George Bush is making a deeply dishonest speech at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania right now. At the core of the dishonesty is the attribution of the absence of foreign terrorist attacks on the USA since 9/11 to his invasion of Iraq. But he cannot name a single terrorist plot against America that originated from Iraq, either under Saddam or from al-Qaeda in Iraq -- a group that only exists because of his invasion of Iraq. The speech is also a clip-show from his past dishonest speeches, so it's a pretty horrendous listen.
He also reiterates his 2nd inaugural address: the policy of the US is "to seek the end of tyranny in all nations for all time". Now that's humility!
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Delusion
George Bush, at his Hannukah reception last night--This evening, we have the great privilege of celebrating Israel's 60th anniversary and Hanukkah in a very special way. Thanks to the generosity of the Truman Library, we are fortunate to light the menorah presented to President Truman in 1951 as a symbol of friendship by Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion.
A decade after President Truman received this gift, he visited Prime Minister Ben-Gurion for one of the last times. As they parted, Ben-Gurion told the President that as a foreigner he could not judge President Truman's place in American history, but the President's courageous decision to recognize the new state of Israel gave him an immortal place in Jewish history. Those words filled the President's eyes with uncharacteristic tears. And later, Ben-Gurion would say he rarely had seen somebody so moved.
Lately, Bush has been comparing himself to Truman. It's just possible that he thinks he will be seen to a future Arab world as Truman is to Israel. For one thing, he has people near him telling him that. It's the kind of detachment that might drive one to hurl a pair of shoes at him.
That's your problem right there
CEO of Blackwater and Republican donor Erik Prince writes today in the Wall Street Journal defending his firm from accusations of trigger-happiness in Iraq including the Nisour Square massacre --
During the week before the Nisour Square incident (sic), one of Blackwater's helicopters was shot down, a separate team came under fire from armed insurgents, and a third team survived a roadside bomb. Even amidst such an aggressive and ubiquitous enemy, Blackwater's incident reports during that time period show that personnel discharged their weapons less than one half of one percent of the time.
Here's the dictionary definition of ubiquitous --
existing or being everywhere, esp. at the same time; omnipresent
If the CEO of the firm thought the enemy was everywhere, why was the firm let operate among the civilian population?
During the week before the Nisour Square incident (sic), one of Blackwater's helicopters was shot down, a separate team came under fire from armed insurgents, and a third team survived a roadside bomb. Even amidst such an aggressive and ubiquitous enemy, Blackwater's incident reports during that time period show that personnel discharged their weapons less than one half of one percent of the time.
Here's the dictionary definition of ubiquitous --
existing or being everywhere, esp. at the same time; omnipresent
If the CEO of the firm thought the enemy was everywhere, why was the firm let operate among the civilian population?
It was Saddam all along
Dick Cheney interview with ABC News (full text) --
JONATHAN KARL: You probably saw Karl Rove last week said that if the intelligence had been correct, we probably would not have gone to war.
CHENEY: I disagree with that. I think -- as I look at the intelligence with respect to Iraq -- what they got wrong was that there weren't any stockpiles. What we found in the after-action reports, after the intelligence report was done and then various special groups went and looked at the intelligence and what its validity was. What they found was that Saddam Hussein still had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology, he had the people, he had the basic feed stocks.
They also found that he had every intention of resuming production once the international sanctions were lifted. He had a long reputation and record of having started two wars. Of having brutalized and killed hundreds of thousands of people, some of them with weapons of mass destruction in his own country. He had violated 16 National Security Council resolutions. He had established a relationship as a terror-sponsoring state, according to the State Department. He was making $25,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers.
This was a bad actor and the country's better off, the world's better off, with Saddam gone, and I think we made the right decision, in spite of the fact that the original NIE was off in some of its major judgments.
It's becoming clear that one component of the Bush Legacy Project is to state plainly what crazy bloggers already knew: that the "debate" over whether Saddam was a threat or indeed had WMD was a sham. The decision had already been made.
But we shouldn't be surprised at being told in 2008 that it was a war of regime change, because we were told that 10 years ago. But are wars whose objective is regime change legal?
UPDATE: Cheney can't even get his selective spin about Saddam's WMD "capability" right.
JONATHAN KARL: You probably saw Karl Rove last week said that if the intelligence had been correct, we probably would not have gone to war.
CHENEY: I disagree with that. I think -- as I look at the intelligence with respect to Iraq -- what they got wrong was that there weren't any stockpiles. What we found in the after-action reports, after the intelligence report was done and then various special groups went and looked at the intelligence and what its validity was. What they found was that Saddam Hussein still had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology, he had the people, he had the basic feed stocks.
They also found that he had every intention of resuming production once the international sanctions were lifted. He had a long reputation and record of having started two wars. Of having brutalized and killed hundreds of thousands of people, some of them with weapons of mass destruction in his own country. He had violated 16 National Security Council resolutions. He had established a relationship as a terror-sponsoring state, according to the State Department. He was making $25,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers.
This was a bad actor and the country's better off, the world's better off, with Saddam gone, and I think we made the right decision, in spite of the fact that the original NIE was off in some of its major judgments.
It's becoming clear that one component of the Bush Legacy Project is to state plainly what crazy bloggers already knew: that the "debate" over whether Saddam was a threat or indeed had WMD was a sham. The decision had already been made.
But we shouldn't be surprised at being told in 2008 that it was a war of regime change, because we were told that 10 years ago. But are wars whose objective is regime change legal?
UPDATE: Cheney can't even get his selective spin about Saddam's WMD "capability" right.
The war costs keep coming
The US Treasury department released yesterday its annual accounts for the US government that follow the accrual principle i.e. recognizing an expense when it is incurred rather than when the money goes out to meet it, which could be years from now. Accrual accounting is the kind of thing that governments expect the private sector to do but exempt themselves from it. So one cheer for producing some real accounts. Anyway, here's the punchline from this year's accounts --
... calculate the ‘bottom line’ or net operating cost. In FY 2008, the Government’s ‘bottom line’ net operating cost totaled $1,009.1 billion or just over $1 trillion, a substantial increase over FY 2007’s net operating cost of $275.5 billion.
changes in the actuarial calculations of [Veterans Administration] VA’s veterans benefit liability were the primary reason behind a nearly seven-fold increase in VA’s actuarial and gross costs during FY 2008, compared with a relatively meager decrease in FY 2007 ... The liability increase of $339 billion in FY 2008, when compared to a $26 billion decrease in FY 2007, combine to cause a $365 billion increase in actuarial cost for FY 2008. This was the largest increase by far at VA in recent years and accounted for: (1) approximately 98 percent of the increase in VA total net costs, and (2) about half of the increase in total net cost across the Government. [The Department of Defense] also experienced a significant increase ($110 billion) due to reestimation of its net postemployment benefit liabilities.
In plainer English, the era of $1 trillion deficits is already here, because on a proper accounting basis, the government ran one in the last fiscal year. And the bulk of the reason it did so was because of future obligations to the military.
But George Bush is the one who complains about messes handed to him 8 years ago.
... calculate the ‘bottom line’ or net operating cost. In FY 2008, the Government’s ‘bottom line’ net operating cost totaled $1,009.1 billion or just over $1 trillion, a substantial increase over FY 2007’s net operating cost of $275.5 billion.
changes in the actuarial calculations of [Veterans Administration] VA’s veterans benefit liability were the primary reason behind a nearly seven-fold increase in VA’s actuarial and gross costs during FY 2008, compared with a relatively meager decrease in FY 2007 ... The liability increase of $339 billion in FY 2008, when compared to a $26 billion decrease in FY 2007, combine to cause a $365 billion increase in actuarial cost for FY 2008. This was the largest increase by far at VA in recent years and accounted for: (1) approximately 98 percent of the increase in VA total net costs, and (2) about half of the increase in total net cost across the Government. [The Department of Defense] also experienced a significant increase ($110 billion) due to reestimation of its net postemployment benefit liabilities.
