Another instance in a trail of electoral college ignorance on the right, this one from Powerline's "Deacon" --
John Kerry is now outdoing Al Gore when it comes to loser derangement syndrome. And Kerry doesn't even have the excuse of having almost won the presidency.
He's confusing the 2004 popular vote, which Bush did win decisively, with the 2004 electoral college vote, which Bush only won because he narrowly won Ohio -- by a margin of 118,599 votes. As people said at the time, if a football stadium's worth of people had switched their votes, John Kerry would be president.
UPDATE: This Brad DeLong post offers calculations that illuminate the distinction apparently lost on the right.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Americans and Americants
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, in addition to generously allowing that Democrats aren't "running around with 'I love bin Laden' t-shirts", offers a theory of victory on Iraq: that the only thing necessary is to want it badly enough --
To stay, with victory as your determination, ensures that you're going to have the ability over time to do what you want to achieve.
To stay, with victory as your determination, ensures that you're going to have the ability over time to do what you want to achieve.
Monday, October 30, 2006
The J Street Project
George Bush today in Georgia --
... there's too many philosophers in Washington ...
UPDATE: He's developing the thought, again in Georgia --
But you know, sometimes philosophers don't act.
ONE MORE UPDATE: People of Elko, Nevada want more than philosophers in Washington, D.C. You want doers. (Applause.)
... there's too many philosophers in Washington ...
UPDATE: He's developing the thought, again in Georgia --
But you know, sometimes philosophers don't act.
ONE MORE UPDATE: People of Elko, Nevada want more than philosophers in Washington, D.C. You want doers. (Applause.)
Worst vice president ever
A few snippets from a Dick Cheney interview with Fox News (Neil Cavuto) today.
1. Iraqi terrorists and militias are following the US election coverage --
Q Do you suspect that these insurgent attacks are timed to influence our midterm elections?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's my belief. I think they are, very, very cognizant of our schedule, if you will ...
Q Do you think, though, that the insurgents are better at these polls than even we are, that they are reading them and seeing frustration growing with the war, and regardless of the good economy, saying, let's keep up the attacks, let's keep up the pressure?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's my belief that they're very sensitive of the fact that we've got an election scheduled, and they can get on the websites like anybody else. There isn't anything that's on the Internet that's not accessible to them. They're on it all the time. They're very sophisticated users of it. And I do believe that that's a part of it.
2. Americans don't perceive a good economy because it's been so good for so long --
Q So why aren't they whooping it up? Why aren't they partying? Why aren't they saying, hey, another record, let's go for it?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know -- maybe they've gotten used to it.
3. Not quite the scale of the gaffe regarding waterboarding from last week, but he left the door open again --
Q So there would be never a moment or a time when you think it is appropriate to go above and beyond traditional ways we treat detainees in order to get information?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I am a strong supporter of having the CIA have authorization to run a special program, which we have done, and which the House has now passed legislation to continue, as has the Senate, that gives them the authority to operate a program that allows us to interrogate people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for example, the man who put together the attack on 9/11. I think we need to be able to do that. I think we can do it appropriately. I think we can do it without resorting to torture. But at the same time, it's one of the most valuable sources of information and intelligence we have on the enemy, finding out who they are, where they train, what their plans are.
UPDATE 31 OCTOBER: As bad as Cheney is, he gets topped by his boss --
However they put it, the Democrat approach comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.
FINAL UPDATE 2 NOVEMBER -- the line is gone from Bush's rally speech in Montana, indicating perhaps some sensitivity to the criticism it received.
1. Iraqi terrorists and militias are following the US election coverage --
Q Do you suspect that these insurgent attacks are timed to influence our midterm elections?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's my belief. I think they are, very, very cognizant of our schedule, if you will ...
Q Do you think, though, that the insurgents are better at these polls than even we are, that they are reading them and seeing frustration growing with the war, and regardless of the good economy, saying, let's keep up the attacks, let's keep up the pressure?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's my belief that they're very sensitive of the fact that we've got an election scheduled, and they can get on the websites like anybody else. There isn't anything that's on the Internet that's not accessible to them. They're on it all the time. They're very sophisticated users of it. And I do believe that that's a part of it.
2. Americans don't perceive a good economy because it's been so good for so long --
Q So why aren't they whooping it up? Why aren't they partying? Why aren't they saying, hey, another record, let's go for it?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know -- maybe they've gotten used to it.
3. Not quite the scale of the gaffe regarding waterboarding from last week, but he left the door open again --
Q So there would be never a moment or a time when you think it is appropriate to go above and beyond traditional ways we treat detainees in order to get information?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I am a strong supporter of having the CIA have authorization to run a special program, which we have done, and which the House has now passed legislation to continue, as has the Senate, that gives them the authority to operate a program that allows us to interrogate people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for example, the man who put together the attack on 9/11. I think we need to be able to do that. I think we can do it appropriately. I think we can do it without resorting to torture. But at the same time, it's one of the most valuable sources of information and intelligence we have on the enemy, finding out who they are, where they train, what their plans are.
UPDATE 31 OCTOBER: As bad as Cheney is, he gets topped by his boss --
However they put it, the Democrat approach comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.
FINAL UPDATE 2 NOVEMBER -- the line is gone from Bush's rally speech in Montana, indicating perhaps some sensitivity to the criticism it received.
Not over here
Backword:
Torygraph: Irish police ’foil Republican bomb plot’. If it had happened in London Ian Blair and Ruth Kelly would be ordering the interment of all Muslims NOW. Fortunately, it didn’t.
Indeed. And if Bush was Taoiseach instead of Bertie, we'd be getting the "Carlow is a central front on the War on Terror" speech.
Torygraph: Irish police ’foil Republican bomb plot’. If it had happened in London Ian Blair and Ruth Kelly would be ordering the interment of all Muslims NOW. Fortunately, it didn’t.
Indeed. And if Bush was Taoiseach instead of Bertie, we'd be getting the "Carlow is a central front on the War on Terror" speech.
