"Atrocity Propaganda" Revisited....

ZAHN: The Lebanese health minister today accused Israel of putting phosphorous in its bombs, which causes extreme burns upon impact. And we are going to show our audience now a picture of a severely burned child at a hospital in Tyre.

Is Israel using phosphorous in any of its weapons?

REGEV: Unfortunately, Paula, you have this sort of atrocity propaganda. It comes up especially in Arab media. We have had all sorts of stories of Israelis giving, deliberately, out bird flu, Israelis giving out AIDS deliberately to Palestinian children, Israelis...

ZAHN: But what about this particular...

REGEV: ... using depleted uranium.

ZAHN: ... charge? Are you using...

REGEV: Well...

ZAHN: ... phosphorous or not?

REGEV: ... I'm telling you, this particular charge -- this particular charge is simply not true.

Mark Regev, Israeli Foreign Ministry, CNN 7/24/06


The Israeli army used phosphorous artillery shells against Hezbollah guerrilla targets during their war in Lebanon this summer, an Israeli Cabinet minister said Sunday, confirming Lebanese allegations for the first time.

Cabinet Minister Yaakov Edri said Israel used the weapons before an Aug. 14 cease-fire went into effect, ending its 34-day war against Hezbollah. Edri’s spokeswoman Orly Yehezkel said he was speaking on behalf of Defense Minister Amir Peretz.

Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The Israeli military said in July its use of weapons "conforms with international law" and it investigates claims of violations based on the information provided.

AP 10/22/06

They Doth Sing Too Much

"God Bless America" is now being played during the seventh inning of World Series games. The Yankees have been doing all they can to test my loyalty to the team through this ridiculous ritual. Now the league is doing the same.

Apparently, the pre-game national anthem is no longer sufficient. What does a society betray about itself when it insists on verifying that one's patriotism has not waned between the first and seventh innings of a baseball game?

For The Time Capsule

Guns, banal pop culture, and childhood obesity -- all in one. Why people from other cultures might want to reject the West's "way of life" is beyond me.

"Treated As Arabs"

Not a big deal, but an unnamed official at State might want to rethink his phrasing of this gaffe:

The State Department has complained to the Israeli government about its discriminatory treatment of Arab-Americans traveling to the Palestinian territories, senior State Department officials said Thursday.

Officials said that despite a longstanding policy of issuing visas to Americans traveling to the West Bank and Gaza, the Israeli government has recently denied Palestinian-Americans and certain other Americans entry.

During her recent trip to Israel, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice raised the issue with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and U.S. diplomats have also recently complained to the Israeli Embassy in Washington, officials said.

"They are being treated as Arabs and not Americans," one senior official said. "They basically treat them as second-class citizens."

He's Coming Around....

Did someone email him the link to this post from almost a year and a half ago?

Sacrifice Update

What he said.

Thoughtful Recommendations On Iraq....

They're out there. Here's one. Something that's missing is consideration of what the Iraqi people actually want at this point; this poll and all the others I've seen can't be ignored. But the post is a welcome bit of seriousness in a silly season, and worth the read.

Unfortunately, there's another problem. After reading the post at the above link, read this. Then ask yourself if anything we try at this point -- "hard work" whatever we do, to be sure -- has a chance of succeeding with our current batch of "leaders."

The Home Stretch

The problem here is that national security isn't the leading campaign issue. And saying it should be won't make it so. What's needed is an event--a big event--to crystallize the issue in a way that highlights Republican strength and Democratic weakness. It was two events--the foiled British terrorist plot and the need to comply with a Supreme Court decision on handling captured terrorists--that led to the Republican mini-rally in September.

Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard 10/16/06


JIM LEHRER: Wow. Wow. And you think -- what would it take for -- is there anything the Republicans can do now to stop this tide?

DAVID BROOKS: Something will happen. There will be some national security story or something. Something will happen.

NewsHour 10/13/06

Desperately Seeking Goalposts

Tony Snow has a momentary lapse during the daily press briefing, and unwittingly provides material to historians who will write about this war:

Q: One on Iraq again. Sorry. Just the simple question: Are we winning?

MR. SNOW: We're making progress. I don't know. How do you define "winning"?

It's amazing that only a generation after Vietnam, one can reasonably ask that question again.

The Unbearable Lightness Of Rummy

Donald Rumsfeld loves that nighttime satellite photo of the Korean Peninsula. It's displayed prominently in his office. He's mentioned those lights often during the past few years, most recently at a news conference last week:

SEC. RUMSFELD: You want to put that picture up of the Korean peninsula, if you can do it?

Q (Off mike) -- your favorite photo.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Except for my wife and family, that is my favorite photo. It says it all. There's the south of the Demilitarized Zone, the same people as north, same resources north and south, and the big difference is in the south it's a free political system and a free economic system, and --

Q (Off mike) -- years old now. Can we get a new one? (Laughter.)

SEC. RUMSFELD: I'm a conservative. I tend not to want to waste money. What's wrong with -- (laughter) -- what's wrong with this one? There would only be less light in the North, that's all. That dot of light is Pyongyang. And the people there are starving and their growth is stunted. And it's a shame. It's a tragedy.

Since Rumsfeld is fond of using electricity as a metaphor, here are a few more photos -- all taken in Baghdad (credit CPT):

"Railing Against The Tides"

If you missed it, here's a good WaPo piece from Friday.

I Dream Of Jingle

Does anyone besides me remember the 1970's Burger King commercial with the jingle, "Two hundred million people, no two are quite the same"? I hate that I remember it so clearly, but that I do after so many years shows how effective it was. If they were smart, they would make this minor update and use it again.

Ingrates

I am amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they're willing to -- that there's a level of violence that they tolerate.

President Bush on Iraqis 10/11/06


Another Marine, his face flushed with anger, approached an interpreter on the base and said: "I just want to know why my friends are being hurt. Don't the Iraqis know we are here to help them build something new and better now that Saddam is gone?

Washington Post 4/14/04


Q: What is the biggest lesson you have learned from the Iraq war?

A: The ingratitude of the Iraqis for the extraordinary favor we gave them -- to release them from the bondage of Saddam Hussein's tyranny.

Interview with Daniel Pipes, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 4/1/06


Too often the colonists were regarded as unruly and ungrateful children, with whom compromise was either a sign of weakness or the betrayal of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Highmindedness contributed to the final humiliation, as did ignorant overconfidence. Military defeat, to a country that had become preeminent in Europe by the end of the Seven Years War, was not entertained as a possibility.

From a review of Peter Whiteley's Lord North: The Prime Minister Who Lost America


What have they done? Have they crossed the ocean and invaded us? On the contrary, this is what we have done to them. And yet it is we who imagine ourselves ill used.

Dr. Richard Price, Great Britain, 1776


Don't these people ever give up?

Col. Kilgore, Apocalypse Now

Credibility Watch

From a BBC piece, courtesy of a reader:

According to Israeli intelligence sources, Iran's scientists are now within a year of reaching the technical point when they could enrich uranium to the level required for atomic arms. This is regarded in Israel as the point of no return, after which Iran would allegedly be able to produce the uranium needed at secret sites.

From September:

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Sunday that the world may have as little as "A few months" to avoid a nuclear Iran and called for sanctions.

"The crucial moment is not the day of the bomb. The crucial moment is the day in which Iran will master the enrichment, the knowledge of enrichment," she said on CNN’s "Late Edition."

Either Iran is regressing in its nuclear work, or desperate public officials in Israel (and the U.S., of course) will say anything they feel is necessary. Which might it be?

By the way, here's a gem from that BBC article:

Despite Iran's frequent diplomatic reminders that its nuclear objectives are entirely peaceful, there is a sense of foreboding inside Israel.

The former Prime Minister Ehud Barak sums up his own feelings by drawing on a personal experience after the Yom Kippur war in 1973, when he returned from Israel to live in America.

He said he realised - while watching a football game - that if Israel had lost the war, it would have become a part of history and not a single game of football would be cancelled.

"And I carried this memory with me to the chair of the prime minister. Ultimately we are standing alone."

Yes, it must have been devastating to realize that there's an entire world beyond Israel's borders, and that mankind (and the NFL) somehow struggles on independent of Israel's interests.

Can someone please keep Israeli public officials away from the TV on autumn Sunday afternoons? Please?

"Significant Troop Withdrawals Soon" Version #19,497

Errr, not.

The only people who should be surprised are those who believe we ever had any intention of leaving.

Springtime For Foley

From a longer NYT piece:

As word of Representative Mark Foley's sexually explicit e-mail messages to former pages spread last week, Republican strategists worried -- and Democrats hoped -- that the sordid nature of the scandal would discourage conservative Christians from going to the polls.

But in dozens of interviews here in southeastern Virginia, a conservative Christian stronghold that is a battleground in races for the House and Senate, many said the episode only reinforced their reasons to vote for their two Republican incumbents in neck-and-neck re-election fights, Representative Thelma Drake and Senator George Allen.

But as far as culpability in the Foley case, Mr. Dunn said, House Republicans may benefit from the evangelical conception of sin. Where liberals tend to think of collective responsibility, conservative Christians focus on personal morality. "The conservative Christian audience or base has this acute moral lens through which they look at this, and it is very personal," Mr. Dunn said. "This is Foley's personal sin."

Brian Courtney, a Republican-leaning sales manager attending the concert, said the Foley affair had led to "the kind of mudslinging one would expect to see at an election time like this." He added that he was paying closer attention to the "values and character" of the candidates, and that he would probably vote Republican again.

David Thomas, a father taking his family to the concert, said that he, too, was leaning toward voting Republican and that the scandal only reinforced his conservative Christian convictions.

Got that? This is today's evangelical Right. The more incompetent, repulsive, and hypocritical their elected officials become, the more they believe in the Republican Party. Bad is therefore good (and the worse the better, presumably) because it clarifies and confirms.

If Congressional Republicans had any sense they'd run naked through the streets of DC, swigging whisky, cavorting with hookers, and frantically instant-messaging teenagers. Via the Max Bialystock principle, it would do wonders to shore up the Base.

Faith-Based Legacy

This snippet from Tom DeFrank was good for a wry chuckle:

Bush is less worried about his standing with history, telling aides that George Washington's legacy is still being debated two centuries later. But he understands that losing one chamber of Congress will cripple his lame duck-weakened final two years.

"He's remarkably optimistic," a Bush insider said. "Like Ronald Reagan, he has a gift for looking beyond the morass in front of him and sticking to his goals, even if it's not popular."

In the past few months, we've heard President Bush/administration insiders compare himself/their boss to Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Washington, and Reagan.

The more they invoke the past, the more we lament the present.

Perpetual Calendar

AP:

The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a Bush loyalist offered his darkest assessment of Iraq yet on Thursday, suggesting the war there was "drifting sideways" without a firm commitment from its government to disarm militias and rebuild the country.

Returning from a recent trip to the region, Sen. John Warner said the military had done what it could, and if after three months the Iraqis have made no progress to calm ethnic violence and hasten reconstruction, then Congress will have to make some "bold decisions."

Is "three months" the new "next six months" -- the now-discredited, Friedman-trademarked deadline?

During Vietnam, a reliable characteristic of policymakers in Washington was their desire to kick the can down the road endlessly, hoping that someone else would have to make the decision to escalate, withdraw, or negotiate. That war spanned four different U.S. presidents, and that can got badly dented.

If we're going to avoid that in Iraq, it's essential that the keepers of the perpetual calendar get called out as their deadlines pass. Will anyone in the media remember to ask Sen. Warner "well, what now?" on January 5, 2007?

33%

The results of this new poll are startling:

Democrats now outdistance Republicans on every single issue that could decide voters’ choices come Nov. 7. In addition to winning—for the first time in the NEWSWEEK poll—on the question of which party is more trusted to fight the war on terror (44 to 37 percent) and moral values (42 percent to 36 percent), the Democrats now inspire more trust than the GOP on handling Iraq (47 to 34); the economy (53 to 31); health care (57 to 24); federal spending and the deficit (53 to 29); gas and oil prices (56 to 23); and immigration (43 to 34).

The poll also shows Bush's approval rating at an all-time low of 33%. This is extraordinary. With the Dow trading at nominal (but, importantly, far from inflation-adjusted) all-time highs and gas prices plunging, the president's popularity hovers within puking distance of Nixon's just before the latter boarded Marine One for an extended rest in San Clemente.

Yes, Iraq explains some of this, as does the Foley scandal. But to the extent people vote their pocketbooks, this strengthens my belief that this is a phantom prosperity, characterized by an uneasy and pervasive feeling of being "left behind." The public is being peppered with happy talk on the economy, reading about corporate executives becoming wildly rich, and seeing "the market" (but not the stocks most people own) hit "new all-time highs." But it's not quite trickling down, is it?

The Bush administration's frustration at "not getting credit for the economy" is almost poignant. But when prosperity is narrow, it only angers those it excludes -- particularly if it's accompanied by a whiff of dishonesty or perception of piggishness. Right now, it seems the excluded far outnumber those invited to the party.

Winds Of Change

I've been a Yankees fan since grade school. All the highs and lows from the 70's and 80's seem like last week: Chris Chambliss's homerun against Kansas City, Reggie Jackson's three homers against the Dodgers, Bucky Dent's homerun in Boston (I had just come home from football practice), and Thurman Munson's death (I still have all the newspaper clippings from that day).

So this weekend's loss to Detroit was tough -- but not as tough as I thought it would be. This team needs some changes, starting with the coach; the entire summer I told friends that if the Yankees had another disappointing postseason, Lou Piniella should replace Joe Torre as manager. That appears imminent. Some players need to go too. But some of the rituals that surround the team have descended into parody: the player roll call from the bleachers at the start of every game, the constant curtain calls (for those clutch homers in May!), and -- my personal pet peeve -- the inexplicable playing of "God Bless America" during the seventh inning of every home game, during which fans are expected to stand and dutifully reaffirm their patriotism. Of course the most successful sports franchises have always had self-perpetuating rituals. When the team is winning, they are tolerable and often entertaining. In defeat, they are grating and symptomatic of deeper decay.

Living off past success; a lumbering giant with plenty of money to spend, but unable to adapt and win when it counts; the faithful taking refuge in empty rituals and reflexive patriotism. Sound familiar?

A hefty serving of tabula rasa, please....

Vested Interests

This photo says it all, doesn't it? Until that changes, talk of "appointing a czar" and "adapting to win" etc. needs to be called what it is: idle conversation.

The Three Amigos

I know everyone's seen this photo by now. But I find myself coming back to it and just staring. The utter, time capsule-ready perfection....

Stranger In A Strange Land

By nature I'm an optimist, which I know doesn't come across in this space because blogs, like the 6pm news, generally focus on controversy and what's going wrong. And with incompetence and lies and wars gone south dominating the headlines, it's easy to forget that we have it pretty good in the U.S. When we flick the switch, the lights come on. When we turn the faucet, water comes out. That sets us apart from much of the rest of the world.

But every so often I notice a symptom of a broken system, and my optimism is tested. This week I wanted to rent a mailbox at a U.S. post office. I arrived with my driver's license, birth certificate, and social security card, thinking these would more than suffice. After waiting in line for twenty minutes, I presented my documents to the clerk. He looked at them for a few seconds and said that two documents were required to rent a box, but only my driver's license was acceptable. When I asked for an explanation, he pointed to a sign that listed the acceptable documents. Indeed, a birth certificate and a social security card were not on the list. What was? An "alien registration card" and a "certificate of naturalization."

I don't know what genius in the federal bureaucracy decided that a driver's license, birth certificate, and a social security card together aren't enough to rent a post office box. But when a green card trumps a U.S. birth certificate in the eyes of the federal government, something has gone terribly wrong.



Postscript: What document did the post office ultimately accept after rejecting my birth certificate and social security card? A copy of my current apartment lease.

"It Seems Sort Of Gimmicky"

The latest "cool idea!" on Iraq from the Titular Right, courtesy of Rich Lowry:

I know it seems sort of gimmicky, but I suggest in today's column that Bush appoint an Iraq czar. His administration has been torn by divisions over the war from the very beginning in ways that have really hurt our cause. This czar would be someone with no bureaucratic or institutional loyalties. Also, importantly, no loyalty to long-held positions (it would be very hard for someone like Rumsfeld to admit at this point, yes, we really do need more troops). His only loyalty would be to winning the war. His base of political support would be the president, who would have to back him completely and make it clear that any resistance from any quarter would be unacceptable. This appointment would play as a new departure that would give the administration the room to try new things (perhaps—I'm just thinking out loud—a surge of more troops in the near-term, coupled with a set of deadlines for Iraqi political developments). Politically, such an appointment would play perfectly into the administration's theme of adapting to win. It would be a way to break up the deadlocked internal administration debate and to clear up the bureaucratic confusion. (I was talking to a high-level administration official not too long ago who has no idea who really has primary responsibility for Iraq policy.) I think Rumsfeld and the generals basically have a checkmate against any new departure in Iraq policy. Rumsfeld opposes more troops for long-held strategic reasons (because he thinks it will foster dependency on the part of the Iraqis) and the generals, I believe, oppose them for institutional reasons (they know what a terrible strain sending more troops will represent to the Army). We need someone who can break through all this. My nominee would be Zalmay Khalilzad, although he would be hard to replace on the ground in Iraq.

Here's my nomination, Rich: President Bush. Iraq is not a domestic policy initiative. "His only loyalty would be to winning the war"..."It would be a way to break up the deadlocked internal administration debate"..."No idea who really has primary responsibility for Iraq policy"..."We need someone who can break through all this." There was once a time when, during a war, each of those responsibilities rested with the executive-in-chief. It's called leadership.

Meanwhile....

Eight more in one day.

"A Reminder: We Are At War"

Since the Foley story broke, I've been checking some of the more strident Righty blogs for reaction. It varies of course, but a consistent theme is concern over "the bigger picture." The proprietor of the popular site "Captain's Quarters" posted this over the weekend:

I cannot tell CQ readers how disgusted I am with Speaker Hastert. Reynolds is no fringe nutcase; he's the man Hastert trusted to run the midterm re-elections of the Republican caucus. He has no reason to lie, but Hastert apparently did. This also calls into question Boehner's earlier reversal, when he denied saying that he informed Hastert after Hastert denied knowing of Foley's activities.

Hastert should have been a man from the beginning and admit that he knew about Foley. Now he has destroyed any credibility left in his Speakership, and he has only compounded the embarrassment for the GOP caucus. Foley's actions reflect on Foley alone, but thanks to Hastert and perhaps Boehner, the aftermath will reflect on all Republicans in the House.

Republicans have to act swiftly to remove the stench of Foleygate from the party. They need to demand the resignation of Hastert as Speaker, as well as Boehner as Majority Leader if he lied to protect Hastert. Allowing Foley off the hook was a mistake in judgment, but this is a betrayal of those who trusted Hastert to lead the House with dignity, honesty, and integrity.

Here are some of his readers' posted responses:

Let's be clear on this: If Hastert and Boehner are forced out, this close to an election, than we should expect the Democrats to take the House.

THAT means impeachment investigations--real or threatened--, a White House spending its last two years in power fending off subpoenas, a Charles-Rangel-led effort to bleed our war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan dry, and an emboldening of al Qaeda and jihadis worldwide as they perceive a weakening in American resolve.

A reminder: we are at war. If Hastert goes, the Dems most likely get the house, and our chances for winning the war drop precipitously. We become, de facto, a much less safe nation.

More:

Again, we are at war. If a blogswarm gets going on this issue, and Hastert and Boehner are forced from office, we should expect to lose the House. Before we sling allegations that fire such a blogswarm, shouldn't we be sure that Hastert and Boehner deserve to be drummed out of their leadership positions in this manner. We will ALL pay the price if this happens.