In plainer English, the era of $1 trillion deficits is already here, because on a proper accounting basis, the government ran one in the last fiscal year. And the bulk of the reason it did so was because of future obligations to the military.
But George Bush is the one who complains about messes handed to him 8 years ago.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Accountability is for suckers
One of the many recent banking takeovers rushed through in the USA was that of Philadelphia-based Sovereign Bank by Banco Santander of Spain. The takevoer had to be approved by the US Federal Reserve. As part of the process, the Fed examined the financial and managerial capacity of Banco Santander.
The Board [of the Fed] also has considered the managerial resources of the organizations involved and the proposed combined organization. The Board has reviewed the examination records of Santander’s U.S. operations, Sovereign, and their subsidiary depository institutions, including assessments of their management, risk-management. The Board has previously determined that Santander is subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision by the Bank of Spain ... Based on all the facts of record, the Board has concluded that the financial and managerial resources of the organizations involved in the proposal are consistent with approval under section 4 of the BHC [bank holding company] Act.
So the Fed signed off the takeover based on the fact that everything looked fine with Santander as far as they could see and it was up to the Bank of Spain to catch any funny stuff back home.
Fast forward to the Bernard Madoff collapse and we find out that Santander was running a hedge fund called Optimal Investment Services which had a sub-fund called Optimal Strategic U.S. Equity fund which was run Optimal Multiadvisors Ireland Plc, a Dublin based offshoot of Optimal Investment Serices.
All this Optimality consisted of getting money from clients, charging large fees, and giving it to Bernie Madoff to "invest" for them. If that's what got you past the regulators in the last few years -- the same regulators now in charge of getting us out of the mess -- we're in even deeper trouble than we think.
UPDATE: More on the Irish angle to the Madoff collapse.
The Board [of the Fed] also has considered the managerial resources of the organizations involved and the proposed combined organization. The Board has reviewed the examination records of Santander’s U.S. operations, Sovereign, and their subsidiary depository institutions, including assessments of their management, risk-management. The Board has previously determined that Santander is subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision by the Bank of Spain ... Based on all the facts of record, the Board has concluded that the financial and managerial resources of the organizations involved in the proposal are consistent with approval under section 4 of the BHC [bank holding company] Act.
So the Fed signed off the takeover based on the fact that everything looked fine with Santander as far as they could see and it was up to the Bank of Spain to catch any funny stuff back home.
Fast forward to the Bernard Madoff collapse and we find out that Santander was running a hedge fund called Optimal Investment Services which had a sub-fund called Optimal Strategic U.S. Equity fund which was run Optimal Multiadvisors Ireland Plc, a Dublin based offshoot of Optimal Investment Serices.
All this Optimality consisted of getting money from clients, charging large fees, and giving it to Bernie Madoff to "invest" for them. If that's what got you past the regulators in the last few years -- the same regulators now in charge of getting us out of the mess -- we're in even deeper trouble than we think.
UPDATE: More on the Irish angle to the Madoff collapse.
Closer to the truth
At one level it's deserving that George Bush's "Rudolph One" photo-op trip to Iraq was dominated by the al-Baghdadiya shoe-thrower. But it does mean that yet another brazen repackaging of the Iraq war (presumably a component of the Bush Legacy Project) will be missed. Here's Bush speaking to the single safe non-Republican audience before which he can appear, the troops --
This is my fourth trip to Iraq -- and you've probably heard I'm heading into retirement -- (laughter) -- so it's going to be my last trip as the President. But thanks to you, the Iraq we stand in tonight is dramatically freer, dramatically safer, and dramatically better than the Iraq we found eight years ago.
AUDIENCE: Hoo-ah!
THE PRESIDENT: And as a result of the sacrifices of our troops, America is safer, and America is more secure.
AUDIENCE: Hoo-ah!
THE PRESIDENT: I want to take you back to what life was like eight years ago here in Iraq.
Note that the eight years was mentioned twice and therefore not a mistake. Thus his claim now is that Iraq was a problem he was handed coming into office.
Perhaps Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie think that's a handy way to implicitly blame Bill Clinton for the war, but it's a strange argument for Bush to make. Does he mean that he was actually gunning for Saddam from Day 1 and 9/11 or WMD was just a handy way of doing it? That's certainly what his March 2003 behaviour might lead one to believe, when it was him, and not Saddam Hussein, who kicked out the UN inspectors.
One other thing from the speech --
Killers who wanted to take the lives of Americans back home have been brought to justice before they reached our shores.
Can the White House name a single terrorist plot against America that has been interrupted by the war in Iraq?
UPDATE: Bush cavalierly admits that he was looking for someplace to turn into a battlefield against al Qaeda. Flypaper is back. Shame about the death toll.
White House photo by Eric Draper
Sunday, December 14, 2008
You betcha
Any doubts about the purpose of George Bush's visit to Iraq? --
PRESIDENT TALABANI: They want picture with you, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Oh, absolutely.
UPDATE: Even the photo-op visit runs into a pair of shoes.
Blinkered
It's an interesting comparison. George Bush and Gordon Brown are both on unannounced ("surprise!") war-on-terror visits. George Bush is in Iraq, which after 4200 American deaths, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and hundreds of billions of dollars, is still not safe enough for a public visit (the Administration spin this time is that Baghdad was safe enough for a daytime arrival).
Gordon Brown has been to Pakistan and Afghanistan this weekend, as well as India. And just about everyone other than George Bush and those in the bubble around him agree that South Asia is the real crisis of 2009. One reason being the draw on resources and attention on Iraq over the last 5 years.
It's still an agonizing 37 days of the "Bush Legacy Project" before there's someone in the White House who'll share the generally accepted priority. A lot can happen in 37 days.
UPDATE: Bush realizes that he couldn't show up in Iraq to say goodbye and not go to Afghanistan. He arrived in the middle of the night (see photo).
Friday, December 12, 2008
His burnished chariot
George Bush delivered the commencement address at Texas A&M university today. On what might seem like a busy day with the stalled car manufacturer bailout and the aftermath of bedlam in Iraq, he didn't seem that busy. He used the flight to do another Bush Legacy Project interview, this one with Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal.
But anyway, to the graduation speech itself. His first word was "Howdy". Back in 2000 or 2004, that alone would have been a worth a reporter profile noting how much of a real American he was compared to Al Gore or John Kerry.
On to substance, where he reviewed his presidency --
These days, I'm asked a lot about my time as President. Some days have been happy, some days not so happy -- every day joyous. It's been a tremendous privilege. I have traveled across our nation, and to 74 countries around the world. I have slept in Buckingham Palace; I have feasted in the desert of Abu Dhabi; I've watched the sunrise in Jerusalem. I have spoken to campaign rallies in packed stadiums, and to hundreds of thousands in Romania's Revolution Square. I've taken Marine One into America's biggest cities, and visited many of our smallest towns. Through it all, nothing has inspired me more than the character of the American people -- the acts of courage and service that sustain our free society, and make this the greatest nation on Earth. (Applause.)
So there you have it. He's been a VIP. He's led the high life. He's seen a million faces and he's rocked them all. That's what his presidency was about, in his mind. Wasn't there some other stuff that happened too?
