While talking about the differences between friendly authoritarian regimes and evil totalitarian ones ala St. Kirkpatrick, I forgot to mention one of our other good friends, a little-known petty dictator named Saddam Hussein. Not only was he anti-communist but the Iran-Iraq war was deemed indispensible in our efforts to contain Iran and the threat of Iranian-sponsored Islamic terrorism during the 1980's.  Lord, what ever happened to that guy?

Now I haven't seen the footage, but leave it to CNN to try to elicit sympathy for Gov. Schwarzenegger.  Check out the new CNN Quick Vote poll.  I guess someone forgot to tell them that Schwarzenegger's poll numbers tanked and he gets heckled pretty much everywhere he goes in California, except maybe GOP fundraisers. 

By the way, unpopular politicians rarely receive this much slack and in the real world the guy who runs away from his critics, as Schwarzenegger in this case did, should be characterized as a "girly-man", not the people in the crowd.

Update:  Hey check out the pictures from Al Rodgers diary over at Kos!

 The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind.   George W. Bush  11/6/03

 Defense officials from Russia and the United States last week helped block a new demand for an international probe into the Uzbekistan government's shooting of hundreds of protesters last month, according to U.S. and diplomatic officials...... The outcome obscured an internal U.S. dispute over whether NATO ministers should raise the May 13 shootings in Andijan at the risk of provoking Uzbekistan to cut off U.S. access to a military air base on its territory.  WaPo 6/14/05

Spreading freedom, democracy and respect for human rights seems to be a worthy goal as long as it doesn't disrupt US foreign policy.  The apparent contradictions make the words and rhetoric that much more hollow and actually undermine our tattered credibility even more. 

It's funny no one's wheeled out Cold Warrior Jeanne Kirkpatrick to lecture us on the differences between authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorships???   OK, hint: One really bad, the other may be just as bad but is allied to the US and our foreign policy goals.  

A guy who boils regime opponents alive, can't be all that bad, can he?

Well I may have technically been wrong that Phil wouldn't resign, but as with most Bush administration officials who leave, it was apparently planned a long time ago and the man just wants to spend more time with family and friends??

It turns out however that it looks like Phil will be moving into a position where he'll have just as much influence on Bush environmental policy as he did when he worked on the Council on Environmental Quality.  That's right, Phil's going to Exxon-Mobil, the company that apparently helped cement the Bush administration's rejection of the Kyoto Global Warming treaty.

Am I the only one who thinks that these young conservatives could better serve their country in Iraq as opposed to spending the summer networking in the cushy world of conservative Washington think tanks?

At least people like Cheney and Wolfowitz had to apply for draft deferments and Cheney went so far as to get his wife pregnant to qualify for a final exemption all together.   Instead, these kids get summer camp...where's the sacrifice, for Christ's sake??? 

What would Jesus do if he was an interrogator at Guantanomo Bay?

Would he?

Use Chinese Water Torture?

Hang a 14-year old by his wrists for hours at a time?

I think not. 

These were approved techniques, used by the U.S. military.  Morality has to apply to every prisoner, no matter how evil.  Otherwise, you open the door for U.S. prisoners to be treated the same way. 

Update:  As Digby at Hullabaloo points out it's curious that the lowly few "bad apples" who were responsible for Abu Ghraib in Iraq came up with sexual humiliation techniques similar to those being used at Gitmo.  HMMM?   RM

There's been some buzz regarding this article in the Washington Post about the troubles in building a new Iraqi Army.  Although badly bungled so far, its clear that creating a new Iraqi military and police force is about our only policy option at this point but I'm struck by a number of things in this article.

1.  I know when I talk about Iraq I'm often struck by analogies to Vietnam but there is a good reason for it and this article does nothing to dispel the analogy.  Not only are the Iraqi soldiers poorly organized and prone to disappearing or avoiding confrontations, much like the caricature of the ARVN soldier, but they are equally held up for ridicule and distain by American soldiers.  If this is our "Vietnamization/Iraqification" program its not clear if we learned anything from Vietnam.  The big difference between the two?  That's right, although ARVN soldiers were purposely stationed near their families and communities they never donned ski-masks or bandanas to hide their identities.  Troops afraid to be seen protecting the people?  Somebody tell me how this has a chance of working?  Of course there are some hard-fighting disciplined Iraqi units, South Vietnam had them too, and I'm sure when they are well led their pretty tough, but the effectiveness of an army comes down to the fighting ability of the lowliest grunt and if this article is any indication then our government in Iraq is pretty screwed.