And this:

My thought is that we need not run around screaming the sky is falling six weeks before the election. The punches are coming fast and furious from every angle right now and that will only intensify. What was the scandal six weeks ago? Do you remember? Whether you do or not, I'd be willing to bet that most Americans don't. If they do, they only remember what the media has brainwashed them to remember, not the facts. But they do remember that kids are dying fighting for our freedoms, and unforunately, they are being told their cause is hopeless. In my opinion, that arguement trumps anything on the table right now.

And this:

Ed- let's calm down about this Hastert resignation talk. We sure are quick to throw our leaders overboard (Gingrich, Livingston, Lott) at the first sign of potential trouble. Remember how the dems rallied around Barney Frank after his travails. And he's still there and keeps getting re-elected. Calling for his resignation just feeds into the dems game plan and further divides the republicans. Take a deep breath next time before you post this type of negativity.

And this:

C'mon you guys! Are we going to let some faggot ruin our chances to win the war on terror? Hell no! It's time to shore up our defenses and fight fight fight! The fate of the American way of life is at stake!! Don't let a pervert destroy everything for us! We worked hard, we Americans, to earn our special place in the world, and we can NOT let a faggot take us down!

I could have posted many more, but you get the idea. Shorter blind-faith set: Focusing too much on Foley may cause disaster in November, which in turn will make us all "less safe." If you've been wondering what might cause Bush's stalwart 35% to waver, the answer becomes more and more clear: literally nothing.

October 2nd, 6pm, Upper West Side

Anyone know about this? Is it bogus, or the logical extension of my organic (and expensive) veggies, yogurt, and milk?

Did He Pay A Broker's Fee?

Check out the primitive surroundings, appropriate for someone on the run. Note particularly the mud-caked walls. And how about the dirty clothes and disheveled appearance?

Still "marginalized" after all these years....

Torture Two-Step

Did you know that the U.S. military has a specific policy that proscribes waterboarding, and a long history of punishing those found to have done so? I didn't. From a Brian Ross piece last year:

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.

Of course, there's a world of difference between a soldier in the field using a waterboard and the CIA doing so. Without specific training and with no complicit doctors around to monitor the subject in "controlled environment," someone in the field might slip up and actually cause real harm. After all, we care.

The Suntan Menace

I've posted a few times recently about the rapidly spreading anti-swarthiness mass psychosis. Via The Independent, the latest example:

Seth Stein is used to jetting around the world to create stylish holiday homes for wealthy clients. This means the hip architect is familiar with the irritations of heightened airline security post-9/11. But not even he could have imagined being mistaken for an Islamist terrorist and physically pinned to his seat while aboard an American Airlines flight - especially as he has Jewish origins.

Yet this is what happened when he travelled back from a business trip to the Turks and Caicos islands via New York on 22 May. Still traumatised by his ordeal, the 47-year-old is furious that the airline failed to protect him from the gung-ho actions of an over-zealous passenger who claimed to be a police officer. He has now instructed a team of top US lawyers to act for him.

The London-based interiors guru, whose clients have included Peter Mandelson and the husband-and-wife design team Suzanne Clements and Ignacio Ribeiro, said he felt compelled to speak out to protect other innocent travellers from a similar experience.

"This man could have garrotted me and what was awful was that one or two of the passengers went up afterwards to thank him," said Mr Stein. He has since been told by airline staff he was targeted because he was using an iPod, had used the toilet when he got on the plane and that his tan made him appear "Arab".

The hysteria spreads...read the rest here. As someone who travels a lot, owns gadgets, is dark-complected, and even uses the restroom, I keep waiting -- with anticipation, I must admit -- for some overeager vigilante/Charles Bronson-wannabe to try this crap on me.

The Insurgency? Later...We Have Verbs To Conjugate!

CNN:

But retired Army Gen. Paul Eaton told CNN that if you spoke up and the Pentagon disagreed, "Then you're going to have a problem."

Eaton reflects what many critics claim about Rumsfeld's controversial management style and the decisions that stem from it: that Rumsfeld doesn't listen; he doesn't like dissent; and he dismisses ideas that differ from his own.

His concern with detail left one former general perplexed.

Former Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong said that Rumsfeld corrected his grammar the first time he briefed the secretary.

"He said, 'Stop. ... General, there was no verb in the last sentence," DeLong said.

If Kubrick had put it in Dr. Strangelove, it would have been a well-worn knee-slapper by now.

A Real Shitstorm

WaPo:

A $75 million project to build the largest police academy in Iraq has been so grossly mismanaged that the campus now poses health risks to recruits and might need to be partially demolished, U.S. investigators have found.

The Baghdad Police College, hailed as crucial to U.S. efforts to prepare Iraqis to take control of the country's security, was so poorly constructed that feces and urine rained from the ceilings in student barracks. Floors heaved inches off the ground and cracked apart. Water dripped so profusely in one room that it was dubbed "the rain forest."

"This is the most essential civil security project in the country -- and it's a failure," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an independent office created by Congress. "The Baghdad police academy is a disaster."

The report serves as the latest indictment of Parsons Corp., the U.S. construction giant that was awarded about $1 billion for a variety of reconstruction projects across Iraq. After chronicling previous Parsons failures to properly build health clinics, prisons and hospitals, Bowen said he now plans to conduct an audit of every Parsons project.

"The truth needs to be told about what we didn't get for our dollar from Parsons," Bowen said.

You'd think anything to do with Iraqis "standing up" might have received greater priority, wouldn't you? Of course that's only if you also believe, naively, that we don't plan on staying permanently.

Put this one in the ever-growing file of things to do if real investigative power returns to Washington in November. And it's one more reason why literally anything will be said or done to prevent that power from changing hands.

No Laughing Matter?

Apparent terrorist threats must be taken seriously -- unless, of course, the victim's faith in The Leader is suspect, in which case ridicule is in order. The New York Post's absolutist take is here. Conspicuously missing is any reference to take-home candy for her, him, or him.

No word as yet from Murdoch employee Roger Ailes about this latest assault.

Unrighteous Indignation

Roger Ailes decries Bill Clinton's "assault on all journalists." No, you couldn't make it up. Details here.

Like Broken Clockwork

When details of the NIE on global terrorism came out a few days ago, I linked to the NYT report and posted: "(Cue the talking-point retort: "But there was terrorism before the war in Iraq!")."

Here's President Bush at the press conference today:

You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience. We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren't in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions.

A friend once told me that because of genetics, he was overweight before he started loading up on junk food so eating healthier wouldn't do him much good. You can probably guess what happened over the next few years.

A Bitter Irony

Did you know that the largest U.S. embassy in the world provides no services to citizens of the host country? I didn't. This Iraqi blogger, in need of a visa to travel to the U.S. for graduate work, found out firsthand.

Those Fascinating American Tunnels....

AP:

An Israeli man was detained by Maryland State Police for more than four hours after he was seen photographing the Fort McHenry Tunnel in Baltimore, a state police spokesman said.

The incident began around 6:30 p.m. Friday when authorities received a call from a motorist who reported seeing a man taking pictures as he drove through the tunnel which runs under Baltimore Harbor on Interstate 95.

The Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center, which passes on information to local, state and federal public safety agencies, connected the caller to the Maryland State Police. Troopers were alerted to watch for a green 1998 Dodge Caravan with Connecticut license plates.

The motorist who made the initial call contacted authorities again as he headed south on Interstate 95 north of Washington, D.C. The driver reported seeing the same van heading north on Interstate 95.

Maryland State Police stopped the van near Laurel just before 7 p.m. Investigators said the driver did not immediately produce his international license. An explosives detection dog team called to the scene did not find any explosives, but a laptop computer and a digital camera were found in the vehicle.

The man was taken to the state police barracks in College Park for questioning. He told authorities that he was in the Baltimore-Washington area visiting friends for the Rosh Hashana holiday which began at sunset on Friday. He also showed them a valid passport indicating that he had been in the United States for about six weeks.

The man told troopers that he took pictures of the tunnel because there are no similar facilities in Israel.

Maintaining The Illusion

WaPo:

Bush is more open with confidants about his aggravation over events in Iraq. "He's unbelievably candid in person," said another person close to the president. "Of course it frustrates him. You can't not be frustrated by four car bombs a day and that sort of thing. But I think he's confident it's going to work out. I think he also thinks there's not much of an alternative." Does the president confide much in his father? "Nobody knows," the person said. "It's a steel wall."

Bush deals with stress through vigorous exercise, working out six days a week. When he goes for long bicycle rides, he often invites others to join him, but he asks them not to ride in front of him so he can have the illusion of solitude.

Some metaphors are almost too perfect.

"But At Least I Tried"

Maybe it was just nostalgia for a president who -- whatever one thought of him personally or politically -- was at least in command of the issues and could make coherent arguments. But I thought Bill Clinton made Fox's Chris Wallace look like a pimply, amateurish teenager doing an interview for a high school newspaper. Fox seems to have a way of doing that to the erstwhile serious journalists it hires.

The video is here, and worth watching if you missed it.

Another Milestone Passed....

here.

But at least we're "safer" now, right? Errr, maybe not. (Cue the talking-point retort: "But there was terrorism before the war in Iraq!")

Those National Intelligence Estimates are specializing in pesky truths, aren't they?

For The Time Capsule

You know those reports that pop up sometimes about dead people or pets getting credit card offers? Here's an utterly contemporary variation.

"On The Brink"

Readers know I'm a fan of Andrew Sullivan. I've linked to him often, and he's been kind enough to return the favor every now and then. But in light of his oft-stated regrets for having trusted the Bush administration before the Iraq invasion, I simply don't understand his repeated misstatements on Iran -- inaccuracies that parrot the demagoguery and hysteria favored by those he so deeply mistrusts. Andrew's been the subject of a PIA Alert before in this space for writing, "Especially when they are on the verge of wielding nuclear weapons." He wrote the following today:

Ahmadinejad is calling upon God to bring about the coming of the Twelfth Imam ("the perfect human being promised to all by you"), who heralds the Apocalypse. He is also saying that he will "strive for his return." It is the most terrifying statement any president of any nation has made to the U.N. We have a dictator on the brink of nukes, striving to accelerate the Apocalypse. Think of the Iranian regime as a nation-as-suicide-bomber. And anything serious we can do to prevent it may only make matters worse. No wonder Ahmadinejad smiles. Paradise beckons.

Aside from the fact that calling Ahmadinejad a "dictator" is a stretch, we know that as of one year ago, the official estimate of the U.S. intelligence community was that Iran was about a decade away from developing nuclear weapons. A few weeks ago, The Washington Times reported that the Pentagon is working off an estimate of 5-8 years. So where's Andrew getting "on the brink" from?

I'm all for calling out Ahmadinejad on his hateful and dangerous rhetoric. But let's not try to appease far-right readership or bolster our "patriotism" street cred via easy but erroneous statements. Those of us who actually care about preventing Iran from developing a nuclear capability know that intelligent, honest analysis is far more likely to yield effective policy than lazy or deliberate Iraq-redux hysteria.

Is Andrew's definition of "on the brink" 5-10 years? If not, then he should clarify or retract the statements he's made on this, or wed himself to the results -- which may be worse than Iraq. I suspect significantly fewer readers will be willing to grant him an easy divorce this time around.

"Or Maybe It Was Talleyrand"

This can't pass without mention, of course. Reuters:

Israel: Few months to avoid nuclear Iran

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Sunday that the world may have as little as “A few months” to avoid a nuclear Iran and called for sanctions.

"The crucial moment is not the day of the bomb. The crucial moment is the day in which Iran will master the enrichment, the knowledge of enrichment," she said on CNN’s "Late Edition."

Livni, whose country is the only Middle East power possessing nuclear weapons, said she did not want to identify a point of "No return" in the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program.

The Iranians, she said, "Are trying to send a message that it’s too late, you can stop your attempts because it’s too late. It’s not too late. They have a few more months," She said.

Got that? It's the Iranians who are trying to convince the world that it's too late, according to Ms. Few Months.

Here's another knee-slapper that caught my eye. Glenn Reynolds writes:

The loss of momentum in the war reminds me of something that I believe Napoleon (or maybe it was Talleyrand) said: "You can do anything with bayonets except sit on them." Much of the problem in Iraq comes from Iran, and we seem curiously unwilling to do much about it. I wonder -- does Iran already have nuclear weapons, and are we being successfully blackmailed?

Look, it's long past time to take the kid gloves off with this crap. There's too much at stake. Some of the invective and mindless hysteria out there is on par with the likes of Chavez and Ahmadinejad in tone (but not content, of course). If government officials in the U.S. or Israel or anywhere else insist on claiming it's five minutes to midnight with Iran, they need to be called what they are: desperate, dangerous rogues. If amateurs and dilettantes from the commentariat want to make similar claims, or suggest without elaboration the possibility of nuclear blackmail, or prattle on breezily about Churchillian courage and modern-day Hitlers, they deserve relentless ridicule. Incidentally, while admittedly I don't read him often and I realize he has a large following, I've never quite "gotten" Glenn Reynolds. His blog is little more than a slapdash linkfest cobbled together by intimations ("hmmm..."), one-liners, and approving winks to others, and I've been totally unimpressed by the few longer pieces I've read. The guy seems a mile wide and an inch deep. On his bio page, Reynolds gushes that he's "interested in everything." Yep.

Expect the calling-out to pick up in this space. If that makes me seem mean-spirited, petty, or shrill, so be it.

Those Other Attacks

It's become a boilerplate boast: "There have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11." Shunted down the memory hole, I guess, are the anthrax attacks in 2001 that killed five people and cost the economy billions in losses. Remember the interesting choice of targets -- the media and two senior Democratic Senators? Remember those notes (here, and here) that now, with the benefit of five years' perspective, look like a ludicrous attempt to imitate the way someone for whom Arabic was the native language might write English? And remember the easy prewar emphasis on the urgent threat posed by Saddam's "anthrax stockpiles," along with breathless speculation by the usual suspects that Saddam was responsible for the 2001 anthrax mailings?

According to this report, the FBI says the case has gone "so cold" that it may be put in the inactive files. She disagrees, and she's fighting in court.

Madrassas On The Plains

They believe their leader was chosen by God. They see themselves as "warriors" in God's army. And, viewed from abroad (particularly the Middle East), they're armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Who are they? Click here.

A Particularly Slippery Slope

Something that drives me absolutely batty is the argument that every Muslim is somehow obligated to prove his "moderation" by denouncing the actions of a radical few. Jonah Goldberg posts a reader's email, then responds to it:

Jonah,

I agree with you concerning the oversensitivity of the public face of Islam, but I am curious just what you mean by this sentence:

"But these are the images even the moderate Muslims let loose upon the world without much objection"

So how are mobs in the street burning things "images let loose upon the world by moderates"? That doesn't even make sense. Do you expect that every time a mob gathers in anger at some pseudo-insult those Muslims who aren't really offended need to assemble a counter demonstration so that CNN and, by extension, you can see that not all Muslims are burning the Pope in effigy? Moderate Muslims are people with better things to do than hang around and demonstrate. They are people with jobs, families, and lives to preserve. They are people that live next door to the ever-present reality of violent Islam. They are people who don't want to call attention to themselves because they live in a dangerous world. It angers me to see someone as intelligent as yourself jump both feet forward into the event-driven-news-media portrayal of the Muslim world and take a cheap shot at a large number of non-violent Muslims while you are at it.

ME: I might have phrased it poorly, but yeah that's basically what I'm saying. Globally, Muslim leaders seem to all operate on the CAIR model, mumble stuff about how extremism is bad, but shout from the rooftops about how insulting Islam is outrageous and creates an atmosphere where the religion of peace becomes violent. In the meanwhile, moderates let the extremists speak for them by doing nothing. We have seen nigh upon infinite examples of Muslims saying, doing and hoping for horrible, evil and violent things in the name of Islam. I am of the opinion that these examples come from a minority of Muslims (but a significant number of them in absolute terms). These people are insulting Islam, it seems to me, far more than the Pope allegedly did.

This is an old argument now but it seems that Burke's line still applies: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

Quoting Burke of all people to support the idea of collective responsibility is ludicrous; the quote Jonah cites is a narrow observation by Burke about the strength of evil in the face of passivity. Burke rejected the idea of collective responsibility. A far more apt quote on the subject was this, from his "Speech On Conciliation With America" in 1775: "I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people." Burke described talk in France of "fraternity" as "terrible in it's nature, and in it's manifest consequences." Jonah's misguided citation of someone as central to conservatism as Burke is telling, and it's another reason why the words "titular" and "Right" deserve to go together more frequently these days.

Hypothetical and actual examples abound. Whenever a pedophile priest is arrested, is every "reasonable" Catholic obligated either to denounce pedophilia publicly, or proclaim his own innocence of it to his community? My ancestry is Italian. My last name is Italian. I look Italian. Does that mean I have the responsibility to denounce organized crime loudly and publicly every time some John Gotti-wannabe and his crew pull a heist or whack someone? Some on the Titular Right dismissed the abuses at Abu Ghraib as a few bad apples. I must have missed their entreaties to every member of the military to speak out against it.

An important reason to reject collective responsibility -- and Burke understood this -- is because it leads to collective guilt and eventually the imposition of collective punishment. While assigning collective responsibility is often a pretext for what comes next, it's not always done with ulterior motives. But that doesn't make it any less dangerous, because collective responsibility, once established, can be exploited later by those with far more nefarious intent.

An example that may resonate with Jonah is what happened when Ernst vom Rath, a German diplomat in Paris, was assassinated by a Jew on November 7, 1938. The Nazis immediately held all Jews in Germany responsible and levied a fine of 1 billion marks against the Jewish community as punishment for the murder. On November 10, the following decree appeared in German newspapers: "Persons who, according to the Nurnberg law, are regarded as Jews, are forbidden to possess any weapon. Violaters will be condemned to a concentration camp and imprisoned for a period of up to 20 years." Der Angriff, a Berlin paper founded by Goebbels, stated that, "For every suffering, every crime and every injury that this criminal [the Jewish community] inflicts on a German anywhere, every individual Jew will be held responsible." This was against the backdrop of Kristallnacht ("night of broken glass") which arguably was the start of the Holocaust.

This isn't just about a nominally conservative member of the commentariat invoking Burke out of ignorance or laziness or both. It's about a specious, pseudo-intellectual justification for ever-expanding war by the radical Right -- from those who thought invading Iraq would "teach the entire Muslim world a lesson" to Tom "Take out their holy sites" Tancredo and the ideological offspring of Curtis LeMay -- and it's become alarmingly common in public discourse. The consequences of apathy about this slippery slope are far too great. With that, I think Burke would agree.

It's Five Minutes To Midnight

....according to Charles Krauthammer's alarm clock. Read all about it here. He advocates breathlessly (via "calculus" and thus with irrefutable mathematical precision!) a U.S. attack on Iran: "With the crisis advancing and the moment of truth approaching, it is important to begin looking now with unflinching honesty at the military option." And this: "These are the questions. These are the calculations. The decision is no more than a year away."

Krauthammer's "unflinching honesty" aside, we know that as of one year ago, the official estimate of the U.S. intelligence community was that Iran was about a decade away from developing nuclear weapons. A few weeks ago, The Washington Times reported that the Pentagon is working off an estimate of 5-8 years. What developments during the past year led the Pentagon to cut the National Intelligence Estimate potentially in half? It's a legitimate question, since according to this report the NIE timeline was "designed to reflect a program moving full speed ahead without major technical obstacles." Nevertheless, even the Pentagon's estimate makes it clear that there can be no responsible, justifiable use of military power against Iran during Bush's second term based on what we know right now. What we know (or can estimate reasonably) may change -- but it certainly won't be because of any swill that comes out of an "Office of Special Plans"-redux in Rumsfeld's attic or farcical "Iranian Expats for Democracy" via Cheney's office.

