Whoa

So Bob Woodward's got a new book out, "State of Denial." This is the third in his Bush trilogy, following "Ode to Bush" and "More Ode to Bush".

I have not read the book yet but this review caught my attention, specifically:

The book also reported that then-CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, Cofer Black, grew so concerned about a possible al-Qaida attack in summer 2001 that they abruptly decided to drive straight to the White House to get high-level attention.

Tenet called Rice, then the national-security adviser, from his car to ask to see her in hopes that the surprise appearance would make an impression.

But the meeting on July 10, 2001, left Tenet and Black frustrated and feeling brushed off, Woodward reported. Rice, they believed, did not feel the same sense of urgency about the threat and was content to wait for a policy review.

The report of such a meeting takes on heightened importance after former President Clinton this week complained that the Bush team did not do enough to try to kill Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said her husband would have paid more attention to warnings of a possible attack than did Bush.

Rice fired back on behalf of the current president, saying the Bush administration "was at least as aggressive" in eight months as Clinton had been in eight years.

The July 10 meeting among Rice, Tenet and Black wasn't mentioned in various investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks and Woodward wrote that Black "felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about."

Jamie Gorelick, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said she checked with staff members, who told her investigators were never told about a July 10 meeting.

White House and State Department officials confirmed Friday that the July 10 meeting took place, although they took issue with the portrayal of its results. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, responding on behalf of Rice, said Tenet and Black had never publicly expressed any frustration with her response. Tenet and Black did not respond to messages Friday.

Somehow the meeting did not come up when everyone talked to the 9/11 Commission? Wow. Just wow. Kind of makes me wonder what else didn't come up.

Fox News: The Republican Propaganda Machine

I made a brief post earlier about Clinton's appearance on Fox News Sunday but now I can't stop thinking about just how smoothly the Fox News Propaganda machine works and how easy it is for them to obfuscate the truth in order to spread their lies, mischaracterizations, and disinformation to an audience so anxious to receive.

Their current sleight of hand is to make a really big deal out of the fact that Clinton was Angry during his interview. Look everyone, just look at how angry Cinton was! Just like Dean and Gore and those crazy people at Daily Kos... boy, he sure got Angry! Can't you just hear the pithy banter on Fox and Friends? Isn't it a wonderful addition to the Angry Democrat meme?

But what they're really trying to do is keep anyone with a few living brain cells from thinking too much about the content of the interview. This is a classic trick... throw in a little ridicule to entertain the masses and distract them from a more substantive discussion. Make fun of Kerry's tan or Howard Dean's scream or Al Gore's beard. I don't want to give the Republicans too much credit here, though... after all, it was the Roman emperors who first thought to placate the masses with cheap entertainment.

But back to the interview.

To kick it off properly, Wallace employed a variation on the infamous Fox "Some people say" lead-in: "I got a lot of emails from viewers, and I gotta say, I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?" As a serious journalist I would never stoop to asking a question phrased like that, of course... it was our viewers who wanted me to. In fact, I was surprised our viewers would even think to ask it!

It didn't take long to get to everyone's favorite talking point, our lack of response to the Cole. The fact is, the attack happened on October 12, 2000. The US elected a new president on November 7, 2000. The Navy Jag released their report on the Cole on January 19th, 2001. Bush's inauguration was January 21st. The Clinton administration left Bush a 20 page response plan that Bush decided not to implement. See how simple and straight-forward that is? Here's Rice herself on the topic:

Myers: You named in the spring of 2001 that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole. Why didn't you retaliate?

Rice: The U.S.S. Cole was a terrible, terrible incident. And it demonstrated yet again that Osama bin Laden was a threat to the United States. We really felt that after 1998 when they had bombed the embassies and the response had not been an overwhelming military response that, in fact, it had a tendency to embolden the — the terrorists.

And we were worried, particularly since in the campaign we had said we wouldn't have pinprick strikes using military force. We were concerned that we didn't have good military options. That really all we had were options like using cruise missiles to go after training camps that had long since been abandoned and that it might have just the opposite effect. It might, in fact, embolden the terrorist not — not frighten them or not think that they were being taken seriously. Our response to the U.S.S. Cole was to get a strategy in place that could finally eliminate the threat of al-Qaida to the United States.

So there you go. Bush decided it would be better not to retaliate in a direct fashion but rather in a future, distant, indirect way. Yeah, that'll teach 'em!

And what of the Black Hawk Down incident? Clinton got riled up while trying to refute Chris Wallace's distortion of the truth -- and who can blame him? Wouldn't you be angry about these shenanigans too? Glenn Greenwald took the time to help fill in the memory gaps from which Chris Wallace is apparently suffering:

GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993

I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option.

GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993

Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home.

GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993

I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . .

GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:

All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December.

But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now.

President Clinton's speech, on October 8, 1993, arguing against withdrawal

And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission. . . .

If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we've got a reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to take our place. . .

So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: "Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution." . . .

So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right.

Sen. John Kerry, Senate floor speech, 10/7/93, supporting Clinton's anti-withdrawal position

But, Mr. President, I must say I have also been jarred by the reactions of many of our colleagues in the U.S. Senate and in the Congress. I am jarred by the extraordinary sense of panic that seems to be rushing through this deliberative body, and by the strident cries for a quick exit, an immediate departure notwithstanding the fact that what we are doing in Somalia does not bear any resemblance to Grenada, to Panama, to Iraq, and most importantly, to Vietnam. . . .

We must recognize that any decision that we make about Somalia is not just a decision to get our troops home. It is not just a decision about looking out for the interests of the United States. There are extraordinary ramifications attached to the choice that we make in the next days in the Congress and in this country. . . .

Mr. President, we are in a situation now where withdrawal would send the wrong signal to Aidid and his supporters. It would encourage other nations to withdraw from the U.N. effort in Somalia and no doubt would result in the total breakdown of the operation and possibly the resumption of the cycle of famine and war which brought the United States and other members of the international community to Somalia in the first place.

Rightly or wrongly, the Bush administration committed us to this operation. We, as a nation, have accepted this responsibility. We should not panic and flee when the going gets rough. If we are going to withdraw, we have an obligation to do so in a responsible manner, in a way that does not undermine the operation or leave the Somali people to a worse fate. I think the President's plan, as currently outlined, will allow us to step aside responsibly.

New York Times article, October 6, 1993, by then-reporter Thomas Friedman

As hundreds of additional United States troops with special weapons and aircraft began heading to Somalia, a wave of hostility toward the widening operation swept Congress. . . . But Mr. Aspin and Mr. Christopher were besieged by skeptical lawmakers, who scorched them with demands for a clear road map for an exit from Somalia, coupled with bitter complaints that the policy goals were unclear or unrealistic.

It is not clear whether the critics can assemble sufficient votes to pass a law requiring Mr. Clinton to stop the operation. But Congressional anxiety, already high, has been fueled by a wave of constituents' telephone calls reflecting outrage over the prospect of a new hostage crisis, and television pictures of Somali crowds dragging a dead American servicemen through the streets. . . .

Mr. Christopher said the United States wanted to withdraw its forces when possible, "but not before our job is done of providing some security."

New York Times, October 6, 1993

A wave of hostility toward the military operation in Somalia swept Congress today, forcing the White House to send two Cabinet secretaries to Capitol Hill to try to calm critics and plead for additional time to formulate a new policy.