One other thing. He closed with some advice for the graduates after empathizing with their uncertain job prospects ("I know how you feel") --
If you go home at night, look in the mirror and be satisfied that you have done what is right, you will pass the only test that matters. (Applause.)
Hasn't the world had some pretty bad people who would have passed this test?
But anyway, to the graduation speech itself. His first word was "Howdy". Back in 2000 or 2004, that alone would have been a worth a reporter profile noting how much of a real American he was compared to Al Gore or John Kerry.
On to substance, where he reviewed his presidency --
These days, I'm asked a lot about my time as President. Some days have been happy, some days not so happy -- every day joyous. It's been a tremendous privilege. I have traveled across our nation, and to 74 countries around the world. I have slept in Buckingham Palace; I have feasted in the desert of Abu Dhabi; I've watched the sunrise in Jerusalem. I have spoken to campaign rallies in packed stadiums, and to hundreds of thousands in Romania's Revolution Square. I've taken Marine One into America's biggest cities, and visited many of our smallest towns. Through it all, nothing has inspired me more than the character of the American people -- the acts of courage and service that sustain our free society, and make this the greatest nation on Earth. (Applause.)
So there you have it. He's been a VIP. He's led the high life. He's seen a million faces and he's rocked them all. That's what his presidency was about, in his mind. Wasn't there some other stuff that happened too?
One other thing. He closed with some advice for the graduates after empathizing with their uncertain job prospects ("I know how you feel") --
If you go home at night, look in the mirror and be satisfied that you have done what is right, you will pass the only test that matters. (Applause.)
Hasn't the world had some pretty bad people who would have passed this test?
The few bad apples
Famed blogger Megan McArdle 2 weeks ago --
By contrast, so far the worst misbehavior I've seen has been the two Bear Stearns executives who told people their fund was okay the month before it went belly up. This was a bad thing, and the people who did it no doubt richly deserve the jail terms they are going to get, and then some. But on the scale of dishonesty generally uncovered during recessions, this wouldn't normally rank high enough to trigger more than a "You boys!!!" and a finger-wag.
This probably has something to do with just how tightly regulated financial companies already are; when the SEC wants to know about every transaction you do, it's hard to get too funny with the books. Still, it's pretty impressive.
Well, since that post was written, we've found out about a potential $50 billion fraud at Bernard Madoff, a mere $100 million alleged fraud by Marc Dreier, and some dude in Miami who was rewriting the value of mortgages to make the associated securities more valuable. And that's just in 2 weeks with the limited resources that the FBI and SEC have to find this stuff relative to the total scale of what was going on.
Various things went wrong to produce the current financial shambles. But one of them was an "if it feels good, don't stop it" regulatory ethos that came straight from the top of government. That ethos attracts particular kinds of people.
By contrast, so far the worst misbehavior I've seen has been the two Bear Stearns executives who told people their fund was okay the month before it went belly up. This was a bad thing, and the people who did it no doubt richly deserve the jail terms they are going to get, and then some. But on the scale of dishonesty generally uncovered during recessions, this wouldn't normally rank high enough to trigger more than a "You boys!!!" and a finger-wag.
This probably has something to do with just how tightly regulated financial companies already are; when the SEC wants to know about every transaction you do, it's hard to get too funny with the books. Still, it's pretty impressive.
Well, since that post was written, we've found out about a potential $50 billion fraud at Bernard Madoff, a mere $100 million alleged fraud by Marc Dreier, and some dude in Miami who was rewriting the value of mortgages to make the associated securities more valuable. And that's just in 2 weeks with the limited resources that the FBI and SEC have to find this stuff relative to the total scale of what was going on.
Various things went wrong to produce the current financial shambles. But one of them was an "if it feels good, don't stop it" regulatory ethos that came straight from the top of government. That ethos attracts particular kinds of people.
What is it about the George Bush club and shoulder rubs?
Here it's George's friend Silvio Berlusconi with embattled Greek PM Kostas Karamanlis. The European Council photo editors thought it looked more tasteful in black and white.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Birds of a feather
The photo shows George Bush with one of the recipients of his Presidential Citizens Medal, Professor Robert George of Princeton University. Apparently everyone calls him "Robby". Robby and Dubya wore almost identical ties. Here's a sample of George's writing about the presidential race --
Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States.
He's unlikely to be in the White House much after January. But one wonders whether he really expects the number of abortions to rocket under an Obama administration? If he does, it's not clear that sitting in Princeton is the right way to do anything about it.
In the article from which that quote is drawn, he goes on to argue that the pro-choice slogan "Against abortion? Don't have one" is as silly as a hypothetical anti-slavery slogan "Against slavery? Don't own one". It's an interesting analogy for him to make because his extreme anti-abortion position would in a key sense make women property of the state (and it doesn't stop there). It's revealing the kind of acknowledgments that George Bush feels safe making when there isn't an election imminent.
White House photo by Chris Greenberg
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
It's a Christmas miracle
Condi Rice --
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I’m so gratified that we are leaving a much better situation on Israeli-Palestinian issues than we found. In 2001, the Camp David effort had collapsed, the second intifada had broken out, hundreds of Israelis and Palestinians were dying in multiple suicide bombings against Passover Seders and along the pier in Tel Aviv. We forget – suicide bombers in Tel Aviv.
The Palestinians were governed – or ruled – by Yasser Arafat, who was dealing with Iran, stealing the Palestinian people blind, and rejecting peace. Ariel Sharon had come to power not to make peace with Palestinians, but to defeat the intifada. And so you had massive Israeli military operations in the West Bank. I will never forget the – when a mortar shell blew a hole in the Church of the Nativity.
Condi may never forget it. But the rest of us will never remember it. Because it never happened. She's referring to the siege at the Church in April 2002 when Palestinians fleeing Israeli soldiers went into the Church. When they eventually left as part of an internationally brokered deal, the church had suffered minor damage from the prolonged occupation and a few Israeli smoke grenades. But there was never any mortar shell. Where does Condi get her facts from?
UPDATE: Condi did an interview with Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal --
Ms. Rice then begins a world tour. "What we inherited were the failed Camp David Accords, and as a result the Second Intifada." She recalls Palestinian bombings of clubs and pizza parlors, the shelling of the Bethlehem Church of the Nativity.
Maybe the Wall Street Journal readers will notice that she's referring to an event that never happened. The editors didn't.
FINAL UPDATE 14 JANUARY: Condi has yet again claimed that Israel shelled the Church of the Nativity but this time has provided enough information to pin down what she's talking about --
QUESTION [Mike Schneider of Bloomberg TV]: But does he – does Abu Mazen have the clout – I mean, there were those who say he’s been – that Hamas prior to this was actually being degraded, that it was weak, it was – its stand in the polls, it was low, and that, in fact, it’s been bolstered by what’s happened here, and Abu Mazen and Fatah have been weakened.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, you hear that, but if you look at the West Bank, the Palestinian people have got to be able to see that the West Bank economy has actually been growing for the first time in years. It’s far more peaceful. Nativity Square in Bethlehem, where in 2002, completely by accident, an Israeli tank shell hit the Church of the Nativity
CNN, April 2002:
Bullets flying in Manger Square
In Bethlehem, witnesses said Israeli helicopter gunships flying over Manger Square exchanged fire with Palestinian gunmen near the Church of the Nativity.
There was also a heavy exchange of fire near a convent and a tank shell struck the main mosque in Bethlehem, just outside the church, according to witnesses
And in March of 2002, St Vincent's in Bethlehem was hit by a tank shell.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I’m so gratified that we are leaving a much better situation on Israeli-Palestinian issues than we found. In 2001, the Camp David effort had collapsed, the second intifada had broken out, hundreds of Israelis and Palestinians were dying in multiple suicide bombings against Passover Seders and along the pier in Tel Aviv. We forget – suicide bombers in Tel Aviv.