2.  So far the focus in Iraq has been on building an army to fight the insurgency, but what about an army to defend, I'll use the Chinese term, Iraq's "national integrity".  How can a force woefully inadequate at fighting its own people defend the nation's border?  No answer?  We've given them small arms but what about tanks and artillery?  Do you sense that the US military is the only thing ensuring the national security of Iraq well into the future?  This isn't necessarily a controversial position, after all we've been in Germany, South Korea and Japan for over five decades, but I don't hear anyone in the Bush administration saying that's our policy.  I think most Americans would be surprised if it is as well as most of the Middle East, friends and enemies alike.

Very little about this article gives me much hope, but maybe someone can "dissemble" this all for me?

Gee problems with the Star Wars systems?  Could it be that political pressure led to problems with the military?

Bent on meeting President Bush's deadline to install the first elements of the system by the end of 2004, Pentagon officials put schedule ahead of performance, the report says. Among risky shortcuts that were taken, the panel says, were insufficient ground tests of key components, a lack of specifications and standards, and a tendency to postpone resolution of nettlesome issues.

Sound familiar?

Brad DeLong notes that Alan "The Great Enabler" Greenspan, partisan hack and long-time cheerleader of financial speculation and fiscal irresponsibility gave another performance before the Joint Economic Committee in which he paid lip service to federal budget restraint and a return to a Pay-Go budget regime.  While I think Brad is a little generous in paying tribute to this "Grown-up Republican" I would suggest an amendment to such a budget restraint agreement which is this:

***Deliberate cuts in revenue can no longer be proposed and passed based on overly optimistic projections of future economic performance that suggest they pay for themselves.  Furthermore, because of a long running lack of empirical evidence, no politician can assert that proposed deliberate cuts in revenue will bring in more revenue at the proposed lower rate than if the cuts never occurred.

Another rule of thumb for Senators and Congressmen on the various budget committees is that any Federal Reserve Chairman who endorses tax cuts because the federal budget surplus might grow too large and then four years later is alarmed at how large the federal deficit is is definitely not to be take seriously.

The Democrats are at a crossroads.  The Republicans have been in decline ever since November, 2003.  However, it takes a long time to fall from the heights they occupied in 2002, so the Democrats couldn't win the presidency.  In the House, the Republicans gained only in Texas, where off-year redistricting gave them a new advantage.  The Senate races that were competitive were in Oklahoma, Kentucky, Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina--none of which are known as Democratic strongholds.  Since the election, everything the Republicans have touched has turned to lead.  Schiavo, Social Security and the Filibuster were all issues the public sided clearly with the Democrats.  Iraq is now seen as the biggest foreign policy blunder since the 1960's.  The question is, will the Democrats be able to take advantage of the situation.

Over at Josh Marshall's TPM Cafe, debates are going on about the future of the Democratic party.  Josh is definitely on the right of the party, and the group he has selected is composed of right-leaners and so-called "liberal hawks."  In recent days, a debate has erupted about the direction the party should go--the all-star cast of writers insists that the direction should be towards the center--the classic Clintonian triangulation strategy.  But the vast majority of the commenters see a different party emerging from the shadows--a party more willing to challenge the Republicans rhetorically and willing to take stands on issues.  Who is right?

The answer is neither, or both.  The problem is that TPM's all star cast sees matters in terms of issues, whereas the rank and file's concern is with style and loyalty.  That is to say, the two sides are talking past each other.

First, the Centrists are playing the same old issue game which has led us to disaster year-upon-year--they see people as voting on particular issues.  To them, one politically moves to a point where enough of those issues are within the Democratic boundaries so as to ensure victory.