"It's Vietnam all over again," said Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, who is in a group of conservatives calling for quick withdrawal from Somalia. . . .

Mr. McCain, a prisoner of war in the Vietnam War, said of Mohammed Farah Aidid, who has been blamed for attacks on United Nations peacekeepers: "We should tell Mr. Aidid that we want the Americans back. Otherwise he will pay sooner or later. Then we should come home."

The most egregious, bold faced lie of all, though, was when Chris Wallace denied softballing their Bush Administration guys on Fox. Fortunately we have the folks at Media Matters who spend all day digging up the facts so we don't have to:

In a taped interview with former President Bill Clinton that aired on the September 24 edition of Fox News Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Clinton why he failed to "do more" during his presidency to put Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden "out of business." Clinton responded with a vigorous defense of his administration's anti-terrorism policies, noting that he instituted a "comprehensive anti-terror strategy" during his tenure in the White House and that many conservatives had accused him at the time of being "too obsessed with finding bin Laden." He then told Wallace: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you've asked this question of. ... Tell the truth." Wallace replied, "Have you ever watched Fox News Sunday, sir? ... We ask plenty of questions." Clinton later stated, "[Y]ou people ask me questions you don't ask the other side," to which Wallace responded, "That is not true." In fact, in dozens of interviews over the past five years with senior Bush aides, Wallace and former host Tony Snow have repeatedly failed to ask pressing questions regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue Al Qaeda in the eight months prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- and in the years since.

Here is a list of senior Bush administration officials interviewed on Fox News Sunday since September 11, 2001. (White House press secretary Tony Snow previously hosted the program. Wallace succeeded him in December 2003.):

• Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; 9/10/06
• National Security adviser Stephen Hadley; 8/6/06
• Rice; 7/16/06
• Rice; 6/4/06
• Rice; 5/21/06
• Rice; 3/26/06
• Rice; 12/18/05
• Hadley; 12/4/05
• Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld; 11/20/05
• Rice; 10/16/05
• Rumsfeld; 6/26/05
• Rice; 6/19/05
• Hadley; 5/15/05
• Then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card; 5/1/05
• Rumsfeld; 3/20/05
• Hadley; 3/13/05
• Vice President Dick Cheney; 2/6/05
• Rice; 1/30/05
• Rice (then-National Security adviser); 10/10/04
• Rice; 6/27/04
• Rice; 6/6/04
• Rice; 4/18/04
• Rumsfeld; 3/28/04
• Card; 12/7/03
• Rumsfeld; 11/2/03
• Rice; 9/28/03
• Rice; 9/7/03
• Rice; 7/13/03
• Rumsfeld; 5/4/03
• Rumsfeld; 3/30/03
• Rice; 2/16/03
• Card; 1/26/03
• Rumsfeld; 1/19/03
• Rice; 11/10/02
• Rice; 9/15/02
• Card; 6/9/02
• Rice; 5/26/02
• Cheney; 5/19/02
• Rice; 5/5/02
• Card; 4/14/02
• Rice; 2/3/02
• Cheney; 1/27/02
• Rumsfeld; 11/11/01

In the March 28, 2004, interview with Rumsfeld, Wallace did press him on whether the Department of Defense should have "been thinking more about" terrorism prior to 9-11 and asked him to respond to the "basic charge that, pre-9-11 ... this government, the Bush administration, largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda." Referring to Rumsfeld's testimony before the 9-11 Commission regarding the Defense Department's anti-terrorism efforts, Wallace remarked, "[I]t sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority."

But beyond this exchange, the Fox News Sunday interviews listed above have almost entirely ignored several key questions regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Hardly a shocker... accuracy has never been a virtue at Fox news.

So what does it matter? Because for some reason people believe everything they hear these assholes say.

Take, for example, the deliberate insinuation of a tie between al Qaeda and Saddam. Like a little energizer bunny, Fox News keeps pimping the story, and pimping it, and pimping it. Despite all information to the contrary, they continue to mislead their viewers. I know several very smart people who have fallen for this -- both avid Fox News watchers. In fact, I will never forget traveling with one of the upline managers from work in the months after 9/11. There was still a military presence in the airports back then and we watched the soldiers from a lounge barstool, admiring their machine guns and contemplating the recently introduced idea of invading Iraq. I told him I did not think the invasion was in our best interests for the long term and he looked at me in utter disbelief. "How can you say that?" he asked. "He [Saddam] just killed 3,000 of our people!" I tried to explain to him that it was an al Qaeda job but it was too late -- he had already been convinced otherwise.

I don't understand why otherwise intelligent people continue to watch this network except that it reinforces their view of the world in a comforting sort of way... it's like the macaroni and cheese of news. Making Fox your trusted news source is about as smart and healthy as making mac and cheese your primary food source.

p.s. On a slightly unrelated topic, I can't resist throwing in this Bill O'Reilly link because, well, I hate Bill O'Reilly.

There's a Message (If Anyone is Listening)

Via Crooks and Liars, I am reminded of this 2005 article by David Sirota. I have never understood why the Democratic party shrinks back whenever the GOP and their media operatives charge them with Populism. What's wrong with Populism? And along the same line, what's wrong with fighting the class war?

The most common complaint I hear about the Democratic Party is that "they don't stand for anything." This criticism inevitably comes from people who like to think they're above partisan politics, the so-called "Independents". Somehow the Independents fail to recognize that a party's "message" doesn't just magically evolve. Not only does it require a quality platform, it also requires party unity, loyalty, and discipline to stay consistent with the message. The Republicans mastered this concept brilliantly in 1994 and have managed to hold together pretty well even through their recent immigration infighting. Democrats? Not so much. Ironically, if the "Independents" were really that interested in political purity you'd think they'd embrace the Democrats, who seem to be all over the place on any given day. I blame the ancient, current leadership of the Dems for this... they are weak and ineffective and it's time for them to go. Somehow they decided to become Republican-lite on most every issue with the lone, lonely point of differentiation being abortion -- the most legislatively impotent issue of all since the Supreme's decision on Roe v. Wade. When they turned their back on labor, there was really no place to go but right.

I say, if the old wing of the Democratic Party want to behave like Republicans, let them go be Republicans. It does not break my heart to think of Lieberman making a shift to the GOP, for example. I have no personal animosity toward Lieberman but his position on almost every economic issue from the Bankruptcy Bill to Social Security to the Enron investigation have placed him squarely in Republican territory. I want something else from the Democrats.

The constant media pounding of GOP talking points about the liberal netroots being a bad thing for this country is absolutely ridiculous. We are not a bunch of wild-eyed radicals, and quite frankly it's about time that the Democratic party embraced its inner populist and reshaped itself from the ground up. After years of ideological stagnation it's about the only way I can see it ever changing. Grassroots Democrats have been working for several years now to build a platform that means something again... the only ones not getting the message are its current leadership.

Congratulations, Kaitlyn!

Kaitlyn took 2nd place for Harlem at the Freeport Diving Invitational (Freshman competition). Not bad for her first meet and pretty darn good for someone without a gymnastics background who has been diving for a grand total of 4 weeks.

The really amazing thing, though, is that until last week she was Harlem's only diver -- meaning she learned all six dives by simply having her instructor describe them for her (most new divers at least have the benefit of learning by watching experienced divers).