Left Behind
Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial page (subs. req'd) made the unwise decision to ridicule Al Gore for having been cited as a key influence on global warming policy in Belgium --
Al Gore may have failed to carry his home state of Tennessee as a Presidential candidate, but the former Vice President is all the rage in . . . Belgium. The country has even named a tax after him ... Evidently the government figures that dressing the new tax package in Al Gore green will make it go down easier. If the former veep decides he can't beat Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic nomination, he can always try Europe.
Europe indeed, because they clearly wrote up this standard issue mockery not knowing that Gore would also be unveiled as special adviser on the environment to the UK Treasury, an announcement that will come the same day as Nick Stern's damning report on the huge costs of global warming. But apart from the general problem that ridiculing Britain would have posed for the Anglophile Journal, it's hard for them to question Gordon Brown's choice of advisers, since Alan Greenspan is another.
Al Gore may have failed to carry his home state of Tennessee as a Presidential candidate, but the former Vice President is all the rage in . . . Belgium. The country has even named a tax after him ... Evidently the government figures that dressing the new tax package in Al Gore green will make it go down easier. If the former veep decides he can't beat Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic nomination, he can always try Europe.
Europe indeed, because they clearly wrote up this standard issue mockery not knowing that Gore would also be unveiled as special adviser on the environment to the UK Treasury, an announcement that will come the same day as Nick Stern's damning report on the huge costs of global warming. But apart from the general problem that ridiculing Britain would have posed for the Anglophile Journal, it's hard for them to question Gordon Brown's choice of advisers, since Alan Greenspan is another.
The non-secret impartiality policeman's ball
Blogger Bruce Bawer, writing yesterday, via an approving link from Andrew Sullivan:
... a story from LifeSiteNews.com reporting that the BBC "has admitted to a marked bias against Christianity and a strong inclination to pro-Muslim reporting among the network's executives and key anchors." It has also admitted that "the corporation is dominated by homosexuals." These admissions came at a secret "impartiality summit" that the Daily Mail reported on last Sunday. The Telegraph ran an opinion column about this summit, but otherwise I can't find any reference to it on the websites of other major UK papers.
So the canard about the "secret summit" is still circulating. Here's the BBC explanation from, yes, their website --
Well I was one of the people who was at the "secret" meeting and I have to say the reality was somewhat different to the way the press are reporting it. For a start, this wasn’t a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-BBC people like John Lloyd from the FT and Janet Daley from the Daily Telegraph. It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the BBC’s commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world’s journalism.
Many of the supposed revelations from the live online secret summit spring from freewheeling discussion groups and are far short of final analysis of bias, real or imagined, at the BBC. Do like Bawer or Sullivan did not do and read the whole thing.
... a story from LifeSiteNews.com reporting that the BBC "has admitted to a marked bias against Christianity and a strong inclination to pro-Muslim reporting among the network's executives and key anchors." It has also admitted that "the corporation is dominated by homosexuals." These admissions came at a secret "impartiality summit" that the Daily Mail reported on last Sunday. The Telegraph ran an opinion column about this summit, but otherwise I can't find any reference to it on the websites of other major UK papers.
So the canard about the "secret summit" is still circulating. Here's the BBC explanation from, yes, their website --
Well I was one of the people who was at the "secret" meeting and I have to say the reality was somewhat different to the way the press are reporting it. For a start, this wasn’t a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-BBC people like John Lloyd from the FT and Janet Daley from the Daily Telegraph. It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the BBC’s commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world’s journalism.
Many of the supposed revelations from the live online secret summit spring from freewheeling discussion groups and are far short of final analysis of bias, real or imagined, at the BBC. Do like Bawer or Sullivan did not do and read the whole thing.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
2nd most oppressed people ever
Question: in what context might one justify the more pessimistic of 2 positions by saying -- "But then I'm Irish, not Polish"?
Answer: if you're Andrew Sullivan, explaining that unlike the former "Good News from Iraq" blogger (on which more in a second), you think that Iraq is already down the tubes.
Here's the context. Sullivan notes the resurfacing of Arthur Chrenkoff, who had blogged from Australia with the goal of showing that there was much unreported good news from Iraq (and Afghanistan) that the mainstream media was choosing to ignore. The blog evolved into a remunerated, edited item for the Wall Street Journal online, a fact that both Chrenkoff and the WSJ Online initially tried to conceal from readers, and Chrenkoff soon stopped blogging on the topic anyway.
He's now back with a novel, whose plot is suggestive of ex post recognition of mistakes, so Sullivan asked him whether he regretted the crowd he'd gotten in with via the Good News from Iraq blogging:
[Chrenkoff] Re Iraq - it's funny, because I'm not by nature an optimistic person (I think that the stereotypically romantic but melancholic and fatalistic Polish psyche has been too strongly beaten into us over the centuries between the hammer of Germany and the anvil of Russia), but I remain cautiously optimistic, even if for the sake of all the decent people in Iraq ...
[Sullivan] On that last point, I am in complete agreement. My only motive in exposing the lies and incompetence of the Bush administration is precisely because I want Iraqis to have a decent future, and my heart breaks for those brave souls facing down murder and blackmail each day to protect themselves in the face of our arrogant incompetence. I fear it's too late now. But then I'm Irish, not Polish.
Normally we Irish have enough famine and oppression to win the right-for-pessimism stakes, but the Poles give us a good run for the money so that's an odd ranking of the two histories. But it confirms yet again the Iron Law of Sully -- his self-identification as Irish when he's feuding with American conservatives. In fact as we look back an old post where we set this out, we see something that's missing from his current feud, which he attributes to divergent views about religion and politics. In British politics, the cost of tax cuts is much more internalised in domestic politics, and it's hard to see what that has to do with religion.
Answer: if you're Andrew Sullivan, explaining that unlike the former "Good News from Iraq" blogger (on which more in a second), you think that Iraq is already down the tubes.
Here's the context. Sullivan notes the resurfacing of Arthur Chrenkoff, who had blogged from Australia with the goal of showing that there was much unreported good news from Iraq (and Afghanistan) that the mainstream media was choosing to ignore. The blog evolved into a remunerated, edited item for the Wall Street Journal online, a fact that both Chrenkoff and the WSJ Online initially tried to conceal from readers, and Chrenkoff soon stopped blogging on the topic anyway.