The Palestinians were governed – or ruled – by Yasser Arafat, who was dealing with Iran, stealing the Palestinian people blind, and rejecting peace. Ariel Sharon had come to power not to make peace with Palestinians, but to defeat the intifada. And so you had massive Israeli military operations in the West Bank. I will never forget the – when a mortar shell blew a hole in the Church of the Nativity.
Condi may never forget it. But the rest of us will never remember it. Because it never happened. She's referring to the siege at the Church in April 2002 when Palestinians fleeing Israeli soldiers went into the Church. When they eventually left as part of an internationally brokered deal, the church had suffered minor damage from the prolonged occupation and a few Israeli smoke grenades. But there was never any mortar shell. Where does Condi get her facts from?
UPDATE: Condi did an interview with Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal --
Ms. Rice then begins a world tour. "What we inherited were the failed Camp David Accords, and as a result the Second Intifada." She recalls Palestinian bombings of clubs and pizza parlors, the shelling of the Bethlehem Church of the Nativity.
Maybe the Wall Street Journal readers will notice that she's referring to an event that never happened. The editors didn't.
FINAL UPDATE 14 JANUARY: Condi has yet again claimed that Israel shelled the Church of the Nativity but this time has provided enough information to pin down what she's talking about --
QUESTION [Mike Schneider of Bloomberg TV]: But does he – does Abu Mazen have the clout – I mean, there were those who say he’s been – that Hamas prior to this was actually being degraded, that it was weak, it was – its stand in the polls, it was low, and that, in fact, it’s been bolstered by what’s happened here, and Abu Mazen and Fatah have been weakened.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, you hear that, but if you look at the West Bank, the Palestinian people have got to be able to see that the West Bank economy has actually been growing for the first time in years. It’s far more peaceful. Nativity Square in Bethlehem, where in 2002, completely by accident, an Israeli tank shell hit the Church of the Nativity
CNN, April 2002:
Bullets flying in Manger Square
In Bethlehem, witnesses said Israeli helicopter gunships flying over Manger Square exchanged fire with Palestinian gunmen near the Church of the Nativity.
There was also a heavy exchange of fire near a convent and a tank shell struck the main mosque in Bethlehem, just outside the church, according to witnesses
And in March of 2002, St Vincent's in Bethlehem was hit by a tank shell.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
This monetarist coil
If nothing else, William Kristol's New York Times column this week indicates that some conservatives have noticed the massive expansion in the economic power of the state under George W. Bush. Kristol argues that a conservative response to this along the lines of smaller government always being good won't cut it, because some form of careful intervention will surely be necessary. Maggie Thatcher veteran John O'Sullivan provides some interesting historical perspective, though perhaps not with the interpretation he intends --
If we were lucky, a barrier [such as against a bigger role for the state] might even gain a quasi religious status over time, as the Gold Standard did in England until the first world war, and instill in voters the fear that tampering with it would be an impious act or even simply impossible. This worked for quite a while. When the Tories floated the pound in 1931, a former Labour minister, Lord Passfield (aka Sidney of Sidney and Beatrice Webb) said: "They never told us we could do that."
Well, they know now and since 1931 the rate of inflation has perked up remarkably.
The problem is that when the Tories (or rather the Tories plus a Labour rump) devalued the pound, it was the beginning of Britain's recovery from the Depression. The USA spent two more ruinous years on the Gold Standard parity before FDR also devalued. In other words, breaking through the received wisdom worked. O'Sullivan continues --
It's nice to think, though, that Sidney Webb who was always telling the capitalists how much more rationally socialists could run the economy, was in practice hostage to an unconscious monetary conservatism—like almost the entire Labour party and intelligentsia. Those were the days, my friend.
This passage lends itself to a rephrasing. Shall we try --
Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slave of some defunct economist.
But that of course is John Maynard Keynes, writing in the 1930s, precisely about how an obsolete orthodoxy can impede new thinking about how to deal with an economic crisis. Orthodoxy like an obsession with small government.
There is one other irony. It's not like the 1930s Britain turned out that badly for the Tories. In fact there is renewed attention to this era as a result of Martin Pugh's We Danced All Night, which argues that 1930s Britain created a nascent property-owning democracy i.e. a proto-Thatcherite class who, just over a generation later, would put Maggie in office and so launch John O'Sullivan's career!
If we were lucky, a barrier [such as against a bigger role for the state] might even gain a quasi religious status over time, as the Gold Standard did in England until the first world war, and instill in voters the fear that tampering with it would be an impious act or even simply impossible. This worked for quite a while. When the Tories floated the pound in 1931, a former Labour minister, Lord Passfield (aka Sidney of Sidney and Beatrice Webb) said: "They never told us we could do that."
Well, they know now and since 1931 the rate of inflation has perked up remarkably.
The problem is that when the Tories (or rather the Tories plus a Labour rump) devalued the pound, it was the beginning of Britain's recovery from the Depression. The USA spent two more ruinous years on the Gold Standard parity before FDR also devalued. In other words, breaking through the received wisdom worked. O'Sullivan continues --
It's nice to think, though, that Sidney Webb who was always telling the capitalists how much more rationally socialists could run the economy, was in practice hostage to an unconscious monetary conservatism—like almost the entire Labour party and intelligentsia. Those were the days, my friend.
This passage lends itself to a rephrasing. Shall we try --
Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slave of some defunct economist.
But that of course is John Maynard Keynes, writing in the 1930s, precisely about how an obsolete orthodoxy can impede new thinking about how to deal with an economic crisis. Orthodoxy like an obsession with small government.
There is one other irony. It's not like the 1930s Britain turned out that badly for the Tories. In fact there is renewed attention to this era as a result of Martin Pugh's We Danced All Night, which argues that 1930s Britain created a nascent property-owning democracy i.e. a proto-Thatcherite class who, just over a generation later, would put Maggie in office and so launch John O'Sullivan's career!
Monday, December 08, 2008
Heads up to tax dodgers
US Treasury Announcement --
The Department of the Treasury today announced that the United States and Liechtenstein have signed an agreement to allow for exchange of information on tax matters between the two countries. The agreement was signed by U.S. Charge d'Affairs Leigh Carter and Liechtenstein Prime Minister Otmar Hasler in Vaduz, Liechtenstein.
The Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) with Liechtenstein will provide the United States with access to information it needs to enforce U.S. tax laws, including information related to bank accounts in Liechtenstein ... The TIEA will allow the United States to ask for information relating to 2009 and years following. Documents or other information created before 2009 can be obtained from Liechtenstein provided that the request relates to an investigation of a post-2008 year.
As with anything that happens late in the Bush administration, this might need a closer look. On the one hand it would appear to open up for scrutiny any American using Liechtenstein bank accounts to evade US taxes, and in particular will reduce the need of the US government to rely on the type of evidence that caused the big Germany-Liechtenstein blowup earlier this year. But note that pre-2009 information can only be accessed if there's a 2009 or later paper trail linking to it, unless there is a criminal (as opposed to tax) investigation. Isn't this telling any American with an undisclosed Liechtenstein bank account that December 2008 would be an excellent time to close it?
The Department of the Treasury today announced that the United States and Liechtenstein have signed an agreement to allow for exchange of information on tax matters between the two countries. The agreement was signed by U.S. Charge d'Affairs Leigh Carter and Liechtenstein Prime Minister Otmar Hasler in Vaduz, Liechtenstein.
The Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) with Liechtenstein will provide the United States with access to information it needs to enforce U.S. tax laws, including information related to bank accounts in Liechtenstein ... The TIEA will allow the United States to ask for information relating to 2009 and years following. Documents or other information created before 2009 can be obtained from Liechtenstein provided that the request relates to an investigation of a post-2008 year.
As with anything that happens late in the Bush administration, this might need a closer look. On the one hand it would appear to open up for scrutiny any American using Liechtenstein bank accounts to evade US taxes, and in particular will reduce the need of the US government to rely on the type of evidence that caused the big Germany-Liechtenstein blowup earlier this year. But note that pre-2009 information can only be accessed if there's a 2009 or later paper trail linking to it, unless there is a criminal (as opposed to tax) investigation. Isn't this telling any American with an undisclosed Liechtenstein bank account that December 2008 would be an excellent time to close it?
The Bourne Subservience
Max Boot, 2007 --
In fighting terrorists, the U.S. won’t always have the freedom of action it enjoys in Somalia. Terrorists find shelter not only in ungoverned spaces like Somalia but in anti-American countries like Iran and Syria, in ambivalent countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and even in pro-American countries like Germany and Britain. For various political reasons, the potential for swashbuckling, Jack Bauer-style counter-terrorism in such states is less than in non-states like Somalia or Afghanistan, where anything goes.
Max Boot, today (alt. link) --
Given that dismal reality, it makes sense to think of second-best alternatives. In the case of the Somali pirates, creative solutions can include using air and naval power to hit the bases from which they operate, and employing Blackwater and other mercenaries to add their protective efforts to those of the world's navies. In Pakistan that means continuing air strikes and providing assistance to tribal militias which have their own grievances against jihadist interlopers. In both places, the U.S. should be doing what it can, in cooperation with allies and multilateral organizations, to bolster central authority.
But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that any of these measures has much chance of success. Until we are willing to place more ungoverned spaces under international administration, evils such as piracy and terrorism will continue to flourish.
So what happened? How did "Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the dogs of really cool covert operations" become, er, "Could the UN come in and administer this hellhole"? Because we've had 6 years of the 2007 vintage Max Boot approach in Afghanistan, and two years of "Operation Prester John" in Somalia i.e the idea of letting the Ethiopians run it. And both have now conclusively shown their ineffectiveness.
But you won't find Max Boot or any other of the neocons revisting why they've been wrong about everything. Boot just tries to segue into a policy recommendation that he thinks will have some shelf-life in an Obama administration.
Incidentally, Boot's grasp of colonial history is pretty shaky --
The essential problem in both Somalia and Pakistan is a failure of governance. The question is: What if anything can outside powers do to bring the rule of law to these troubled lands? In the 19th century, the answer was simple: European imperialists would plant their flag and impose their laws at gunpoint. The territory that now comprises Pakistan was not entirely peaceful when it was under British rule. Nor was Somalia under Italian and British sovereignty. But they were considerably better off than they are today -- not only from the standpoint of Western countries but also from the standpoint of their own citizens.
He thus assigns no role to the local deals cut by the colonial powers in Somalia and Pakistan, precisely to avoid having to directly control difficult areas. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan, which are now the source of so many problems, were simply the successor arrangements in an independent Pakistan that the tribes already had with British India. And that's Boot's preferred model for running Pakistan now.
In fighting terrorists, the U.S. won’t always have the freedom of action it enjoys in Somalia. Terrorists find shelter not only in ungoverned spaces like Somalia but in anti-American countries like Iran and Syria, in ambivalent countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and even in pro-American countries like Germany and Britain. For various political reasons, the potential for swashbuckling, Jack Bauer-style counter-terrorism in such states is less than in non-states like Somalia or Afghanistan, where anything goes.
Max Boot, today (alt. link) --
Given that dismal reality, it makes sense to think of second-best alternatives. In the case of the Somali pirates, creative solutions can include using air and naval power to hit the bases from which they operate, and employing Blackwater and other mercenaries to add their protective efforts to those of the world's navies. In Pakistan that means continuing air strikes and providing assistance to tribal militias which have their own grievances against jihadist interlopers. In both places, the U.S. should be doing what it can, in cooperation with allies and multilateral organizations, to bolster central authority.
But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that any of these measures has much chance of success. Until we are willing to place more ungoverned spaces under international administration, evils such as piracy and terrorism will continue to flourish.
So what happened? How did "Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the dogs of really cool covert operations" become, er, "Could the UN come in and administer this hellhole"? Because we've had 6 years of the 2007 vintage Max Boot approach in Afghanistan, and two years of "Operation Prester John" in Somalia i.e the idea of letting the Ethiopians run it. And both have now conclusively shown their ineffectiveness.
But you won't find Max Boot or any other of the neocons revisting why they've been wrong about everything. Boot just tries to segue into a policy recommendation that he thinks will have some shelf-life in an Obama administration.
Incidentally, Boot's grasp of colonial history is pretty shaky --
The essential problem in both Somalia and Pakistan is a failure of governance. The question is: What if anything can outside powers do to bring the rule of law to these troubled lands? In the 19th century, the answer was simple: European imperialists would plant their flag and impose their laws at gunpoint. The territory that now comprises Pakistan was not entirely peaceful when it was under British rule. Nor was Somalia under Italian and British sovereignty. But they were considerably better off than they are today -- not only from the standpoint of Western countries but also from the standpoint of their own citizens.
He thus assigns no role to the local deals cut by the colonial powers in Somalia and Pakistan, precisely to avoid having to directly control difficult areas. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan, which are now the source of so many problems, were simply the successor arrangements in an independent Pakistan that the tribes already had with British India. And that's Boot's preferred model for running Pakistan now.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
There's bad news and good news
The bad news is that George Bush still has 6 weeks on the job. The good news is that, via the Bush Legacy Project being run by Karl Rove out of the White House, he's doing lots of interviews to set out his side of the story. And with no election to fight, his guard is down. So in an interview with MBC's Nadia Bilbassy-Charters, we learn --
He says what we always knew he meant: that his wars are him implementing God's will -
But I also believe there's a moral calling. If you believe there's an Almighty God, and a gift of that Almighty to everybody is freedom, then I think you have to -- if you can do something about it, that you have to act on that -- so that moms can grow up in a society that is hopeful for their children, you know, that their children are -- can realize dreams.
That at some level he has guilt about Abu Ghraib, but at such a low level that the only manifestation is preposterous denial and garbed sentences --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, like, Abu Ghraib was a terrible disappointment. And admittedly, I wasn't there on the site, but I was the Commander-in-Chief of a military where these disgraceful acts took place that sent the absolute wrong image about America and our military.
He wasn't there on the site. But his orders, channelled via the securocrats to the chain of command, were.
That his handlers still haven't told him Saudi King Abdullah's proper title ("majesty" is reserved for God; the King is Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques) --
THE PRESIDENT: I definitely think it was a major breakthrough for then-Crown Prince, now His Majesty King Abdallah, to take the initiative and lay out the conditions for peace
The flattery of King Abdullah also hints at who might on the donor list for his freedom institute.
And that he blames the post-war chaos in Iraq not on his atrocious plan but on his enlightened decision, as he sees it, not to put another dictator in Saddam's stead --
Then the interesting point was, after he was removed, with a broad coalition of countries, what do we do? You know, do we pick a strong man and say, here's America's guy and put him in there? Or do we work so that the Iraqi citizens would be able to pick their own form of government and their own people? And that's what we chose to do, and it's been really hard.
Also, he's still telling the rug story.