The most dramatic moment came when they announced the order of the divers and Kaitlyn found out she had drawn first. The pool room was completely silent as she walked to the board, all eyes on her. I could see how nervous she was but she climbed up and did her thing. The girl's got guts. And talent!

Congratulations, Kait -- well done!

Catching Up Again

It was a rough week between work and kid events so I've fallen behind on news and blog reading.

• Flip flopping: Bin Laden was dying from kidney failure before he was dying of typhoid fever. And he may really be dead -- who knows? All I'm saying is I find the timing of the leak, closely following Bush's two week 9/11 blitz (where he mentioned getting bin Laden 17 times in one speech), to be a little more than coincidental. I smell another case of voter manipulation.
  

• "The Axis of Lesser Evilism"... what a clever phrase! Saw it while surfing the news.

• Has the war in Iraq made us safer? According to the NIE, "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," it sure doesn't look like it. This shouldn't be a shocker but the same folks who believe that Iraq is really a great success story that the liberal media has just been covering up to discredit Bush aren't going to be convinced.

• Clinton Vs Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday (I prefer the full transcript to the partial clip). I agree with Digby on this point: Apparently Democrats are expected to tip-toe around and not upset anyone or be too loud or too passionate or too emphatic. Fuck that. I grow weary of the Angry Democrat meme. Why isn't everyone angry? For Pete's sake, anyone with functioning brain should be angry at this administration and its media operatives at Fox news. At any rate, I was happy to see Clinton speak passionately and factually, especially about the Cole issue (which I have also written about here). Clinton laid it out when he said that he may have tried and failed to stop bin Laden but Bush hadn't tried at all. Having read the book Clinton refers to, Against All Enemies, and excerpts from the 9/11 Commision Report, I think it's pretty clear he's telling the truth.
  

• Vladimir Buklovsky writes a compelling piece on torture. Please read it. As for the John McCain "compromise"... I probably should be more disillusioned that the rhetoric didn't match the outcome but I quit believing McCain was a political purist earlier this year when he reversed his independent position and started openly fellating Jerry Falwell and the religious right.
  

• Glenn Greenwald spots hypocrisy and catches Michelle Malkin being... well, Michelle Malkin.
  

• Bush still at 37%? I have to wonder if this actually bodes well for Democrats at the polls. Although it seems logical that folks should be looking for a change in leadership based on gross incompetency, something tells me that we've probably got a good percentage of the country who are unhappy because he isn't conservative enough.
  

The Secret Iraq Report

Lee Hamilton and James Baker (yes, that James Baker) have co-chaired a special group that's been working for the past six months to figure out how to "fix" Iraq. Their statement so far? "The next three months are critical." I find that a little disheartening since we've been told repeatedly over the past three years that the next three months are critical -- with little result.

But probably the most telling piece of the related news article is this:

At a downtown Washington news conference, Hamilton and Baker declined to say what their assessment is of the situation in Iraq now or to indicate anything about their upcoming recommendations. They said recommendations won't be given to the government or made public until after the November election - to avoid politicizing them. They said they would not be more specific about when the findings might be released.

Two things strike me about that comment. First, if they're afraid of the report being politicized then things in Iraq must be pretty bad... or at least more so than this administration would have us believe.

Second, if the next three months are critical and their report contains the next steps for "fixing" things -- how productive will it be to wait until after November 7th to release the report? It reminds me of the old Abbott and Costello "Who's on first?" routine. The fun never ends with these people.

Update: Additional info from Kevin Drum.

Evil Dictatorships and Innocent Men

So let me get this straight. The United States (that would be We, the People), the country that has refused to deal with Syria because they're one of those "evil dictatorships", kidnapped a Canadian citizen from an American airport and shipped him to Syria to be held and tortured on our behalf for months without any legal status at all.

Did I get that right? Because the irony of it is such a total mindf*ck on so many levels that I keep thinking I must have read the report incorrectly.

Are we so busy pissing ourselves at the idea of The Bad Guys that we've forgotten who we are? Does our government so lust for the morally uninhibited freedom of an evil dictatorship, where practices such as law and due process are discretionary, that they are happy to live vicariously through Syria?

Does it matter to anyone that the evil dictatorships of the Middle East we've been railing against seem to come in handy when we've got a little evil of our own that needs doing? Does it matter to anyone that the very democratic principles we've been trumpeting are so easily discarded when they prove inconvenient?

And does it bother anyone that the poor guy was innocent?

I am disgusted. Again.

Is He Ready Yet?

It seems like a long time ago that we stood out in the August sun with the kids to hear Obama speak at Sinnissippi Park. It was 2004 and I admit, I was already smitten.

I've become more and more and more enamored as time goes on. The man has charisma. He is eloquent. He is intelligent. He demonstrates conviction. He's on middlin' ground, politically, with broad appeal. He understands the concerns of all without groveling to any.

He is moving cautiously through his junior term, taking some positions that leave the lefties cheering and some that leave them reeling... point being, he votes what he believes without any particular angle. I would vote for him again - for any office - and if he stays on this course it seems certain that he will be president some day. But it is it too soon?

My desire for a principled, intelligent, politically savvy world leader (not just a national figurehead) is so strong that I'd wish him to run sooner rather than later. But just like you can't rush a fine wine or smooth scotch, I think he needs to grow a little more into the role that I'm almost convinced he was born for. He needs to learn how Washington works so he can rule it. He needs to build the kind of bipartisan alliances that will enable him to move an agenda (people forget that this is how politics is supposed to work... it is silly to declare a war on your opposition and then sulk in the corner because you can't get anything done). He needs to begin building international relationships. All of this takes time.

A true leader does not need to take power. A true leader is given power. I think we've finally found one.

UPDATE: In re-reading this post it appears I've succumbed to emotional and, more unforgivably, bad, writing - however - instead of deleting it I'm going to simply let it stand as a tribute to the frustration I feel with the current state of politics and with the people currently in power.

The Pride and Joy of Illinois

Went to see the Bears beat Detroit at Soldier Field today -- 34-7, go Bears! Despite the Weather Channel's ominous warnings there was no thunderstorm, no hail, and no damaging wind... in fact, the wind at last year's San Francisco game was much more noteworthy.

Spent a small fortune on beer at $6.50 a can. Normally that price would make me cringe but when you're sitting in Row 25 it seems like money well spent to have it delivered directly to your seat (you can sort of tell from the picture how many steps there were between our seats and the beer stand). This seemed to be a common feeling among the crowd because the beer was in high demand and our lone, sweaty beerman was mobbed all through the first half. Several fans, experiencing the kind of debilitating beer anxiety that comes from holding an empty plastic cup for too long, lumbered down to the aisle and planted themselves in his path, refusing to move until served. The Great Beer Rebellion of Section 441 was eventually put down when another beerman joined the fray and together the duo managed to quench the collective thirst.

It's quite a thing to see the Bears play in person -- an entirely different energy altogether from watching the game on TV. I can't say I'm the most ardent fan ever (that would be my husband) but I do enjoy this newly annual event.

Fortunately I had recovered from last week's NU tailgate in time for our Chicago traingate although I do think it will take quite some time before I'm able to follow the Bloody Mary-Knob Creek-Miller Lite path to inebriation again.

