April 12, 2004, More Old News...
It seems that before 11 September 2001, not everybody in Washington was all that interested in doing "everything they could" to follow up on those bin Laden related investigations (you know-- the "non-specific ones", 70 or so of them, mentioned in that August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing that was utterly worthless because it didn't have flight numbers). Apparently that's true, at least according to this Greg Palast and David Pallister piece in the Guardian from November.... 2001.
While the article acknowledges the usual restraints for political reasons associated with investigations on ANY Saudis, said restraints were significantly stepped up once the Bush Administration took office. It would appear (it was actually more widely reported closer to September 11th than now, interestingly) that there were, in fact, numerous political restraints on investigation. IIRC, some of those restraints were NOT actual ordinary restrictions on American law enforcement for anyone EXCEPT Saudis. Nonetheless, these became the basis of complaints by the Justice Department on why law enforcement needed to be freed up from restraints to protect us from "terrorists"-- such as terrorists who own almanacs, or perform late term abortions, or want to grow medicinal pot-- you know-- terrorists. The Congress, not wanting to be bothered with stupid things like the Constitution-- quickly gave the Justice Department whatever it ased for. To his credit (it kills me to say this), Ashcroft and company haven't been nearly as bad with the old Patriot Act as they could be. Then again, we have had U.S. citizens incarcerated for years now without counsel, trial or even charge. But I digress...
The President swore that if he only knew that a threat was imminent, he would have moved mountains. But perhaps, not when those mountains came to (the countrymen of) Mohammed?
April 12, 2004, Monday, Monday...
A bleak and rainy day here in the big city... as the temp job rolls on, it looks like I got significant news today towards a permanent job... a job I'll be really happy to have... in the public sector (of course)... stay tuned...
As the politicization of the 9-11 Commission's "work" rolls on, Dick Clarke sells books, Condi Rice works on her coiff, and it appeared for a brief shining moment that the President might-- just might-- have admitted that it was just a little bit possible that SOMEONE in his government-- not him of course, but someone-- might have done just a little bit more to fight terrorism before 9-11 than they actually did-- Monday rolls on. Well, whatever he said-- he'll have a press conference tomorrow evening, and we'll get to hear what the Bush brain trust has to say in response to the recent revelations. I assume the usual friendly press will be present and well-behaved, but there may be a greater seriousness to it all-- and flippant references to terrorists and evildoers and 9-11 and Saddam Hussein AS ANSWERS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT may not be as well received. We'll see.
Which takes us to that other unpleasant subject, Iraq... this Slate piece by Sam Schechner gives us a nice compendium of what's going on over there. UN officials literally can't arrange secure enough meetings with Iraqi Council members to discuss just who and what will inherit sovereign power on 30 June, Paul Bremer more or less confirms this; Sadr agrees to cease fires-- but alas, his cease fires seem an awful lot like Hamas cease fires; lots of really unfortunate things going on there. Honestly, they're too sad to talk about. War is always troubling-- but unnecessary discretionary wars should be most troubling. (Thanks to VP Moomaw for the heads-up).
Tomorrow's another day...
April 11, 2004, The BRITISH Government has learned...
While we all chill to the soothing beats of the 6 August 2001 White House briefing, let's take a few moments to ponder this London Times piece on a comparable briefing given oh, 3 1/2 weeks before that (16 July 2001) to British ministers, warning that bin Laden was on the move, and planning an IMMINENT attack on the West. The article notes that, if a CIA representative wasn't actually PRESENT at the briefing (which was highly likely), under all circumstances, this information would have been quickly passed on to the Americans. Got that? Bullshit British intelligence about yellowcake uranium bought by Saddam-- into the State of the Union. HARD British intelligence about an attack by a guy who had already successfully attacked American interests-- ignored.
Just wanted to make sure we're getting this. We won't even talk about the, um... I lost count... other warnings.
The good news is that the statute of limitations on "questioning our leadership = being unpatriotic" appears to come to an end. More is coming. The truth has been out there-- but its finally getting in here...
April 11, 2004, The Bush Leagues...
Thank God baseball season is under way... the President can ponder the job he REALLY wants (you know-- the one Bud Selig now has)...
First, in e-mail exchanges with Diana Moon, she sends me this amusing Richard Reeves article suggesting that President Bush, having been let down at every turn by his team (everyone from Rummy and Wolfy and Condi to Colin and Richard Milhaus Cheney), should fire them all. Mr. Reeves has one hell of a sense of humor: Bush firing any, let alone all, of these people, would be like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen, or Madam firing Waylon Flowers, or... you get the idea...
