YBK [Part 4]: Massachusetts, the state that has had the highest growth in real estate prices in the nation since 1980, as well as one of the lowest bankruptcy rates, has experienced a 28% increase in foreclosures over the past so far this year. If a meltdown is going to take place in the fall, than Massachusetts will be the canary in the coalmine.

BTW, the oft-mentioned chart relating home values, bankruptcy filings and voting behavior in the 2004 Presidential race is here. Have fun with it. My previous YBK posts are here, here and here.

This is the passage from Senator Durbin's speech that has caused all the to-do. Judge for yourself whether this statement is offensive, or whether the conduct he describes really is a "day at the beach":

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor."

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Again, the critical question to ask is whether this sort of treatment is closer to what the Nazis did to P.O.W.'s during WWII, or to what we expect the behaviour of Americans to be, based on our own ideals and principals. If you accept the actions at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib as appropriate, even desirable, during a state of "war", than Osama bin Laden has truly won.

Ass Clown of the Day:

Well, he gets out of it in terms of the fact that there's an allegation of mistreatment. But what the FBI memo alleges, and it is an allegation, is, you know, would be considered a day at the beach in the Soviet gulag or Nazi...I mean, what was so horrific in the memo, and I'm not saying, you know, there aren't legitimate questions there, is that someone is chained to a floor and forced to defecate on themselves, and has loud rock music playing. Excuse me? I mean, you know, Auschwitz? Bergen Belsen? The Soviet gulag? I think they would have been very happy to be allowed to defecate on themselves.

--Chris Wallace, Fox News (emphasis mine, with link via Radioblogger), on Senator Durbin's speech criticizing human rights abuses at G-mo. Note in particular Mr. Wallace's initial understanding that Pol Pot and the Killing Fields occurred in Thailand.

Those of you who have read Josh Marshall's blog over the last week know that he has written a pretty devastating expose of San Diego-Area Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, whose coziness with a defense contractor has manifested itself in various tawdry ways. Democrats should not get their hopes up about capturing his district in 2006, however. Although he's considered to have the most vulnerable district among Republicans in California (David Dreier won by a narrower margin in 2004, but that was due to certain factors, including a conservative talk radio campaign to boot him in order to send a message on immigration, that will not likely be in play next time), he still won by 22% last time. Any other Republican would be able to defend the seat, so Democrats' hopes hinge on Cunningham getting renominated with these problems still hanging over his head.

Question of the Day:

"Is there any idea how long a 'last throe' lasts for?"

--ABC White House Correspondent Terry Moran, trying to pin down the oleaginous Scott McClellan on the "waning" strength of the Iraqi Insurgency.

James "Mr. 36,000" Glassman writes that all this talk about the Housing Bubble is overblown. Translation: SELL NOW !!

Guantanamo: It's more humane than Treblinka !! The ADL comes out foursquare in defense of G-Mo, in a press release that reads like it had been drafted by David Irving (the reference to "alleged excesses at the Guantanamo Bay facility" is a particularly nice touch). Objections to criticisms about our little torture camps are starting to sound a little like that Chris Rock routine...you're SUPPOSED to follow the Geneva Conventions !! [link via AmericaBlog]

So, who wants to climb Mt. McKinley?

A good summary of the impact stemming from the Bankruptcy Reform Act so far, in the Orlando Sentinel. Filings nationwide for the first quarter were up 8% over the previous quarter, which is particularly significant since a) filings were significantly down in the first two months of the year, so the surge in filings shown above occurred in only one month, March; and b) the measure wasn't signed by President Bush until mid-April, well after the end of the first quarter.

The increase in May has been by far the most telling number. Traditionally, March and April tend to busy months for bankruptcy attorneys, as debtors begin to take account of their finances after the Christmas season, but then work slackens off as we move toward the middle of the year. This year, the preliminary figures indicate that May was even busier than March or April, which is almost unheard of in bankruptcy court. Unless the rate of filings begins to decline as we enter the summer, we could be in for an explosive situation come September and October, before the measure takes effect.

Martha Mitchell Redux: Can't we all just agree that Howard Dean is a needed breath of fresh air AND a buffoon? That he's both a "fighting Democrat" who's willing to take the battle to the other side, AND a tactless moron?

The Democratic Party has become far too complacent in recent years, far too willing to appease Big Business and Big Religion, and it hasn't translated into wins on the only scoreboard that matters. Dean, with his Tourette's mannerisms and rhetorical shtick, gives the party a long-overdue chance to finally have a "Sista Souljah" moment with its decrepit neo-liberal/DLC wing. Since we're going to be in the minority for awhile, it's a good idea to have someone leading the charge whom you just know everyone else is going to be paying attention, for better or worse.

Finally, some Jackson news I'm interested in....