He's now back with a novel, whose plot is suggestive of ex post recognition of mistakes, so Sullivan asked him whether he regretted the crowd he'd gotten in with via the Good News from Iraq blogging:
[Chrenkoff] Re Iraq - it's funny, because I'm not by nature an optimistic person (I think that the stereotypically romantic but melancholic and fatalistic Polish psyche has been too strongly beaten into us over the centuries between the hammer of Germany and the anvil of Russia), but I remain cautiously optimistic, even if for the sake of all the decent people in Iraq ...
[Sullivan] On that last point, I am in complete agreement. My only motive in exposing the lies and incompetence of the Bush administration is precisely because I want Iraqis to have a decent future, and my heart breaks for those brave souls facing down murder and blackmail each day to protect themselves in the face of our arrogant incompetence. I fear it's too late now. But then I'm Irish, not Polish.
Normally we Irish have enough famine and oppression to win the right-for-pessimism stakes, but the Poles give us a good run for the money so that's an odd ranking of the two histories. But it confirms yet again the Iron Law of Sully -- his self-identification as Irish when he's feuding with American conservatives. In fact as we look back an old post where we set this out, we see something that's missing from his current feud, which he attributes to divergent views about religion and politics. In British politics, the cost of tax cuts is much more internalised in domestic politics, and it's hard to see what that has to do with religion.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Asked and Answered
It hasn't got as much attention as it should have, but Dick Cheney had his guard down the other day in front of a sycophantic interviewer and (1) confirmed that the US uses waterboarding on terrorism suspects, and (2) that he supports it. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow tried to undo the admission today --
"You know as a matter of common sense that the vice president of the United States is not going to be talking about water boarding. Never would, never does, never will," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said. "You think Dick Cheney's going to slip up on something like this?
Big Time. Last Throes. Pretty Well Confirmed. No Doubt. Greeted as Liberators. Shoots Friend in Face. Indeed.
UPDATE: The waterboarding question did come up at a brief Q&A with Bush after meeting the NATO Secretary-General, but it was not directly answered.
"You know as a matter of common sense that the vice president of the United States is not going to be talking about water boarding. Never would, never does, never will," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said. "You think Dick Cheney's going to slip up on something like this?
Big Time. Last Throes. Pretty Well Confirmed. No Doubt. Greeted as Liberators. Shoots Friend in Face. Indeed.
UPDATE: The waterboarding question did come up at a brief Q&A with Bush after meeting the NATO Secretary-General, but it was not directly answered.
Caption suggestions welcome
The photo shows General Peter Pace, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, signing the guestbook at the Royal College of Defence Studies in London. Our suggestion: "So that's why Bush is now signing things George R rather than George W."
Thursday, October 26, 2006
A nation once again
Today's exclusive BoBW Internet editing game in 4 easy steps:
1. Go to the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs website and click on the executive summary of the "Comprehensive study on the all-island economy".
2. Copy and paste the text of the summary into your favourite text editing program.
3. Using the text editor's "Find-Replace" feature, set up and implement a Find: "l-is" -- Replace "l-ire" command. [that's lower case L before the hyphen, and don't include the quotes]
4. Inspect results, laugh, and ponder whether the document was finalised using the reverse procedure.
1. Go to the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs website and click on the executive summary of the "Comprehensive study on the all-island economy".
2. Copy and paste the text of the summary into your favourite text editing program.
3. Using the text editor's "Find-Replace" feature, set up and implement a Find: "l-is" -- Replace "l-ire" command. [that's lower case L before the hyphen, and don't include the quotes]
4. Inspect results, laugh, and ponder whether the document was finalised using the reverse procedure.
What are the odds?
Two quick notes from Andrew Sullivan's blog today. First, he's been running an excellent series of reader-submitted pictures taken from their windows; they're intended to be vrai portrayals of the vista from where the computer screen is. Today's submission* is from Drumkeeran, County Leitrim and does capture the everyday beauty of that part of Ireland; remarkable in particular is the absence of some godawful McMansion springing up on the hill opposite, so his reader is lucky in that regard.
Second, in a later post Sullivan endorses a fellow blogger's suggestion as to how the Democratic candidate for Senate from Tennessee, Harold Ford, should respond to a Republican ad that clearly plays on his race (black) --
It would seem that today's Republican Party is more comfortable with elected officials - male elected officials - who take an interest in teenage boys. Mark Foley is acceptable to Ken Mehlman's GOP. Heterosexual men, it seems, are not.
We'll just leave it here for future reference that, of all the people one might name as being representative of the Republicans (George Bush, Karl Rove etc) he goes with Ken Mehlman.
UPDATE NOV 10: The implicit issue here just got more explicit via a comment by Bill Maher on the Larry King show. And did Sullivan now out Maher, or re-out Mehlman? --
I have no idea what my friend Bill Maher is going to say tomorrow night, and I don't believe in "outing" people. But I do think that closeted gay people who attack other gay people should take Jon Stewart's advice.
*FINAL UPDATE: It's a busted link but he reposted the photo.
Second, in a later post Sullivan endorses a fellow blogger's suggestion as to how the Democratic candidate for Senate from Tennessee, Harold Ford, should respond to a Republican ad that clearly plays on his race (black) --
It would seem that today's Republican Party is more comfortable with elected officials - male elected officials - who take an interest in teenage boys. Mark Foley is acceptable to Ken Mehlman's GOP. Heterosexual men, it seems, are not.
We'll just leave it here for future reference that, of all the people one might name as being representative of the Republicans (George Bush, Karl Rove etc) he goes with Ken Mehlman.
UPDATE NOV 10: The implicit issue here just got more explicit via a comment by Bill Maher on the Larry King show. And did Sullivan now out Maher, or re-out Mehlman? --
I have no idea what my friend Bill Maher is going to say tomorrow night, and I don't believe in "outing" people. But I do think that closeted gay people who attack other gay people should take Jon Stewart's advice.
*FINAL UPDATE: It's a busted link but he reposted the photo.
In the long run we're all Churchill
It's no secret that George W. Bush fancies himself as the 21st century's Randolph Winston Churchill and further hints were dropped in his response to inevitable "what books are you reading?" questions in interviews recently; remember that Bush is in a race with Karl Rove to see who can read the most books this year.