I've said before in this space that we must do everything possible to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But the raison d'etre for our intelligence community is balancing knowledge with uncertainty and reward with risk. That's how our political leaders once developed and implemented sensible geopolitical strategy. Have we reached the point at which that's too rigorous or constraining? Then let's disband our intelligence agencies immediately and send everyone home. We'll save a few hundred billion a year and, without any "slam dunk" scapegoat, there will be no doubt about whom to blame for the ensuing disasters undertaken on faith.

If we approach the point at which diplomatic options on Iran have failed and the minimum estimate for nuclear capability draws uncomfortably near, you'll hear me shout clearly that it's time for action. In the meantime, those inside our intelligence community ---many of whom are competent, hardworking patriots doing their best to protect us -- need to take a stand against the misuse and politicization of their work. And yes, taking a stand means putting one's job on the line as a whistleblower if necessary. As disastrous as Iraq has been, the stakes are even higher with Iran.

"I Never Said There Was An Operational Relationship"

A week ago, I noted in this post the contrast between comments President Bush made at a press conference in August, and the facts contained in the recently-released Senate Intelligence Committee report. To recap, Bush said the following on August 21st:

I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi.

The Senate report said this:

Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. Postwar information from an al-Qa'ida detainee indicated that Saddam's regime "considered al-Zarqawi an outlaw" and blamed his network, operating in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, for two bombings in Baghdad.

This past Friday, ABC's Martha Raddatz asked the president the following:

Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

Bush's response:

The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. I was making the point that Saddam Hussein had been declared a state sponsor of terror for a reason, and, therefore, he was dangerous.

Denial wrapped in circular reasoning and non sequiturs. When confronted with the inconvenient truth, just say anything.

By the way, if you didn't catch the press conference live on Friday, watch the tape here. It really was something -- the gesticulating, the glowering, the shouting, and the desperation. Listen, I know the "Bush is dangerous/insane/drinking again" meme is a popular one on some of the more strident liberal blogs. But if you saw that press conference and didn't worry that this is an executive-in-chief on the edge and in need of a major brake job courtesy of the midterm elections, you're a lot more optimistic than I am.

Faith-Based Reconstruction

From a longer WaPo piece:

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.

One former CPA employee who had an office near O'Beirne's wrote an e-mail to a friend describing the recruitment process: "I watched résumés of immensely talented individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown in the trash because their adherence to 'the President's vision for Iraq' (a frequently heard phrase at CPA) was 'uncertain.' I saw senior civil servants from agencies like Treasury, Energy . . . and Commerce denied advisory positions in Baghdad that were instead handed to prominent RNC [Republican National Committee] contributors."

As more and more of O'Beirne's hires arrived in the Green Zone, the CPA's headquarters in Saddam Hussein's marble-walled former Republican Palace felt like a campaign war room. Bumper stickers and mouse pads praising President Bush were standard desk decorations. Other than military uniforms and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" garb, "Bush-Cheney 2004" T-shirts were among the most common pieces of clothing.

"I'm not here for the Iraqis," one worker noted to a reporter over lunch. "I'm here for George Bush."

Read the rest here. I suspect that when real investigative and subpoena power returns to Washington, we'll get a better look behind the curtain. Of course, literally anything will be said or done to prevent that power from changing hands in November. Vigilance....

Trenchtown

This should be interesting....

"Trusted Lieutenant" Watch

CNN:

U.S. forces in Iraq have detained more than 70 suspected terrorists, including a key associate of the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, a military spokesman said Thursday.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell did not identify the associate of militant leader Abu Ayyoub al-Masri but said he is "known to have directly participated in terrorist acts, including kidnappings and executions."

The suspect also played a "key operational role" in terrorist activities before and during the U.S. military siege of the central Iraqi city of Falluja in November 2004, Caldwell said.

Al-Masri, an explosives expert, became head of al Qaeda in Iraq after U.S. forces killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June.

The Iraqi capital saw no letup in violence Thursday as nine people were killed and 26 others wounded in two explosions in central Baghdad, police said.

The tragi-farce continues....

Hot Stock Tip....

Short the stock of any company that makes shaving cream. Don't cover your short for at least the next two years.

Baby Strollers For Sale

Because the worst was averted in the attack on the U.S. embassy in Damascus, the incident will amount to little more than a one-day headline here. But it represents more than that. The White House rebuts claims that its Middle East strategy is fueling terrorism by citing attacks on U.S. interests (WTC, Dar es Salaam, Nairobi, etc) that occurred before the invasion of Iraq. So how have our interests in Syria fared in the past? Here are some Damascus post reports from this website, which is used by many in the U.S. Foreign Service; each is from a different person:

October 2005: Security concerns? "Nothing major. I walked all over with a baby in a stroller and felt safe. I will always be grateful that I got the chance to live in Syria."

October 2005: Security concerns? "None. This is the absolute safest country in the world. People are so nice!" Knowing what you now know, would you still go there? "Yes. It is really a nice post. It is very calm, though so if you're looking for adventure and parties, this is not the place to go to."

July 2005: Security concerns? "Almost none. There are always many people about, and the streets are generally safe for women." Interesting/fun things to do: "Think simple and enjoy getting back to a more leisurely, active, healthier definition of fun."

December 2004: Security concerns? "Honestly, none! Syria has been very safe for me and my family. Violent crime is almost unheard of; which is why it is a welcome change from the US! This is a very good post for families with children. You can get out and around the city fairly easily with no worry of serious crime or injury."

November 2004: Security concerns? "Damascus is very, very safe. Crime appears to be almost nonexistent."

May 2000: Security concerns? "Security is good. Syria may harbor terrorist groups, but they are heavily watched and controlled here."

May 2000: "The best way to enjoy Syria is to get out and experience it."

Stuff happens....

Faith-Based Escalation

...via that thoroughly discredited subgroup of the commentariat known from now on in this space as the Double-Down Dudes. Read about it here.

It's all premised on this assertion: "A few thousand U.S. troops have already been transferred to Baghdad from elsewhere in Iraq. Where more U.S. troops have been deployed, the situation has gotten better." Just as the government asserts that there's no inflation except for everything that costs more, the reason the "situation has gotten better" is here.

No mention by the Double-Downers of needed sacrifice at "this urgent pass" (these must be the really crucial next six months!), no proposals on where to find "substantially more troops," and still no realistic exit strategy after more than three years. We'll just sorta do it.

That's what got us into Iraq, and "by God" it will get us out.

"Waiting For Yamamoto" Watch

The explanation for this post's header is here. Here's Daniel Pipes today, apparently all Raptured-up in contemplation of the next big "wake-up call":

Looking ahead, nothing but an atrocity of terrible proportions will wake liberals and make "united we stand" once again a meaningful slogan.

Pipes hasn't always catered to the lowest common denominator. Compare today's "analysis" to the following, which he wrote for the WSJ on April 11, 1991:

...there are worse prospects than Saddam Husayn staying in power. Here are two: an American occupation of Iraq or the dissolution of that country. U.S. government assistance to the anti-Saddam forces could over-commit Americans in Iraq. What begins with humanitarian and military aid might end up as something much larger. Provisioning blankets leads to repairing electricity grids and roads; shooting down aircraft ends up with the guaranteeing of international borders. The inexorable logic of power would eventually induce Americans to topple Saddam. Before anyone realizes what happened, U.S. forces would be occupying Iraq, with Schwartzkopf Pasha ruling from Baghdad.

It sounds romantic, but watch out. Like the Israelis in southern Lebanon nine years ago, American troops would find themselves quickly hated, with Shi'is taking up suicide bombing, Kurds resuming their rebellion, and the Syrian and Iranian governments plotting new ways to sabotage American rule. Staying in place would become too painful, leaving too humiliating. Saddam in power may well be less dreadful than American occupation.

Alternatively, there is the danger of Iraq being dismembered. As Turkish president Turgut Ozal rightly observed, this would lead to "incalculable turmoil." The world economy needs a reasonably strong Iraq to balance Iran and assure the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Were Iraqi power to disappear, Iran would likely become the regional hegemon, rationing oil according to its whims. Iraq's dissolution also raises the prospect of the Iranians imposing a fundamentalist Islamic regime on southern Iraq. Not only would this new state want to take Baghdad and reconstitute Iraq as a Shi'i-dominated country, but it might well revitalize the Islamic revolution in Tehran, leading to fresh outbreaks of Khomeini-style aggression.

Citing "the terrible viciousness of the Middle East" as "the final reason not to get involved within Iraq," Pipes continues:

More to the point, were the Shi'is or Kurds winning against Saddam, we would by now surely have witnessed scenes of Sunni Arabs being massacred. Do Americans wish to be party to such barbarism? There are many ghastly events in the Middle East and the United States lacks both the means and the will to fix them. The Middle East is politically a sick place; outsiders would do well to keep a prudent moral distance.

At the same time, Americans need to feel some humility. Other than direct military force, our means (financial, diplomatic) are modest; and our will is even more limited. Iraq is a sick country with desperate problems, very few of them of our making. Given the realities of Iraq-its predominantly Muslim culture in particular-we cannot remake or unmake Iraq. There is an inhumanity to Middle East politics that we can neither contain nor stop.

Prescient to say the least, particularly for something written over fifteen years ago. But at this point, it does little more than relegate Pipes to that sad subsection of the commentariat whose insight and reputation peaked sometime in the previous millennium.

"We're Not Ready To Die"

At the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the government's exhibits was a recording of a call to 911 from Kevin Cosgrove, an employee of Aon who was trapped on the 105th floor of the south WTC tower. Recently, the government made the tape available to the public. It is synchronized with a video of the south tower as it appeared during the call.

Be forewarned that this is extremely disturbing, and not something you'll soon forget. It affected me deeply. But I think it's important to watch if we're to understand fully the nature and capability of evil. The link is here.

I was in New York on 9/11, and had previously worked at a firm that was one of the largest WTC tenants. I was not close friends with anyone who died, but I knew several of them, including a fraternity brother from college. I remember having two thoughts on 9/11: we have to get the bastards who did this, and we can't let them succeed by making us afraid. Five years on, we know how the former has worked out while we've been bogged down in Iraq. And in light of the divisive and desperate demagoguery we've heard especially during the past few weeks (with worse to come if this is correct), how are we doing on the latter?

For The Time Capsule

Protest in our time, via Reuters:

Protesters march over loss of Marshall Field's

Amelia James would consider it an insult to her grandmother to shop at the former Marshall Field's department store, a beloved Chicago institution renamed Macy's on Saturday to the dismay of many ardent shoppers.

The 48-year-old Chicagoan was among more than 100 people who gathered outside the landmark State Street store to protest the decision by Federated Department Stores Inc. (Charts) to swap the 154-year-old Field's name for Macy's, a department store chain best known for its flagship in New York.

Under an overcast sky, most protesters wore green - the color associated with Field's that was replaced by Macy's black - and carried signs with such slogans as "This Lady Wants Field's" and "Chicago Shops Marshall Field's."

"We understand this is an emotional time and people are passionate about the name," Macy's spokeswoman Jennifer McNamara said.

It's not exactly 1968, is it?

He Just Can't Help Himself....

Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi.

Press conference 8/21/06


Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. Postwar information from an al-Qa'ida detainee indicated that Saddam's regime "considered al-Zarqawi an outlaw" and blamed his network, operating in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, for two bombings in Baghdad.

Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence, page 109, 9/8/06


If the president hopes to avoid Democratic-led investigations and calls for his impeachment after the midterms, he certainly hasn't been doing himself any favors.

The Chosen One

Like Andrew, I found this quote telling. Whenever I wonder what exactly it would take to change the minds of the many millions who still approve of Bush's performance, I have to remind myself that a broad swath of this country evaluates him on one issue only. I've said before (and history confirms it) that the "threat next door" can be just as dangerous and insidious as any external enemy. If you were jailed unjustly for something you said or believed, could you count on someone from the blind faith set to speak up on your behalf?

In the 1960 presidential election, one of the main issues was JFK's faith -- not whether he believed, but whether he believed too strongly. Nixon and the Republicans tried to convince voters that a Kennedy presidency would be a threat to the separation of church and state. That possibility resonated with people to such an extent that it forced Kennedy to defend himself constantly, as he did with this speech -- to a clerical audience in Texas, no less -- two months before the election:

Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision... in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

Read the full text here. Would any candidate in the midterms or 2008 presidential election dare say those words today? If Bush did so, it might be the only way he'd lose that stalwart 35% for whom Iraq, Katrina, etc don't matter. I still have trouble understanding how we got to this point less than fifty years later.

If you lived in Iran and read this quote, and you heard Bush invoke God at least once in every prepared public speech he gives, and the U.S. currently occupied your neighbor which it invaded on a false pretense, how would you feel about protecting yourself with the ultimate deterrent?

Rudder Needed: Apply Immediately

Have you watched the president's speeches during the past few days? Today, he went into great detail on the detainee issue, linking the controversial treatment of prisoners to the prevention of terrorist attacks in the past. So yes, today there was substance to go with the empty bromides.

But the transcript doesn't begin to reflect the delivery, which bordered on the bizarre. Bush -- as in other speeches during the past few days -- was alternately petulant, glowering, and shrill. At times he came close to shouting. It was as if he was angry that, at long last, he (or more likely an underling) felt it necessary to be substantive. If you missed it, try to watch a tape.

This is quite new for Americans. Before this, the most unstatesmanlike presidential behavior in modern times was that of Clinton during the darkest moments of the Lewinsky scandal. For all his immorality and duplicity and aside from a few notable lapses (one of which involved Ron Ziegler), even Nixon generally maintained a veneer of calm statesmanship in public.

Look, we know Bush has a tough job -- made tougher in large measure by his own actions -- but I don't see how any clear-thinking person could watch these speeches and not be extremely concerned. Past presidents who have been under extreme pressure (Nixon) had adults around (Kissinger) to steady the ship. We know what this president's top aides are made of. Reassured?

A Separate Peace

Fourth, we're determined to deny terrorist networks control of any nation, or territory within a nation. So, along with our coalition and the Iraqi government, we'll stop the terrorists from taking control of Iraq, and establishing a new safe haven from which to attack America and the free world. And we're working with friends and allies to deny the terrorists the enclaves they seek to establish in ungoverned areas across the world. By helping governments reclaim full sovereign control over their territory, we make ourselves more secure.

President Bush 9/5/06


Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?

Donald Rumsfeld 8/29/06


Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a "peaceful life," Pakistani officials tell ABC News.

The surprising announcement comes as Pakistani army officials announced they were pulling their troops out of the North Waziristan region as part of a "peace deal" with the Taliban.

If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden "would not be taken into custody," Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."

In addition to the pullout of Pakistani troops, the "peace agreement" between Pakistan and the Taliban also provides for the Pakistani army to return captured Taliban weapons and prisoners.

"What this means is that the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership have effectively carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism director.

The agreement was signed on the same day President Bush said the United States was working with its allies "to deny terrorists the enclaves they seek to establish in ungoverned areas across the world."

"They're throwing the towel," said Alexis Debat, who is a Senior Fellow at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant. "They're giving al Qaeda and the Taliban a blank check and saying essentially make yourselves at home in the tribal areas," Debat said.

ABC News 9/5/06

Condolences....

To Josh Marshall.

Consequences....

Like inflated balloons held underwater by a kid in a crowded summer pool, they're beginning to pop up all over. Just one example:

After a decade of decline, violent crime is on the rise across the United States. Assault rose 2 percent between 2004 and 2005, according to the FBI's latest report of national crime trends. Murder and robbery are up nearly 5 percent -- the sharpest increase since 1991. Medium-sized cities of between 50,000 and 500,000 have been the bloodiest.

Kerlikowske, along with other police chiefs and law-enforcement organizations, have blasted recent cuts to programs that help pay for police officers, provide training and buy equipment. Last year, Congress cut a major community policing program by 21 percent, or $127.7 million, and a Justice Department grant program by 34 percent, $217.5 million. Funding for the programs has declined by more than $1.5 billion, nearly 65 percent, since 2002.

Another:

A California man who bought more than $1.5 million worth of Del Webb homes -- but says he has an income of $30,000 a year -- has sued the company alleging breach of contract after it lowered home prices throughout Las Vegas.

The suit also names Countrywide Home Loans, alleging fraudulent lending practices.

At the end of September, Pulte reduced prices at its four Las Vegas Del Webb communities between 5 percent and 25 percent, or $50,000 to almost $160,000. Pulte also reduced prices in 18 of its 23 Pulte Home communities, with reductions ranging from $25,000 to $170,000. Pulte Homes blamed the reductions on a slowdown in demand and an over-aggressive pricing strategy.

These two examples, among many others, are consistent with my belief that we've entered an overarching period of "consequences" -- political, economic, social, and geopolitical. In a global economy, one basic truism is that there's no permanent free lunch; the money to fight wars has to come from somewhere, and irresponsible, politically expedient monetary policy creates bubbles that eventually pop. Since politicians (particularly incompetent ones who shun the work actual governing entails) despise consequences, they need reliable trump cards to play when necessary. The nightmare of every elected official -- especially at the national level -- is a crisis or general malaise with no one to blame and nothing to distract the public; the Carter presidency was the template. Loosely-defined, ever-expanding wars do nicely in that regard, because they serve as covers for the inexorable effects of failed policy.

We know from Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty that senior members of the Bush administration, in particular Larry Lindsey, thought the economy was "on the brink of disaster" when they took office in early 2001. According to Suskind, even Alan Greenspan was soon shouting in meetings that "capitalism is not working!" 9/11 and two wars took the blame for the fallout from the tech bubble and the explosion of the deficit. Present happy talk aside, I suspect the administration privately harbors the same fears about the economy now as in early 2001. Think like a desperate politician, and you'll be able to predict what's probably inevitable at this point.

"We Are Just Dying And Getting Injured”

From a longer NYT piece:

Soon after Specialist Michael Potocki was shot and killed in June, the soldiers in his platoon agreed on their goal for the months ahead: to survive and make it home alive.

Survival may be the only thing the troops here agree on. The first death of a comrade in battle is always an emotional shock, and the views from the foxhole here are probably as varied as the 34 soldiers. Still, in this hostile stretch of western Iraq, some of the troops have begun to wonder if the presence of United States forces here is worth the cost in American lives.

Staff Sgt. Ryan Poetsch, who did a previous tour in Baghdad and serves in Specialist Potocki’s platoon, acknowledges that he does not always have the big picture. But he does have a view from the streets in Hit and questions the strategy.

“As a soldier, I am going to do whatever we got to do,” he said. “As a personal opinion, I don’t think we need to be in this city, period. How much money and how many soldiers is it going to take when these people don’t want our help? They just don’t. We don’t even know who we can trust.”

The military has distributed $100,000 for sewage, water distribution and other projects, and has plans to spend much more if security improves. Major Lilly, however, is under no illusion about the difficulty of winning over the city’s residents.

“Over all, they just tolerate us,” he said. “We’re here, and they have no other recourse but to tolerate us. The great majority want us to go home.”

While it is difficult to gauge their numbers with precision, there are pockets of dispirited troops who are no longer convinced that Washington has committed the resources for a winning strategy.

Sergeant Poetsch thought the United States was doing the right thing by toppling Saddam Hussein. But the Army, he says, does not have nearly enough troops to patrol the city effectively, and he says Hit’s residents, unlike the people he encountered during his previous tour in Baghdad, do not want to have much to do with the Americans.