In researching the YBK issue, I've been playing around with a chart that compares the increase in home prices with the bankruptcy rate in each state (and as soon as I figure out how to hyperlink a WORD document, I'll show it to you). One of the things that I noticed when I identified the states with the highest bankruptcy rates is that those states, for the most part, were Red States (ie., they voted for Bush) in the last election. In other words, the less frequently a state's residents filed bankruptcy, the more likely they were to vote for John Kerry. I wonder if that's what Michael Barone meant when he wrote about Soft vs. Hard America.

But there's an even stronger correllation between a robust housing market and Democratic voting patterns. In fact, the correllation gets stronger the further back you go in time. While there are a handful of Blue States in the third quartile of the housing market for 2004, and only one (Michigan) near the bottom, only one Blue State (Michigan, again) was in the lower half from 2000-2004. Going back even further in time, every state (and the District of Columbia) that voted for John Kerry last year, without exception, was among the top 24 states in the country in terms of the increase in residential property values since 1980. The 27 states with the lowest rate of increase, again without exception, voted for George Bush. Only four Red States (Virginia, Florida, Nevada and Colorado), placed in the Booming 24, and Kerry was competitive in each of those states.

I don't know what it all means, but I thought I'd share that with you.

UPDATE [7/1]: Here's the chart I was referring to in the above post.

UPDATE [7/3]: Further musings on the subject, here.

Perhaps a better explanation for the demise of the "Oldies" format on FM-radio might well be that the stations playing the format suck. The local monolith, KRTH-FM, has a playlist that probably doesn't number more than three dozen songs, and as classic as "Dock of the Bay", "Stand by Me", or "Get Off of My Cloud" might be, it's painful to have to listen to them two or three times a day, surrounded by the clatter of unfunny DJ's and tire ads. No wonder the "Jack" format is catching on. [link via Hit and Run]

Regardless of how one feels about the likelihood that a wealthy pedophile was able to convince a jury to let him walk (I should point out that I feel the jury came to the correct result based on the evidence presented, and that Michael Jackson is a pervert), anytime our criminal justice system pisses off Nancy Grace is a good day.

Watergate Burglars for Truth: Funny piece by Jonathan Alter, about how talk radio, bloggers, FoxNews, et al. would have helped Nixon cover-up Watergate if it had happened today.

I wonder if Eric Alterman thought that his crack about "Little Roy" today was "witty". Dude, it's a blog. You're supposed to occasionally post about embarrassing personal matters. You blog about Springsteen, your ever-busy lecture series and whatever jihad you're having against whoever called you a "self-hating Jew" this week, and Sullivan blogs about his battle against AIDS. That includes the medication he's taking and the physical symptoms he's experiencing. Try to deal with that in a way that isn't cruel and offensive.

Minnesota 5, Los Angeles [N] 3: Great seats, best Dodger Dogs in years, but a dull interleague game Saturday night. H-sC did have a nice blast in the sixth, almost clearing the right field pavillion. He had a better game Sunday, leading to this terrible pun from the local paper of record. No fights with gang members, thank god. Before the game, there was the annual "Hollywood Stars" match-up: the biggest surprise was how well Jon Lovitz and Sarah Silverman pounded the ball.

Downing Street Blues: Again, as with the DSM, this briefing paper, to be published in tomorrow's Times of London, from a meeting which took place two days earlier, dishonors Blair more than it does Bush. The one shred that defenders of the war still clung to as justification was that Saddam had "violated" UN Resolutions concerning inspections. Now it turns out that even the Blair Cabinet knew that was bogus; they had already agreed to go to war months earlier, and they were just looking for an excuse. The Bush-Blair relationship is as one-sided as the typical prison "romance"'; Bush should just start calling the P.M. "meat".

Anyways, here's the latest outrage:

PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY

IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials)

Summary

Ministers are invited to:

(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.

(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.

(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.

(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.

(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.

Introduction

1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.

2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.

3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support.

4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account. This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.

The Goal

5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.

US Military Planning

6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.

7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.

The Viability of the Plans

8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.

UK Military Contribution

9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces) to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.

The Conditions Necessary for Military Action

10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.

Justification

11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.

12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.

13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully
operational.

14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.

An International Coalition

15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.

16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.

17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.

A Quiescent Israel-Palestine

18. The Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein. However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.

Benefits/Risks

19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.

Domestic Opinion

20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.

Timescales

21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.

22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present problems. This means that:

(a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels;

And there the memo "ends"; according to the Times of London, the last page is missing.

Last week was the busiest week, in terms of traffic, that this site has ever had without having a single post linked to by the Big Feet of the Blogosphere. And it now appears that I have two fans in Norway, who together constitute close to a quarter of my visits. Is there something about Smythe's World that just translates well to a Nordic audience? If there is, tell me what it is, and I'll do more of it.

Jesse Taylor and friends are doing some all-day thoroughbred blogging at Pandagon today, for the benefit of Amnesty International. So quit wasting time here, get with the program, and use your ill-gotten gains for some good....