He says what we always knew he meant: that his wars are him implementing God's will -
But I also believe there's a moral calling. If you believe there's an Almighty God, and a gift of that Almighty to everybody is freedom, then I think you have to -- if you can do something about it, that you have to act on that -- so that moms can grow up in a society that is hopeful for their children, you know, that their children are -- can realize dreams.
That at some level he has guilt about Abu Ghraib, but at such a low level that the only manifestation is preposterous denial and garbed sentences --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, like, Abu Ghraib was a terrible disappointment. And admittedly, I wasn't there on the site, but I was the Commander-in-Chief of a military where these disgraceful acts took place that sent the absolute wrong image about America and our military.
He wasn't there on the site. But his orders, channelled via the securocrats to the chain of command, were.
That his handlers still haven't told him Saudi King Abdullah's proper title ("majesty" is reserved for God; the King is Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques) --
THE PRESIDENT: I definitely think it was a major breakthrough for then-Crown Prince, now His Majesty King Abdallah, to take the initiative and lay out the conditions for peace
The flattery of King Abdullah also hints at who might on the donor list for his freedom institute.
And that he blames the post-war chaos in Iraq not on his atrocious plan but on his enlightened decision, as he sees it, not to put another dictator in Saddam's stead --
Then the interesting point was, after he was removed, with a broad coalition of countries, what do we do? You know, do we pick a strong man and say, here's America's guy and put him in there? Or do we work so that the Iraqi citizens would be able to pick their own form of government and their own people? And that's what we chose to do, and it's been really hard.
Also, he's still telling the rug story.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Whatshisname again?
It's probably not worth paying attention to John McCain. But he and his fellow musketeers, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman, are doing a foreign policy tour of South Asia at the moment. And he's saying things, or at least being interpreted as saying things, that would seem to interfere with the conduct of US foreign policy under its current or future directors.
For instance, here's a Pakistani newspaper quoting him as saying that the US would not support Indian military action against Pakistan. Really? If the Indians find a base from which the Mumbai attack was planned and the Pakistani government can't or won't move in, John McCain says the US won't support military action by India against it? This is a recurrence of one of the strangest policies that McCain boxed himself into against Obama, that he would somehow be explicitly ruling out anti-terrorist strikes in Pakistan while doing them in secret. Or something.
Now here's McCain today meeting quasi-leader of the opposition Nawaz Sharif. Did he discuss with Sharif his claim that Pakistan was a failed state under Sharif's pre-coup premiership? Incidentally, if you thought Pakistani news coverage would still be dominated by the Mumbai attacks and its aftermath (or the bizarre prank phone call that nearly escalated into a war), you'd be wrong. Sharif's post-McCain news conference got into a convoluted scandal about a system in which the children of judges get bonus points on exams. So this is a country that could have a real problem focusing on any demands from India.
Finally, the McCain team seems to be closing their trip with a visit to one of America's vital allies in the War on Terror. Malta. Why Malta? Hopefully the island has some intrepid journalists who can figure out what the junketing Senators are up to.
UPDATE: McCain is now making statements in Pakistan about what President Obama's foreign policy will be! Note the difference in the way the remarks are being reported. The US media emphasize what he said about Pakistan. The Pakistani media emphasize what he said about US policy towards Pakistan. Finally note that as Maverick tours the world, he sends Cindy to frigid Philadelphia for the Army-Navy game.
FINAL UPDATE: McCain and Joe Lieberman stopped in Malta and then Ireland, where McCain told the Defence Minister that he would be taking up the issue of the undocumented Irish with Barack Obama. Lieberman has made much of the fact that McCain will be "reporting" to Obama following the trip.
ONE MORE THING [22 AUGUST 2009] -- Was McCain's Malta stopover a cover for a visit to Libya? We ask because he was in Libya during a key week in the al-Megrahi process. And McCain has a history of murky connections to Libya.
For instance, here's a Pakistani newspaper quoting him as saying that the US would not support Indian military action against Pakistan. Really? If the Indians find a base from which the Mumbai attack was planned and the Pakistani government can't or won't move in, John McCain says the US won't support military action by India against it? This is a recurrence of one of the strangest policies that McCain boxed himself into against Obama, that he would somehow be explicitly ruling out anti-terrorist strikes in Pakistan while doing them in secret. Or something.
Now here's McCain today meeting quasi-leader of the opposition Nawaz Sharif. Did he discuss with Sharif his claim that Pakistan was a failed state under Sharif's pre-coup premiership? Incidentally, if you thought Pakistani news coverage would still be dominated by the Mumbai attacks and its aftermath (or the bizarre prank phone call that nearly escalated into a war), you'd be wrong. Sharif's post-McCain news conference got into a convoluted scandal about a system in which the children of judges get bonus points on exams. So this is a country that could have a real problem focusing on any demands from India.
Finally, the McCain team seems to be closing their trip with a visit to one of America's vital allies in the War on Terror. Malta. Why Malta? Hopefully the island has some intrepid journalists who can figure out what the junketing Senators are up to.
UPDATE: McCain is now making statements in Pakistan about what President Obama's foreign policy will be! Note the difference in the way the remarks are being reported. The US media emphasize what he said about Pakistan. The Pakistani media emphasize what he said about US policy towards Pakistan. Finally note that as Maverick tours the world, he sends Cindy to frigid Philadelphia for the Army-Navy game.
FINAL UPDATE: McCain and Joe Lieberman stopped in Malta and then Ireland, where McCain told the Defence Minister that he would be taking up the issue of the undocumented Irish with Barack Obama. Lieberman has made much of the fact that McCain will be "reporting" to Obama following the trip.
ONE MORE THING [22 AUGUST 2009] -- Was McCain's Malta stopover a cover for a visit to Libya? We ask because he was in Libya during a key week in the al-Megrahi process. And McCain has a history of murky connections to Libya.
Legacy of failure
George Bush -- still with 45 days left -- spoke last night at the Saban Forum in Washington. The speech was another installment in the "Bush Legacy" project being run by Karl Rove. The obvious intent of the speech was to claim credit for any positive development in the Middle East over the last 8 years, and thus stake a claim to any real progress actually made in the future by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Not unsurprisingly, the speech's omissions and unspoken assumptions reveal a lot more about the state of US policy in the Middle East than its grandiose assertions.
First, given that the speechwriters must have searched far and wide for anything positive to say about political reform in the Middle East, it's telling that the speech makes no mention of Kuwait, easily the most democratic country in the Gulf and one with women cabinet ministers in substantive positions. So what happened? The fact-checkers realized that a mention would have been awkward since the Emir has suspended the parliament (national assembly) until at least January in a row over the accountability of ministers to it.
And thus the Arab country where Bush is probably at his most popular had to be left out. But how much shame can there really be in a suspension of parliament? After all, the representative in Canada of George Bush's friend Queen Elizabeth has suspended parliament on the advice of George Bush's friend Stephen Harper, for the transparent purpose of avoiding a loss of power. Even the Emir of Kuwait would balk at so obvious a motive.
Anyway, Bush's apparent prize project in the speech was Iraq and its place in the War on Terror. Needless to say, Mumbai was nowhere to be mentioned, even though Mumbai makes clear that, as Indian analysts have pointed out, one consequence of the War on Terror is "Jihadistan", the combination of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, putting domestic and international terrorism and the ideology and expertise to implement it in one complete package. But George Bush looks at the map of the region and sees just one big problem -- the fairly stable country in the middle of his Jihadistan: Iran. He wants Iran to be a full player in it too.
However the real prize project is of course Israel. And the speech is a perfect illustration of the neocon free lunch: the belief that acceptance of Israel in the region will come naturally with democracy promotion, because after all, "democracies don't war". But there is so little evidence for this thesis. How many Arab democracies sat down at the table during the Annapolis Israel-Palestine process? More to the point, how many would have sat down had they been more democratic?