Past is Prologue: Iran

Read it.

We shouldn't assume there's not a threat but let's be sure we understand the truth this time. I mean, at least before we start hysterically questioning each other's patriotism and throwing around accusations of appeasement and hate-America-first'ing.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Michael Totten Talks to Yaacov Lozowick

Michael Totten balances his previous Peace Now interview by discussing the Lebanon conflict with Israeli historian and author, Yaacov Lozowick. I love the pragmatism evident in these people, both right and left. I wish I could lay claim to it as an American trait but, alas... it is not our best feature.

Health Care and the Economy

The leftist commie mag, Business Week, has posted an article called, "What's Really Propping Up the Economy?" The gist is that most job growth in the US since 2000 has been in (or directly related to) the Health Care sector.

But the very real problems with the health-care system mask a simple fact: Without it the nation's labor market would be in a deep coma. Since 2001, 1.7 million new jobs have been added in the health-care sector, which includes related industries such as pharmaceuticals and health insurance. Meanwhile, the number of private-sector jobs outside of health care is no higher than it was five years ago.

Sure, housing has been a bonanza for homebuilders, real estate agents, and mortgage brokers. Together they have added more than 900,000 jobs since 2001. But the pressures of globalization and new technology have wreaked havoc on the rest of the labor market: Factories are still closing, retailers are shrinking, and the finance and insurance sector, outside of real estate lending and health insurers, has generated few additional jobs.

The good news:

Health care is highly labor intensive, so most of that $2 trillion ends up in the pockets of workers. And at least so far, there's little leakage abroad in terms of patient care. "Health care is all home-produced," says Princeton University economist and health-care expert Uwe Reinhardt. The good news is that if the housing market falls into a deep swoon, health care could provide enough new jobs to prevent a wider recession. In August, health-services employment rose by 35,000, double the increase in construction and far outstripping any other sector.

John Maynard Keynes would nod approvingly if he were alive. Seventy years ago, the elegant British economist proposed that in tough times the government could and should spend large sums of money to create jobs and stimulate growth. His theories are out of fashion, but substitute "health care" for "government," and that's exactly what is happening today.

The bad news:

Make no mistake, though: The U.S. could eventually pay a big economic price for all these jobs. Ballooning government spending on health care is a major reason why Washington is running an enormous budget deficit, since federal outlays for health care totaled more than $600 billion in 2005, or roughly one quarter of the whole federal budget. Rising prices for medical care are making it harder for the average American to afford health insurance, leaving 47 million uninsured.

Moreover, as the high cost of health care lowers the competitiveness of U.S. corporations, it may accelerate the outflow of jobs in a self-reinforcing cycle. In fact, one explanation for the huge U.S. trade deficit is that the country is borrowing from overseas to fund creation of health-care jobs.

There's another enormous long-term problem: If current trends continue, 30% to 40% of all new jobs created over the next 25 years will be in health care. That sort of lopsided job creation is not the blueprint for a well-functioning economy. One solution would be to make health care less labor-intensive by investing a lot more in information technology. "Low productivity in health is mostly a product of low investment," says Harvard University economist Dale Jorgenson.I have always favored a national healthcare program in the US.

I applauded Clinton's early attempt at a national healthcare system -- an idea ahead of its time, apparently -- and was greatly dismayed when the Republicans distracted our usual idiot voters from any real discussion by terming it "Hillarycare" and making it a referendum on Hillary's role in the administration. These are the same idiot voters who, by the way, were led to obsess over John Kerry's haircuts, tan color, wind surfing hobby, wealthy wife, and unproven accusations about his purple hearts instead of more substantive voting criteria during an election year. But I digress...

I believed for a while that the push for nationalized healthcare would shift from Democrats to Republicans, whose corporate clients are anxious to get out from under the burden of traditional employment benefits (health insurance and pensions). Bush kindasorta started going that direction with his fatally flawed, uber-libertarian "Ownership Society" concept. The "Ownership Society" is designed to shift the full cost of employment benefits back to workers via personal savings accounts (virtually undoing every bit of progress labor has made since the Gilded Age). These accounts might work well for wealthier folks but most voters, even the idiot ones, understood intuitively that it would likely be personally catastrophic for them in the end. Haven't heard much about the grand Ownership Society scheme lately, have we?

So what to do now that healthcare is fast becoming the mainstay of our economy while simultaneously becoming its greatest drain? Seems like quite the catch-22.

People tend to believe that nationalized healthcare is more expensive and of inferior quality. What substantiates this belief??? My father was privately insured and, during the years of his chronic illness, was treated to one horrifying healthcare travesty after another. One incompetent, apathetic doctor after another. One grossly understaffed, profit obsessed hospital after another. His healthcare tab was over a million dollars when he died. A million dollars to endure the relative disinterest and neglect of his healthcare providers while he was alive. They showed far, far more interest in him after his death when it was time to collect their money. Fucking bastards. I won't even go into how we, in the US, suffer the highest infant mortality rate of any industrialized nation at 60% more cost. So please, tell me again how single payer or socialized medicine is the worst thing that could ever happen to us?

Emotional diatribe aside, I think it's time for an honest, apolitical, national discussion on healthcare in this country. It's time to talk about what we, as citizens, want and what we, as citizens, are willing to pay for, and how we, as citizens, think it will be best achieved. And, to set the stage for this discussion, it's time for our nation's leaders to honestly assess and communicate the reality of our economy and quit spinning its condition in a bid for political primacy.

Very Cosmopolitan

• My mood gets exponentially better with each Cosmopolitan I consume. One of my favorite TV episodes - ever - is the 'King of Queens' episode where the usually-uptight wife goes out with some friends for Appletini's after work and comes home tipsy and relaxed. The husband prefers her in this state and begins feeding her Appletini's when she gets home from work each night until she finally catches on. Sitcom hilarity ensues.
  

• I want to live in the South just so I can speak with a Southern accent.

• Not many people know this but Shel Silverstein wrote "Boy Named Sue" (recorded by Johnny Cash in 1969). The last line of this stanza is pure poetry:
  

Well, I hit him hard right between the eyes
And he went down, but to my surprise,
He come up with a knife and cut off a piece of my ear.
But I busted a chair right across his teeth
And we crashed through the wall and into the street
Kicking and a' gouging in the mud and the blood and the beer.

Faux News

I have noticed this ploy on Fox News many times... unbelievably sleazy and transparent. Glad to see someone giving it the ridicule it so richly deserves.



Kind of like the infamous strawman, "Some people say...", from which Fox News has frequently launched a GOP editorial in the guise of news reporting.

Call it entertainment or trash talk TV but please don't call it journalism. The so-called liberal media ain't got nothing on these kids.

Catch up

I've been too tied up to post much of late but here's some of what I've been reading tonight:

• Beard for bin Laden (via TPM)
• Steve Clemons discusses the Chafee victory over at The Washington Note
• Digby has something to say about Pimping the Greatest Generation
  
• Brilliant piece from Newsweek dissecting Bush's more obvious rhetorical stylings
• Instapundit does his usual 'link and run' to this writ on the Syrian embassy attack, which may or not be true... but where there are no supporting source links I tend to categorize it as opinion...
• The Iraq-Iran circle of love, by Glenn Greenwald
• More troops in Anbar? Mission un-Accomplished
  
• More troops in Afghanistan? (didn't we already win this one?)
  