The commenters, on the other hand, smell the doom brought on by compromising positions--they argue to give up ground is to appear weak and to allow the other side room to exploit divisions.  In this they are right.  Personality and tactical problems amongst Democrats should be worked out behind the scenes, the way the Republicans do it.  Public criticism of your fellow party members only makes us appear weak.  But flaming out on a pet position does no good either.

The solution?  Understanding exactly why Clinton's triangulation worked.  Triangulation worked not because Americans necessarily agreed with Clinton's stand on issues where he distinguished his position from many of his Democratic colleauges, but because it demonstrated that he was willing and able to move away from partisan positioning and towards pragmatic governance.

That's exactly what the Democrats need to do now.  The Republicans, now running the whole show, have entered into an orgy of ideological excess.  By casting themselves as the party of good government, the Democrats can make big gains in the mid-term elections.  Democrats need to call for strenghened ethics rules in both Houses of Congress.  They need to make a pledge that they will not engage in wasteful, pork-barrel local projects (easy when you have been out of power for over a decade in the House).  They need to force the issue of the budget--it is the issue that needs to be dealt with now.  They also have to have a clear program on Veterans' issues--the people fighting for American need to be given the best when they return.  Finally, it is time to return to a realistic foreign policy, one that is based on facts, not fantasy. 

In short, the Democrats must promise to spend more time governing and less time striking ideological poses as the Republicans have been doing for years now.  If they let Americans know that they are the party of pragmatic and good government, the people will reward them with leadership. 

Over the last couple years I've been alarmed by the extent that the Pentagon and the Bush administration have refused to increase the size of our armed forces to meet the growing number of military commitments we've made worldwide.  The Cold War was not fought with "just enough" troops, nor has any other war in this nation's history, yet the so-called global war on terror for some reason needs to be fought on the cheap.  Besides being bombarded with stories about soldiers in Iraq not having enough body armor and other basics or Don Rumsfeld pleading that we can save money by closing military bases, we now see other disturbing trends like the Air Force cutting back on pilot training time by 60%.  In the mean time, due to our commitment in Iraq and the abuse of terms of service, not only are many leaving the military, but it looks like all branches of the service, especially the Army and Marines, continue to miss their monthly recruiting quotas.

I bring this up because the threadbare penny-pinching Pentagon we see in the news has seen its budget grow significantly in the last couple years, and recent estimates peg it at $455 billion .  That's right, $455 BILLION!!!  This begs the question:  Where the hell does all the money go?!?!  Frankly there is no answer to this because as the GAO has been revealing for years, the Pentagon doesn't even know how much stuff it has, where it is and how much it all costs.   In fact just the other day, the GAO revealed that the Pentagon was buying several hundred million dollars of equipment at the same time it was selling or disposing of the same types of equipment, most of which had never been used or even opened.

There is much to criticize about Don Rumsfeld's emphasis on smart weapons and fewer boots on the ground, after all it didn't work for Bob McNamara either, but it is outrageous that the one piece of government we rely on to protect the United States and our national interests not only is a giant budgetary black hole but exists more to grease the wheels of defense contractors than to support the brave efforts of our men and women in uniform.  What is needed is accountability and reform, not excuses.  In the real world, no agency that gets so much money yet can't account for what it does or spends would see its budget increase exponentially and Congress needs to step up and provide the proper oversight and if necessary, someone needs to take concrete steps towards reorganizing the whole damn thing.  This isn't a Democratic or Republican issue and its far too important for the sake of the country to punt and look the other way.

I know Watergate and Deep Throat are so last week, but Ron Rosenbaum's piece in the New York Observer is an absolute must-read.  In it he takes on public remembrances, official histories of Watergate and the long-held conventional wisdom suggesting Nixon never ordered the break-in and was a victim of his over-zealous subordinates.  By making light of all the taped records and evidence available since 1997 it pretty well lays waste to Richard Nixon's cynical two decade quest to salvage his reputation and places the blame squarely where it belongs.  As the old campaign slogan says:  NIXON'S THE ONE!