It promises to be a very frustrating final 6 weeks of Bush. Are the media really going to let him ride in the Dallas sunset thinking how great a president he was? It looks that way.
First, given that the speechwriters must have searched far and wide for anything positive to say about political reform in the Middle East, it's telling that the speech makes no mention of Kuwait, easily the most democratic country in the Gulf and one with women cabinet ministers in substantive positions. So what happened? The fact-checkers realized that a mention would have been awkward since the Emir has suspended the parliament (national assembly) until at least January in a row over the accountability of ministers to it.
And thus the Arab country where Bush is probably at his most popular had to be left out. But how much shame can there really be in a suspension of parliament? After all, the representative in Canada of George Bush's friend Queen Elizabeth has suspended parliament on the advice of George Bush's friend Stephen Harper, for the transparent purpose of avoiding a loss of power. Even the Emir of Kuwait would balk at so obvious a motive.
Anyway, Bush's apparent prize project in the speech was Iraq and its place in the War on Terror. Needless to say, Mumbai was nowhere to be mentioned, even though Mumbai makes clear that, as Indian analysts have pointed out, one consequence of the War on Terror is "Jihadistan", the combination of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, putting domestic and international terrorism and the ideology and expertise to implement it in one complete package. But George Bush looks at the map of the region and sees just one big problem -- the fairly stable country in the middle of his Jihadistan: Iran. He wants Iran to be a full player in it too.
However the real prize project is of course Israel. And the speech is a perfect illustration of the neocon free lunch: the belief that acceptance of Israel in the region will come naturally with democracy promotion, because after all, "democracies don't war". But there is so little evidence for this thesis. How many Arab democracies sat down at the table during the Annapolis Israel-Palestine process? More to the point, how many would have sat down had they been more democratic?
It promises to be a very frustrating final 6 weeks of Bush. Are the media really going to let him ride in the Dallas sunset thinking how great a president he was? It looks that way.
More propaganda please
Douglas "FSGOTP" Feith pops up in today's Wall Street Journal in praise of India --
At a Pentagon meeting in 2002, a Muslim official from an Asian country observed that there were nearly as many Muslim citizens of India as of Pakistan, yet it was virtually unheard of that an Indian Muslim would join al Qaeda, while many Pakistanis had done so. Why? Because India is free and democratic, he asserted.
Now we know where George Bush heard that story, one that has coloured his relationship with India since. Other bits of the article give a lot of credit to BJP politician Jaswant Singh which suggests that he might be the source of the claim that India was al-Qaeda free. But anyway, Feith has "advice" for President Obama --
He can ask the State Department and intelligence community for formal strategies to counter radical Islamist ideology overtly and covertly and hold them to account for results.
The strategies could (1) identify, region by region, the key Muslim voices -- individuals and institutions -- for and against jihadist violence, (2) analyze their respective support networks and vulnerabilities, (3) develop U.S. and multilateral courses of action to amplify anti-terrorist voices and to undermine the extremists, and (4) establish measures of success and track progress. A key to success would be the quality of U.S. linkages with friendly foreign countries, like India, that share our interests and have relevant knowledge and capabilities.
It's not clear what he has in mind here but it would seem to involve secret campaigns to somehow embarrass "extremists" and promote "anti-terrorist" positions -- and all in a way that could be measured. Not that this scheme is ever likely to make it to Obama's desk, but presumably India would have the sense to stay away from it in any event -- if only from knowing the source.
At a Pentagon meeting in 2002, a Muslim official from an Asian country observed that there were nearly as many Muslim citizens of India as of Pakistan, yet it was virtually unheard of that an Indian Muslim would join al Qaeda, while many Pakistanis had done so. Why? Because India is free and democratic, he asserted.
Now we know where George Bush heard that story, one that has coloured his relationship with India since. Other bits of the article give a lot of credit to BJP politician Jaswant Singh which suggests that he might be the source of the claim that India was al-Qaeda free. But anyway, Feith has "advice" for President Obama --
He can ask the State Department and intelligence community for formal strategies to counter radical Islamist ideology overtly and covertly and hold them to account for results.
The strategies could (1) identify, region by region, the key Muslim voices -- individuals and institutions -- for and against jihadist violence, (2) analyze their respective support networks and vulnerabilities, (3) develop U.S. and multilateral courses of action to amplify anti-terrorist voices and to undermine the extremists, and (4) establish measures of success and track progress. A key to success would be the quality of U.S. linkages with friendly foreign countries, like India, that share our interests and have relevant knowledge and capabilities.
It's not clear what he has in mind here but it would seem to involve secret campaigns to somehow embarrass "extremists" and promote "anti-terrorist" positions -- and all in a way that could be measured. Not that this scheme is ever likely to make it to Obama's desk, but presumably India would have the sense to stay away from it in any event -- if only from knowing the source.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Santa is a terrorist
Because that gesture between Bush and Santa (one he previously used with Sarko) is what Fox News declared to be a terrorist fist jab.UPDATE: Watertiger has the same post. Fox News truly sets the zeitgeist.
White House photo by Eric Draper
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Fake, fake, fake, fake
White House press releaseStatement by Press Secretary Sally Mcdonough
The President and Mrs. Bush have purchased a home in the Preston Hollow neighborhood in Dallas, Texas, where they will live after the President leaves office in January 2009. They will continue to spend time at Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas.
The President and Mrs. Bush do not have occupancy of the home, and therefore, no additional details will be provided.
The Bushes previously lived in Dallas from December 1988 through January 1995, before moving to the Texas Governor's Mansion in Austin, Texas.
So that now we know he won't really be living in the "ranch" after his presidency, how long before he sells it (while retaining the cross)?
UPDATE: The NYT's Caucus blog has a picture. There's a cabana?
Now we know why Gordon cut VAT
As opposed to, say, income tax. Bank of England statement today --
The direct effect of the temporary reduction in Value Added Tax will also lower CPI inflation through much of next year, with a corresponding increase in inflation in 2010.
He needed the Bank to be able to demonstrate lower inflation for 2009, to be able to cut interest rates more. He wouldn't have been able to do that with a cut in income tax, which would have no impact on consumer prices.
The direct effect of the temporary reduction in Value Added Tax will also lower CPI inflation through much of next year, with a corresponding increase in inflation in 2010.
He needed the Bank to be able to demonstrate lower inflation for 2009, to be able to cut interest rates more. He wouldn't have been able to do that with a cut in income tax, which would have no impact on consumer prices.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
He's going to find out who's naughty or nice ..
or ... AMERICAN! Yes. The theme of this year's White House Christmas Parties is that Santa Claus is American, goddamnit, and only Americans will be getting presents. The other theme of the White House parties is excess, as the recession has apparently limited the menu to lobster, salmon, shrimp, lamb, tenderloin, ham, and lots of other good stuff.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
9/11, the sequel
Here is Christopher Hitchens in Slate on the Mumbai atrocity. It's a depressing contribution. Hitch is searching far and wide for rhetorical enemies. The people who renamed Bombay as Mumbai, for example. There's a gushing tribute to India --
An impressive thing about India is the way in which it has almost as many Muslim citizens, who live with greater prospects of peace and prosperity, as does Pakistan. This comity and integration is one of the many targets of the suicide killers, and it is another reason why firm, warm solidarity with India is the most pressing need of the present hour.
