strange places are not for me: it's not a judgement about how others live their lives. A book's cover, how a person comports themselves, does say something about what they're like; the book may be very good but just not suit your taste. People can have different personality types without either being worse than the other, but just incompatable.
Like I said, temperamentally conservative. In a world of tattoos and "hook ups" (I'm not a prude, but what a grotesque euphemism), I'm an oddball at best. I do think I'll go see Cradle of Life, though, and watch Our Damsel out-Indi Indiana Jones.
I don't mean the above to be sexist; I'm just more interested in ladies than gents is all. Plenty of men have piercings now, too; but then I hold that a men was not meant to have piercing at all unless he's a buccaneer. But what the hell - with your tattoos, earrings, scraggly beards and long unkempt hair, all you dudes need is a parrot, an eyepatch, and a cutlass and you're set. Lots of guys also have the scurvy look down pat and plenty are certainly rakish enough, and women see a lot in these guys. Bully for them.
The straight dope that one won't get from our news media.
Btw, my uncle writes in the same style. They must teach that style in the SF course or something.
Likewise, the fact that this isn't the sort of news we're getting - we're not getting this half of the picture at all, but only a one-sided negative portrayal - is data supporting my contention that most of journalism has been infested with those who are hostile to our civilization. They aren't just impartial purveyors of fact. The institutions that report the news are among those that have fallen to the Long March and are now unreliable in performing their purpose. They are instead, all too often, a propaganda arm. Their efforts are aimed at causing a loss of confidence and faith in ourselves.
European Commission President Romano Prodi has said in an interview released Wednesday that former Finnish prime minister Paavo Lipponen would be a good candidate to replace him when his mandate expires next year.
"Lipponen is perfectly suitable to be leader of the European Commission,"
I suppose that's because he's under a cloud of scandal and thus will fit right in on the Commissione.
"He is the right person in terms of both temperament and intellect.
My friend Solmyr, who lives in Finnland, says he has the world's scariest smile and is "autocratic". Perhaps that's what they mean by having the right temperment.
Lipponen, a Social Democrat who led the Finnish government for eight years, was defeated by centrists in general elections in March.
Solmyr also sends me this, which has some background on the Man Who Would Be EU Commissioner-in-Chief.
