From the gaggle before the President's "last" speech on Iraq, May 1, 2003:

Q Will there be any other speech following this, or do you all view this as his -- as much as he's not declaring victory, but the final statement on Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: This will be, unless there is something else of a significant event that crops up. The President began this with a speech to the nation in the Oval Office. And the President will end it with a speech tonight from the deck of an aircraft carrier.

There will continue to be resistance. You can continue to see Saddam Hussein Baath Party loyalists who attack our forces, such as the grenade attack at Fallujah. But this is the bookend of the Oval Office address, and an interesting bookend at that.

He'll be making speeches on Iraq until the end of his term.

Americablog:
ABC's Terry Moran just reported that the only time Bush got applause was in the middle of his speech when a White House advance team member started clapping all on their own in order to cajole the soldiers into clapping, which they dutifully did.

Kos:
Apparently, Fox reported the 'fake applause' bit as well. Double ouch.

Powerline:
The only thing I thought was odd was the unnatural quiet in the hall. It was like the audience at a Presidential debate, which has been cautioned not to express approval or disapproval. Only at the end, apparently, were the soldiers permitted to applaud.  

We report, you decide. 

Update 12:15 AM Thursday:

Mystery solved.  Not.

Q Scott, can you clear up something about the atmospherics of last night? A Bragg PAO told me that the White House had left somewhat ambiguous how the troops should comport themselves during the speech last night, that he didn't want a big pep rally with the rousing hooahs that you always get at most of these base speeches. But then, at the same time, you weren't really expecting that there wouldn't be any applause, and that the person who went up to instruct the troops on protocol sort of overinterpreted what the White House was looking for. Is that a fair assessment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I was with the President ahead of the speech when he was visiting with many of the families of the fallen, so I wasn't there when whoever the military officer was that spoke to the troops. But this was a serious address to the nation. My understanding was that we did talk to the military and talk to them about that, and that's why you saw at the beginning of the speech that instead of applauding, the troops simply stood up and stood at attention. And I think that they recognized that this was an address to the nation, this was not a rally-type event.

Q Right, but is it safe to say that you weren't expecting there to be no applause until a White House advance person, either caught up in the moment or whatever, started it?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President appreciates the warm reception he had at Fort Bragg both from the families of many of our fallen that were there he was visiting with beforehand, as well as the troops at Fort Bragg -- the troops who have been serving on the front line in the war on terrorism. He appreciated the warm reception he received and was pleased to give that address at Fort Bragg. I don't know of many Presidents that have gone to Fort Bragg on two occasions. This was his second occasion to go to Fort Bragg. But many of the men and women serving from Fort Bragg are doing an outstanding job, helping us to defend our freedoms and helping to advance freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East.

From Oliver Willis:  Lord Vader's Press Offensive:

Lord Vader: Good evening. I’m having this press conference today in order to counter some of the headlines you’re reading in the media. You know, it’s interesting how the mainstream media is always looking on the downside of things. Yes, it’s true that the rebel alliance isn’t completely crushed as of yet, but they ignore the progress the Empire has made thus far. What of the labor camps on Rebulon? The death purges on Phlanges 3? And I have yet to read a headline about The Great Ewok Cleansing. A more cynical sith lord would say that the liberal media isn’t reporting the whole story. Ok, Helen?

 

Cherenkoff would be pleased.

There was a word for it in Weimar Germany.  The Dolchstosslegende.  The stab-in-the-back-legend.  The German right in the 1920's wanted to blame anyone but those in power for the loss of the First World War.  Grand Moff Texan hits it on the head:

Bush has lost Iraq and now the GOP is panicking. They need to unload Bush's failure on you. Bush slaughtered thousands in the middle of nowhere for nothing, and that's your fault because you didn't support it.

As they said then, Bush says now:  "Pronounce us guilty a thousand times over: the goddess of the eternal court of history will smile and tear to pieces the Brief of the State Prosecution and the verdict of this court, for she acquits us."  I don't think America is going to let that happen this time.

Frankly not sending U.S. or NATO troops to the Darfur region of Sudan because they might be sitting ducks for terrorists is absurd.  After all its what we've been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last few years.  Robert Zoellick's remarks beg the question: does the Pentagon or State Department really fear all of Sudan's "bloodthirsty, cold-hearted killers"?  Is Sudan such a special case that Robert Zoellick has been turned into a shriveling mass of emotions at the thought of the U.S. intervening in Darfur? 