“At the beginning, I was all for it,” he said. “Saddam Hussein was not a good guy, and I always felt good that he is gone. But somehow it seems it seems that we lost direction. It is just hard for guys here to understand what we are doing. What makes it so significant if we can’t have more manpower and better living conditions?”

“No one understands why we are here and what our mission is,” Sergeant Kahlor added. “This war is lost. We aren’t helping these people. We are just dying and getting injured.”

I await their denunciation as defeatists and appeasers (or as collaborators with the traitorous mainstream media) by the usual suspects punching out breezy missives from autumnal Manhattan, DC's sofa suburbs, and rustic porches in New Hampshire. In what way is staying this course (sorry, "Adapting To Win") for the next 5-10 years consistent with "supporting the troops"?

"Trusted Lieutenant" Watch

AP:

Iraqi and coalition forces have arrested the second most senior figure in al-Qaida in Iraq, Iraq's national security adviser announced on Sunday, saying the group now suffered from a "serious leadership crisis."

Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, was captured north of Baghdad a few days ago "along with another group of his aides and followers," Mouwafak al-Rubaie said.

"We believe that al-Qaida in Iraq suffers from a serious leadership crisis. Our troops have dealt fatal and painful blows to this organization," the security adviser said.

"Al-Saeedi carried out al-Qaida's policies in Iraq and the orders of the slain al-Zarqawi to incite sectarian violence in the country, through attempting to start a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis but their wishes did not materialize," al-Rubaie added.

The U.S.-led coalition has announced numerous arrests of terrorists following the death of al-Zarqawi that officials claim have thrown al-Qaida in Iraq into disarray.

But rampant sectarian violence and other attacks have continued. At least 16 Iraqis and two U.S. soldiers were killed Sunday in bomb attacks and shootings nationwide.

This insurgency continues to produce more lieutenants than West Point.

Note the reference to "claims" made after "numerous" past arrests; at this point, even by-the-book wire reporters can't resist putting this ongoing farce into context.

The Kerfuffle Krew

Excerpts from a Sunday Times piece:

Threatened by a potentially nuclear-armed Tehran, Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources.

The Israeli defence establishment believes that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear programme means war is likely to become unavoidable.

"In the past we prepared for a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities," said one insider, "but Iran’s growing confidence after the war in Lebanon means we have to prepare for a full-scale war, in which Syria will be an important player."

In Washington, the military hawks believe that an airstrike against Iranian nuclear bunkers remains a more straightforward, if risky, operation than chasing Hezbollah fighters and their mobile rocket launchers in Lebanon.

"Fixed targets are hopelessly vulnerable to precision bombing, and with stealth bombers even a robust air defence system doesn’t make much difference," said Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative.

"If they had acted against Syria during this last kerfuffle, the war might have ended more quickly and better," Perle added. "Syrian military installations are sitting ducks and the Syrian air force could have been destroyed on the ground in a couple of days."

Advocates of political engagement believe a war with Syria could unleash Islamic fundamentalist terror in what has hitherto been a stable dictatorship. Some voices in the Pentagon are not impressed by that argument.

"If Syria spirals into chaos, at least they’ll be taking on each other rather than heading for Jerusalem," said one insider.

Richard Perle. Creative destruction. The efficacy of air superiority. It's really become a caricature at this point, hasn't it?

Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

....and here, called to account.

More perspective and clear thinking available here as well.

The T-Shirt Threat

With increasing frequency, events are occurring that will cause people decades from now to shake their heads and ask themselves "what were they thinking?" Some of these events are major and some go almost unnoticed, but collectively they indicate a spreading mass psychosis. I posted about this one last week. Here's the latest:

An Iraqi architect on Tuesday said he was forced to change his t-shirt before boarding a flight in New York because the shirt had "We will not be silent" written on it in Arabic and English.

Raed Jarrar wrote on his Internet blog (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com) that he was required to change out of the shirt prior to boarding a JetBlue flight from New York's John F. Kennedy Airport to California this month because officials told him people were offended by the shirt.

In an interview with New York Public Radio on Tuesday, Jarrar said, "I grew up and spent all my life living under authoritarian regimes and I know that these things happen. But I'm shocked that they happened to me here, in the U.S."

Read Jarrar's full account of the incident on his blog here. Be sure to take a look at the photos of the t-shirt that terrified his fellow passengers.

Real leaders recognize their responsibility to temper the public's tendency to go off the rails every so often (and yes, that responsibility dovetails nicely with conservatism). Cynical, incompetent, and desperate leaders encourage that tendency and leverage it. For me, this is the root of Bush's failure as a leader, and it's why I have contempt for him. One word sums up that failure perfectly: "Islamofascist." Here's a short dissection of that word with which I basically agree.

As anyone with a sense of history knows, these periodic episodes of mass psychosis repeat every few generations here and, as Europe proved in the previous century, in other countries as well. (If you haven't read Charles Mackay's classic Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, it's worth checking out.) The real question is how much damage we'll do to ourselves -- and in our current state, to others -- before it ends.

Think About Good Stuff

Remember the Soylent Green scene in which Edward G. Robinson watches soothing video clips of sunsets, mountain streams, and frolicking animals in the last moments of his life at the state-run euthanasia center? This advertisement immediately reminded me of that.

"Moderation Was The Disguise Of Unmanly Weakness"

One thing I am certain about: If Karr is guilty, if he did this, he should be executed, and executed soon.

Jonah Goldberg 8/17/06

Prosecutors abandoned their case against schoolteacher John Mark Karr on Monday, saying that DNA tests failed to link Karr to the slaying of child beauty contestant JonBenet Ramsey.

CNN 8/28/06

If you're looking for sloppy, faux-populist rhetorical excess, parts of the commentariat once known for intellectual rigor have become reliable purveyors of it. If only un-invading a nation was as easy as testing DNA.

Carnage Update

Reuters:

Roadside bombs killed five U.S. soldiers in Iraq in separate attacks on Sunday. In one attack, four soldiers were killed when a blast hit their vehicle north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said on Monday.

A roadside bomb, one of the most lethal weapons used by Sunni Arab insurgents seeking to topple the Shi'ite-led government backed by Washington, also killed a U.S. soldier in western Baghdad, said the military.

The American casualties came on a day when a spate of car bombings and shootings across Iraq killed about 60 people.

But Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said violence was on the decrease and that the country would never slide into a civil war.

"Violence has decreased and our security ability is increasing. We are not in civil war and will never be in civil war," Maliki told CNN in a recorded interview on Sunday.

"What you see is an atmosphere of reconciliation."

Right Place, Wrong Time (Again)

After Israel bombed the U.N. observer post in Lebanon last month, I posted that it was not without historical precedent. This past weekend, more impartial observers of Israeli military operations found themselves in the crosshairs:

An Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza City on Saturday, wounding two journalists as they covered a military incursion, doctors and residents said.

One of the Palestinian journalists, who worked for a local media organization, was seriously wounded. A cameraman working for Reuters was knocked unconscious in the air strike, one of several in the area.

The Israeli army said the vehicle was hit because it was acting suspiciously in an area of combat and had not been identified as belonging to the media.

"During the operation, there was an aerial attack on a suspicious vehicle that drove in a suspicious manner right by the forces," army spokeswoman Captain Noa Meir said.

"This car was not identified by the army as a press vehicle," she said. "If journalists were hurt, we regret it."

The missile struck the vehicle after dark. The armored car was clearly labeled as a media vehicle, with signs on all sides, including the roof.

Michael Lawrence, Reuters Managing Editor for Europe, Middle East and Africa, said: "We are deeply concerned at this attack on a clearly marked press vehicle as journalists were doing their job to report the story from Gaza.

"We understand that the army says it had no intention of targeting the media, but this incident is totally unacceptable and we urge a careful examination of how this happened to ensure there is no repeat."

Yet another "unfortunate mistake"? Or the latest chapter in an Israeli policy of shielding military operations from inconvenient observers?

A month after Israel's excuses and sincerest of apologies for bombing the U.N post, we're beginning to get more color on what might have happened. Here's the president of the Philadelphia district of the Zionist Organization of America, writing in The Weekly Standard:

During the recent month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon.

UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

Inquiries made of various Israeli military and government representatives and analysts yielded near unanimous agreement that at least some of UNIFIL's postings, in the words of one retired senior military analyst, "could have exposed Israeli soldiers to grave danger." These analysts, including a current high ranking military official, noted that the same intelligence would not have been provided by the U.N. about Israel's enemies.

I'd love to read Cliff May's take on this, but I'm not holding my breath.

Storytellers

Writing about the release of the Fox News employees, Cliff May stumbles onto a good point:

And that’s great news. But the Reuters story up on Drudge right now (it may not be up for long) says that Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig "appeared on a new videotape" and said "they had converted to Islam."

"They were shown separately sitting cross-legged, reading a statement which Fox said was an announcement that they had converted to Islam. At times in the video they were wearing long Muslim robes. Wiig called on leaders of the West to stop 'hiding behind the 'I don't negotiate with terrorists' myth'. He then read some words in Arabic."

I just watched the reporters give a news conferences in which I didn’t hear them discuss this (maybe I missed that part or perhaps they did talk about it but it wasn’t included on-air). Instead, they emphasized how important it is that journalists not be discouraged from covering Gaza from “telling the story of the Palestinian people.” Is the mission of Fox’s London bureau to tell the story of the British people?” Do reporters cover the White House in order to tell President Bush’s story?

I’m glad these guys are safe and free. I wish them well. But I hope there will be some attention paid by Fox and other media to the way in which kidnappings and similar threats coerce and intimidate journalists, and may influence their coverage.

There's a good point here, but May makes it by accident. While focusing on what is at best a minor issue---these mass conversions to Islam that journalists are undergoing at gunpoint distort the news we get!---he gives a disingenuous nod to the time when journalism-as-advocacy was the exception and not the rule. Is May just now learning that Fox News crossed that line long ago?

Abandoning All Pretense Now....

Shorter Stanley Kurtz: Vote Republican in the midterms, or American cities will be destroyed by Iranian nuclear weapons.

The desperation grows.

Dolchstoss Alert

In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism, we face enemies both overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists themselves. Their motives are clear: They hate our society because of its freedoms and liberties, and want to make us all submit to their totalitarian form of Islam. They are busy trying to wreak harm on us in any way they can. Against them we can fight back, as we did when British authorities arrested the men and women who were plotting to blow up a dozen airliners over the Atlantic.

Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society. On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness.

Michael Barone 8/21/06


Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force. That is why, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism. Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase the number of internal enemies.

Kevin Baker, Harper's 7/14/06

Pusher Logic

There were some gems in the president's Monday press conference (full text here). One exchange:

Q Thanks. Mr. President, what do you say to people who are losing patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a political price do you think you're paying for that right now?

THE PRESIDENT: I've been talking about gas prices ever since they got high, starting with this -- look, I understand gas prices are like a hidden tax. Not a hidden tax, it's a tax -- it's taking money out of people's pockets. I know that. All the more reason for us to diversify away from crude oil. That's not going to happen overnight. We passed law that encouraged consumption through different purchasing habits, like hybrid vehicles -- you buy a hybrid, you get a tax credit. We've encouraged the spread of ethanol as an alternative to crude oil. We have asked for Congress to pass regulatory relief so we can build more refineries to increase the supply of gasoline, hopefully taking the pressure off of price.

And so the strategy is to recognize that dependency upon crude oil is -- in a global market affects us economically here at home, and therefore, we need to diversify away as quickly as possible.

In addition to the rich and unintentionally honest slip---he's "been talking about gas prices ever since they got high," the belated concern being one reason they "got high" in the first place---the president answered the question by emphasizing the urgent, overarching need to diversify away from crude oil. How? By offering tax credits on the purchase of hybrids, encouraging the use of ethanol, and spending years building costly and long-term refinery infrastructure "hopefully" to increase the supply and lower the cost of gasoline. Cheaper gas, you see, will play an important role in encouraging Americans to use alternative...err, never mind.

"Everyone Agreed The Men Looked Dodgy"

As desperate one-issue politicians---aided by a compliant ratings-driven media---continue to play the terror card, expect to see an increasing number of Ox-Bow-lite incidents like this one. So think twice before wearing a leather jacket and checking your watch often---particularly if you're not caucasian. Where's the line between public vigilance and mob hysteria?

How's He Doin'?

For those who might have missed it, here's part of Gerard Baker's answer to that question:

If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be starting to conclude that you were some sort of Iranian Candidate, an agent of Tehran, brilliantly executing a covert strategy to enhance the prestige and power of the ayatollahs.

Read the rest here.

Often Wrong, Never In Doubt

When I read about the arrest in the JonBenet Ramsey case, my immediate thought was the potential exoneration of the parents after years of suspicion. The groundless speculation came from many sources, and it shouldn't be forgotten. Some classy past comments from Colorado governor Bill Owens: "If they're innocent, they're sure not acting like they are." And this: "If I could speak to John and Patsy Ramsey, I'd tell them to quit hiding behind their attorneys, quit hiding behind their PR firm, come back to Colorado, work with us to find the killers in this case -- no matter where that trail may lead." Will a public apology be forthcoming?

Of course, Owens is in mediocre company with a slew of opiners and bloggers. Here's La Shawn Barber writing just two months ago, on the same day Patsy Ramsey died of cancer: "As a 'juror' in the court of public opinion, I think JonBenet Ramsey's death was accidental and that Patsy Ramsey killed her." When John Ramsey ran for public office in 2004, Barber wrote: "What about spending his life, the rest of it if necessary, to find his daughter's killer? He and O.J. Simpson could join in the hunt for the elusive killers who brutally murdered their loved ones." Click through for the full dose of shamelessness.

Listen, idle speculation about high-profile crimes is hardly new; it's long been one of this nation's pastimes. What is new is the rise of internet-enabled, peripheral wannabe pundits who, desperate to stand out, trade in agenda-driven hysteria and hate.

On Thursday, the district attorney in Colorado said there is "much more work" to be done and warned the public not to "jump to conclusions." While she was saying that, the Titular Right---unencumbered by intellectual rigor, and barely restrained by legal formalities---was ready to fix punishment ("and soon" he demanded!). What is it about preliminary, inconclusive, or faulty information that gets this bunch all lathered up to invade, bomb, or kill?

What He Said....

Here. And especially here.

"Wide-Eyed Tourists"

A few posts ago, I noted the now-boilerplate pattern of initial hype about a supposed terrorist threat, followed by quiet reality a few days, weeks, or months later. The pattern holds.

When those stories broke last week, they were plastered all over the media and trumpeted breathlessly by the usual suspects. I'm glad the cops were proactive and on the case. Unless I've missed something, however, the reality is too inconvenient to warrant even a mention by the hysterical set.

Spin Cycle

Thankfully, it appears we're finally getting serious about Iraq instead of fiddling with spin and empty catchphrases. Details here.

LOCKHART (reading): "Not While We're Eating--N.V.A. learn marines on a search and destroy mission don't like to be interrupted while eating chow." Search and destroy. Uh, we have a new directive from M.A.F. on this. In the future, in place of "search and destroy," substitute the phrase "sweep and clear." Got it?

JOKER: Got it. Very catchy.

-Full Metal Jacket

He Blogs

If blogging was a stock, I'd probably be thinking about going short; when Iran's president starts doing it, surely everyone's in the pool. But here it is, and the first post is worth reading (click the flag at the upper right for the translation). He ends with: "I will continue this topic later on as it took long in the beginning. From now onwards, I will try to make it shorter and simpler." Wars in Iraq and Lebanon? Feeling pressure from the U.S. because of your nuclear program? Try blogging, and complex problems suddenly appear simple in comparison.


Note: The site appears to be down as of Monday morning.

Credibility Chasm

As we've come to expect on the issue of terrorism (and a lot of other issues as well) there's spin and then there's reality. Immediately after the arrests in London last week, we got the high-volume spin. Then, predictably and quietly, we got reality. Which do you think will stick?

"Waiting For Yamamoto" Watch

A new and unfortunately necessary feature here at TCR. Yamamoto refers to Isoroku Yamamoto, the Japanese Navy commander who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor. With increasingly frequency, we're seeing references to events like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 appear, but not in the context one might think.

Last week, I noted the oft-quoted passage from the PNAC report a year before 9/11:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.

I also noted this recent snippet from Michael Ledeen:

What did you expect? They have Syran on their borders, and we have not demonstrated the capacity to win the war.

Perhaps that will change without yet another Pearl Harbor.

While of course no one wishes for a calamity on the scale of Pearl Harbor or 9/11, it's arguable that some may see a silver lining in the prospect of one. There's this pesky problem, you see, of the complacent masses who "don't get it." That's where catalysts come in. Here's Stanley Kurtz, apparently lamenting the absence of one:

So we are running out of good alternatives. Option one is to pretend that 9/11 was an isolated incident (or a hidden internal conspiracy), not the revelation of a new and serious long-term danger. Many anti-war types prefer option one. Option two is to acknowledge the danger of mass-scale terrorism using weapons of mass destruction, but rely on negotiations, economic incentives, “grand bargains,” etc. to solve the problem (the favorite Democratic solution). In the absence of a credible threat of force (and maybe even then, given the nature of our terrorist foe), I think option two is doomed. Option three is to deploy force to preempt one rogue state and frighten others, while depending on a rapidly-spreading wave of democratization to assure long-term change, and permit relatively rapid American military withdrawal. Option three is not working out as planned. Option four is an expanded American military and a combination of more attacks (eg. a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities) with an extended and enlarged occupation of Iraq, working real social transformation and democratization. In the absence of a major new terror strike on the U.S., or an Iran on or over the nuclear brink, option four is politically unsustainable.

So Kurtz considers "Option four," which entails a fashionable but warped interpretation of Schumpeter's "creative destruction," as potentially the most effective. But the lack of a 9/11-type catalyst makes it unfeasible politically, at least for now. Starting to see a pattern here?

An important complement to this is the "Somnolent Masses" meme. Here's a painful post from Kathryn Lopez:

If you take my view of World Trade Center , it's exactly the right movie for this week — a mall reminder that we're at war. Whether or not people want to be reminded is another story, of course. But the U.K. news makes it hard to forget, so might as well run with it...because we are (at war). (And that fact isn't George Bush's fault, it's the fault of the evildoers who want us dead.

More Lopez:

Tim Montgomerie from ConservativeHome.com notes in an e-mail to me this morning:

It is politically vital that the police have proof that this is a genuine plot. After recent episodes - not least the false arrest of people at Forest Gate - people have declining confidence in the intelligence used by the police and government.

If the intelligence is correct - and up to ten planes were targeted by terrorists (all destined for America) - it might wake a few Britons up the danger of the terrorist threat. Britons have already largely forgotten the 7/7 attacks and those attempted just two weeks afterwards.

I fear, however, that Britain is increasingly 'Spanish' in its reaction to these incidents. Within hours there'll be pundits blaming the invasion of Iraq and Blair's support for Israel for making Britain vulnerable to these attacks.

Start with cynicism, mix with desperation on Iraq and the midterm elections, add some illegitimate co-opting of Schumpeter, and throw in a bit of Rapturism. What you seem to get is the belief---never stated openly, of course, but just below the surface---that "another Pearl Harbor" would be as much an opportunity as a disaster. How else to wake up those who aren't sufficiently afraid?

They Carried Papers

Reuters:

Members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard have been found among Hizbollah guerrillas slain by Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, Israel's Channel 10 television reported on Wednesday citing diplomatic sources.

It said the Iranians were identified by documents found on their bodies, but gave no further details on how many were discovered or when. Neither the Israeli military nor Hizbollah representatives in Beirut had immediate comment on the report.