5 Years Ago

The beginning of September 11th, 2001, was beautiful. Crisp air. Flawless blue sky. A gorgeous midwest autumn day.

I had recently started working out of my home office and my morning began with seeing everyone out the door. The girls caught the school bus at the front curb. My husband kissed me goodbye and left for work. I dropped my son at his pre-school and stayed to chat with the teachers for a few minutes. My pager went off as I was climbing back into our white mini-van. There was a fire at the World Trade Center, it said, and an emergency phone bridge was being established for one of our customers, a tenant of the WTC. My son's school was only a mile away from home and I sped the entire way back.

I hurried to dial into the conference bridge, simultaneously flipping on the TV to see if anything was being covered on CNN. Our customer was already on the call... they were being evacuated and they asked us to monitor their critical systems. At that point it was still not entirely clear what was happening. With the call running in the background, I turned my attention to the news coverage just in time to see the second plane hit the South tower.

It was shocking to see it and I sat transfixed, watching the coverage. Reports of people, trapped, jumping to their deaths from burning floors. Reports of a third and fourth plane having been hijacked. Reports of one of the planes smashing into the Pentagon. Speculation about where the 4th plane would hit and whether it would be shot down until finally, tragically, it was reported to have crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Reports of a fire on the Mall in Washington.

It felt like we were under attack. My husband called to ask if I'd heard the news. I called my mom. A friend called from her cell phone at an airport in the North East. "What's going on?" she asked. "They've pulled us off the plane but they won't tell us anything and every TV in the terminal is off."

I watched the horrific collapse of the South WTC tower, unable to believe what I was seeing. I watched the North tower collapse not long after. Reports of the estimated number of dead were high... tens of thousands. I had been at the WTC just the month before for a customer meeting. It had been thrilling to look out the window from the 67th floor of the South tower to see the Statue of Liberty. I suddenly felt very, very lucky to be home.

After a while the customer began rejoining the conference bridge but, after the morning's events, they were less interested in the status of their systems than in determining if their friends and coworkers had made it out ok. "Did you hear from Jim? Did Bob make it out ok? Have you seen..." The TV showed video of ghostly looking people covered in white dust randomly wandering the streets of lower Manhatten. They looked dazed and numb.

I watched the news all that day and most of the night. We had the TV on for days after, flipping compulsively between CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and CNBC. We fell asleep watching the endless news streams and woke up watching them. The images of the planes hitting and the towers collapsing played over and over again. The destruction was all consuming. Five years later, these memories are among the most vivid I have... visceral and perfectly preserved.

Hypocrisy

While the media/rightwing outrage over the Lieberman primary defeat begins to subside, I am still hearing nothing but the sound of crickets chirping around the primary campaign of moderate Republican Lincoln Chafee. His challenger is ultra-conservative Steven Laffey, running on the traditional God, Gays, Guns, & Taxes platform. The Rhode Island Republican primary is September 12th.

I would, of course, be lying if I said my interest in the race wasn't mostly about the strange (yet strangely predictable) hypocrisy of those conservatives/media operatives who fussed and fumed about Lieberman and the wild-eyed radical liberals who unseated him from the Democratic Party. Poor moderate Republican Lincoln Chafee... the target of an attempted coup by a bunch of wild-eyed radical conservatives in the Republican party who think he's voted like a Democrat just a few too many times.

I suppose the media may perhaps give one small nod of acknowledgement to the race now that it's crossed paths with the Bolton confirmation (recently delayed at Chafee's request). I'll say the same thing I said earlier about the Lieberman defeat: It's the voters' prerogative. Welcome to democracy in action.

P.S.
Although the Bolton appointment deserves its very own post, I do want to point out this rather memorable Chafee-Bolton exchange, blogged here by Steve Clemons.

On Torture

I know I should feel a sense of moral outrage on the subject of torture but it's never lit any particular fires in my soul. Yes, it's wrong. It is. But I instinctively look at the issue through a more pragmatic lens.

Everyone loves to cite the dramatic "24" scenario where a bad guy is tortured until he reveals, with three seconds to spare, the location of a hidden nuclear bomb... saving every man, woman, and child in Los Angeles. Isn't torture justified then? I suppose under such a fantastic, fictional circumstance I'd be able to live with myself.

But real life torture is more likely to entail rounding up a group of suspect characters, spiriting them away uncharged and untried to parts unknown, and torturing them until you're satisfied that they don't know anything about anything you're interested in. See the difference?

So of course I found the recent Bush prison confession to be of interest. Supposedly some kind of brilliant political maneuver, Bush has admitted the existence of secret CIA prisons and the use of lawful torture methods and added that, oh, by the way, the torture has yielded incredible life saving results.

But has it really?

Public documents show that some of the information that led to the arrests of senior terrorism plotters like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh was known before the C.I.A. detained its first prisoner, Mr. Zubaydah, in the spring of 2002.

Mr. Bush said it was Mr. Zubaydah who disclosed to C.I.A. interrogators that Mr. Mohammed was the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and often used the alias Mukhtar, sometimes spelled Muktar.

“This was a vital piece of intelligence that helped our intelligence community pursue K.S.M.,” Mr. Bush said, referring to the terror suspect by his initials.

The report of the Sept. 11 commission said that the C.I.A. knew of the moniker for Mr. Mohammed months before the capture of Mr. Zubaydah.

According to the report, the C.I.A. unit given the task of tracking Osama bin Laden had intercepted a cable on Aug. 28, 2001, that revealed the alias of Mr. Mohammed.

Mr. Bush also said it was the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah that identified Mr. bin al-Shibh as an accomplice in the Sept. 11 attacks.

American officials had identified Mr. bin al-Shibh’s role in the attacks months before Mr. Zubaydah’s capture. A December 2001 federal grand jury indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, said that Mr. Moussaoui had received money from Mr. bin al-Shibh and that Mr. bin al-Shibh had shared an apartment with Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of the plot.

And when we're done quibbling over what bits of truthiness we've been able to extract via torture, let's take a look at what happens when torture extracts bits of untruthiness:

One of the men, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, is believed to have given false information about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda after C.I.A. officials transferred him to Egyptian custody in 2002. Mr. al-Libi’s statements were used by the Bush administration as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons.

It emerged later that Mr. al-Libi had fabricated these stories while in captivity to avoid harsh treatment by his Egyptian captors.

Unless you live within an episode of "24", it just doesn't seem to make sense to make torture the cornerstone of your counter terrorism program.

Pakistan News

A somewhat optimistic CSM article on Pakistan's deal with the devil. The thought process seems to be that its preoccupation with Al Qaeda has been turning Pakistan into a military state and has weakened its democracy. Letting the Pakistan Taliban handle border patrol in the Waziristan areas will supposedly allow the military/political arms to swing back in balance. The article concludes that a strong Democracy will be able to counter terrorism more effectively. I'm unconvinced... chicken, egg, etc.

Bloomberg reports that Pakistan is asking for a boost in NATO support for border control. Something about a surprisingly strong Taliban/Al Qaeda resistance in Afghanistan. Wait... didn't we win that one? I would stop to ponder if we should have cleaned up Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq but we've got an attack on Iran to plan.