He told both ABC News and a group of conservative commentators that he's reading A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900, which as John Derbyshire pointed out at The Corner is (1) not the Churchill book of almost the same name (2) not on sale in the US yet but (3) clearly intended as a sequel to Churchill's book. One of the aforementioned commentators who got the sit-down with Bush, Michael Barone, piles on the flattery:
[Andrew] Roberts's English-Speaking Peoples is an extension of Churchill's multicentury history that ends around 1900, and I expect that it will take Churchill's view: that the English-speaking peoples have over the centuries taken up the responsibility of expanding freedom and spreading democracy and the rule of law around the world.
That is Bush's view as well, as I was reminded when I noticed the bust of Churchill as I was leaving the Oval Office.
Note the combination of Barone's gloss over the history of colonialism with Bush's much more alarming view that a hypothetical perspective of him 50 years down the road exempts him from thinking about the costs of his policies today.
He told both ABC News and a group of conservative commentators that he's reading A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900, which as John Derbyshire pointed out at The Corner is (1) not the Churchill book of almost the same name (2) not on sale in the US yet but (3) clearly intended as a sequel to Churchill's book. One of the aforementioned commentators who got the sit-down with Bush, Michael Barone, piles on the flattery:
[Andrew] Roberts's English-Speaking Peoples is an extension of Churchill's multicentury history that ends around 1900, and I expect that it will take Churchill's view: that the English-speaking peoples have over the centuries taken up the responsibility of expanding freedom and spreading democracy and the rule of law around the world.
That is Bush's view as well, as I was reminded when I noticed the bust of Churchill as I was leaving the Oval Office.
Note the combination of Barone's gloss over the history of colonialism with Bush's much more alarming view that a hypothetical perspective of him 50 years down the road exempts him from thinking about the costs of his policies today.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
The new meaning of "contingency"
Adding to George Bush's collection of descriptions of what his job is came a new one in today's press conference --
Q What if there is a civil war [in Iraq]?
THE PRESIDENT: You're asking me hypotheticals. Our job is to make sure there's not one, see.
i.e. contingencies are irrelevant because if you do your job, they won't happen. Indeed one might extend that logic to say if contingencies can't happen, then they never have happened, and everything that has transpired has done so according to Bush's design.
Q What if there is a civil war [in Iraq]?
THE PRESIDENT: You're asking me hypotheticals. Our job is to make sure there's not one, see.
i.e. contingencies are irrelevant because if you do your job, they won't happen. Indeed one might extend that logic to say if contingencies can't happen, then they never have happened, and everything that has transpired has done so according to Bush's design.
Yes, General
The latest of a line of hasty clarifications issued after an attention-getting statement from someone who didn't check with the handlers beforehand --
(NYT) BAGHDAD, Oct. 25 — The top American military commander in Iraq issued a statement today saying that while “all options are on the table” he has made no request “to date” for more American troops to protect Baghdad.
The statement came in the form of a “clarification” issued to news organizations in Baghdad of remarks made by Gen. George W. Casey Jr. at a press conference in Baghdad on Tuesday. The general told reporters then that troop increases in Baghdad were among the options as American commanders make adjustments to an 11-week-old operation in Baghdad that has aimed at recapturing the capital’s streets from insurgents and death squads.
“There is no intent to bring more U.S. troops into Iraq at this time. The general was merely saying, as he has said consistently since taking command of the Multi-National Force Iraq that all options are on the table. He will ask for what is needed. He has made no such request to date,” the statement said. The statement from Gen. Casey’s office on today said that news reports of the Tuesday press conference “inferred General Casey as saying more troops might be needed. Quite frankly, that is the wrong impression”.
(NYT) BAGHDAD, Oct. 25 — The top American military commander in Iraq issued a statement today saying that while “all options are on the table” he has made no request “to date” for more American troops to protect Baghdad.
The statement came in the form of a “clarification” issued to news organizations in Baghdad of remarks made by Gen. George W. Casey Jr. at a press conference in Baghdad on Tuesday. The general told reporters then that troop increases in Baghdad were among the options as American commanders make adjustments to an 11-week-old operation in Baghdad that has aimed at recapturing the capital’s streets from insurgents and death squads.
“There is no intent to bring more U.S. troops into Iraq at this time. The general was merely saying, as he has said consistently since taking command of the Multi-National Force Iraq that all options are on the table. He will ask for what is needed. He has made no such request to date,” the statement said. The statement from Gen. Casey’s office on today said that news reports of the Tuesday press conference “inferred General Casey as saying more troops might be needed. Quite frankly, that is the wrong impression”.
Time to hand over the keys
Whatever the election outcome in 2 weeks, the endgame of neoconservatism as an intellectual doctrine is well underway. Today's Wall Street Journal editorial page is a case in point. First, an editorial (subs. req'd) whose title says it all --
Pakistan's Sovereignty
In case you haven't guessed, they're against it:
We don't know what General Musharraf promised President Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai during their recent conclave in the White House. But we hope it was more tangible cooperation than we have been seeing of late. Sovereignty has responsibilities, and General Musharraf is not exercising them.
The implied sanction is not spelt out. One benefit of the editorial is that it makes Max Boot (subs. req'd), across the page, seem more reasonable in his argument that the Darfur peacekeeping be outsourced to mercenaries --
In 1995-96, Executive Outcomes, a South African firm working for the government of Sierra Leone, made short work of a savage rebel movement known as the Revolutionary United Front that was notorious for chopping off the limbs of its victims. As a result, Sierra Leone was able to hold its first free election in decades. The now-defunct Executive Outcomes also helped the Angolan government quell a long-running insurgency by Jonas Savimbi's Unita, leading to the signing of a peace accord in 1994. Another private firm, MPRI, helped to bring peace to the former Yugoslavia in 1995 by organizing the Croatian military offensive that stopped Serbian aggression.
Hired guns could be equally effective in stopping the campaign of rape, murder and ethnic cleansing carried out by the Sudanese government and the janjaweed militia in Darfur. In fact, several firms have already offered their services. They could be employed by an international organization like the U.N. or NATO, by an ad hoc group of concerned nations, or even by philanthropists like Bill Gates or George Soros.