The marketing of Target Iran continues, anonymously.

The Sixty Percent Doctrine

White House spokesman Tony Snow today on the Connecticut primary:

I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the President; I would flip it. I think instead it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they're going to come after you.

CNN:

Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday.

And a majority of poll respondents said they would support the withdrawal of at least some U.S. troops by the end of the year, according to results from the Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last week on behalf of CNN. The corporation polled 1,047 adult Americans by telephone.

This goes beyond predictable, de rigueur political spin from the likes of a hapless Ken Mehlman. When this country's elected political leadership implictly labels 60% of the American public "extreme" for having a different opinion, it betrays its desperation and outs itself as little more than a bunch of contemptible, absolutist rogues.

I know "vigilance" has been the watchword in this space for awhile, but I suspect its importance will only increase over the coming weeks and months.

Speechless

Yeah, me too. And be sure to scroll down and read the takedown of the discredited, Dolchstoss-infused Hugh Hewitt. The self-immolation of the Titular Right continues apace.

Joe Says It's So....For Now

While watching Lieberman's concession speech a little while ago, I was struck by how "prepared" it was. I guess tonight wasn't exactly a surprise.

This is nothing short of a stunning success for Lamont and his supporters, who include many liberal bloggers. Say what you want about Kos, Atrios, Moveon.org, etc., but that's where the political energy is in this country right now. These people aren't sitting at home, remote-control in hand, bitching about things. They're out there working, organizing, pushing---and the incredible voter turnout on Tuesday night reflected that. It's refreshing and interesting to watch.

Since Lieberman's made it clear he will run as an independent, I hope they can sustain that energy until November. The unabashed support for Lieberman during the past few days by the usual suspects (Fox News, NRO, etc) indicates how much is at stake.

"Steaming"

Josh Marshall writes:

But there do appear to be forces in Washington -- seemingly the stronger ones, with Rice just a facade -- who see this whole thing as an opportunity for a grand call of double or nothing to get out of the disaster they've created in the region. Go into Syria, maybe Iran. Try to roll the table once and for all. No failed war that a new war can't solve. Condi's mindless 'birth pangs' remark wasn't just a gaffe -- or perhaps it was a gaffe in the Kinsleyan sense of inopportunely saying what you really think. That seems to be the thinking -- transformation through destabilization.

This is spot-on. It's also manifestly clear, because this administration and its supporters make no bones about it. But the dynamic behind it is fascinating. The economist Joseph Schumpeter is revered by many on the Right. An important part of Schumpeterian theory is what he called "creative destruction," which essentially posits that capitalism is an organic, evolutionary process by which innovation destroys stagnation and inefficiency. It's somewhat analogous to a forest fire that clears old or dead vegetation so new growth can replace it. I'm a Schumpeter fan. (Unfortunately---and this is the basis of my criticism of the Federal Reserve---there's no place for Schumpeter in the nanny state, where malinvestment is never cleansed and inefficient giants never die; they just get fresh infusions of liquidity from the printing press.)

Here's the problem: Schumpeter has been co-opted by some on the Right as intellectual scaffolding for a geopolitical agenda. It's not a coincidence that Larry Kudlow gleefully invokes Schumpeter and "creative destruction" one moment, then urges viewers to "have faith in Israel" the next. Kudlow's not alone. In his book The War Against The Terror Masters, Michael Ledeen writes:

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence -- our existence, not our politics -- threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

What would Schumpeter say to titular acolytes like Kudlow and Ledeen? My guess is he wouldn't be thrilled at the wedding of his economic theory to a geopolitical agenda. In chapter seven of his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Schumpeter writes (my bolds, his italics):

The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop and factory to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation -- if I may use that biological term -- that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism.

And what of attempts to impose creative destruction where it has not yet evolved naturally from within? Schumpeter is clear:

And this evolutionary character of the capitalist process is not merely due to the fact that economic life goes on in a social and natural environment which changes and by its change alters the data of economic action; this fact is important and these changes (wars, revolutions and so on) often condition industrial change, but they are not its prime movers.

Throughout history, of course, some have twisted narrow (and often obscure) economic, religious, racial, or genetic theories to fit unrelated larger agendas. The results are rarely pretty. But creative destruction sounds pretty good when your administration is trapped by a disastrous war in Iraq, a stagflationary economy, and exhausted fiscal and monetary policy (Middle East tension acts as a wonderful cover for the effect of irresponsible monetary policy on the price of oil). And all this, in the context of upcoming midterm elections in which control of Congress must be maintained at all costs. So creative destruction in Lebanon and ideally Syria and Iran is not only appealing, it's the only way out---particularly for an administration that manifestly hates doing the work that actual governing entails. And for the Raptured-up set, of course, creative destruction is the holy grail; shake things up, and it will all come out in the laundry---or in this case, on Judgment Day.

In Vegas, the pit bosses have a term for a player deep in the hole who starts increasing his bets dramatically in an attempt to get his money back: a "steamer." Desperate gamblers are dangerous, so steamers get extra scrutiny from the eye in the sky. It's "steaming" time for this White House. And the wife waiting anxiously at home, aware of her husband's compulsion and wondering how the mortgage or kids' tuition will get paid if he blows it all? That's us.

Cut Out That Roughhousing, Kids!

I missed this on the day it happened, but it's worth noting. Here's an exchange between Tony Snow and a reporter during the White House press briefing on July 24:

Q Since the President's visit to Baghdad, the one secret trip, since then, has the President been satisfied with the progress on the ground?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think -- I don't want to characterize satisfied or dissatisfied. It is clear that there is -- that there is work to do to secure Baghdad. And General Casey has made no secret of that, and other spokesmen in Baghdad have made no secret of that.

So now we're working with the government to say, okay, what can we do. What can we do to go ahead and get into those neighborhoods, deal with sectarian violence, but also deal with the fact that in some cases, there really is just gangs of rowdies?

Tony, please be specific. Are we talking Gangs of New York, or West Side Story? Or maybe Colors?

Gives you the warm and fuzzies about our "Strategy For Victory," doesn't it?

Seeing Joe Go

Having previously lived in Connecticut for several years, I have a few quick thoughts about Joe Lieberman's apparently imminent defeat. First, his current nadir is striking when one considers that, not too long ago, many speculated that a reversal of the ticket in the 2000 campaign (Lieberman for president, Gore for vice-president) would have been more attractive. (And as an added measure of how dramatically political fortunes can change, many said the same about the Bush-Cheney ticket that year. Ponder that one....)

As a referendum on Iraq, a Lieberman defeat will be unambiguous---a clear message that a welcome period of accountability has started. Eventually, some of the architects of the war and its related policies may have to do time in the pokey; in the meantime, the "get along, go along" enablers and "stay the course" apologists need to be punished and tossed from office. While obviously this benefits the Democrats for now, Lieberman's troubles carry a deeper anti-incumbency message that makes establishment Washington very nervous. That's apparent in the number of both Democrats and Republicans backing Lieberman. When you see the usual suspects on the Right slam Lamont, you know the right people are starting to sweat.

Beyond that, while Lieberman may end up running as an independent, a Lamont win here would be a stunning success for the grassroots bloggers on the Left who've supported him. I'm not sure how much of that support accounts for Lamont's surge, but my sense is that it's significant. To the extent that too makes the right people---both Democrats and Republicans---start to sweat, that's a good thing.

Pouring Gas On The Fire

Nothing new in this report, of course, but a timely reminder of why we must do everything possible to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Can you imagine the current situation with a nuke-wielding Iran in the equation? Israel armed to the teeth with nukes is bad enough; it's an impediment to our efforts via-a-vis Iran and a destabilizing factor in the region. But our efforts on Iran must be methodical, honest, and in concert with the international community. Since I haven't had to post a PIA Alert recently (you didn't think I hadn't been maintaining vigil, did you?) it appears we're doing it the right way, at least for now. But we know that in this administration, duplicity never sleeps---it just takes breaks to clear brush and go bird hunting. Vigilance....

Accountability Watch....

It's time to revisit a few choice tidbits from the February 2006 report to Congress on Iraq, as submitted by the Secretary of Defense:

1. "Terrorist attacks have failed to create and spread sectarian conflict." (page 3)

2. "Increasingly robust Iraqi political institutions will provide peaceful means for reconciliation and bridging divides." (page 9)

3. Insurgents have "failed to deter development of the Iraq Security forces" and "failed to damage Iraqi public trust in the Iraq security forces." (page 23)

4. "The overarching term 'insurgency' is less of a useful construct today" because "previous synergy among enemy groups is breaking apart." (page 24)

The above wasn't written in 2003, 2004, or even "last throes" mid-2005. It was written six months ago.

Traditionally, conservatives have favored private sector solutions to public sector problems. In the private sector---at least the accountability-based one I inhabit---anyone associated with a report so myopic (and so manifestly wrong, so soon) would find himself standing in Times Square with a tin cup in his hand and a parrot on his shoulder. The blood and treasure of nations is far more important than the mundane financial world, so the consequences should be at least as serious, yes? Anyone who endorsed that report should be out of a job by now. Donald Rumsfeld submitted it to Congress (and who do you think might have penned the words "the overarching term 'insurgency' is less of a useful construct today"?). I'm not a chronic Rumsfeld basher. But if we still have any interest in pretending to care about accountability as well as averting further disaster, it's long past time for him to go, isn't it?

A New "New Pearl Harbor"

More, ominously, from Ledeen:

What did you expect? They have Syran on their borders, and we have not demonstrated the capacity to win the war.

Perhaps that will change without yet another Pearl Harbor.

"Syran" is Michael's new term for the countries formerly known as Syria and Iran---united in evil against us, and thus deserving now of only one name. (Unfetters the mind and clarifies things nicely!)

The reference to "yet another Pearl Harbor," of course, recalls this well-worn snippet from the PNAC report in 2000 titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses":

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.

Is it just me, or have we reached the point at which calamities like "new Pearl Harbors"---instead of dreaded---are awaited by a Raptured-up few as wake-up calls for the somnolent masses who "just don't get it"?

Dolchstoss

Meanwhile, a collection of frauds, writing in places like Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Mother Jones, continuously recycles a story saying that a neocon (code for “Jewish”) conspiracy duped Bush into going to war in Iraq, and is now arranging the invasion of Iran. Documented lies, like those peddled by Joe Wilson to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, are treated as reliable. Fantasies about American armed forces operating covertly in Iran, like those written by Seymour Hirsh, get taken seriously. And people like me are accused of masterminding the whole thing, even though I oppose a military campaign against Iran.

No one can doubt that this is a willful disinformation campaign, aimed at paralyzing and then destroying the president.

Michael Ledeen, NRO 7/31/06


Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force. That is why, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism. Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase the number of internal enemies.

Kevin Baker, Harper's 7/14/06

Opportunity's Hard Knocks

If there's anyone left who doesn't understand that this White House not only welcomes the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel but wants it to continue (and indeed, expand), more from President Bush's weekend radio address:

"This moment of conflict in the Middle East is painful and tragic. Yet it is also a moment of opportunity for broader change in the region."

Via WaPo, Richard Haass responds:

"An opportunity?" Haass said with an incredulous tone. "Lord, spare me. I don't laugh a lot. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. If this is an opportunity, what's Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?"

Sticking To The Script

The word count from President Bush's weekend radio address, which focused on Lebanon:

"Terror" and its variations: 12
"September 11th": 2

A snippet:

"So we have launched a forward strategy for freedom in the broader Middle East, and that strategy has set in motion a transformation that is changing millions of lives for the better. From Kabul to Baghdad, to Beirut, and beyond, we've seen the birth of democratic governments that are striving to serve their people, reject terror, and work for peace. We're also seeing those who oppose democracy fighting its progress with all the destructive power they can muster. We see this in Hezbollah's attacks on Israel, in the suicide bombings that kill innocent Iraqis, and in al Qaeda's campaign of terror across the world."

After asking yourself how many of those in Baghdad (and right now, Beirut) would describe their lives as having "changed for the better," check out Roger Cohen's dissection of The Great Evildoer Conflation (tip TBD):

With little subtlety and great predictability, the administration has gone through its familiar post-9/11 paces: Hezbollah equals terrorism, terrorism must be crushed, ruthlessness is the only way forward, and damn the consequences.

This position has allowed Israel to do its own post-9/11 thing. "Everyone understands that a victory for Hezbollah is a victory for world terror," said Haim Ramon, the Israeli justice minister.

Not so: A victory for Hezbollah is a victory for Hezbollah, which is not Al Qaeda, which is not the Palestinian national movement, which is not the Iraqi insurgency, which is not homegrown European Muslim suicide bombers.

Trying to turn the problems of the world into a single undifferentiated issue - the war on Islamic terror - does nobody any good.

Witness the current mayhem, a reflection of a terrible American failure to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in any serious way over the past five years.

Problems must be fixed one at a time, which requires the curiosity to understand them, and to come up with particular solutions.

If I had to choose one phrase to describe this president, it might be "profoundly uncurious." We simply must do better in 2008---without concern for political party, if necessary.

Right On Schedule....

It's uncanny. This week it occurred to me that with desperation increasing because of Iraq and Lebanon and the midterms fast approaching, it was getting to be about time for some "found WMD's." One of the usual suspects kindly and breathlessly obliged. In case there was any doubt, note the helpful title of the "memo"---and hey, in boldface!

Since the gullible legions are now this large, it seems this recurrent shamelessness---collectively and over time---is effective.

More "discoveries" coming in the months ahead, I would think.

"Significant Troop Withdrawals Soon" Version #19,491

Err, not.

By the way, I know this is a moot question with the "As they stand up" mantra now discredited, but does anyone know the current status of Iraqi troop readiness? Remember the "Level 1, Level 2, Level 3" debate? Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it? The last I read, the number of Iraqi battalions capable of fighting without U.S. support had dropped from one (a grand total of about 800 troops) to none. Shortly thereafter---surprise---the Pentagon decided to classify further status reports. I guess that answers my question, eh?

We Get Mail

From the inbox:

I've been a reader of yours for about a year. I find your writing clear and honest (especially your economic analysis, more of that please). However I thought your comments about Israel's accidental bombing of the U.N. post were out of character. The bombing was clearly a mistake, and your implication that it was otherwise or somehow fit a pattern is something I would expect to find on a rabidly anti-Semitic forum. Not what I expect to read from you, hence this email. Please say it's not so.

It's not so. The post to which the reader refers did three things: 1) Note the language used by Kofi Annan, which was extraordinary for a Secretary-General of the United Nations, 2) Observe that the timing of the bombing was an interesting coincidence, given the increasingly active role the U.N. had been playing in the previous few hours and days, and 3) Put the incident into possible historical context, given a similar one in the past that I (and others in a far better position to know---see names and quotes here) believe strongly was not a mistake.

Supporters of Israel need to understand that reflexive insinuations of anti-Semitism do nothing to help their cause. I've dated Jewish women and been married to one, with whom I celebrated many Passovers and read from the Haggadah. I've invested in Israeli companies; one such investment was among my most profitable ever. I've long been a supporter of Israel's right to defend itself. But that support, once open-ended, has ebbed in recent years. I think Israel has far too much influence over our foreign policy, often to our detriment---abundantly clear right now vis-a-vis Lebanon. There's not only influence, there's access. I watch Israel repeatedly penetrate the most sensitive areas of our government; earlier this year, a senior Pentagon intelligence analyst received a lengthy jail term for passing confidential information to AIPAC, and Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard remains in jail---with his legal fees for the past twenty years paid by Israel. Fox News, of all outfits, did a provocative multipart report on this subject; while Fox has since removed the report from its website, it's still viewable here and I recommend watching it. Moreover, after 9/11 we learned of a group of five Israelis who danced and celebrated (and were subsequently arrested and jailed for months while the U.S. investigated their ties to Israeli intelligence) while filming the WTC from across the Hudson River as people I knew burned alive or jumped to their deaths. I listened to Benjamin Netanyahu---asked on 9/11 what the attacks meant for the relationship between the U.S. and Israel---gush "It's very good." (Call me crazy, but I've learned to be wary of any relationship in which the other party benefits from my troubles.) We're bogged down in a disastrous war undertaken at least in part to benefit Israel, with another possibly on the horizon. And of course I spend part of every workday supporting all this; inexplicably, Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. aid after Iraq.

In light of the above, excuse me if sometimes I wonder how the U.S. benefits from a supposedly reciprocal relationship with this putative ally.



Note: A few readers asked for more information about the "celebrating Israelis" I mentioned. In addition to this feature in The Sunday Herald and this report in the Jewish-American weekly Forward, the NYT report on it is here.

Acknowledging The Nightmare....

David Frum writes:

In some horrible rerun of Vietnam, the US has let the enemy establish safe havens just on the other side of the line, from which it draws supplies and reinforcements with impunity. It's like some baby boomer nightmare: after decades of swearing that we would never repeat the mistakes of our parents, we are re-enacting the errors committed in Indochina in the 1960s and 1970s, every single one.

It gives me no joy to note that this post from over a year ago alerted readers of this space to the dangerous Vietnam-redux realities the apologists must now admit. While their belated awakening is welcome, their shameful record will outlast them. How many lives could have been saved on both sides if intellectual honesty and common sense had prevailed over political exigencies and blind faith?

"Apparently Deliberate Targeting"

AP:

An Israeli bomb destroyed a U.N. observer post on the border in southern Lebanon, killing two peacekeepers and leaving two others feared dead in what appeared to be a deliberate strike, U.N. chief Kofi Annan said.

The bomb made a direct hit on the building and shelter of the observer post in the town of Khiyam near the eastern end of the border with Israel, said Milos Struger, spokesman for the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon known as UNIFIL.

Rescue workers were trying to clear the rubble, but Israeli firing "continued even during the rescue operation," Struger said.

"I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a U.N. Observer post in southern Lebanon," Annan said in the statement.

Annan said in his statement that the post had been there for a long time and was marked clearly, and was hit despite assurances from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would not be attacked.

"I call on the government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident and demand that any further attack on U.N. positions and personnel must stop," Annan said in the statement.

So let me get this straight. Just as the U.N. gets increasingly vocal about the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon and debate starts about inserting a multinational peacekeeping force, Israel accidentally destroys a U.N. observation post?

Undoubtedly, this will spur talk of "mistakes" Israel has made in the past when observers were present during a conflict. For those who still believe what happened to the USS Liberty was an accident, read the chapter on it in James Bamford's Body of Secrets for starters.

Let's see what other details we get in the next few days.



Update: Yes, Debka is what it is, but here's its report on the incident:

The holier-than-thou tone of outrage taken by Annan is surprising when it generally known that many UN missions are exploited as the cover for foreign agents, often hostile, to carry out spying operations in war zones. The inadvertent Israeli air strike revealed the fact that the UN force in Lebanon includes Chinese observers. One was killed along with an Austrian, a Canadian and a Finn. The presence of Chinese observers keeping an eye on the combat in South Lebanon has never before been reported.

Our intelligence experts compare the incident to the inadvertent US bombardment which wrecked the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1998 (picture), killing a number of Chinese “diplomats.” It was discovered that from that building the Chinese had operated sophisticated surveillance to track the performance of American warplanes, missiles and smart bombs.

More from Reuters:

An Irish army officer in south Lebanon warned Israel six times that air strikes threatened the lives of U.N. observers there before four staff were killed in a direct hit, Ireland's Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday.

"On six separate occasions he was in contact with the Israelis to warn them that their bombardment was endangering the lives of U.N. staff in South Lebanon," a Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman said.

"He warned: 'You have to address this problem or lives may be lost'," the spokesman said of comments by Lieutenant Colonel John Molloy, the chief liaison officer between U.N. forces in South Lebanon and the Israelis.