Meanwhile, A Q Kahn, Pakistan's "nuclear Wal-Mart", is still a national hero.

The Path to The Path to 9/11

The ABC movie, The Path to 9/11, has spawned quite the commemorative controversy. I don't see how anyone could argue that this "docudrama" is worthy of our national viewership. If it's supposed to educate us or to provoke additional policy discussion, why not just stick with the facts? Embellishing the story merely to create a better anti-Clinton storyline is disgusting considering the subject matter and the air date. And pre-releasing the damn thing to all the conservative media operatives was just plain weird.

The Editors, my lovely, wry, sardonic hero over at The Poorman, has apparently gained exclusive rights to an original movie storyboard.

Glenn Greenwald takes a stroll down memory lane to recall the CBS Ronald Reagan movie that almost was.

And here's Greg Mitchell from Editor & Publisher on MSNBC(hat tip Atrios):

August Death Toll Revised

Looks like the much heralded August deathtoll decline in Iraq was, in fact, untrue. New numbers here (via Instapundit).

Quite a little mixup... can't imagine how that could have happened.

Deep Breath

Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek has an interesting column on Iran and its president.

George Ryan Goes to Jail

Probably an appropriate outcome but I can't help but think that putting this 72 year old man in jail for 6 years is only a more ironic waste of taxpayer money than the acts of corruption for which he was convicted.

Republicans Fund Lieberman's Primary Campaign

To the people who think Joe Lieberman got the shaft and are outraged that 'a really great guy' was ousted by all those wild-eyed radical liberals... it's time to wake the hell up and ask yourself why Rove would involve himself to funnel contributions toward Lieberman's campaign when there are so many Republican candidates who need funding in this primary season. And why would Lieberman accept them?

Are we to believe it's because Rove thinks Joe Lieberman is just 'a really great guy'? Yes, of course... the Republican's political strategy is often associated with bipartisan support of 'really great guys'. I'm sure they did it because deep down they feel that 'really great guys' are good for the country. I'm sure it would never occur to them to support a candidate because of what they might get out of it in a year when they are worried about losing majority status. I'm sure there was nary a quid nor a pro nor a quo involved.

Some Republicans are probably still upset that "one of the good guys" (aka one of the guys who thinks like they do) took a hit but they needn't worry. If Lieberman wins as a 3rd party candidate then he'll no longer feel any obligation to vote against his natural Republican tendencies!

P.S.
I wonder how that race in Rhode Island is going... you know, the one where the moderate incumbant Republican, Lincoln Chafee, is being challenged by a right wing conservative because of his moderate positions on taxes, gay marriage, and the environment? The challenger, Stephen Laffey, is being promoted by those wild-eyed radical conservatives in The Club For Growth. Haven't heard much hype about that one in the news lately, have you?

Deliberate Idiocy

Wesley Clark speaks the facts to one of Fox's deliberate idiots, Neil Cavuto.



I don't understand how anyone can believe that the lack of terror attacks in the US is a meaningful sign of victory against terrorism. It's as if we're somehow meant to believe that attacks were occurring weekly prior to Bush launching his rhetorical War on Terra and that he magically brought them to an end through his bold foreign policy initiatives. Correlation does not imply causation here. The fact is that terror on US soil was pretty rare prior to 9/11 (and more commonly executed by our own homegrown, non-Islamic radicals anyway).

Put it this way: Bush claiming that his foreign policy has prevented additional terror attacks would be like me claiming that my policy of wearing rubber boots during thunderstorms has prevented me from being struck by lightning.

By any other metric Bush's foreign policy has either done nothing helpful or failed outright.

And please -- for the love of God, please! -- stop with the USS Cole crap as some kind of freakish Republican talking point. The attack happened on October 12, 2000. The US elected a new president on November 7, 2000. The Navy Jag released their report on the Cole on January 19th, 2001. The Clinton administration left Bush a 20 page response plan that Bush neglected to implement.

The US didn't respond to 9/11 until the October 7 attack on Afghanistan. Assume it takes a month to implement a retaliatory strike (even if the Jag report had been complete, which it wasn't). Try to imagine, if you would, just how absolutely berserk the Republicans would have gone if we'd committed an act of war on what was, at the time, a relatively obscure target directly prior to the November election, or directly after when a new president had just been elected. Clinton did about the only reasonable thing he could do. For anyone to look through their 20/20 hindsight goggles and say otherwise is plain bullshit.

Ahmadinejad and U.S. Conservatives: Something in Common

Looks like Iran's Ahmadinejad and U.S. Conservatives have something in common.

Iran's America's hard-line president conservatives urged students Tuesday to push for a purge of liberal and secular university teachers, another sign of his their determination to strengthen Islamic Christian fundamentalism in the country.

With Friends Like Pakistan...

I'd say this makes Pakistan a more imminent threat than Iran.

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."

Bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere in the tribal areas of Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border, but U.S. officials say his precise location is unknown.

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.

Oh, and Pakistan already has The Bomb.

We can fight it all we want but I have a hard time believing it's going to make that much of a difference if Iran goes nuclear. How much less safe will we be? The genie is out of the bottle, whether it's black market Soviet nukes or Pakistani nukes or North Korean nukes.

Not saying we shouldn't try to stop Iran... just that we shouldn't kid ourselves that it's the end-all - be-all of our safety.

Update 9/6/06: Misquoted?

Surfing the Net

• Good news in Iraq with the capture of Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia's second in command, al Saeedi. I'm happy to see the murderous thug captured, humiliated, and (hopefully) punished by the same government he sought to undermine. I have to wonder, though, just how devastating a blow this actually is for Al Qaeda. It has been a bit confusing trying to get a feel for Al Qaeda's actual strength, activities, or effectiveness in Iraq. It may be that the death of al Zarqawi and the capture of al Saeedi are simply impeding Al Qaeda's efforts to establish roots in Iraq. If Al Qaeda disappeared from Iraq tomorrow I wonder how much of a difference it would make in the day-to-day.
  

• Fascinating thing, this insistent blogospheric worship of Israel. I saw it first in the way Michael Totten got hammered in his coverage of the Lebanon conflict (no anti-semite, he) and then, while randomly surfing info on Badr vs Sadr, stumbled on it at the Back to Iraq blog (which I'm sorry I found too late -- it looks like it was a great blog!). It's kind of scary the way people have adopted a cartoonish image of the modern Middle East... very one dimensional and subjective. This recent manifestation of the greater "you're either for us or against us" argument is so astonishingly retarded that I hardly know what else to say.

• Interesting Labor Day op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle. Heroes of an earlier day, I have long questioned Labor's ability to make a productive contribution in the modern labor market. I used to think until very recently that labor unions might reinvent themselves as a check against unfettered globalization but I don't see any sign of that happening and I'm not sure how effective it would be anyway (wouldn't it merely hasten the exit of jobs from our shores?). A more efficient check would be an organized movement on the consumer side. But I dream...
  

Katrina in Retrospect

I have never had much of a specific rant to offer on Katrina. It was such an overwhelming disaster, figuratively and literally, that it's almost impossible to know how to speak of it. I also never much had the heart to politicize it and, even if I had, there was so much blame to go around on all sides that it would have been impossible for any party or level of government to walk away unscathed. Truly the magnitude of failure in both preparation and response is inexecusable, unforgivable, and for everyone involved to bear.