In brief, let me say this about the 6 August 2001 briefing: it is devastating. All the spin in the world will not save Bush from this, for one simple reason. It was BUSH whose answer to any question, from his otherwise miserable foreign policy record, his miserable economic and fiscal record, his miserable educational or health care or environmental record- was "9-11, 9-11, 9-11", i.e., as bad a manager as I am at EVERYTHING-- at least your life is in less danger than with some pussy DEMOCRAT in charge. That's now over. If Bush mentions 9-11, he will then have to immediately answer for why his government did nothing discernible, despite knowing the who, what, where, why and how (and for all we know, the redacted portions said when and which flight numbers) of 9-11 over 5 weeks before it.
You see-- Condi, Condi, Condi-- there was an EASY OUT! And that would have been-- from the very second Clark released his statements-- but OF COURSE WE WERE ON IT!!! The memo says there were seventy different bin Laden plots being investigated-- we were just weeks-- maybe days-- away from thwarting them. You know what? THAT is what every American (not just New Yorkers who lost their jobs and couldn't sleep for a while because they were a block away from the WTC on 11 September 2001) desperately wants to hear.
Instead, we were treated to tales of Al Qaeda superman status, and how this could never have been predicted or stopped. That's been the story: from Goodfellas (why does Condi always make me think of the mafia?) real greaseball shit, there was nothin' we could do about it.
In short, the 8-6-01 briefing memo by itself is not devastating to the Bush Administration because, by itself, there is sufficient ambiguity in it not to bring a government down. The reason it is devastating is because the REST of Bush's record is a fucking disaster-- and as he can no longer hide behind 9-11 and cow the questioners into silence, Bush will have to now deal with it-- the rest of his record, that is-- like the disappearance of over 3,000,000 jobs on his watch, or the trillions of dollars he has needlessly added to the deficit.
Which takes us to another part of the brilliant Bush agenda (the Iraq war), where this time, our friends in Beijing at the People's Daily teach us about how to properly run an occupation, noting (as has Unqualified Offerings) that the heavy handed treatment of Sadr's newspaper led directly to this. Americans, first thought of kindly as liberators, by arbitrarily arresting people, protecting selected (oil related) property and ignoring selected (everything else) property, and life in general (firing willy nilly at crowds), are now perceived as what we actually are: invaders (I do not cast any aspersions on our own troops, none of whom chose this particular deployment or decided to have this discretionary war). The problem is... we bought ourselves the possibility of Shiites and Sunnis coming together. To attack the United States. Needless to say, we got trouble. Right here in Tigris and Euphrates River City. (And that trouble starts with "B", who, speaking from Crawford, once again vowed to uphold the June 30th sovereignty turnover date-- reality be damned).
I tell you-- last week, Beijing told us about free trade; this week about how to respect human rights in the course of a military campaign... if this keeps up, I'm going to start going to the People's Daily as my regular voice of reason, soon-- not like the kneejerk fascist cheerleader mouthpieces over at CNN and the Washington Post, or even the New York Times...
Well, Happy Easter, everybody!!!
April 10, 2004, Read It. JUST *&^%ing READ IT.
The full text of the 6 August 2001 White House briefing, just released to try to cover Condi's ass (note how important covering her "I have an oil tanker named after me" ass seems to be for this White House-- really remarkable when you think about it) (with thanks to the New Zeland Herald) for the text. As someone personally affected by the 9-11 WTC events (besides just being there that day), let me just say that this is staggering.:
Full text of pre-9/11 intelligence brief
The following is the full text of an August 6, 2001, intelligence briefing for President George W Bush that outlined al Qaeda plans to strike within the United States. It was released on Saturday (Sunday April 11 NZ time) by the White House. Declassified and Approved for Release, 10 April 2004
Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(redacted portion) ... service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an ... (redacted portion) ... service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.
Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.
Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al Qaeda members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
April 10, 2004, Ayn Clouter's Blog
Ayn Clouter is the nom de blog (and I suspect, nom de plume) of the most ruthlessly clever and brilliant conservative blogger in the entire blogiverse... or is she (we all THINK Ayn's a she) in fact, a brilliantly sarcastic arch-liberal who is so diabolically clever that conservatives actually think she's one of them! Such is the genius of this blog, giving hilarious and brilliant take downs of evil leftists the world over-- and pointing out strategems that Dear Leader should employ to ensure his re-ascendance to power. (When I say hilarious, I mean some of the funniest material I have ever seen, anywhere, any context). I'm proud to have been one of the original "evil leftists" on a blogroll that features a LOT of evil leftists, and some American patriots of the right (right as in correct, of course). Much as this blog deserves the "Top Dog" designation to be "unretired", I will show the discipline that Ayn herself would show...
TD Designation: Coydog
April 10, 2004, We don't ask for experience, we give it...
This week's visit to Pravda treats us to this devastating indictment of American military readiness, which has been sorely tested by the Iraq campaign. It notes that the human element of the military has been neglected for decades, while the military focuses on hardware and super high tech toys and gadgets. (I'm reminded of a scene in Casino Royale, where David Niven's aging Sir James Bond addresses a delegation of spies from the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France, by noting that in his day, the spy was considered a high, noble art, a critical function requiring the full panoply of human skills, whereas in modern times (then, the mid-60's), they had become "joke shop spies", with poison lapel flowers, hidden guns and the like. Sorry.)
Getting back to Iraq, we learn staggering statistics-- like the percentage of field functions (such as 97% of public affairs officers, or 66% of military police, or an inconceivable 50% of combat troops) that are handled by reservists. While their understanding is they get 30 days notice of a deployment, and their deployments should last no more than say, six months, and total deployments should notal maybe a year total over a 5 or 6 year hitch, Iraq has turned all that on its head. Many reservists have been called up on 48 hours notice, and can expect to be in country... more than six months? a year? let's just say, a while... (they can get back early, I suppose, if a limb, or perhaps their head, gets blown off).
Announcements of extended deployment are way beyond strategic discretion: there just isn't anybody else around to do it, except largely the guys and gals already there. Our military is, of course, already operating in 120 countries. (Keep in mind that there are only something like 220 or so countries!) Barring a draft, we're just out of people to send over, without taking them from some other active commitment (let alone, defending "das homeland").
It was widely thought (well, I think it) that the never ending pouring of men and material by the Soviet Union into Afghanistan (where the locals had heavy support from the CIA and eventually became Mujahadeen and AL Qaeda of course) eventually ruined the Soviet military, and helped to rapidly bring down its communist imperium.
So... I got some news for all the assholes who supported this war that they knew would be carried on the backs of other people's kids: we are perilously close to being in the same situation as the near-death Soviet Union. Our international credit standing ain't so good to begin with right now, our own economy is soft, and we are pouring men and material and money down a hole- in a discretionary war (based on either outright lies, or at best on outrageously negligent "intelligence" assessments) that has long since been established as not only not in this nation's interests, but affirmatively contrary to them.
The best we can hope for is that when (not if, but when) the last departing American officials are airlifted from the roof of the ample new American embassy and the former CPA HQ in Baghdad by what's then left of our military, those American officials still have something meaningful to come home to. Those of you with your heads so far up your... that you thought it was even conceivable that the Bush Administration could do anything without fucking it up (let alone a massive, discretionary war that even POPPY BUSH refused to have because it would involve (1) years of occupation of (2) a hostile populace resulting in (3) massive American casualties), I await your apologies. For those of you still content not to question any of the tripe put out by Dear Leader out of faux patriotism and your desire to cheerlead for the home team... fuck you.
And Colin Powell-- you talked then President George H.W. Bush out of having that war in 1991 when we had 5 times as many troops on the ground as now and a massive international coalition, instead of token deployments from a number of cowed countries. Then, we were in hot pursuit of a tyrant who (1) invaded a neighboring country, (2) launched scuds at a then non-combatant country, and (3) was in the process of murdering massive numbers of his own population-- and you, Colin, managed to convince an already "Wimpy" Poppa Bush to stop at the borders of Kuwait. Later, you countermanded Clinton Administration officials orders to provide air support to troops in Somalia (out of your "caution") resulting in the unfortunate "Black Hawk Down" episode in Mogadishu credited with giving inspiration to our enemies. And now, in what promised to be an extraordinary, catastrophic fuck up, using "intelligence" you yourself acknowledged was horseshit, you lended your own credibility to this disaster and helped make it happen, when you could have kaiboshed it, with a timely resignation, or at least an appropriate public statement. In short, Colin Powell-- fuck you most of all.
April 9, 2004, Just one question about 9-11......