The remarks came after Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern summoned Israel's ambassador to his office to "protest at the strongest possible level". Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Ahern cast doubt on assurances the deaths had been an accident.

"Evidence that we have would suggest that this was either an incredible accident or else was in some way directly targeted," Ahern told reporters following the meeting.

A Matter Of Faith

Yesterday, the increasingly shrill Larry Kudlow closed his TV show with the exhortation, "Have faith in Israel." I'm sure the Israelis thank Larry for his faith, since it's hardly universal among themselves. Read about that here, and here.

Defeatists and appeasers, Larry? Or do they merely need a bit of bucking up?

Changing The Channel

Either this headline indicates that this space has a reader at CNN, or the boredom of the remote-control warriors I posted about here is becoming painfully obvious. Whichever the case, we've reached the point at which the word "forgotten" is popping up in public discourse to describe Iraq. Incredible, isn't it? By the way, what does that make Afghanistan?

When Bill Clinton was first elected, there was a lot of commentary about how the baby boomer generation finally had one of its own in the Oval Office. That generation---the planners, the enablers, and yes the "faster, please" opiners---now has its first major war on its résumé. To the extent there's a gap between the immutable realities of war and the remote-control generation's short attention span and desire for immediate gratification, what are the implications for U.S. foreign policy and military strategy in the future?

Made In America

From a report by Stratfor on July 21 (subscription required, link here):

Hezbollah has implemented its strategy by turning southern Lebanon into a military stronghold, consisting of well-designed bunkers that serve both as fire bases and launch facilities for rockets. The militants appear to be armed with anti-tank weapons and probably anti-aircraft weapons, some of which appear to be of American origin, raising the question of how they were acquired.

A dose of perspective to go with all the recent braying about "Iranian weapons pouring into Lebanon by the truckload"---and, along with this report, a reminder that for some war is a very good business.

Getting Their Stories Straight

Although some conservatives have been fretting that Lebanese rocket fire and Israeli warplanes are making President Bush look helpless, administration officials revealed to TIME today that they have plans to harness the chaos as a "leadership moment" for Bush that could wind up helping his flagging goal of transforming the Middle East.

These officials said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will leave Sunday night for a week of diplomacy in the region and will go with the modest goal of forming an "umbrella of Arab allies" in opposition to the militant group Hizballah that incited the conflagration by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers.

"She's not going to come home with a ceasefire, but stronger ties to the Arab world," an administration official said. "It's going to allow us to say that America isn't going to put up with this and we have Arab friends that are against you terrorists. What we want is our Arab allies standing against Hizballah and against Iran, since there is no one who doesn't think Iran is behind this."

Time 7/21/06


"See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over."

President Bush 7/17/06

Consequences

They are increasingly hard to hide. One truism of the global financial markets is that there's no free lunch. Rates are not rising because "the economy's strong" (seen the stock market recently?). They are rising because foreign central banks are refusing to underwrite us on favorable terms, and because of the situation in Iraq we've lost the leverage we once had to change that.

Consequences are particularly unwelcome in Washington during election years. That has important geopolitical implications, which I'll try to post about in the next few days.

The Forgotten War

No, not that one. This one. If not quite "forgotten," then perhaps the "Back-Burner War" is more appropriate. Anyone besides me get the feeling that the architects, enablers, and apologists are getting a bit bored with all the "hard work" required in Iraq? Yes, it's good to see these party faithful beginning to speak out publicly (if they were dubbed "traitors" or "appeasers" today by the usual suspects, I must have missed it), but if that boredom and weariness is replaced by another excellent adventure we'll have an exponentially larger problem on our hands. Yet that seems to be the dynamic behind the exhortations from the Kristols, Krauthammers, Ledeens, etc. These days the "faster, please" bon mot reminds me of a seventeen year-old steroid-addled adolescent, at home on a Saturday night without a date, furiously pounding on a game-console handset in search of the next bad guy who never appears on the screen fast enough. Will our own Nintendo Warriors have the run of the house all night, or will the adults come home early and shut the game off?

Unsheathing The Dagger

Courtesy of a reader's email, here's a piece in Harper's that's worth a read. The writer, Kevin Baker, posits that since World War II the Right has engineered a series of foreign policy disasters for which it has blamed domestic "enemies." It feels a bit like data mining to fit what's undeniably current reality vis-a-vis Iraq, but Baker makes some good points. One quibble: he goes into detail about how the Nazis propagated the idea of the dolchstoss---"dagger thrust" from within---to explain Germany's defeat in World War I. He should have gone a bit further and pointed out that Hitler and his aides were obsessed with dolchstoss until the very end; in the bunker, Goebbels wrote in his diary about "the delirium of treachery which surrounds the Fuhrer," and various accounts show that in his final days Hitler railed against the "cowardice" of Germans and thought the destruction of Berlin was appropriate because of its citizens' supposed moral weakness.

Also, Baker stretches the Vietnam example a bit too far, glossing over the fact that the war began under a Democrat, escalated under another Democrat, and was ended by a Republican. Moreover, the Right was far from united in support of the war; in August 1965, a young congressman from Illinois named Donald Rumsfeld said the following as he entered a New York Times editorial into the Congressional Record:

I believe the following significant and timely editorial which appeared in today’s issue of the New York Times and which discusses our involvement in Vietnam merits wide attention. I concur in the conclusion expressed therein that the people of the United States must know not only how their country became involved but where we are heading.

Yes, Nixon was obsessed with antiwar protestors, Communists, and "bums," but less out of a desire for a Vietnam scapegoat (after all, ending the war was an implicit part of his 1968 campaign platform) than as a result of the same fatal personality flaws that led to Watergate. Yes, Cronkite's 1968 "stalemate" comment caused a huge stir, but if the Right tried to pin the failure of Vietnam on the press, it didn't stick---at least then. The 1970's were halcyon days for the press; after Woodward and Bernstein, top college graduates wanted to be journalists instead of investment bankers. The scapegoating of the press for Vietnam gained traction only in the Reagan years, as the Right sought to exorcise the war's demons and concurrently embark on massive military spending, while reassuring an American public still skittish about Vietnam that the war was only lost because the media forced us to "cut and run." Obviously, the "media and Left as dagger-wielder" meme has snowballed since then, and now is a chief article of faith among the hysterical set on talk radio, television, and the internet. Baker does a good job in exploring the dynamic of the current dagger---now sharpened, unsheathed, and poised.

Unimpeachable Sources, Rigorous Standards

It would be pointless to spend a lot of time dissecting the agenda-driven media hysteria surrounding events in the Middle East, so I won't. But on my way to breakfast today, I saw The New York Sun's screaming above-the-fold headline, "Hundreds of Iranian Troops Fighting in Lebanon." The details (my bolds):

Hundreds of Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel are on the ground in Lebanon fighting Israel, security sources say.

"I have no doubt whatsoever that they are there and operating some of the equipment," an Arab diplomatic source told The New York Sun yesterday.

Another foreign source, based in Washington, said the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps contingent in Lebanon is based in Beirut and in the Bekaa Valley. He said the troops usually number a few dozen, but that the size of the force increased in connection with the hostilities that have broken out between Israel and Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, over the past week.

So for the paper's leading story today---and an obviously important one, if true---we have three anonymous sources. The "Arab diplomatic source" sounds like an unimpeachable heavy, eh? Perhaps from the UAE, Qatar, or Bahrain? Or maybe Iraq? From "another foreign source"---the Israelis?--we get further confirmation. And with a tip from "security sources"---a NYC beat cop? Bernie Kerik?--clearly it's an open-and-shut case. On to Tehran!

"Russia's Big, And So Is China"

AP:

It wasn't meant to be overheard. Private luncheon conversations among world leaders, picked up by a microphone, provided a rare window into both banter and substance -- including President Bush cursing Hezbollah's attacks against Israel.

Bush expressed his frustration with the United Nations and his disgust with the militant Islamic group and its backers in Syria as he talked to British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit.

"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over," Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.

Blair, whose remarks were not as clearly heard, appeared to be pressing Bush about the importance of getting international peacekeepers into the region.

Bush expresses amazement that it will take some leaders as many as eight hours to fly home -- about the same time it will take Air Force One with Bush aboard to return to Washington.

"You eight hours? Me, too. Russia's a big country and you're a big country," Bush said, at one point telling a waiter he wanted Diet Coke. "Takes him eight hours to fly home. Russia's big and so is China. Yeah Blair, what're you doing? Are you leaving."

Bush also remarked that some speakers at the meeting talk too long.

The president's feeling his cartographer oats during a relatively calm geopolitical period, eh? If next we hear him exclaim "Iran's bigger than Iraq!" we'll know things are looking up.

Socked In At Foggy Bottom?

MSNBC:

Joanne Nucho thought she would be spending her summer in a safe Western-style city when she headed off to Beirut, Lebanon, to study Arabic as part of her doctoral program at UCLA. The city is hip and urban, with many comforts of home — there's even a McDonald's across the street from her school, American University in Beirut, and several Starbucks stores nearby.

But suddenly she finds herself huddled in a college dormitory with 40 other Americans, trapped in the middle of an undeclared war and fearing for her life.

"I've never been this scared in my life," she told MSNBC.com by phone Friday afternoon (the middle of the night in Beirut). "... Two hours ago I was curled up in a corner crying. The sound of the bombs are shaking me to the bones. My whole body is in trauma. ... As an American you never experience things like this. You see it on TV, but it's nothing like this."

Nucho, 27, is one of several hundred U.S. residents studying abroad this summer at the American University in Beirut, a school accredited in New York state that has about 7,000 students, most of them from Middle Eastern countries.

Nucho is one of about 40 students in the summer Arabic language program, many of whom have been huddled in a university dormitory since fighting between Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerrillas broke out Wednesday.

Reached via cell phone about 3 p.m. ET, Nucho said that before heading to the lower floors of the dormitory, she spied a battery of warships just off the coast in the Mediterranean Sea. All night, rockets from the ship soared over the school, she said.

"The ships are all about a few hundred meters from my balcony," she said. As rockets fly overhead, "The sound is awful."

The group is holed up in a low floor on the dormitory, one that is "not a proper shelter," she said. She has access to clean water and some food she bought at a local store during the day, but not much. There are no school officials nearby, so the students are running the shelter operations by themselves.

"It's literally being run by 19-year-olds," she said. "We don't know what to do."

"I just want to go home," she added.

Prospects of that aren't good right now. Beirut airport, about 10 miles south of the school, is closed, bombed earlier this week by Israeli warplanes.

"There aren't any ... reliable ways to get out by air, land or sea," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday. U.S. citizens are being told to "assess what is best for their own personal security."

Nucho said so far she has heard nothing from officials at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, which is about 20 miles from her dorm.

For those interested in hearing Nucho's fear as she's caught in the middle of an escalating conflict, the link is here; scroll down to the middle of the page.

Her account is not unique. Here's part of an email Glenn Reynolds received from a reader:

The U.S. embassy has been anything but helpful these last few days. When I finally got through to a human being last night he told me the embassy was closed, to try back tomorrow, and made me feel that I was crazy for even asking about an evacuation plan. Needless to say I spent the night terrified listening to fighter jets and bombs and awoke to an endless busy signal whenever I call their number. This is a common experience among all other Americans I've run into here.

I'm no expert on the State Department, so I defer to others like this blogger, who is a particularly valuable read at times like this...but just what the hell is going on here? American citizens are caught in a combat zone, embassy phones aren't being picked up, and a State Department spokesman in tranquil Washington is giving breezy advice about how American citizens should fend for themselves. Is State suffering from Katrina Syndrome or the effects of a Treasury-redux gutting? The latest example of our resources stretched too thin because of Iraq? Or are we so determined to give Israel carte blanche that the safety of our own citizens has become irrelevant, while Israeli citizens are able to seek safety in bomb shelters?

I know this blog has readers at State and in the foreign service, and emails with any insight into this will be kept confidential.

Profoundly Unserious....

In the context of what's going on in the world, the continuing self-immolation of the Titular Right is completely insignificant, of course. But today I sauntered over to NRO, expecting to find the stable debating the day's issues. The following weighty analysis from K-Lo was the first thing I saw:

While swinging by the House yesterday for a Susan B. Anthony List event, I ran into the beginning of a Cindy Sheehan one. I missed Cindy, because I had to run across town, but I did run into Cynthia McKinney. I'm no fashion plate, so I shouldn't talk, but Cynthia was wearing a black velvet outfit standing on a terrace in the miserable D.C. heat. Black velvet. An eskimo sweats to think about it.

She said it, not me: she's no fashion plate.

It reminds me of Jonah Goldberg---a graduate of Goucher College, for many years known as a women's finishing school (I dated a Goucher woman when Jonah was a young freshman there)---taking a backhanded swipe at Tulane's academic reputation during the height of Hurricane Katrina.

Not your father's conservatives.

"Why Don't The Americans Just Go Home?"

An Iraqi blogger writes (HT Andrew S):

Rape. The latest of American atrocities. Though it's not really the latest- it's just the one that's being publicized the most. The poor girl Abeer was neither the first to be raped by American troops, nor will she be the last. The only reason this rape was brought to light and publicized is that her whole immediate family were killed along with her. Rape is a taboo subject in Iraq. Families don't report rapes here, they avenge them. We've been hearing whisperings about rapes in American-controlled prisons and during sieges of towns like Haditha and Samarra for the last three years. The naiveté of Americans who can't believe their 'heroes' are committing such atrocities is ridiculous. Who ever heard of an occupying army committing rape??? You raped the country, why not the people?

In the news they're estimating her age to be around 24, but Iraqis from the area say she was only 14. Fourteen. Imagine your 14-year-old sister or your 14-year-old daughter. Imagine her being gang-raped by a group of psychopaths and then the girl was killed and her body burned to cover up the rape. Finally, her parents and her five-year-old sister were also killed. Hail the American heroes... Raise your heads high supporters of the 'liberation' - your troops have made you proud today. I don't believe the troops should be tried in American courts. I believe they should be handed over to the people in the area and only then will justice be properly served. And our ass of a PM, Nouri Al-Maliki, is requesting an 'independent investigation', ensconced safely in his American guarded compound because it wasn't his daughter or sister who was raped, probably tortured and killed. His family is abroad safe from the hands of furious Iraqis and psychotic American troops.

It fills me with rage to hear about it and read about it. The pity I once had for foreign troops in Iraq is gone. It's been eradicated by the atrocities in Abu Ghraib, the deaths in Haditha and the latest news of rapes and killings. I look at them in their armored vehicles and to be honest- I can't bring myself to care whether they are 19 or 39. I can't bring myself to care if they make it back home alive. I can't bring myself to care anymore about the wife or parents or children they left behind. I can't bring myself to care because it's difficult to see beyond the horrors. I look at them and wonder just how many innocents they killed and how many more they'll kill before they go home. How many more young Iraqi girls will they rape?

Why don't the Americans just go home?

Read the rest here. I've posted before about the importance of empathy: putting ourselves in the place of Iraqis, and asking how we might react to the same situation in New York or LA or Chicago. Empathy is not just feel-good whimsy. An important part of what we define broadly as "progress" is the nexus between empathy and technology, and how it encourages people to think beyond their immediate families, towns, and national borders. It's a powerful dynamic that helps promote capitalism, free trade, and democracy. Worth thinking about, as our best companies struggle against foreign competition and our stock market goes nowhere year after year. While we know that this White House and its apologists don't do empathy---after all, "stuff happens"---I'm not sure how capable of it we are as a nation anymore. Too busy pondering the meaning of Britney Spears and planning trips to Vegas, methinks....

Lowered Standards, And The Consequences

AFP:

US authorities detained a male airline passenger who repeatedly tried to break into the cockpit during a flight to Florida before being restrained by passengers, an airport spokeswoman told AFP.

The flight departed La Guardia Airport and was on its landing approach shortly after 11:00 pm when a man refused a flight attendant's order to sit down, became agitated and ran toward the cockpit, where he tried twice to knock down the door, she said.

"Fifteen minutes before landing, the flight attendant wanted him to sit down and he wouldn't. He was uncooperative," the spokeswoman said.

"He started evidently running towards the front of the aircraft and started to run at full speed toward the cockpit door, which was secured, and he fell down and rammed the door again."

The airport spokeswoman said three passengers became concerned about his behavior and "wound up subduing him and holding him."

Police identified the man as Nefpali Alexander Liemenbez, 24.

The airport spokeswoman said Liemenbez was a Hispanic US soldier with a mental problem whose active duty was to end next Tuesday.

AP:

A former Army private accused of raping an Iraqi woman and killing her and three family members was a high-school dropout from a broken home who enlisted to get some direction in his life, yet was sent home early because of an "anti-social personality disorder."

Steven D. Green could get the death penalty if convicted in the horrific crime that has strained the U.S. military's already troubled relations with the Iraqi people and sent shockwaves around the world.

He was given a discharge on May 16 for what military officials in Iraq told The Associated Press was an "anti-social personality disorder." The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

Under Army regulations, a soldier can be discharged only if a personality disorder "is so severe that the soldier's ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired." The diagnosis must be made by a psychiatrist or doctoral-level clinical psychologist who is authorized to conduct mental health evaluations for the military.

Here's a good piece of reporting---slammed as "anti-troop" by the some on the Apologist Right when it first appeared---that explains what's going on here. As the war continues in the years ahead, we should expect many more reports like those above---both here and in Iraq. I suspect Iraqi civilians, unfortunately, will bear a disproportionate share of the consequences.

Time-Tested

Zal Khalilzad, in a speech on Tuesday:

A year ago, terrorism and the insurgency against the Coalition and the Iraqi security forces were the principal sources of instability. Violent sectarianism is now the main challenge. It is imperative for the new Iraqi government to make major progress in dealing with this challenge in the next six months.

What is it about "six months" that's made it a go-to catchall on Iraq? Is it an amount of time (a year might seem too long, after all!) that some Beltway focus group test has determined the American public will swallow year after year? If that's the goal, why not put it in more understandable terms for our pop-culture society? Instead of "six months" how about something like "we expect the Iraqi government to curb sectarianism before the Super Bowl." Or, "the time between now and the new season of Paris Hilton's show will be the most important for U.S. foreign policy in a long time." Take it away, Tom Friedman.

Or would such stark, easily understood time frames force the Nascar set to realize how little progress we're actually making?

Low times....

Foxian Slip

Tonight, during my once-every-few-months check of Fox News (anyone you know still watching this outfit regularly?) Alan Colmes asked Oliver North, "Should there be some kind of agreement to trade captured Arab prisoners for our Israeli soldiers?"

Ollie didn't miss a beat.

Discovering Your Inner Constitutionalist

LA Times:

A Los Angeles filmmaker who was imprisoned in Iraq for 55 days sued Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military officials Friday, alleging that his detention violated his civil rights, the law of nations and the Geneva Convention.

Cyrus Kar, 45, of Los Feliz was freed a year ago, just days after the American Civil Liberties Union sued seeking his release. The new lawsuit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, seeks damages for Kar and broad changes in the government's detention policies.

On May 17, 2005, the taxi he was riding in was stopped at a Baghdad checkpoint and authorities found components in the trunk that are commonly used in improvised explosive devices. The taxi driver told military authorities that Kar and his cameraman knew nothing about the items, which the driver said he was bringing to his brother-in-law.

Kar also submitted to a polygraph examination and allowed the FBI to search his apartment. They found nothing incriminating, but he was held for many more weeks in various prisons around Iraq, including the notorious facility at Abu Ghraib.

Even after he was cleared by a military court at Camp Cropper, Kar was held another week. Eventually, the camp commandant gave him a letter stating that military judges found him to be an "innocent civilian" under the Geneva Convention.