Digby has provided some commentary on the anniversary of Katrina that I've only just gotten around to reading. Because I sat transfixed watching the coverage for days, I remember vividly the wildly incongruous exchanges on Fox between the live reporting from Shepherd Smith/Geraldo Rivera and the studio reporting from Bill O'Reilly/Sean Hannity. Surreal to see the video again on Crooks and Liars, especially the gut wrenching emotion coming from the normally staid Smith.

Digby's best link in the post is, as it should be, I think, rather unpolitical and predictably telling of the range of human response in such a disaster. Riveting story.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani

The Telegraph brings us a new headline from Iraq:

I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader.

Profiles in Cowardice

It is not just laziness that makes me provide a simple link to this Glenn Greenwald post and urge you to read every word.

I do it out of love.

Why this Center Left girl now considers herself a Partisan Democrat

I didn't used to.

I'm actually still a registered Independent, unable to vote in the Democratic primary. I used to think that was just fine because in every election since 1988 I have voted across party lines for one race or another. This is especially true in local and state elections where I've always voted community interests before ideological priorities.

That all changed with Bush the Junior and for the first time in my voting career I am contemplating an official allegiance to the Democratic Party as a registered voter.

At this point I have become compelled by unseen forces to speak only in a sarcastic, derogatory, or dismissive way about the man who currently holds our highest government office but in 2000 I was rather ambivalent. Bush seemed unserious to me: a figurehead fulfilling the GOP's need for a malleable candidate with built-in Republican creds. A little insulting to the voters, I thought, but then again I never believed my fellow voters wouldn't see right through the Gays n'God scam being perpetrated by the right. Living in Illinois I had the luxury of casting my own 'protest' vote for Nader without fear of putting a hole in the space-time continuum (elections are so anti-climactic when you live in a solid blue state). And so I did.

I was a little distressed by the Bush II victory but I had a busy life to attend to and besides, things were in generally good shape... how much harm could one man do? As it turns out, my apathy was grossly ill-advised in the shadow of the Rove-Cheney-Rumsfeld triumvirate. With the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary bodies now under firm Republican control, and with the Fox News propaganda machine in full swing, I was sadly ignorant of just how out of balance my universe was about to become.

I was quite put off by Cheney's secretive Energy Task Force but the trauma of 9/11 pulled me squarely, if only temporarily, behind Bush. Like everyone else, I was numb and scared and then highly, highly pissed off at having been attacked. Like everyone else, I was happily cheering when our President spoke from Atlanta on November 8, 2001. In fact, I can read the transcript even now and it still sends chills down my spine.

So what happened? Well, first and foremost, I saw a big policy shift away from Bush's statements in that November 8th speech and toward the documented intentions of this group (the membership signatures on this page really freaked me out). I began to strongly resent the dirty game being played against the citizen of this country.

I was angry that we were not taking the path of global alignment to relentlessly root out and destroy the existing terrorist threat by shoring up our own intelligence and building an effective international intelligence and counter-terrorist network. The entire world was, for the first time in our history, entirely sympathetic toward our cause. But instead we embarked on the unrelated and divisive folly of ousting Saddam. I was in disbelief regarding the manipulative (and factually incorrect) attempt to tie Al Qaeda to Saddam. I was angry that the administration and its friends in the media, despite intelligence to the contrary in early 2003, continued to use the WMD threat to push for the Iraq invasion while deriding those of us who questioned it as unpatriotic or treasonous. I was angry that they stirred up that ridiculous anti-France, anti-Germany fervor to obfuscate the real, more pragmatic issues surrounding the invasion. I was angry (and still am) that Osama is alive and that we've all but abandoned any attempt to find out who was behind the Anthrax poisonings.

But mostly I'm angry that instead of rooting out the finite terrorist threat we once faced in Al Qaeda, we've now ignited the passion of everyday Islamists to create an endless parade of activists in the mother of all us-versus-them battles. Now we're not just dealing with a group of dangerous martyr idealogues financed by Osama... now we've created an entire movement against our interests. Our invasion of Iraq, no matter how carefully disguised as "liberation" or "neutralizing a WMD threat" or "enforcement of a UN Resolution" or "domino democracy theory", still reeks of our attempt at direct regional control. Maybe good from our perspective but certainly not to the theocratic nations that actually populate region. So now we have independent terrorist cells, copycat terrorists cells, and homegrown terrorist cells. Instead of a specific terrorist threat, we have now inspired a new army of Islamic homicidal maniacs to join the party. And, proving once again that you never know how bad it can get, the latest foiled UK terrorist airplane plot revealed a new threat from disaffected local psychos now converting to Islam in order to participate in terrorist activities. That's a business with frightening growth potential, one that the evil Al Qaeda has spotted and is suddenly keen to exploit.

But back to Iraq.

Once we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam, most of those of us who were appalled by everything in the runup to the war (including the ignorant strategy itself) recognized the need to win the thing. Strangely, the only people who seemed not to recognize the need to win was the Bush administration, who immediately called it a "mission accomplished" and then failed to stabilize the country. What a different situation this might have turned out to be had we had enough troops on the ground to lock down the country. Instead we played whack-a-mole with the insurgents, allowed Iran to exert its influence among the Shia, and gave Al Qaeda a playground for inciting sectarian violence AND a training ground for the next round of terrorist-inspired urban warfare. Now we have the trained and armed Kurds in the North taking pot shots at Turkey, the Sunni insurgents focused on securing their turf, and the Shia with fabulous new competing militias. I can't wait to see what happens next.

On the domestic front we have a booming business in globalization. You can't turn back the clock on global trade or labor displacement but you can create a softer landing for the affected until the international market achieves some kind of balance. Protectionist policy and isolationism, while sounding good, helps some and hurt others (remember the steel tariffs?) and probably isn't a sound go-forward strategy, But fair trade (as opposed to free trade) ought to be given some consideration. And instead of corporate welfare (which isn't spurring the large U.S. investment one might have expected with the incredible profits as of late), how about reshaping the tax breaks as a carrot to incent the investment of dollars here at home?

I hate to wind down this post without touching on the downside of privatization, social security dismantling, blurring the lines of church and state, the decline of meritocracy/rise of plutocracy, the tax-and-spend Republicans, the defiling of the constitution, or the erosion of civil liberties but there are simply not enough hours in the day to hit them all.

Let me conclude by saying that you can be a pragmatic, financially responsible, values-driven, socially conscious, national security supporting, individual freedom-individual responsibility sharing patriot and still fall comfortably left of center. I'm willing to cast my lot with the Democratic party in support of those ideas because I see NO SIGN that the Republican party takes them seriously or is able to execute on them with any degree of competency.

Hillary

Will she run for president or won't she?

I hope not. For starters, do we really want to perpetuate this bizarre dynasty concept? We had Bush I and Bush II and now our choice comes down to Clinton II (Hillary) or Bush III (Jeb)? I shudder. Yeah, we've had a few tag team presidents throughout history (no regrets on the Roosevelts) but do we really think there are no other qualified, electable candidates for president in a country of 300,000,000 people?

Also, the Democratic base does not like Hillary. Straw poll after straw poll and she barely registers a blip on the radar (in fact, many are openly hostile toward her). I'm not saying that the base necessarily proffers the best candidate for the run but, just like the Republicans need to harness their bible belt base to propel their candidates, so do the Democrats need to get their base working for them. And for the first time in recent history, the Democrats actually have a base -- one that isn't a rag-tag group of fragmented counter-working fringe interests.