Only mentioned in passing is that peace wasn't restored to Sierra Leone until a regular contingent of British troops did the job, and the political scandals that have marked previous mercenary ventures (it's not clear that Boot ever Googled Sandline, for example). And left unsaid is who would pay them, what flag they would fight under (which matters for pesky little details like the Geneva conventions, for example), and how any truce would be maintained.
Behind Boot's proposal is a contradiction that goes to the heart of the neocon conundrum: remaking the world requires troops on the ground, but the American public won't stand for that level of mobilisation. As Niall Ferguson put it in Sunday's Telegraph --
Writing in the 1920s, the German historian Eckart Kehr argued that the foreign policy of the Kaiser's Germany was the defective product of the "primacy of domestic politics". Decisions about diplomacy and strategy, he argued, were determined not by rational international calculation but by short-sighted political machination: whether a bigger navy would satisfy the heavy industrial lobby, whether a higher tariff would square the Prussian landowners.
I have come to see that American foreign policy suffers from a similar pathology. The primacy of domestic politics, in the form of bureaucratic in-fighting and electoral manipulation, explains why the Iraq enterprise has, from the outset, been so chronically undermanned.
Not a particularly encouraging analogy.
Pakistan's Sovereignty
In case you haven't guessed, they're against it:
We don't know what General Musharraf promised President Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai during their recent conclave in the White House. But we hope it was more tangible cooperation than we have been seeing of late. Sovereignty has responsibilities, and General Musharraf is not exercising them.
The implied sanction is not spelt out. One benefit of the editorial is that it makes Max Boot (subs. req'd), across the page, seem more reasonable in his argument that the Darfur peacekeeping be outsourced to mercenaries --
In 1995-96, Executive Outcomes, a South African firm working for the government of Sierra Leone, made short work of a savage rebel movement known as the Revolutionary United Front that was notorious for chopping off the limbs of its victims. As a result, Sierra Leone was able to hold its first free election in decades. The now-defunct Executive Outcomes also helped the Angolan government quell a long-running insurgency by Jonas Savimbi's Unita, leading to the signing of a peace accord in 1994. Another private firm, MPRI, helped to bring peace to the former Yugoslavia in 1995 by organizing the Croatian military offensive that stopped Serbian aggression.
Hired guns could be equally effective in stopping the campaign of rape, murder and ethnic cleansing carried out by the Sudanese government and the janjaweed militia in Darfur. In fact, several firms have already offered their services. They could be employed by an international organization like the U.N. or NATO, by an ad hoc group of concerned nations, or even by philanthropists like Bill Gates or George Soros.
Only mentioned in passing is that peace wasn't restored to Sierra Leone until a regular contingent of British troops did the job, and the political scandals that have marked previous mercenary ventures (it's not clear that Boot ever Googled Sandline, for example). And left unsaid is who would pay them, what flag they would fight under (which matters for pesky little details like the Geneva conventions, for example), and how any truce would be maintained.
Behind Boot's proposal is a contradiction that goes to the heart of the neocon conundrum: remaking the world requires troops on the ground, but the American public won't stand for that level of mobilisation. As Niall Ferguson put it in Sunday's Telegraph --
Writing in the 1920s, the German historian Eckart Kehr argued that the foreign policy of the Kaiser's Germany was the defective product of the "primacy of domestic politics". Decisions about diplomacy and strategy, he argued, were determined not by rational international calculation but by short-sighted political machination: whether a bigger navy would satisfy the heavy industrial lobby, whether a higher tariff would square the Prussian landowners.
I have come to see that American foreign policy suffers from a similar pathology. The primacy of domestic politics, in the form of bureaucratic in-fighting and electoral manipulation, explains why the Iraq enterprise has, from the outset, been so chronically undermanned.
Not a particularly encouraging analogy.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Hall of mirrors
Could it be that George Bush's recent admission of potential Vietnam-Iraq parallels was an attempt to head off a likely field day for the commentators with his just announced trip to Vietnam in November, a trip that will include a visit to Ho Chi Minh City (sic)?
UPDATE 16 NOVEMBER: It seems that the previous government of "Ho Chi Minh City" is not forgotten after all.
UPDATE 16 NOVEMBER: It seems that the previous government of "Ho Chi Minh City" is not forgotten after all.
Read no evil
In a remark open to multiple interpretations, George Bush, during the same interview in which he claimed to use "the Google", was asked whether he used email:
“I tend not to email or — not only tend not to email, I don’t email, because of the different record requests that can happen to a president. I don’t want to receive emails because, you know, there’s no telling what somebody’s email may — it would show up as, you know, a part of some kind of a story, and I wouldn’t be able to say, `Well, I didn’t read the email.’ `But I sent it to your address, how can you say you didn’t?’ So, in other words, I’m very cautious about emailing.”
He didn't want to sound like he was saying that his legal experts have told him to avoid email so as to keep deniability intact (and to sidestep the fishing expeditions that his allies used against Bill Clinton) but he comes pretty close to doing it anyway. Note also his transparent fear of the technology, springing from ignorance, as corporations have long since found ways to deal with the concerns that he expresses. Do his oft-expressed denunciations of Osama bin Laden spring not from Osama's body count, but from awe at his mastery of the Internet?
“I tend not to email or — not only tend not to email, I don’t email, because of the different record requests that can happen to a president. I don’t want to receive emails because, you know, there’s no telling what somebody’s email may — it would show up as, you know, a part of some kind of a story, and I wouldn’t be able to say, `Well, I didn’t read the email.’ `But I sent it to your address, how can you say you didn’t?’ So, in other words, I’m very cautious about emailing.”
He didn't want to sound like he was saying that his legal experts have told him to avoid email so as to keep deniability intact (and to sidestep the fishing expeditions that his allies used against Bill Clinton) but he comes pretty close to doing it anyway. Note also his transparent fear of the technology, springing from ignorance, as corporations have long since found ways to deal with the concerns that he expresses. Do his oft-expressed denunciations of Osama bin Laden spring not from Osama's body count, but from awe at his mastery of the Internet?