While in confinement, the suit states, Kar was at various times hooded, restrained "in painful flexi-cuffs" and "repeatedly threatened, taunted and insulted" by U.S. soldiers.

At one point, according to the suit, a U.S. soldier slammed Kar's head into a concrete wall at Abu Ghraib.

"Mr. Kar was and remains traumatized by his indefinite and virtually incommunicado detention, in solitary confinement, by the U.S. military without charge," the suit says.

What happened to him in Iraq was "a life-altering experience," Kar said. "I am not a left-wing liberal. I agree with many of George Bush's policies."

But, he added, "I don't think the Constitution has to be gutted to achieve our objectives" in the war on terrorism. "I felt it was my duty as an American to take a stand for the constitutional rights guaranteed to all Americans."

Remember the old law-and-order saw about how "a conservative is a liberal who got mugged"? How about this: A liberal is a conservative who got thrown in jail without charge. An update to reflect the times....

What Are You Listening To Right Now?

Me: "Lebanese Blonde" by Thievery Corporation. The five before that: "Indian Summer" by Chris Botti, "Seasons" by The Bobby Hughes Experience, "Memphis Underground" by Herbie Mann, "Get Up And Get Down" by The Dramatics, "Walk On By" by Isaac Hayes.

You?

What He Said....

The major obstacle to a sensible foreign policy is the fiction about what patriotism means. Today patriotism has come to mean blind support for the government and its policies. In earlier times patriotism meant having the willingness and courage to challenge government policies regardless of popular perceptions. Today we constantly hear innuendos and direct insults aimed at those who dare to challenge current foreign policy, no matter how flawed that policy may be. I would suggest it takes more courage to admit the truth, to admit mistakes, than to attack others as unpatriotic for disagreeing with the war in Iraq.

Can we clone him? Read the rest here.

The One-Percenters

President Bush, responding to a question on North Korea during his press conference on Friday: "The problem with diplomacy, it takes a while to get something done. If you're acting alone, you can move quickly."

Any questions?

As "Marginalized" As Ever....

AP:

The terrorist plot, in the words of one FBI official, involved "martyrdom and explosives": suicide bombers who would attack train tunnels used by tens of thousands of commuters in an effort to bring death and flooding to lower Manhattan.

Eight suspects had hoped to pull off the attack in October or November, federal officials said. But federal investigators working with their counterparts in six other countries intervened before the suspects could travel to the United States and become a more serious threat, officials said Friday.

Initial reports said the suspects — including an al-Qaida loyalist arrested in Lebanon and two others in custody elsewhere — wanted to attack the Holland Tunnel, a major thoroughfare that carries cars beneath the Hudson River and into Manhattan.

But officials said the group, with five suspects still at large, had specifically mentioned only the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation train tunnels, which carry more than 215,000 passengers each weekday between New York and New Jersey.

"This is a plot that involved martyrdom and explosives," said FBI Assistant Director Mark J. Mershon.

Officials cited the arrest of the Lebanese suspect — described as the scheme's mastermind — as a significant break in the investigation. A Lebanese official said the Beirut man confessed to plotting to attack the tunnels later this year, and that he was acting on Osama bin Laden's orders.

Even if the suspect didn't receive specific orders from bin Laden, it's crystal-clear that bin Laden's ability to evade capture and taunt the U.S. is an inspiration to others. Exactly what will it take to make his capture or killing a priority?

"Only"

AP today:

Three American soldiers were killed Saturday in fighting in the western province of Anbar, the U.S. military said. They were the first U.S. fatalities reported in Iraq in four days and only the eighth so far this month.

A U.S. statement said the three were assigned to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and died due to "enemy action" in the predominantly Sunni Arab province. No further details were released.

Today is July 8th. We've lost eight troops so far this month. A new standard for progress?

A Shallow, Completely Frivolous Anecdotal Report

This week I learned that a family member---a (former, apparently) foaming at the mouth Clinton-hating, Limbaugh-loving dittohead---said that he "would vote for Hillary if she ran for president."

Utterly unthinkable heresy, until now.

Copycat?

As I've written before, I think most of what Ann Coulter spews is simply the product of an empty mind laboring to produce something substantive. When the mind is empty, even vitriol has to come from somewhere.

Anyone surprised?

The Real Party Of Death

Courtesy of a reader's posted comment, here's part of President Bush's July 4 speech at Fort Bragg: "I'm going to make you this promise: I'm not going to allow the sacrifice of 2,527 troops who have died in Iraq to be in vain by pulling out before the job is done." One indication a war has gone south is when its architects and apologists---which in this case include many self-described "pro-lifers"---begin to cite a perverse logic by which death is only valid and honorable if it's followed by more death. The U.S. fell into this trap in Vietnam, and it's happening again. This logic is specious, of course. The U.S. pulled out of Somalia immediately after the "Black Hawk Down" disaster, but did that tarnish the heroism or diminish the sacrifice of the troops who died there? Aren't they among the most celebrated of American heroes today?

Sacrifice on the battlefield stands on its own. Its validity doesn't depend on an ever-shifting set of goalposts in Washington.

Sisyphus Soldiers

The good troops push the rock up the hill, and the bad ones roll it right back down. The report on the most recent alleged U.S. atrocity in Iraq makes for sickening but important reading. WaPo:

A former U.S. Army soldier was charged yesterday with the rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman and the slayings of three of her family members in their home south of Baghdad in March, federal prosecutors said.

Several soldiers allegedly planned the attack over drinks after noticing the woman near the traffic checkpoint they manned in Mahmudiyah, according to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The soldiers allegedly worked out an elaborate plan to carry out the crime and then cover it up, wearing dark clothes to the home, using an AK-47 assault rifle from the house to kill the family, and allowing authorities to believe that the attack was carried out by insurgents, investigators said.

Former Pfc. Steven D. Green, 21, and other members of 1st Platoon, B Company, 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, allegedly carried out the crimes on March 12. Several soldiers told authorities that Green killed all four people and that he and another soldier raped the young woman.

The plan worked, at least until soldiers began discussing the incident last month while they were going through stress counseling after two other members of their platoon were captured at a checkpoint and beheaded by insurgents. Army officials began investigating the day after hearing about the events in Mahmudiyah.

The case is the fifth in recent weeks in which U.S. troops have been accused of killing civilians in Iraq, a spate of incidents that has drawn attention to the way U.S. forces operate in what is often a complex and confusing battlefield. The rape and murder allegations against Green, however, detail a crime that appears to have had little if anything to do with the prosecution of the war itself.

According to an affidavit by FBI Special Agent Gregor J. Ahlers, the crimes appeared carefully crafted. Soldiers told Army investigators that Green and another soldier discussed raping the woman and had previously been to her residence, about 200 yards from their traffic checkpoint. Before leaving for the house, they also said, Green and two others drank alcohol and changed into dark clothes.

One soldier was left at the checkpoint to man the radio, while four others headed to the home, armed with three M4 rifles and a shotgun, according to the document. With one soldier guarding the door, the three others entered. Green covered his face with a brown T-shirt, grabbed an AK-47 rifle from the house and herded an adult couple and a young girl -- who authorities estimated was 5 years old -- into a bedroom. Green then shot them, according to authorities.

"Green came to the bedroom door and told everyone, 'I just killed them, all are dead,' " Ahlers wrote. Green and another soldier then allegedly raped the other daughter before Green shot her two or three times in the head with the AK-47. Military officials estimated her age at 20, although neighbors and hospital officials in Iraq said she was 15. She apparently was set on fire in an attempt to hide the crime.

Yet another alleged atrocity the military pinned initially on insurgents or "terrorists." How many other incidents haven't come to light yet?

The idiots who continue to insist that "these things happen during war" have stumbled unwittingly onto a partial truth. Yes, this is part of every war, and that's exactly why preemptive wars carry a unique risk. When the inevitable atrocities occur, they can be just as damaging to the aggressor as defeat on the battlefield---particularly for a nation that defines itself by moral exceptionalism.

Anyone ready to argue that we can weather five or ten more years of reports like the one above?

Axis Of Evildoers

So North Korea has now test-fired as many as six missiles, according to various reports. One was a long-range Taepodong 2 that failed shortly after launch. During the past few weeks, President Bush repeatedly used strong language to warn North Korea that a test of the Taepodong was unacceptable and would have serious consequences.

One point this administration and its defenders are fond of making is that the U.S. showed weakness to its enemies when it cut and ran after Mogadishu, didn't respond to the bombings of the barracks in Beirut or our embassies in Africa, and did nothing after the USS Cole. The invasion of Iraq was, among other things, supposed to establish that the U.S. had a tough new policy of enforcing consequences and that our bark was no longer worse than our bite.

North Korea defied President Bush's explicit warnings and conducted the test. Hopefully sanity prevails, but Bush has made his own bed on this one. What about those consequences, Mr. President?


Late update: We chide. Details here.

Mission Accomplished?

As Bin Laden will soon start his sixth year of life since 9/11---years that were denied his victims---we get this:

The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."

Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a view within the agency that Mr. bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was.

Mr. Scheuer said that view was mistaken.

"This will clearly denigrate our operations against Al Qaeda," he said. "These days at the agency, bin Laden and Al Qaeda appear to be treated merely as first among equals."

In recent years, the war in Iraq has stretched the resources of the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, generating new priorities for American officials. For instance, much of the military's counterterrorism units, like the Army's Delta Force, had been redirected from the hunt for Mr. bin Laden to the search for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed last month in Iraq.

In the context of past reports that also defy belief like this one, is any of this really a surprise?

"Old Hickory" Lite

NYT:

The Supreme Court on Thursday repudiated the Bush administration's plan to put Guantánamo detainees on trial before military commissions, ruling broadly that the commissions were unauthorized by federal statute and violated international law.

"The executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction," Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the 5-to-3 majority, said at the end of a 73-page opinion that in sober tones shredded each of the administration's arguments, including the assertion that Congress had stripped the court of jurisdiction to decide the case.

The decision was such a sweeping and categorical defeat for the administration that it left human rights lawyers who have pressed this and other cases on behalf of Guantánamo detainees almost speechless with surprise and delight, using words like "fantastic," "amazing" and "remarkable."

AP:

Bush Vows to Pursue Detainee War Trials

After a Supreme Court decision overruling war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, President Bush suggested Thursday he would seek Congress' approval to proceed with trying terrorism suspects before military tribunals.

"To the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so," he said. "The American people need to know that the ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street."

Bush said little more, saying he had received only a "drive-by briefing" on the ruling just out earlier Thursday morning.

"We will seriously look at the findings," Bush said. "And one thing I'm not going to do, though, is I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people. People got to understand that."

"John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

-Andrew Jackson

What He Said....

After reading about Israeli warplanes buzzing Bashar Assad's summer residence and blowing up Gaza's only power plant---insured by U.S. taxpayers, by the way---I was going to write something. Then I read this post, which sums up my thoughts quite nicely.

"The Guantanamo Business"

AP:

The United States wants to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay but needs assurances that detainees won't pose a security risk or face torture when they're sent to other countries, a senior U.S. State Department official said Monday.

"It really shows the conundrum that we're in," said John B. Bellinger III, the State Department's legal adviser. "We want to get out of the Guantanamo business while continuing to protect ourselves and protect others."

Bellinger said the U.S. wants to return many detainees but has been blocked by countries who don't want the men or who don't recognize them as nationals. Another obstacle has been getting assurances that detainees won't face human rights abuses upon their return or pose a threat to the United States.

Got that? We'd love to close Gitmo, but apparently there are some outlaw nations that can't be replied upon to respect human rights.

In other words, we care.

Strangers In A Strange Land?

During the past three years, almost every credible report I've read has described the insurgency in Iraq as overwhelmingly indigenous with a negligible foreign element. Here's an exchange from a press conference on March 14, 2006:

Q: You and General Pace and, indeed, the president and others have had intimated strongly in recent days that Iran is stirring -- actively stirring up violence in Iraq. You said that Revolutionary Guards and IEDs and weapons are moving across the border from Iran. What you have not said conclusively is whether the government of Iran and the mullahs are sponsoring that activity. Do you have proof that they are, indeed, behind this, the government of Iran?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Pete?

GEN. PACE: I do not, sir.

Previous attempts to characterize the insurgency as significantly foreign---or to hype the importance of foreign support---having been discredited, it's time for another try. WaPo:

Iranian support for extremists inside Iraq has shown a "noticeable increase" this year, with Tehran's special forces providing weapons and bomb training to anti-U.S. groups, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said yesterday.

Other U.S. officials have complained about Iranian meddling in Iraq, but the criticism of Tehran by Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. was the most direct and explicit so far. Speaking at a Pentagon news conference before an array of reporters and television cameras, the general listed Iranian influence as one of the four major problems he faces in Iraq.

"We are quite confident that the Iranians, through their covert special operations forces, are providing weapons, IED technology and training to Shia extremist groups in Iraq, the training being conducted in Iran and in some cases probably in Lebanon through their surrogates," Casey said, using the military abbreviation for "improvised explosive devices," or roadside bombs. The Iranians are "using surrogates to conduct terrorist operations in Iraq, both against us and against the Iraqi people."

Indeed, the latest agenda is clear. Here's a Centcom news release from Friday, the day after General Casey held his news conference at the Pentagon:

Coalition Forces killed four foreign terrorists and wounded one Iraqi insurgent during a raid approximately 18 km north of Fallujah June 23.

Information gathered from a recent detainee from another operation in this area led the troops to known location of a mid-level terrorist whose cell is involved in the facilitation of foreign fighters and insurgent activities.

One of the killed terrorists was wearing a 15-pound suicide belt. Another 15-pound suicide vest was found in a vehicle on the target. The remaining terrorist, thought to be an Iraqi, claimed the four killed terrorists were foreign fighters who had hired him to support their operations.

Here's another Centcom release from Friday:

Coalition forces detained a senior al-Qaida in Iraq network member and three suspected terrorists during coordinated raids southwest of Baqubah the morning of June 19.

The terrorist is reportedly a senior al-Qaida cell leader throughout central Iraq, north of Baghdad. He is known to be involved in facilitating foreign terrorists throughout central Iraq, and is suspected of having ties to previous attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces.

See a trend here?

Remember, as our desperation grows so must the search for scapegoats, eventually leading to the war's expansion; see #8 on this list posted over a year ago.

Something to watch.

Coming Unglued

Here's a question on the "flypaper strategy" a competent reporter might ask President Bush at the next opportunity, or Tony Snow at Monday's press gaggle: "This administration often claims that we're fighting in Iraq so we won't have to fight terrorists here. In light of the arrests of seven men in Miami for allegedly planning domestic terrorism and seeking ties to al-Qaeda, why has the war in Iraq failed to make us safer here despite your promise that it would do so?"

Take it away, Carl Cameron....

Sacrifice Update

A little over a week ago, the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq stood at 2,500. Since then, sixteen more have died and eighty-two have been wounded, bringing the numbers to 2,516 killed and 18,572 wounded as of today.

Cool, Dude!

Rich Lowry sees a potential solution to our problems in Iraq, and unwittingly provides a great example of what incisive conservative analysis means these days:

Interesting view from a military expert that someone was just sharing with me: If we were to announce tomorrow that we aren't leaving Iraq for another 10 years, the war would be all but over. Since the insurgents' strategy is based on getting us to leave prematurely, it would be a major blow to them, and it would embolden everyone who is sitting on the fence, afraid that we might leave. Just a thought...

Anyone else get the feeling that this war isn't much more than a game of Dungeons and Dragons to some on the Titular Right?

Midlife Crisis

A few good (middle-aged) men needed.

"You're Not Going To Let Me Lose Face On This, Are You?"

Until fairly recently, I considered talk of prosecution for war crimes the province mainly of the shrill Left. I'm coming around gradually. If this report is true, it reinforces my growing belief that eventual prosecution of top Bush administration officials is not only appropriate but necessary if we're to purge ourselves of the moral decay and start to rebuild what we've lost. (And if it's true, it adds to our understanding of why Slam-Dunk received a Presidential Medal of Freedom, doesn't it?) Via prosecution, we'd show the rest of the world that while we elected this bunch at one point, they don't represent us. Deterrence is one beneficial effect of public debate about this issue; the real threat of future legal jeopardy helps focus the mind. We know administration officials have fretted about this before. According to past reports, in early 2002 John Yoo worried that "the political climate could change" and that "a new president would come into office and start potential prosecutions of a bunch of ex-Bush officials." If we're too far gone here in the U.S. as I suspect we may be, responsibility for this will fall to the international community. As administration insiders start to reckon with their very real exposure to future prosecution, some might want to get on the right side of the torture debate and declare for the history books where they stand---something we need to do as a nation right now.

Channeling George Kennan

I don't think it's too soon to say that the "Khalilzad Cable" will be much-studied by historians one day, particularly because of President Bush's concurrent statement, "The progress here in Iraq has been remarkable when you really think about it." The issue of a credibility gap---better known in the early 21st century as debunked "spin"---is obvious. But Khalilzad's cable reminds me of another important diplomatic missive, as much for what it lacks as what it contains. Undoubtedly, many readers need no background on George Kennan. For those who do, Kennan was charge d'affaires at the U.S. embassy in Moscow. In February 1946, responding to a request from Washington, Kennan sent a seminal 8,000 word cable known as the "Long Telegram." For those interested, a copy of the original document is here. The final paragraphs are striking, and in many ways transcend the time in which Kennan wrote them (my bolds):

1) Our first step must be to apprehend, and recognize for what it is, the nature of the movement with which we are dealing. We must study it with same courage, detachment, objectivity, and same determination not to be emotionally provoked or unseated by it, with which doctor studies unruly and unreasonable individual.

(2) We must see that our public is educated to realities of Russian situation. I cannot over-emphasize importance of this. Press cannot do this alone. It must be done mainly by government, which is necessarily more experienced and better informed on practical problems involved. In this we need not be deterred by ugliness of picture. I am convinced that there would be far less hysterical anti-Sovietism in our country today if realities of this situation were better understood by our people. There is nothing as dangerous or as terrifying as the unknown. It may also be argued that to reveal more information on our difficulties with Russia would reflect unfavorably on Russian-American relations. I feel that if there is any real risk here involved, it is one which we should have courage to face, and sooner the better. But I cannot see what we would be risking. Our stake in this country, even coming on heels of tremendous demonstrations of our friendship for Russian people, is remarkably small. We have here no investments to guard, no actual trade to lose, virtually no citizens to protect, few cultural contacts to preserve. Our only stake lies in what we hope rather than what we have; and I am convinced we have better chance of realizing those hopes if our public is enlightened and if our dealings with Russians are placed entirely on realistic and matter-of-fact basis.

(3) Much depends on health and vigor of our own society. World communism is like malignant parasite which feeds only on diseased tissue. This is point at which domestic and foreign policies meet. Every courageous and incisive measure to solve internal problems of our own society, to improve self-confidence, discipline, morale and community spirit of our own people, is a diplomatic victory over Moscow worth a thousand diplomatic notes and joint communiqués. If we cannot abandon fatalism and indifference in face of deficiencies of our own society, Moscow will profit---Moscow cannot help profiting by them in its foreign policies.

(4) We must formulate and put forward for other nations a much more positive and constructive picture of sort of world we would like to see than we have put forward in past. It is not enough to urge people to develop political processes similar to our own. Many foreign peoples, in Europe at least, are tired and frightened by experiences of past, and are less interested in abstract freedom than in security. They are seeking guidance rather than responsibilities. We should be better able than Russians to give them this. And unless we do, Russians certainly will.

(5) Finally we must have courage and self confidence to cling to our own methods and conceptions of human society. After all, the greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are coping.