My own intuitive take on Hillary is that she's one spectacularly shrewd woman... smart as a whip and just too damn cunning to trust. I see her lips moving and I hear all the right words coming out but I have no idea what she's really thinking. Is she a true statesman ready to use the power of the office for the betterment of the country or is the power of the office an ends to itself? Hard to say.

It is, however, hard to ignore that she is a brilliant and disciplined politician. Despite previous carpetbagging accusations regarding her Senate run in New York, she's worked hard for the state and (unlike the rest of the Washington crowd) spends most of her time physically there... New York moderates seem to love her. I think having her lead the senate Dems in lieu of Harry Reid would be of terrific benefit to the party. Reid strikes me as an insightful strategist but maybe too understated for the leadership role. Democrats have long suffered from a lack of party cohesion... surely it would strengthen them to have a born politician and strict disciplinarian keeping the troops in line? She's the anti-Pelosi and I would most certainly be willing to get behind that.

My Bad TV Habit

I have been watching wayyyy too much bad TV lately.

• Project Runway -- In today's rerun, the herd was asked to design an outfit for each other's mothers ("everyday women"). First a question: Are all male designers gay? Because that would explain why they all seem to design clothes for women that would look best on a pre-teen boy (no hips, no breasts). And what's up with the designers being repulsed by the idea of having to design clothes for a larger woman? Especially Jeffrey... what an ass. Any hack can design for a mannequin... only someone truly talented can design for the women who will actually be wearing the clothes. Finally, how mean was it to make the designers take turns picking their partnered moms from a lineup? My heart went out for the last moms standing.

• The Parent Trap -- I have hated this movie since the first time I saw it (starring Hayley Mills). Who thought the premise of the story would make for an awesome family movie? A married couple have twin daughters and, upon divorcing, simply divide them up like any other asset: "I'll take the house, the boat, and one daughter. You can have the jewelry, the car, and the other daughter. And by the way, I never want to see you again." So each parent presumably picks a girl, kisses the other one goodbye, and leaves to begin a new life. You couldn't get enough therapy in a lifetime to recover from that.

• The Sea People (Hallmark Channel) -- Oh. Ma. Ga. I cried like a baby when Hume Cronyn's character rejoined the sea. *sniff
  

In Celebration of Cheese

It's almost time for Green County Cheese Days in Monroe, Wisconsin (September 15-17).

Back in 1914, the concept of Cheese Days originated from the notion that if some little town in Illinois could have a festival commemorating sauerkraut, then a celebration based on cheese would be an even better idea.

Historical Cheese Days facts:

• 1914 - Five Monroe businessmen attend Sauerkraut Day in Forreston, Illinois, and return home to prepare for Cheese Day in just 19 days

• 1915 - Cheese Days program includes an “Ode to Limburger”

• 1916 - Festival attendees watch as Fred Steinman turns 2,000 pounds of milk into a giant wheel of cheese
  

• 1916 - Festival has a Circus parade theme titled "Panorama of Cheeseland”

• 1917 - 4 mile long parade includes 150 decorated cattle led by Swiss costumed dairy maids

• 1923 - A 400 pound wheel of Swiss cheese is created on the square, requiring 4500 pounds of milk

• 1935 - Cheese Days nearly fades into extinction due to the Great Depression, but is revitalized in 1935

• 1940 - Mrs. William Chambers of Juda wins the cow milking competition by getting nearly 20 pounds of milk from the cow in three minutes

• 1955 - Winner of contest to guess how many holes in a wheel of Swiss cheese receives 20 pound block of Swiss

• 1967 - UW Madison marching band plays "Come to Cheese Days" song during parade

• 1974 - Alphorns blown from atop the 120-foot Green County Courthouse clock tower to herald the opening of the festival

• 1980 - Cheese Days Ball held at Turner Hall, with Max Drexler's Bavarian Band entertaining

• 1988 - After not milking a cow for 45 years, Helen Summers Davis walks away the winner of the cow milking contest

Kitschy before kitschy was cool.

Timeless and True

The Golden Era of Profitability

One more post before I log out to enjoy this anticipated holiday weekend.

The New York Times has reported on the plight of the working class:

...wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.”

Smarter folks than I have been pouring over this latest round of economic numbers but it seems to me that if productivity is up, wages are down (particularly in a "tight" labor market with only 4% unemployment), and profits are at an all time high, well... something ain't working the way it's supposed to.

The article goes on to quote Ben Bernanke:

In a speech on Friday, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, did not specifically discuss wages, but he warned that the unequal distribution of the economy’s spoils could derail the trade liberalization of recent decades. Because recent economic changes “threaten the livelihoods of some workers and the profits of some firms,” Mr. Bernanke said, policy makers must try “to ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are sufficiently widely shared.”

Gee, ya think? Call me a flaming bleeding heart pinko commie French loving populist sympathizer if you will, but I think there comes a time when we have to start asking ourselves as a nation just how we want to live.

It's always been easy enough to blame the affected for their status in our economy... they're immigrants or under-educated or unemployable or they haven't learned to adapt or they've made bad decisions or maybe they're just lazy. Or, if one chooses to abstain from individual judgements then he can take the more politically expedient route and blame the unions, the schools, the parents, illegal immigration, goverment regulation, and taxation. Either way, we've provenly marvelously adept at finding excuses for blowing off the leave-behind segment of our population as long as we, ourselves, are doing ok.

Eventually, though, as more and more of the middle class are affected, this is going to get harder to do. Oh, and to those of you who lack the motivation to examine this issue because you aren't affected: It's probably just a matter of time before you are, or your family members, or your kids, or your friends, or your neighbors.

I'm just sayin'.

Quotables

Found this quote from Nobel Prize winning American physicist Steven Weinberg:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Good News - Bad News - Scary News

Iraq...

The good news: Iraqi deaths are down to under 800 in August from the all-time high of 3000 in July.

The bad news: The violence is spreading.

The scary news: Threat of Shia retaliation against Sunni's for a brutal act of terrorism that may not have been conducted by Sunni's.

At least we're making progress with the Iraqi National Army (except for that militia thing).

Iraq the Model

Omar from Iraq the Model has a new post up where he attempts to reconcile the prevalent questions of the day with the reality of an event he's recently experienced.

I've been reading Omar since he first hit celebrity blog status in the rightwingersphere of blogdom in late 2003-early 2004. Since then he's been a roller coaster ride of both optimism and horror, blogging openly of what he's seen, his hopes, his wishes, his dismay, and his fear. A strong proponent of the American invasion (hence his popularity among the rightwing bloggerazzi), I've often wondered if there's any point at which he would say, "If I'd have know it would turn out like this..."

At any rate, I definitely recommend Iraq the Model for a weekly read although his commenters take some getting used to since they usually show their support through ignorant or inane rhetoric. For example, the post I linked above incited some people to essentially blame Omar for the situation because he has not picked up a gun and personally attempted to take out the militia. True, he'd get his little dentist self immediately killed, but hey... freedom isn't free.

I've noticed the same trend at Michael J. Totten's blog... interesting blog, scary horde of commenters.