There once was a time when government officials with such conflicts of interest were asked to step down for getting caught doing crap like this.  However, I suspect Mr. Cooney will have a long and fruitful career within the current administration, and if trends hold may even get a promotion to a much more prestigious office!

Keep an eye on Phil, he's going places!!!

Update 6/11/05 (RW):  Looks like RM was wrong--Phil just resigned!  Seems he “had long been considering his options following four years of service in the administration.” You see,  “He had accumulated many weeks of leave and had decided to resign and take the summer off to spend the time with his family.”  I'm sure he'll be destitute now--no chance he will return to his old haunts, the American Petroleum Institute. 

Josh Marshall includes a letter from a confused reader, MK:

Josh,

Has dumping on Chuck Colson become one of the many Liberal pastimes? I am guessing that no one on the left has ever read "Born Again." If they did they would realize that Chuck Colson waived his 5th Amendment rights after his conversion and went to prison for his principles.

And what was his crime? Admitting that he viewed a FBI report on a Nixon emeny.

If Colson was the pathological liar you and your ilk make him out to be he would never even seen one day of prison time.

Sincerely,

MK

Hmmm, I'm confused.  I could have sworn he went to prison for obstruction of justice.  As for his only crime being that he admitted "that he viewed a FBI report on a Nixon emeny," spelling aside, he also engaged in criminal consipiracies to commit a minimum of two burglaries and an arson.  Its not like he can deny all of this--its on tape.

. . .And those that leave their valiant bones in France,
Dying like men, though buried in your dunghills,
They shall be famed; for there the sun shall greet them,
And draw their honours reeking up to heaven;
Leaving their earthly parts to choke your clime,
The smell whereof shall breed a plague in France. 
   Henry V, Act IV, Scene Three

Much ink has been recently spilt on the question of the Gitmo prison.  But very little has been asked about the morality of holding the prisoners there, or some of the techniques used to interrogate them.  The question has been asked, but presented only in the standard outrage version of: "I can't believe they are torturing people."

Supporters of our torture policy (and that is what it is, pure and simple), have never once looked at the question of whether or not it is better to fight valiantly and fairly on the field of battle and be disadvantaged by doing so, or whether one should fight dirty.

Put that way, the answer is simple.  The way my Dad taught me was to fight fair.  A win obtained by cheating isn't a win at all, he would say.  Pro-torture souls think otherwise.  They partisanize the issue, without reaching its moral dimensions.  Torture is OK, because it would be worse were they released to their own countries.  They may argue they are not pro-torture, but enabling is supporting.  Of course we know detainees are being released to their own countries and being tortured there--that's the whole point of rendition.

The fact is this--a course of action is moral or not moral regardless of circumstances.  The whole point of morality is that it is a code which one follows regardless of advantage to one's self or one's country.  If the rules are only selectively applied, then we cannot claim to be moral.  Those who support torture are saying that morality is relative, that some situations call for actions which would be immoral in other situations.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Its time for Americans to learn to die like men again.   

Joe Scarborogh gives G. Gordon Liddy a pass on Watergate:

Now, one of the men at the center of the Watergate break-in that started it all, G. Gordon Liddy, was actually thought by many to be Deep Throat. 

And, earlier tonight, I asked him about today‘s revelations. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

G. GORDON LIDDY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  But there‘s an awful lot of fishy smell having to do with this thing. 

First of all, we knew that Bob Woodward had a number of sources, and we knew the identities of some of the sources.  And probably Mr. Felt may have given him more information than any other, and he can sort of stick the designation of Deep Throat on him, but it‘s still more of a composite.  And I will tell you why I think so. 

He wrote of this big, long past relationship that he had with his friend Deep Throat.  And there‘s no evidence that there was any association or friendship between Mark Felt and Bob Woodward.  Secondly, why would the number two man at the FBI, who wanted, presumably, to get information out, choose to leak to the metro reporter? 

SCARBOROUGH:  But what would Bob Woodward have to gain by pinning Deep Throat on one guy, instead of this composite you speak of? 

LIDDY:  Well, he has to—he has to—he has to have—he has to have him on—one, he has been dining out on this story now for, what, 30-some-odd years.  And he got badly burned when Ted Koppel caught him, when he said that he had had that conversation with former CIA Director Casey, who was, at the time, aphasic.