Think about paragraph #1 and whether, on the issue of Iraq (and Iran for that matter) appropriate words to describe our leadership in Washington would be "detachment" and "objectivity," or "emotionally provoked" and "unseated." Think about paragraph #2 and whether the government, last throes and all, has ever educated the public "to the realities of the situation" in Iraq. Think about paragraph #3 and how government incompetence and corruption affects public "morale" and the "health and vigor of our own society." Think about paragraph #4 and how it comports with democratization in Iraq and platitudes about how "freedom is the Almighty's gift to everyone." And think about paragraph #5 and how torture, secret prisons, and ad hoc rollbacks to the Constitution "allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are coping."

Make no mistake: both the context and purpose of the Khalilzad and Kennan missives differ greatly. That's important, for example, in Kennan's paragraph #4, written in the immediate aftermath of World War II when security and stability traded at a premium to democracy (though many Iraqis undoubtedly consider the current carnage to be their own version of a world war, as Afghans did in the 80's and 90's and Somalis do now---thus the relative appeal of restrictive theocracies). Of course there are other differences in context that are beyond the scope of this post. The two cables do share one basic characteristic: they describe a growing, poorly understood, and seemingly intractable threat. By most accounts, Khalilzad is doing a great job. And it's unfair to expect him or any diplomat to live up to the precedent of seminal analysis and policy prescription set by Kennan---particularly because Khalilzad faces the daily exigencies of security and effective local government that didn't confront Kennan in Moscow.

Nevertheless, after reading Khalilzad's cable I was struck by the myopia it symbolized compared to Kennan's perspective, and how we could use a few grand thinkers in important positions right now. Where are they?

Credibility Gap

It grows. If you haven't seen it yet, here's the cable our embassy in Baghdad sent to Washington last week.

A Brief Respite

An Iraqi blogger escapes Baghdad's heat and carnage, if only for a few precious days.

Write Your Own Punchline....

AP:

Katharine Armstrong, the owner of the South Texas ranch where Vice President Cheney accidentally shot a hunting companion, chipped in on the gift of a gun for presidential aide Karl Rove last year.

She and 10 friends gave Rove a Beretta 687 Silver Pigeon II 20-gauge shotgun worth $2,073, according to financial disclosure forms released yesterday for top White House aides.

That sound you hear is writers for Leno, Letterman, and Stewart pondering the possibilities.

Sacrifice Update

2,500 U.S. troops have now died in Iraq. Since we have neither a viable exit strategy nor, we know now, any real desire to ever withdraw, we should expect the next tragic milestone to be 3,000 during the next few months, then 3,500, and eventually 5,000 and beyond. Today the Pentagon also said that 18,490 troops have lost arms, legs, hands, feet, eyes, faces, or futures. Remember, we're not supposed to think about any of this beyond officially-approved bromides about "supporting the troops" or maybe doing something a bit radical like putting one of those yellow ribbon stickers on the car bumper. What are you doing to really remind others?

"Deus Vult!"

AP:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan do not assure those countries will become successful democracies. But she said the chance for success is worth the price.

Speaking to a largely conservative audience of more than 12,000 Southern Baptists, Rice said she knows optimism can hard to sustain in the face of daily sectarian carnage and beheadings in Iraq.

She got repeated standing ovations for her call for continued U.S. engagement across the globe.

Rice, the daughter and granddaughter of Presbyterian ministers, was introduced by outgoing Southern Baptist Convention President Bobby Welch as "a woman of faith and not ashamed to testify to that."

She referred often to God and prayer, and cast U.S. work overseas, from Iraq to Sudan to the attempts to stem the trafficking of human beings for forced labor or sex, in religious terms.

As she left the podium, delegates in the upper arena began to sing "God Bless America." The whole arena joined in the spontaneous anthem.

Anyone not understand why other nations might want to arm themselves to defend against this madness?

Crazy Glue

The flypaper just got a fresh coat of it. Here's President Bush in Iraq today:

I've told the American people, we will defeat the enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.)

Though readers know I wrote off this president and administration long ago, I'm always looking for reasons to be constructive or optimistic. We're all in this together, and no matter the depth of our disappointment, we have a stake in Iraq turning out well. And I think it's great the president went there today. But when he returns shamelessly to the debunked flypaper rationale, it betrays two things: his desperation, and our bankrupt "strategy for victory." (Note that he's uttered it so many times, he said "here at home" automatically even though he was in Iraq.) As long as he insists on invoking this sham, he deserves nothing more than contempt.

In light of that, it probably shouldn't surprise anyone that Bush also said, "The progress here in Iraq has been remarkable when you really think about it." Be sure to take a look at his top advisers weighing in on that "progress" here.

Last but not least: as an invader sitting smack dab in the middle of the Muslim world, Bush invoked the word "God" four times today. For another president, that might constitute an excusable faux pas. For this one, it's a business-as-usual lapse of reason. Do we really have two and a half more years of this?

They're Selling, Mortimer!

On October 24, 2005, the day President Bush nominated Ben Bernanke to replace Alan Greenspan, I posted:

Bernanke, of course, it well aware of how his "printing press" comments affected his reputation. So when he takes over for Greenspan, his initial priority will be to establish credibility on inflation, particularly with the bond market. That means higher interest rates. Similarly, when Greenspan became Fed head in 1987, his immediate goal was to establish credibility in the wake of Paul Volcker, a renowned inflation fighter and the most respected Fed chief in history. Greenspan became Fed chairman on August 11, 1987. The price of gold had risen that year from $400 to $465 on Friday, October 16, 1987. On October 19---just two months after Greenspan's first day on the job---the stock market crashed, with the Dow losing 22% on the day now known as Black Monday.

Prediction (not advice): Ben Bernanke will be easily confirmed. And sometime between now and Bernanke's three-month mark as Fed chairman, the stock market will crash. If I'm wrong, fantastic. We'll see.

The crash call was woefully wrong (though possibly a bit premature, depending on what happens this summer). However, a few points are worth noting. First, I was correct about Bernanke's desire to establish street cred as an inflation fighter. While our stock market certainly hasn't "crashed," we're in the midst of a correction that's knocked the major indices to their lowest levels in many months; the Nasdaq is down 12% from its April high. Moreover, some major foreign markets have experienced serious corrections or bonafide crashes; Japan, Hong Kong, India, Brazil and others have lost 10-25% during the past few weeks (and as I type this late Monday night, I see Japan and India are down 4% tonight alone). All this has occurred in part because of the "new guy at the Fed" dynamic that I wrote about last October.

It's important to note that in terms of credibility, Bernanke's been his own worst enemy. Here's a great post at Barry Ritholtz's site that chronicles Bernanke's public flip-flops on interest rates. Part of what's going on here is nanny state-speak. Up until a few weeks ago (it's changed a bit recently) on days the stock market was weak, a Fed official would comment publicly about "the possibility of going too far in raising rates" or how inflation was "well-contained." On days gold was strong and/or the dollar was weak, a Fed official would comment about how "vigilance is needed on inflation." This micromanagement of the financial markets has caused serious credibility problems; in the many years I've been a Fed observer, I cannot remember such a constant barrage of public comments by Fed officials. Bernanke and crew are inverse Teddy Roosevelts; they speak loudly and carry twigs.

One other important point. Some market observers have started making the case that Bernanke "inherited this mess" from Greenspan and is simply "doing the best he can in a difficult situation." Can we dispense with that nonsense right now? Bernanke is not some poor Chauncey Gardiner rube plucked from obscurity. Prior to his current position, he was Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, and before that a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. He's played an integral role in the development and application of both fiscal and monetary policy for years. Particularly under the Bush administration, you don't get to be head of the Federal Reserve unless you're a proven member of the team.

Ultimately, much of this may be academic. As I've posted before, essentially we've ceded control of our own monetary policy to foreign central bankers. They've grown tired of underwriting preemptive wars and irresponsible fiscal policy, and are demanding higher rates of return on our debt. Think about that the next time your mortgage or credit card payments increase, your house falls in value, or the terms become too dear on that small-business loan you wanted. It's all about consequences. Our debt will be sold, whatever it takes---and it's taking increasingly higher interest rates to entice foreign buyers. Combine that immutable reality with a new Fed chief who checks his chest hair in the mirror each morning, and you've got a recipe for interesting times ahead.

Assault From "The Tropics"

Here's one of the more bizarre statements I've seen in some time (tip to TCR reader Tim M):

The suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amount to acts of war, the US military says.

The camp commander said the two Saudis and a Yemeni were "committed" and had killed themselves in "an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us".

Lawyers said the men who hanged themselves had been driven by despair.

A military investigation into the deaths is now under way, amid growing calls for the detention centre to be moved or closed.

Walter White, an international lawyer who specialises in human rights, told the BBC the Guantanamo camp was likely to be considered a "great stain" on the human rights record of the US.

There have been dozens of suicide attempts since the camp was set up four years ago -but none successful until now.

The men were found unresponsive and not breathing by guards on Saturday morning, said officials.

They were in separate cells in Camp One, the highest security section of the prison.

They hanged themselves with clothing and bed sheets, camp commander Rear Adm Harry Harris said.

He said medical teams had tried to revive the men, but all three were pronounced dead.

Rear Adm Harris said he did not believe the men had killed themselves out of despair.

"They are smart. They are creative, they are committed," he said.

"They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."

Too much time in the sun for the hysterical Rear Admiral Harris? After all, he is in "the tropics"....

"Significant Troop Withdrawals Soon" Version #19,490

AP:

On the eve of President Bush's summit on Iraq, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad predicted Sunday that coalition troops will gradually move out of the country in the coming months.

Gen. George Casey said he thinks it will be possible to withdraw some of the 130,000 U.S. forces in the months ahead as long as Iraq's government and security forces make progress.

Casey would not say whether he plans to advise Bush on a troop reduction plan during two days of meetings with the administration's top national security officials that begin Monday at Camp David in Maryland. But the general hinted the time soon may come for such a recommendation.

Maybe Gen. Casey should get back to us when Iraq can sustain a security force capable simply of manning checkpoints, much less performing independently in battle. Three years on, how is it possible that American troops are still in the slightly awkward position of shooting pregnant Iraqi women en route to the hospital to give birth, as this recent incident showed?

By the way, this is from the same AP report, but farther down:

Bush says he will make decisions about troop levels based on recommendations from Casey and other military commanders in Iraq. Although Casey said "it's not likely" that he would request more troops during the discussions, he did not rule out bringing in more to help secure Baghdad in the future.

"Right now we're not planning on it, but it's possible," Casey told "Fox News Sunday."

"I constantly evaluate the situation," Casey said. "And if I think I need more, I'll ask for more. If I think I need less, I'll tell the president that I need less."

Mossy carrots and kicked cans...anyone not understand how this is going to work for the next 5-10 years?

No Accounting For Tastelessness

One of the recurring themes here has been how a select few profit enormously when fiscal and monetary policy go awry. If you're wondering how those perched at the best spot on liquidity's river are doing, look no further.

A Great Big Global Guffaw

Every so often---and it's becoming more often indeed---I'll read something that shows in stark relief what we've lost during the past few years. Here's one recent example:

U.S. Urges China to Reassess Tiananmen

The United States marked the 17th anniversary of China's bloody crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square on Sunday by urging Beijing to re-evaluate its actions.

"The U.S. urges China to provide a full accounting of the thousands who were killed, detained or went missing and of the government's role in the massacre," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement. "We also urge China to address the ongoing violations of the rights of victims and their families and to make public the list of those still in prison."

Another:

Rumsfeld urges China to come clean on military spending

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged China to explain its increased military spending to the world, saying it was in its interest to demystify actions that others find potentially threatening.

Speaking at an international security conference in Singapore, Rumsfeld said China had every right to decide how to invest its resources, but the rest of the world also needed to understand Beijing's intentions.

"The only issue on transparency is that China would benefit by demystifying the reasons why they are investing in what they are investing in, in my view," Rumsfeld said.

A Pentagon report last month said China was spending two to three times more on its military than the 35 billion dollars a year it has acknowledged.

He said he thought China's primary objective was a peaceful reunification of Taiwan with the mainland.

But, he argued that as China's stake in the global economy grows it will face pressure to explain its behavior to the outside world.

"In life you can't have it both ways," Rumsfeld said.

"You can't be successful economically and engage the rest of the world, and have people milling around your country and selling things and buying things and engaging in exchanges, and have them at the same time worried or wondering about some mystery that they see as behavior that is unsettling," he said.

"If the rest of the world looks at China and sees a behavior pattern that is mysterious and potentially threatening, it tends to affect the willingness to invest," he said.

We're doing a lot of inappropriate "urging" these days, aren't we? Look, I realize that lapsing into national self-doubt is a danger. But there's a difference between self-doubt and honest self-evaluation. When I read about the U.S. "urging" China on anything related to human rights, I laugh. And right now, which makes more sense: Donald Rumsfeld urging China to come clean on its military spending and "explain its unsettling behavior" to the rest of the world, or China urging the U.S. to explain its behavior in light of Iraq? (Oh, and off-the-books military spending? Perish the thought!) And in his own uncanny Orwellian way, Rumsfeld stumbled across the truth when he said, "You can't be successful economically and engage the rest of the world...and have them at the same time worried or wondering about some mystery that they see as behavior that is unsettling." A wonderfully pithy explanation for the steadily decreasing desire of foreigners to invest in dollar-denominated assets, particularly U.S. debt....

During the next two and a half years, how much more damage will we do to our moral standing and our ability to raise issues like human rights without eliciting a global guffaw? After this gang retires to ranches in Crawford and Taos and Maryland's eastern shore and leaves this mess to everyone else, how much time will it take to repair the damage, assuming it's reparable?

Conscience Calling

My head says he's wrong. My heart says otherwise. And I suspect the passage of time will cast his decision in a more favorable light. While Muhammad Ali was not a member of the military much less an officer, he too refused to serve in a preemptive war rooted in a false pretense. How many fault him for that now?

By the way, here's what the newspaper's readers thought about Lt. Watada's decision.

Not Just A "Trusted Lieutenant"

This is very good news indeed---and long overdue. Of course, it would have paid a much larger dividend a year or two ago. And a quick check shows that the usual suspects are trumpeting it as yet another "purple finger" milestone.

The perception---stoked by the Bush administration and the media---that Zarqawi was responsible for much of the mayhem is about to meet reality, I suspect. When you dub someone the bogeyman, what happens to your credibility when his demise proves inconsequential? After the next round of kidnappings, car bombs, and assassinations, will anyone remember who he was?

Still, if only because it serves justice, Zarqawi's death is good news. And right now we'll take every little bit of that we can get.

Common Ground

Chavez reaches out to the Hysterical Right. AP:

President Hugo Chavez inaugurated a Venezuelan film studio Saturday to counter what he called Hollywood's cultural "dictatorship."

Chavez announced $11 million in funds for the complex as he toured movie sets, costume rooms and sat in a director's chair -- all part of Venezuela's new "cultural artillery" to combat U.S. domination, he said.

"It's a Hollywood dictatorship," he said. "They inoculate us with messages that don't belong to our traditions ... (about) the American way of life, imperialism."

He accused Hollywood movies of stereotypes that cast Venezuela and other Latin American countries as violent havens for criminals and drug traffickers.

This will be an important tell, folks. If Hollywood-bashing fails to elicit supportive nods from panting precincts like National Review, AEI, Pat Robertson etc, we'll know they're really serious!

The Fish Rots From The Tail Fin Up?

We got another verdict on the misconduct at Abu Ghraib. It's good to see that those really in charge of setting policy finally are being held responsible:

A military jury sentenced an Army dog handler to 90 days hard labor and a reduction in rank Friday for allowing his Belgian shepherd to bark within inches of an Iraqi detainee's face at Abu Ghraib prison.

Army Sgt. Santos A. Cardona was the 11th soldier convicted of crimes stemming from the abuse of inmates at the prison in late 2003 and early 2004.

He was found guilty of dereliction of duty and aggravated assault for allowing his dog to bark in the face of a kneeling detainee at the request of another soldier who wasn't an interrogator.

The military jury acquitted him of other charges, including unlawfully having his dog bite a detainee and conspiring with another dog handler to frighten prisoners as a game.

It wasn't clear where Cardona, who was based at Fort Bragg, N.C., will serve the sentence or what sort of hard labor he will be require to do. He won't be confined during the sentence.

Cardona's rank was reduced to specialist and the court ordered him to forfeit $600 a month in pay for 12 months.

"It wasn't an acquittal," Cardona's civilian attorney, Harvey Volzer, told his client, "but it was pretty darn good."

"Pretty darn good" indeed....

Fallen Domino Watch....

Here's the latest update on what's happened since the ravaging hordes crashed through our embassy gate in Saigon on the way to global domination, thirty years on.

It Takes A Global Village....

I don't know why, but the international readership here has exploded over the past few weeks. Readers from Canada and western Europe have always been numerous, but I've noticed that the geography has really expanded. A check of the log from the past few days shows visitors from Poland, Romania, Turkey, China, Pakistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Kenya, Ghana, Tanzania, Brazil, Ecuador, and Guatemala. A sudden global fervor for inconsequential, insomnia-driven American rants?

Welcome to all, and feel free to contribute via email or posted comments.

Whither The Pitchforks?

This country is at war. It's an outrage that while we're at war, executives who are already fabulously rich are stealing and are at liberty. America is humiliated by its brightest and most ambitious looting it, while its young men and women die for it.

Read the rest of this nice rant about the latest incarnation of corporate misconduct: the backdating of stock options. It's flat-out thievery. And yes, it's unpatriotic; it's an example of the ethical vacuum that's as much a threat to our financial system as terrorism.

Except for a few posts here and there, I haven't spent much time on this topic. I've concluded that most people are so apathetic, uninterested, and inured to it that they need to feel pain before taking to the village square with pitchforks. That's too bad, because when the thieves think no one cares, they get busy. In the meantime, the best hope we have is more high-profile prosecutions like Enron that might deter those with a sense of self-preservation if nothing else. One of the reasons I've supported Eliot Spitzer is the deterrent factor; the only thing that kept some Wall Street and corporate thieves from reaching into the cookie jar during the past few years was the fear that someone was watching. Those who have opposed Spitzer's aggressiveness fall mainly into two camps: media shills for the financial industry and corporate America, and ivory tower academics far removed from the fetid trenches. I agree with Stephen Bainbridge more often than not, but at least on Spitzer, Bainbridge is an example of the latter. Those interested can visit his blog here and do a search for "Spitzer" to get his take, which I feel is pedantic and myopic.

Undoubtedly, Democrats will try to score outrage points in the midterms and in 2008 by conflating corporate malfeasance with the Lagos-on-the-Potomac type of corruption. But the former is not a product of Republican government (indeed, much of it has roots in the laissez-faire regulatory environment of the Clinton years) nor would it end with a Democratic takeover of either Congress or the White House. It's become part of our national identity. I think we're beyond self-help at this point, so things will change most likely because foreign creditors force us into a period of ethical enlightenment and the public's pain reaches a tipping point. We're not there yet, and it's a long road. But our foreign friends may have started us down it.

Chavez Hysteria Watch....

Today, CNBC's "Squawk Box Poll" asked viewers the following: "When it comes to Hugo Chavez, which is worse? His bark or his bite?" Accompanying the poll: "Squawk Box wonders whether socialist talk by Venezuela's president will be backed by anti-U.S. action."

In the wake of the worst May for the S&P; 500 since 1984, it's no surprise that a business news channel would focus on a desperately needed scapegoat like Hugo Chavez.

A perfect microcosm of what happens when an economy rolls over over, external "enemies" become more important, and a nation slowly loses its collective mind....