Monday, October 23, 2006
Tonight I'm gonna (Rock you tonight)
It would be funny if it didn't involve about 3,000 people a month dying in Iraq, but here was White House Press Secretary Tony Snow deflecting a question about the failed mission to pacify Baghdad --
Q Tony, I remember a few months ago, we were in the East Room, and Maliki was there, we were talking about the plan to secure Baghdad. And maybe this is a kind of more specific version of what we've been asking. That plan, is it going to be changed drastically? Is the President satisfied? Is it what was expected when the plan was put out?
MR. SNOW: Are you talking about Operation Forward Together -- or Together Forward?
In fact, the current name for this operation is, apparently, "Together Forward II", a name which wouldn't lose much in terms of credibility if you added "Electric Boogaloo" after it.
UPDATE 2 FEBRUARY: The Operation has now been relegated to one that dare not speak its name; Stephen Hadley in a briefing about the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) --
But what we found was, while the initial response [after Samarrah mosque bombing] was good, we began to see the kind of mobilization in the Shia community and the beginnings of retaliation of Shia on Sunni, and Sunni on Shia. And that is talked about very clearly in the NIE.
Q And that wasn't anticipated by the administration?
MR. HADLEY: We did, and we had two security plans, efforts -- because, of course, as you know, most of this is focused in Baghdad; about 80 percent of sectarian violence is within 30 miles of Baghdad. And we took two bites at that apple in terms of Iraq security plans, phase one, phase two. And the truth is, as we've said very clearly, they did not work. And it did not bring down the violence.
FINAL UPDATE: Naming follies with the successor operation.
Q Tony, I remember a few months ago, we were in the East Room, and Maliki was there, we were talking about the plan to secure Baghdad. And maybe this is a kind of more specific version of what we've been asking. That plan, is it going to be changed drastically? Is the President satisfied? Is it what was expected when the plan was put out?
MR. SNOW: Are you talking about Operation Forward Together -- or Together Forward?
In fact, the current name for this operation is, apparently, "Together Forward II", a name which wouldn't lose much in terms of credibility if you added "Electric Boogaloo" after it.
UPDATE 2 FEBRUARY: The Operation has now been relegated to one that dare not speak its name; Stephen Hadley in a briefing about the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) --
But what we found was, while the initial response [after Samarrah mosque bombing] was good, we began to see the kind of mobilization in the Shia community and the beginnings of retaliation of Shia on Sunni, and Sunni on Shia. And that is talked about very clearly in the NIE.
Q And that wasn't anticipated by the administration?
MR. HADLEY: We did, and we had two security plans, efforts -- because, of course, as you know, most of this is focused in Baghdad; about 80 percent of sectarian violence is within 30 miles of Baghdad. And we took two bites at that apple in terms of Iraq security plans, phase one, phase two. And the truth is, as we've said very clearly, they did not work. And it did not bring down the violence.
FINAL UPDATE: Naming follies with the successor operation.
Reflections on the revolution in America
It's not easy to pick sides in a dispute between Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks (perhaps the right analogy is to a Liverpool fan needing a preference in a Man Utd v Chelsea match). The context is Sullivan's review of the reviews of his book, not least the extended review by Brooks in the New York Times yesterday. Brooks recounts the extent to which Sullivan draws his worldview from Michael Oakeshott (which hasn't stopped him straying from the path before), which causes Brooks to note:
Politics is not an effort to find solutions and realize ideals, in [an Oakeshottian] view. It is merely an effort to find practical ways to preserve one's balance in a complicated world. An Oakeshottian conservative will reject great crusades. He will not try to impose morality or base policy decisions on so-called eternal truths. Of course neither would this kind of conservative write the Declaration of Independence.
Faced with the claim that he's pushing a conservative philosophy that misses something essential about America, Sullivan falls back on the Burkean view that the American revolution was actually conservative in nature, but then tries to retake his original ground and claim that, therefore, Oakeshott would have been fine with it too --
The entire mechanism of American government was designed to ensure that as little as possible is ever done by government, that doubt is welded into the core system, that certainty is always checked by other powers, and that the great Certainty of Divine Truth is always, always, always kept at bay. That's one reason Oakeshott loved America - and why increasing numbers of American thinkers are coming to admire his thought, especially in these absolutist, fundamentalist times.
There's just one problem. You wouldn't guess it from Sullivan going back to Burke to find out what Oakeshott would have thought of the Declaration of Independence, because the man directly addressed the question himself, in Rationalism in Politics (1947) --
The early history of the United States of America is an instructive chapter in the history of the politics of Rationalism. .... the independence of the society concerned begins with an admitted illegality, a specific and express rejection of a tradition. which consequently can be defended only by an appeal to something which is itself thought not to depend upon tradition ... The Declaration of Independence is a characteristic product of the saeculum rationalisticum [the age of rationalism]. It represents the politics of the felt need interpreted with the aid of an ideology. And it is not surprising that it should have become one of the sacred documents of the politics of Rationalism, and, together with the similar documents of the French Revolution, the inspiration and pattern of many later adventures in the rationalist reconstruction of society.
Remember that rationalist is always a pejorative for Oakeshott. Tossed by the wayside, inter alia, is any distinction between the French and American revolutions that Sullivan would seek to make. Brooks 1, Sullivan 0.
UPDATE: In a later post, Sullivan hints at, while not explicity acknowledging, the degree to which his support for the Iraq war would never have passed an Oakeshott test --
But looking back, I think I didn't fully realize the radical utopianism of some of the people I was backing.
One final note: John Podhoretz manages a funny comment on Sullivan's response to Brooks --
Andrew Sullivan's response to David Brooks's review of his book has now surpassed Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in length.
Politics is not an effort to find solutions and realize ideals, in [an Oakeshottian] view. It is merely an effort to find practical ways to preserve one's balance in a complicated world. An Oakeshottian conservative will reject great crusades. He will not try to impose morality or base policy decisions on so-called eternal truths. Of course neither would this kind of conservative write the Declaration of Independence.