And Ted Koppel embarrassed him mortally on that and his credibility hasn‘t been very good since. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Any final thoughts? 

LIDDY:  This, that if Mark Felt was Deep Throat, he is no hero.  He is someone who behaved unethically, in that he did not take his evidence to the grand jury and seek an indictment.  That‘s what he should have done, instead of selectively leak to one news outlet some of the information that he had. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you, G. Gordon Liddy. 

NBC seems to have real problems calling these people for what they were--criminals.

Right after I posted on Chuck Colson's imperfect memory yesterday, I shot off an E-mail to Josh Marshall, complaining of the same thing.  Surprisingly, Josh posted it.  He then added a second post asking for information on whether talk show hosts and reporters were holding Nixon loyalists attacking Felt to the same standards they were using against the now-revealed Deep Throat.  Judge for yourself whether Chris Matthews holds him to the fire:

MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Chuck Colson was chief counsel to President Richard Nixon.  He was special counsel, actually.  He pleaded guilty to Watergate-related charges and served seven months in prison.  Following Watergate, he turned from politics to religion and founded the Prison Fellowship ministries. 

Late today, I asked him what his reaction was to the news that Mark Felt was Deep Throat. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHUCK COLSON, FORMER NIXON SPECIAL COUNSEL:  I was shocked, Chris, because I worked with him closely.  And you would think the deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you could talk to with the same confidence you could talk to a priest. 

That‘s such a sensitive job.  You wouldn‘t expect him to be out at night sneaking around in dark alleys, trading information with Woodward and Bernstein.  I never thought Mark Felt was a candidate for—for Deep Throat. 

MATTHEWS:  Let me ask you about the role of “The Washington Post” reporting by Woodward and Bernstein, helped along, obviously, by Deep Throat, Mark Felt.  Do you think Richard Nixon could have survived had “The Washington Post” not had those stories? 

COLSON:  Oh, I don‘t think so, because you already had Judge Sirica, who was putting tremendous pressure on the defendants. 

The case ultimately would have blown wide open by virtue of the judicial process that was going on.  It was a conspiracy that couldn‘t have been kept the way it was.  Woodward and Bernstein, of course, have a lot of credit for bringing it down, because they kept the drumbeat up day after day.  But I think it would have happened anyway. 

MATTHEWS:  Let me ask you about Richard Nixon and the 23^rd of June taped conversation that he had with H.R. Bob Haldeman, his chief of staff, wherein he asked Haldeman to go over to the CIA to see the CIA director, Richard Helms and his director, Vernon Walters, and tell them to say to the FBI, kill this case.  Don‘t investigate Watergate anymore, because it‘s a CIA matter that goes all the way back to the Bay of Pigs. 

What‘s your concept of why that happened?  What was that all about?

COLSON:  Well, that was the smoking-gun tape.  That‘s where Nixon really himself implicated himself in a criminal conspiracy.  Once that tape came out, his presidency was finished. 

But the whole idea was, he wanted to use the CIA for political purposes, although there was a little bit of merit to it, because the CIA had—had a lot of things that they had done in this investigation where their footprints were—their fingerprints were all over it.

But it—it couldn‘t be justified.  That was the tape that brought Nixon down.  Now, of course, we understand that the FBI was working—or at least Mark Felt was working against him at the same time.  So, it was wheels within wheels.  It was certainly skullduggery at the highest level. 

MATTHEWS:  I was just going over some tapes that I was able to read—listen to over at the National Archives many years ago.  And I was reading them again today because of this big development of Mark Felt admitting that he‘s Deep Throat.

And I—and I came across one where Nixon was telling the people around him, Haldeman, to go dig up some stuff on the opposition, get some intelligence on the negative—on the enemy.  And he said, don‘t use Colson. 

What did you make of that, that he said, don‘t use Colson, because he wanted to get Haldeman to dig up incriminating information on people like O‘Brien? 