A passage that could just as easily have been written by John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, and which is blind to the subtleties and flaws of India and Indian policy as captured by serious analysts of the country (see e.g. Pankaj Mishra). There's stuff like
It is a strong regional counterweight to Russia and China.
exactly the kind of Great Game shite that explains in no small way the present mess in Pakistan and Afghanistan (and thus India itself). But Hitch's real target is only apparent towards the end --
perhaps there will again be enough Western saps—as with the attacks on the United States and Britain and Turkey and Tunisia—to claim that none of this would have happened if not for the foreign policy of Bush and Blair. (I do not hold my breath, but as of the time of writing, this moronic faction has—amazingly—not yet been heard from.)
In other words, it's September 12, 2001, and the search is on for anyone insufficiently vigorous in their condemnation of the attacks or lack of endorsement of the bombs-away approach for responding to it. Also up to this in the last few days was William Kristol, finding a LA Times op-ed to be as offensive as the Mumbai attack itself. And Victor Davis Hanson is also complaining about moral paralysis. Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal says it's all the fault of the BBC World Service.
You might think that after 7 years of their preferred approach to terrorism, they'd be wondering why events like Mumbai can still happen. You'd be wrong.
India's 9/11, indeed
Condi Rice, during her truncated shopping trip to Brussels --QUESTION: ... did the United States provide a warning to India in the month before the Mumbai bombings that you believe that they were – they would soon succumb to – have an attack?
SECRETARY RICE: ... As to the reports that I have seen, as you have, I don’t really know the source of them, and I’m always reluctant to speak to unnamed sources who are speaking on background, because one never knows what they’re talking about. That’s one of the problems with the unnamed source issue. But we obviously – we try to pass information to countries all around the world if we pick up information. But I’ll tell you, having been on the receiving end of information sometimes which one could constitute as, quote-un-quote, “warnings,” they are often difficult to act on, sometimes not very concrete. And I would just note that the problem with terrorism is that information is useful, but it isn’t always something that can prevent.
So the real problem we have with terrorism is that terrorists can be right once and we have to be right 100 percent of the time. And in that regard, I have some not just sympathy, but empathy for what the Indian Government has gone through.
The context of course being the lazy hazy summer of 2001, when warnings about a major al Qaeda attack on the USA were being ignored. Note also the return of the old IRA taunt which unintentionally found its way into the Bush litany of excuses.
The photo above is a screenshot from 1996's Executive Decision, in which Arab hijackers, one trained as a pilot, take over a US-bound passenger jet, and pack it with WMD, with the intention of crashing it into Washington. Despite the title, the US president doesn't do much in the film.
Conflict of interest
We were going to let the following pass as just garden variety news conference flattery but it's gotten more irritating with subsequent developments so here goes. Condoleezza Rice and David Miliband, from whom the quote below comes, yesterday --
It’s not like it’s a quiet time in foreign affairs at the moment, so I don’t want to tempt fate by saying this is necessarily your last visit to London, but it may be the last occasion I get the chance to say publicly what I’ve said privately, which is that you have had a record of incredible distinction in all of the posts that you’ve held in U.S. Government, first National Security Advisor and then as Secretary of State.
His assessment of her performance as National Security Advisor is shared by just about nobody. Not even Condi. Here she is, just a few months ago, responding to multiple damning assessments of her time in that job --
“I told Steve Hadley once, I frankly prefer being coordinated than coordinating,” she said, referring to the current national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley. National security advisers, she said, end up spending their time thinking: “Let me see if I can get Secretary X to do Y, and Secretary Y to do X, and let’s see if we can get both to do it.” She gave a nod. “I prefer line responsibility,” she said, echoing perhaps the biggest complaint about her time at the National Security Council, that she was more follower than leader.
But if you're David Miliband, what matters in this case is not Condi's actual performance, but the fact that your wife is headed later that evening to participate in a musical recital with Condi for the Queen. Is this the kind of personal relationship clouding professional judgement that we need at a time of war? (as the rightwingers would normally say)
It’s not like it’s a quiet time in foreign affairs at the moment, so I don’t want to tempt fate by saying this is necessarily your last visit to London, but it may be the last occasion I get the chance to say publicly what I’ve said privately, which is that you have had a record of incredible distinction in all of the posts that you’ve held in U.S. Government, first National Security Advisor and then as Secretary of State.
His assessment of her performance as National Security Advisor is shared by just about nobody. Not even Condi. Here she is, just a few months ago, responding to multiple damning assessments of her time in that job --
“I told Steve Hadley once, I frankly prefer being coordinated than coordinating,” she said, referring to the current national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley. National security advisers, she said, end up spending their time thinking: “Let me see if I can get Secretary X to do Y, and Secretary Y to do X, and let’s see if we can get both to do it.” She gave a nod. “I prefer line responsibility,” she said, echoing perhaps the biggest complaint about her time at the National Security Council, that she was more follower than leader.
But if you're David Miliband, what matters in this case is not Condi's actual performance, but the fact that your wife is headed later that evening to participate in a musical recital with Condi for the Queen. Is this the kind of personal relationship clouding professional judgement that we need at a time of war? (as the rightwingers would normally say)
Lying to the finish
From the George Bush interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC News --
GIBSON: You said you were not going to be in the business of nation-building. And so much of what you had to do was nation-building.
BUSH: Well, what I said was, in the course of a debate, I said the military shouldn't be used to build nations. In this case, it turns out the military, in my judgment, was needed to remove threats to our security, and after that removal, the military, as well as our diplomatic corps, needed to help rebuild after tyrannical situations.
He ran against nation building. Condi Rice helped him do it. Now he says, to the extent one can determine what he meant, that he was only against it when the military was being used for nation-building without diplomats -- which is not what anyone has ever proposed.
But he really took off on the Iraq war --
GIBSON: You've always said there's no do-overs as President. If you had one?
BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.
GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?
BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.
GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.
BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.
Note that Bush took the hypothesis to be that Saddam had WMD and then claimed that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in. But Hans Blix and the inspectors were in Iraq. Bush ordered them out.
He then claims not to know the answer to Gibson's followup -- if the intelligence had correctly said that there was no WMD, would he have invaded? He has answered this question repeatedly, and again just last week in Kentucky: that removing Saddam Hussein was "the right decision then, and the right decision today". Which can only mean that knowing as he now does that Saddam didn't have WMD, he would still have invaded. The only doubt is whether he would have had Tony Blair along for the ride, since WMD were crucial to the UK legal rationale.
GIBSON: You said you were not going to be in the business of nation-building. And so much of what you had to do was nation-building.
BUSH: Well, what I said was, in the course of a debate, I said the military shouldn't be used to build nations. In this case, it turns out the military, in my judgment, was needed to remove threats to our security, and after that removal, the military, as well as our diplomatic corps, needed to help rebuild after tyrannical situations.
He ran against nation building. Condi Rice helped him do it. Now he says, to the extent one can determine what he meant, that he was only against it when the military was being used for nation-building without diplomats -- which is not what anyone has ever proposed.
But he really took off on the Iraq war --
GIBSON: You've always said there's no do-overs as President. If you had one?
BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.
GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?
BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.
GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.
BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.
Note that Bush took the hypothesis to be that Saddam had WMD and then claimed that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in. But Hans Blix and the inspectors were in Iraq. Bush ordered them out.
He then claims not to know the answer to Gibson's followup -- if the intelligence had correctly said that there was no WMD, would he have invaded? He has answered this question repeatedly, and again just last week in Kentucky: that removing Saddam Hussein was "the right decision then, and the right decision today". Which can only mean that knowing as he now does that Saddam didn't have WMD, he would still have invaded. The only doubt is whether he would have had Tony Blair along for the ride, since WMD were crucial to the UK legal rationale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)