Why not just say that the Bush Administration, despite all its "freedom" rhetoric, doesn't look at the situation in Darfur as crucial to our national interests and would rather sit by and hope the African Union steps up to the plate?  Or maybe, because of our current force structure and commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be difficult to put together a force to intervene in Darfur? 

Really, I don't care what rationale you come up with, but fear of bloodthirsty African terrorists is clearly a lie and makes us look ridiculous.  Let's start telling the truth for once!

Its time for Karl to go.  The question is simple--will we be a free nation, where one can say what one wants, or will government officials at the highest levels be allowed to declare their political opponents traitors for merely opposing policy? 

I expected this article to include a description of a recent outbreak of American flag burnings (the political protest kind, not the official approved method of retiring a worn-out Old Glory) but sadly I was disappointed.  That's right, there haven't been any.  Predictably, Republicans on Capital Hill pulled the flag burning amendment out one more time because when you haven't accomplished much lately, don't intend to provide oversight of the executive branch, your poll numbers suck and your only economic program is another tax cut then what else is there to do but push votes on politically charged issues so you have something to run on during the next election cycle. 

I was particularly struck by "Duke" Cunningham's plea that the people who died at the World Trade Center would want this amendment passed--that's a "three-fer" if I've ever seen one: meaningless political positioning coupled with shameless exploitation of a tragedy from a guy tangled up in a mess of bribery and ethics charges.  Classic.

According to the American Enterprise Institute, we already won the Iraq war:

Contrary to the impression given by most newspaper headlines, the United States has won the day in Iraq. In 2004, our military fought fierce battles in Najaf, Fallujah, and Sadr City. Many thousands of terrorists were killed, with comparatively little collateral damage. As examples of the very hardest sorts of urban combat, these will go down in history as smashing U.S. victories.  

And our successes at urban combat (which, scandalously, are mostly untold stories in the U.S.) made it crystal clear to both the terrorists and the millions of moderate Iraqis that the insurgents simply cannot win against today’s U.S. Army and Marines.

 

That seems to remind me of something:

During one of his liaison trips to Hanoi, Harry had his now-famous exchange with his North Vietnamese counterpart. When Harry told him, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield," Colonel Tu responded, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

As a die-hard Chicago White Sox fan, I've been following baseball a bit closer this year, as you might expect.  I've even started reading some baseball blogs.  There is a strange obssession with something called Sabermetrics--basically a statistical analysis method for baseball.  It sucks.

Sabermetrics uses all sorts of crazy stats to try and predict all sorts of things about the national pastime.  Unfortunately it is filled with all sorts of ridiculous assumptions that make it nearly worthless as a tool.

Take, for example, the stat of Expected Wins.  Some hokum expert holds that a team that scores as many runs as it gives up ought to have a .500 record.  Why?  Although the proposition may seem to make sense on the surface, there is no iron mathematical law which says this is so.  When one takes into account the fact that certain divisions might not be as strong as others and unbalanced schedules, a team could beat up on clubs in its own weak division, but be unable to beat tougher competition which outscored it consistently in other divisions.  

Even, worse, this stupid statistic is used to determine if a team is lucky or not.  Here the logic is that if the team wins more games than the formula says the team should, the team is lucky.  This is really statistical analysis on its head.  Take this blogger's view on the Washington Nationals:

The Nationals are just lucky. This first-place teams is also doing well in one-run games, putting up a 17-7 record in that situation. Unlike the Sox, this bit of luck is making all the difference in the world for this team. Consider: although Washington's record is currently 41-29, their expected wins record is a shocking 34-35. Somehow, the Nationals have a great record despite being outscored 288-290 thus far. To get an idea of how lucky they've been, look at the bottom of their division at the Mets, who are currently 33-36. Their expected wins record is the exact same as the Nats at 34-35.

Statistics is used to understand the real world, not some simulation.  When simulations and the real world differ, scientists of every stripe look to the simulation and ask "what's wrong with my simulation?"  Here, the sabermetricians ask "what's wrong with the real world?"

The answer is that nothing is wrong with the real world, because the only statistic that matters is wins.  The number of runs is literally, unimportant in determining who will be the winner of a division.  The team that wins more games!  It doesn't matter if they score fewer runs than some model says they should.  The model's wrong, not the team.