Faced with the claim that he's pushing a conservative philosophy that misses something essential about America, Sullivan falls back on the Burkean view that the American revolution was actually conservative in nature, but then tries to retake his original ground and claim that, therefore, Oakeshott would have been fine with it too --
The entire mechanism of American government was designed to ensure that as little as possible is ever done by government, that doubt is welded into the core system, that certainty is always checked by other powers, and that the great Certainty of Divine Truth is always, always, always kept at bay. That's one reason Oakeshott loved America - and why increasing numbers of American thinkers are coming to admire his thought, especially in these absolutist, fundamentalist times.
There's just one problem. You wouldn't guess it from Sullivan going back to Burke to find out what Oakeshott would have thought of the Declaration of Independence, because the man directly addressed the question himself, in Rationalism in Politics (1947) --
The early history of the United States of America is an instructive chapter in the history of the politics of Rationalism. .... the independence of the society concerned begins with an admitted illegality, a specific and express rejection of a tradition. which consequently can be defended only by an appeal to something which is itself thought not to depend upon tradition ... The Declaration of Independence is a characteristic product of the saeculum rationalisticum [the age of rationalism]. It represents the politics of the felt need interpreted with the aid of an ideology. And it is not surprising that it should have become one of the sacred documents of the politics of Rationalism, and, together with the similar documents of the French Revolution, the inspiration and pattern of many later adventures in the rationalist reconstruction of society.
Remember that rationalist is always a pejorative for Oakeshott. Tossed by the wayside, inter alia, is any distinction between the French and American revolutions that Sullivan would seek to make. Brooks 1, Sullivan 0.
UPDATE: In a later post, Sullivan hints at, while not explicity acknowledging, the degree to which his support for the Iraq war would never have passed an Oakeshott test --
But looking back, I think I didn't fully realize the radical utopianism of some of the people I was backing.
One final note: John Podhoretz manages a funny comment on Sullivan's response to Brooks --
Andrew Sullivan's response to David Brooks's review of his book has now surpassed Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in length.
In primo, veritas
The fact that the job of a spinner is never the search for truth, but damage control, finds its logical conclusion in this statement, posted on the US State Department website on a Sunday --
In response to questions about his recent interview with Al-Jazeera, the following is a comment attributable to Mr. Alberto Fernandez:
"Upon reading the transcript of my appearance on Al-Jazeera, I realized that I seriously misspoke by using the phrase 'there has been arrogance and stupidity' by the U.S. in Iraq. This represents neither my views nor those of the State Department. I apologize."
This followed a day when the State Department had tried to claim that he was misquoted. He thus follows Generals Richard Dannett and William Caldwell in having blurted out the truth before the spinners could get to them.
In response to questions about his recent interview with Al-Jazeera, the following is a comment attributable to Mr. Alberto Fernandez:
"Upon reading the transcript of my appearance on Al-Jazeera, I realized that I seriously misspoke by using the phrase 'there has been arrogance and stupidity' by the U.S. in Iraq. This represents neither my views nor those of the State Department. I apologize."
This followed a day when the State Department had tried to claim that he was misquoted. He thus follows Generals Richard Dannett and William Caldwell in having blurted out the truth before the spinners could get to them.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Next to Vlad
Something essential about European Union politics is captured in a funny piece of video that aired on French TV last night. It shows the setting up of the group photo of the 25 leaders at their Finland summit, along with Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the Commission, and star guest, Vladimir Putin, fresh off a live microphone fiasco with the Israeli PM. Anyway, as the sequence unfolds, one can see that Jacques Chirac was unhappy with his position on back steps, and far away from Putin. So he muscles his way to front into what was Barroso's position, who then has to step behind him to an obstructed position. Putin looks slightly puzzled by all the shuffling, but Chirac made his point.
To watch the video, go here to the pull down menu for previous editions, and select Edition du vendredi 20 octobre 2006; the segment is linked as Le sommet UE-Russie en Finlande 20h11m33s.
To watch the video, go here to the pull down menu for previous editions, and select Edition du vendredi 20 octobre 2006; the segment is linked as Le sommet UE-Russie en Finlande 20h11m33s.
Just for show?
It would be nice if the many official delegations heading to Budapest for the 50th anniversary commemorations on Monday would clarify whether they are attending the official official commemoration, laid on by the Socialist government -- the successor to the pro-Soviet forces in 1956 -- or the other official commemoration, laid on by actual veterans of 1956 who understandably don't want to be on the same stage with the ex-Communists. With Hungary 1956 having been adopted by George Bush as an example of western weakness in the face of tyranny, it would be especially revealing if he, without a USSR to worry about, only sent his delegation to the "real" 1956 event.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Well, they're both insurance
George Bush, apparently in an especially bizarre mood today judging by his later speech, did one of his dreaded "pop-ins" at a local pharmacy --
And one of the interesting things that happens at this counter is that these decent folks are constantly reminding seniors that there is a cost-saving benefit, Plan D [sic]* in Medicare, available to them.
The transcribers catch the mistake (*Medicare Part D Plan), likely indicating that he mixed up Plan B emergency contraception, which he would like to ban, with his botched prescription drug insurance plan.
UPDATE: There are now 2 transcripts for the same pop-in on the White House website, and the second refers to "Plan B" only, confirming that Bush had the two mixed up.
And one of the interesting things that happens at this counter is that these decent folks are constantly reminding seniors that there is a cost-saving benefit, Plan D [sic]* in Medicare, available to them.
The transcribers catch the mistake (*Medicare Part D Plan), likely indicating that he mixed up Plan B emergency contraception, which he would like to ban, with his botched prescription drug insurance plan.
UPDATE: There are now 2 transcripts for the same pop-in on the White House website, and the second refers to "Plan B" only, confirming that Bush had the two mixed up.
Separation of powers, indeed
George Bush, speaking today to his own Senators:
And so, right after September the 11th, we worked with Congress, in some cases -- and in some cases, we felt like we didn't need to -- to put tools in the hands of professionals.
And so, right after September the 11th, we worked with Congress, in some cases -- and in some cases, we felt like we didn't need to -- to put tools in the hands of professionals.