COLSON:  Well, there were two or three times that Nixon kept me out of things, where I think he knew what I would have told him.  And I don‘t know whether this was one of those cases or not.

But there were occasions when I told Nixon there were things that shouldn‘t be done.  And not many people did that.  Haldeman did it once in a while.  I‘ll give him credit for that.  Why he said it in that particular case, opposition research, I can‘t imagine. 

MATTHEWS:  I have one tape I looked at where Richard Nixon told Haldeman, his chief of staff, to go break into the Brookings Institution and get some stuff out of there that he thought was related to the Pentagon Papers. 

Did you ever see any evidence or hear any evidence firsthand that Richard Nixon ordered the Watergate break-in? 

COLSON:  No, I don‘t think he ordered the Watergate break-in. 

The Brookings matter, I was sitting in the Oval Office with Haldeman and Nixon when Nixon looked, turned to Bob Haldeman.  He said, Bob, I‘ve been telling you, I want a team of men here who can go in and do black bag jobs as I need them.  He said, there‘s national security documents.  I want you to get them. 

And I have just written some memoirs, Chris, which are going to come out next month reflecting on some of the things in Watergate.  And I single out that one conversation.  Interesting you should raise it, because that was the one that should have been a red flag for me.  I should have stood up and said, hey, Mr. President, no.  But you—you get numbed after a while.  That‘s one of the problems.  And your sense of loyalty overrides your—your sense of integrity. 

And, in that sense, I can—I almost can understand Mark Felt, because what he saw going on, obviously, he thought should be exposed.  I just think he went about it the wrong way.  I think, if he had walked into the—Pat Gray, director of the FBI, and said, look, what‘s going on, I want to expose this, and together they‘d walked into the Oval Office, you might never have had a Watergate.  That‘s where I would fault—I would fault Mark Felt.

MATTHEWS:  Well, could Mark Felt, the Deep Throat of history, have been able to walk in and confronted the president of the United States?  He was only number two at the FBI.

COLSON:  Well, I would have taken the director of the FBI with me. 

And if the president wouldn‘t listen, then you‘re perfectly free to go public with it.  But he I think he owed it to the president first to disclose to him his misgivings.  I was on the phone with the president and Mark Felt one night at—in 1972, when the president was opening up with him on really sensitive issues.  You can‘t have a relationship with the head of the FBI or the deputy director of the FBI where you can‘t trust him.  It is like a priest‘s confessional.  You just can‘t do that.

MATTHEWS:  Last question, Chuck.  I‘m sorry to cut you off.  I have to ask you one last question.  I only have a couple seconds here.

We know, from the tapes, that Richard Nixon—and you were in the room—ordered the break-in of Brookings, which never actually occurred.  Do you think Nixon was capable of ordering the break-in of Watergate? 

COLSON:  Well, yes, he‘d be capable of it, but he‘s too smart for it.  It was a stupid thing to break into Watergate.  Whoever did that didn‘t use their head, because there wasn‘t anything at the Watergate to find out. 

If you had said, would they break into the opposition headquarters office, that‘s another matter.  Maybe he would have, although I don‘t think the president would have dared say that in front of witnesses.  He might have thought it and hoped somebody got the message, do it.  He wouldn‘t have come right out and said it. 

MATTHEWS:  Well, Chuck Colson, it‘s great having you on.  You have built a whole new life for yourself.  And you‘ve been great to all the prisoners out there.  It‘s nice having you on the show.  You have built a new life, as I said.  Thank you for coming on.

COLSON:  I enjoy being with—I enjoy being with you always, Chris. 

Peggy Noonan seems to think Colson was a great man. 

I'll give you a candidate for great man of the era: Chuck Colson. Colson functioned in the Nixon White House as a genuinely bad man, went to prison and emerged a genuinely good man. He told the truth about himself in "Born Again," a book not fully appreciated as the great Washington classic it is, and has devoted his life to helping prisoners and their families. He paid the price, told the truth, blamed no one but himself, and turned his shame into something helpful. Children aren't dead because of him. There are children who are alive because of him.

Wha?  How did Mark Felt get involved in children being dead? 

Next thing you know, Nixon will be the victim.