Finally, I really can't understand what all this statistical analysis is doing for anyone.  I can see how such an analysis might be good for a manager or GM.  But what is a fan going to do with it unless they are playing some sort of fantasy baseball.  Yet these bloggers are obsessed with these stats.  Since they can't make any real calls, I fail to see the utility.

Baseball is about swinging a bat and a ball, nothing more nothing less.

There are a few states that are regularly held up for ridicule by the mainstream media, California and Massachusetts come to mind, but I'd like to nominate another:  Florida.  Yep, time to lower the bar and finally admit that Florida is truly one of the more screwed up states in the Union.  Why do I say this?  Well, for the past five to ten years we've been regularly afflicted with any number of controversial national news stories all tied to the Sunshine State.  Elian Gonzalez,  Election 2000 recount shenanigans and of course the most recent outrage, the Terry Schiavo ordeal.  What else?  How about the Florida 9/11 connection via writer Carl Hiassen on 60 Minutes:

I was watching in the living room, and they started showing the pictures of Mohammed Atta and then the others in those photographs," says Hiaasen. "I said, 'I swear to God, those are Florida driver's licenses photographs.' At least nine of them, I believe, and possibly more had lived and worked and trained for their suicide mission here in Florida.

And I always tell people, 'You think that was an accident? Where's the one place in the United States where the bar of bad behavior is so high that nobody's gonna notice these guys?'" adds Hiaasen. "Nobody's gonna think twice when they walk into a flight school and say, 'I'd like to get on a 757 simulator, but I don't need the part about where you land it. Just teach me how to fly it around.' And pay it in cash, and they say, 'Oh, right this way, Mr. Atta. Sit over here.';

I can't say why it is in my 34 years of life that its only been in the last 10 years or so that Florida has worked itself into the national consciousness in such a twisted way.  Maybe its because CNN is stationed in nearby Georgia, but oddly enough I think that much of the attention comes from the actions of one man, Governor John Edward Bush, aka JEB, although for the purpose of this post we'll call him John.  Seems Governor John has a knack for inserting himself into private family situations in a disgusting and incredibly self-serving way.  After all not many politicians would think to intervene to prevent a severely disabled women who was raped from getting an abortion.  Or how about that thirteen year old girl, who your Children Services department frequently lost track of, ending up pregnant and then becoming the focus of another state attempt to force someone in its care to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.  Well can't say it didn't work with the severely mentally retarded woman.  At the same time you were catering to the anti-abortion fringe, you shored up the NRA vote by signing a bill that encourages gun violence by loosening up the legal interpretation of self-defense.  Basically, Florida took a page out of the Texas handbook of bad government and said if you feel threatened, go ahead and shoot and law enforcement will have a tough time doing anything about it.

 

Although it looked like he shot himself in the foot during the Schiavo mess, the media in general were too afraid to say anything bad about the guy so Governor John decided when the subsequent autopsy really made him look like an ass, there was only one thing to do:  yep, go after the ex-husband one more time. 

 

When you're next in line in the Bush Dynasty I guess it just pays to keep your name in the papers, but in the meantime, we, the people of the United States, don't have to be bombarded with all the crap coming out of Florida.  Its high time that we at the Ironmouth do our best to heap abuse on the Sunshine State and do everything to make it the butt of everyday jokes that it really is.  Feel free to share with us any examples you have of dysfunction in the Sunshine state and we'll be sure to post it.  Thank you, and God Bless America....except Florida.

 

 

 

WORST SENATE MAJORITY LEADER EVER!

Bush to visit Vietnam.  Maybe he might learn something about war while he's there.

No doubt this indoor insecticide incident probably happened after one of those hard-hitting "We Report, You Decide" Fox exposes on the fascist bureaucratic overreach of the EPA and the wacko environmental groups who go out of their way to destroy common sense and hurt American businesses.  "Fox has learned that DDT isn't really as bad for you as the government wants you to believe..." or something like that?  Who the hell has "untrained building personnel" spraying insecticides in the first place?

A better title for this article would be, " US Spending on Iraq Equals Total for Korean War, Accomplishes Very Little."

I bet most people were aware of our "generational commitment to Iraq" before the war and will continue to support funding such an open-ended venture.  At least we've come out ahead on the casualty figures, so far.

According to right-wing bloggers, Bush isn't in trouble because many of the key documents in the Downing Street Memos scandal and Gitmogate are fakes.