Unanswered FAQ
It's odd that the Wall Street Journal, of all newspapers, can publish an article about the joys of online gambling, relying mostly on odds and quotes from Dublin company Tradesports, without discussing whether such gambling is legal for their US readers. Our totally amateur lawyering suggests that it is legal, because Tradesports is dealing in securities rather than taking bets, but such a distinction will seem a bit capricious to Sportingbet, for example, essentially run out of doing business in the US.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
"Central Front" gets re-tooled
White House Press Briefing --
MR. SNOW: That's because, I hate to tell you, but Iraq is not a standalone issue. As bin Laden has said, it's the semper fi in the war on terror.
MR. SNOW: That's because, I hate to tell you, but Iraq is not a standalone issue. As bin Laden has said, it's the semper fi in the war on terror.
Does that include the World Series?
In the spirit of The Friedman (the unit of time in which a member of the great and the good says things will turn around in Iraq), Don Rumsfeld has offered a lower bound on his definition --
The Afghan government has been in power for about three years, he pointed out, and the Iraqi government has been in office for around 150 days. "That’s less than a baseball season," the secretary said. "Think of that. And yet we’re impatient. I’m impatient. Everyone’s impatient."
The Afghan government has been in power for about three years, he pointed out, and the Iraqi government has been in office for around 150 days. "That’s less than a baseball season," the secretary said. "Think of that. And yet we’re impatient. I’m impatient. Everyone’s impatient."
Spring chicken
It's important to note that George Bush's tentative embrace of a Vietnam analogy for the Iraq war (which, as Backword explains, is going to create an interesting pickle for Hitch) is likely just an opening salvo of a new campaign to blame the media for the debacle in Iraq and by extension the Republican electoral debacle in 3 weeks time. For consider the source material for the analogy -- Tom Friedman (subs. req'd) , the epitome of acceptable opinion in Washington --
Although the Vietcong and Hanoi were badly mauled during Tet, they delivered, through the media, such a psychological blow to U.S. hopes of ''winning'' in Vietnam that Tet is widely credited with eroding support for President Johnson and driving him to withdraw as a candidate for re-election ... But while there may be no single hand coordinating the upsurge in violence in Iraq, enough people seem to be deliberately stoking the fires there before our election that the parallel with Tet is not inappropriate. The jihadists want to sow so much havoc that Bush supporters will be defeated in the midterms and the president will face a revolt from his own party, as well as from Democrats, if he does not begin a pullout from Iraq.
The jihadists follow our politics much more closely than people realize. A friend at the Pentagon just sent me a post by the ''Global Islamic Media Front'' carried by the jihadist Web site Ana al-Muslim on Aug. 11. It begins: ''The people of jihad need to carry out a media war that is parallel to the military war and exert all possible efforts to wage it successfully. This is because we can observe the effect that the media have on nations to make them either support or reject an issue.''
Finally, the Web site suggests that jihadists flood e-mail and video of their operations to ''chat rooms,'' ''television channels,'' and to ''famous U.S. authors who have public e-mail addresses such as Friedman, Chomsky, Fukuyama, Huntington and others.'' This is the first time I've ever been on the same mailing list with Noam Chomsky.
It would be depressing to see the jihadists influence our politics with a Tet-like media/war frenzy.
This analysis mirrors to a remarkable extent a standard right-wing blog talking point, e.g. Glenn Reynolds:
Terrorism is an information war disguised as a military operation. The press plays a symbiotic role, and isn't willing to address that.
And is there something a tad fishy about that list of US opinion-formers who were going to get the jihadi e-mails? Who knows, maybe those are the authors of books one sees on the shelf at the Tal Afar Barnes and Noble.
[UPDATE: the blame-the-media angle is quite clear in Tony Snow's briefing today, and is seized up by, inter alia, James Taranto; George Bush essentially cited Friedman's column without naming him here]
Although the Vietcong and Hanoi were badly mauled during Tet, they delivered, through the media, such a psychological blow to U.S. hopes of ''winning'' in Vietnam that Tet is widely credited with eroding support for President Johnson and driving him to withdraw as a candidate for re-election ... But while there may be no single hand coordinating the upsurge in violence in Iraq, enough people seem to be deliberately stoking the fires there before our election that the parallel with Tet is not inappropriate. The jihadists want to sow so much havoc that Bush supporters will be defeated in the midterms and the president will face a revolt from his own party, as well as from Democrats, if he does not begin a pullout from Iraq.
The jihadists follow our politics much more closely than people realize. A friend at the Pentagon just sent me a post by the ''Global Islamic Media Front'' carried by the jihadist Web site Ana al-Muslim on Aug. 11. It begins: ''The people of jihad need to carry out a media war that is parallel to the military war and exert all possible efforts to wage it successfully. This is because we can observe the effect that the media have on nations to make them either support or reject an issue.''
Finally, the Web site suggests that jihadists flood e-mail and video of their operations to ''chat rooms,'' ''television channels,'' and to ''famous U.S. authors who have public e-mail addresses such as Friedman, Chomsky, Fukuyama, Huntington and others.'' This is the first time I've ever been on the same mailing list with Noam Chomsky.
It would be depressing to see the jihadists influence our politics with a Tet-like media/war frenzy.
This analysis mirrors to a remarkable extent a standard right-wing blog talking point, e.g. Glenn Reynolds:
Terrorism is an information war disguised as a military operation. The press plays a symbiotic role, and isn't willing to address that.
And is there something a tad fishy about that list of US opinion-formers who were going to get the jihadi e-mails? Who knows, maybe those are the authors of books one sees on the shelf at the Tal Afar Barnes and Noble.
[UPDATE: the blame-the-media angle is quite clear in Tony Snow's briefing today, and is seized up by, inter alia, James Taranto; George Bush essentially cited Friedman's column without naming him here]
Labels:
Punditocracy
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Self image
When Bono told a Dublin court (subs. req'd) today that
"he looked like singer Nana Mouskouri before Lola Cashman, the stylist at the centre of a High Court battle with the band, joined the U2 team"
it's not clear what in particular he has in mind, though one may attempt to draw conclusions from here and here compared to here.
"he looked like singer Nana Mouskouri before Lola Cashman, the stylist at the centre of a High Court battle with the band, joined the U2 team"
it's not clear what in particular he has in mind, though one may attempt to draw conclusions from here and here compared to here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)