You see, the Downing Street memos are fake because of the way the reporter handled them.  The reporter returned the originals to the owner they were addressed to after typing them up on a typewriter.  Surely this means they are FAKE!!!!!

Similarly, liberals have been relying on a document, supposedly called the Constitution, which says that people have rights endowed by their creator, to argue that Bush doesn't have the right to torture and kill the people he has locked up at Guantanamo Bay naval base. 

Well, it turns out that the Constitution wasn't even typed!  Apparently, the original was a hand-written document, with each version copied by hand from another!  Suspicously, no one who was around when it was written is alive today to verify its existence!  Sounds like another fake to me! 

Democrats should learn from their enemies.  I was briefly looking over the archives for arch-conservative William F. Buckley's Firing Line at the Hoover Institution, when I came across this gem of a show from 1966: Do Liberals Make Good Republicans?  In it Buckley and John Chafee, father of Lincoln Chafee discuss intra party relationships:

A sparkling exchange with a very successful liberal Republican, who, unlike some other liberal Republicans, backed his party‘s presidential candidate in 1964. Messrs. Buckley and Chafee address policy issues (taxation, federal subsidies) and also intra- party relations. WFB: "Suppose you were to run for President, and somebody started calling you a fascist. Presumably, you are no more a fascist than Senator Goldwater is, but are we up against here something which suggests the special difficulty of the Republican Party ... because of the excesses which the opposition feels free to use? ..." JC: "I agree with you that the Republicans just cannot spend their time chopping up Republicans, and I think this so-called eleventh commandment that they adopted out there in California, which was that a Republican shall not say an evil word about another Republican, is something we‘ve just got to have...."

Words we ought to live by.

Yesterday, after a long tortured exchange about Cheney's "last throes" quote with Scotty twisting this way and that, Terry finally got to the money quote:

  Q Yes. Is there any idea how long a 'last throe' lasts for?

My question exactly.  Priceless.....

Somethings in the air.  When MSNBC runs this poll, you have to wonder.

Someone needs to tell Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Defense Industry) that this ringing endorsement doesn't help his case.

 "Bush Is Expected to Address Specifics on Iraq"  Jim VandeHei, WaPo 6/16/05

How does a man whose entire political career has been purposely built around not offering "specifics" on anything suddenly reverse course and do just that?  He can't.  The Bush people look at their Iraq problem as a PR problem not a policy problem and seek to treat it as such, however their lack of credibility on Iraq is due not to a lack of specifics, but to a lack of realistic assessment of the situation coupled with optimistic pronouncements about "turning a corner" in Iraq that are easily refuted by actual events and a continued worsening of the security situation in many parts of the country. 

Let's look at the Administration's greatest hits list:  Liberate Iraq, nope didn't quite go as planned.  Capturing Chemical Ali and the rest of Saddam's ministers, nope, in fact Chemical Ali was "confirmed killed" three times during the invasion only to be captured eight months later.  Kill Saddam Hussein's sons, nope.  Capture Saddam Hussein, nope, still hasn't crippled the insurgents.  Put down revolt in Najaf, nope.  Recapture Fallujah, nope.  Elections, nope, moving experience but a weak government in a failed state doesn't inspire confidence or provide security.  Training hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops, nope, more likely to find the recruits singing folksongs to Saddam and threatening to quit.  Ring Baghdad with 40,000 troops and police, nope.

Let's face it, we don't have any realistic plans for accomplishing our utterly non-specific goals in Iraq.  I'm reminded of Clark Clifford's memoir when as the newly appointed Secretary of Defense in March 1968 he convened a series of meetings with the Joint Chiefs, State Department and other foreign policy professionals on Capitol Hill and asked them point blank what our strategy was to "win" the war in Vietnam.  To his shock the Joint Chiefs told him that they didn't have one; attrition, escalation and hope for a political settlement with Hanoi was it.   Of course, this was after hundreds of billions of dollars spent, over 20,000 men killed, and, true to form, General Westmoreland's report on the aftermath of the Tet Offensive which unknowingly suggested that 120% of the NVA and Viet Cong troops estimated to have taken part in the offensive were either killed or wounded...

VandeHei should know better, but I guess I'll be looking for the "specifics."

 

 

 

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!

I'd be sure to send Cheney in January 2003 a link to this story: Carrier Jets Not Bombing Iraq Lately.  Published June 8, 2005.

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.