I was exchanging e-mails with John Emerson, the blogger formerly known as Zizka, about one simple question I had, after hearing all the Condi brouhaha bullshit and the so-called "dramatic" testimony at the 9-11 Commission. Its a simple question, really.
You all remember the horrifying incident of Payne Stewart's plane malfunctioning, and eventually crashing in South Dakota with everyone aboard killed? Do you remember one key detail? Good for you: the two United States Air Force F-16 fighter jets trailing the airplane, looking for signs of distress. You see, the Air Force has, and had every day with the sole exception of one particular day in September, 2001, a standing procedure to scramble fighter planes within fifteen minutes of an incident such as Payne Stewart, or that of the 9-11 incident where tracked planes fly inexplicably off course. Two fighter planes for 6 people-- but not for thousands?
Simple question: why weren't United States Air Force fighter planes scrambled and in the air within 15-30 minutes of the first flight veering off course and becoming uncontactable, and was this the result of a direct order from the White House or Pentagon?
I just want an answer to that question. No, I demand it. That answer will explain everything. Really, I'd rather not wear a tin-foil hat. I'd like to know that my law client the late NYC firefighter Carl Molinaro, my old freshman crew-mate the late Port Authority executive Daniel Bergstein, or the more than 3,000 others who died on that date did not have their own government deliberately intervene to make that day WORSE.
That's all.
April 8, 2004, Condi-scension
The long-awaited photo-op of our National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice took place before the 9-11 Commission today. There is actually little point in analyzing any of it, because the right wing blog world has determined that she came off as brilliant, forthright and masterfuland the left wing blog world has determined that she came off as stupid, dishonest and... condescending. Didn't see it; despite the Bush economy, I continue working (day 3 tomorrow, please God), albeit as a temp for the moment. Again-- a paradigm for the economy-- private sector hires are often temps these days-- a much higher hourly rate is paid to an agency, in exchange for simply not having to deal with health benefits. So... didn't see it-- I'm only commenting second-hand at best.
I see that much was made of Condi's refusal to apologize, and her statement that there was no "silver bullet" that could have stopped 9-11. I have my own opinions on the subject, and there's no point in harping on it. I did observe earlier today that American leadership made much of the notion that the Korea and Vietnam Wars were "police actions"-- even as the nation had a draft and was losing sometimes hundreds of people a month, our national leadership did not want to acknowledge that life was not normal, that we were at war. And yet, this President has contended that we have been "at war" for nearly three years now, even as he called on no national sacrifice from anyone (except people in the unfortunate position of being in the military-- especially the Reserves), and he continues to insist he is a "war president". Do you find it conceivable that Dwight D. Eisenhower-- himself a career military man-- would have DARED don the uniform and land on an aircraft carrier returning from the Korean police action for an "in-your-face-to-dissenters" photo-op? Or ex-Navy men Nixon or Kennedy doing the same for one returning from the police action in Vietnam? Not even Navy flier Papa Bush was distasteful enough to play cowboy flyer after Gulf War I. And yet-- the nation was not only not appropriately DISGUSTED, it embraced the disgraceful asshole (to be fair, the embracing broke down on precisely partisan lines).
I don't know what this says about him (you all know what I think about him... I shouldn't even try to express it in words, so right now, I won't). But what does it say about the rest of us? What have we become, when a fucking war where our neighbor's kid is coming back dead or with his arms blown off is a God damned spectator sport, complete with fucking cheerleaders? Yeah-- rooting for Iraq is clearly rooting for the Imperium (damned provincials fighting back... well, we'll kick their asses!)
There is a Doonesbury cartoon I recall of bombs dropping on a Vietnamese village, in which a local yells up at the passing bombers as he looks at his village burning, neighbors and relatives wounded or dead around him, and yells-- "You imperialist bastards! Stop doing this to my country!" While the next frame cuts to the cock-pit, as the first pilot says to the second--"Hey, did you hear the Knicks took two this weekend?"
Is it a coarseness? A national insensitivity to the suffering of others (especially if we have no financial interest in their well-being)? Is it the precursor or further of the people who merrily watched gladiators and lions in the Coliseum?
See, here's the thing: by treating Iraq as a sporting event, did we kind of forget that at some point, the locals there might start showing some resentment of being the subjects of foreign occupation by the Imperium? Imposing freedom and democracy by force sounds... not in the spirit of this nation. Of course, I suppose I should just put on my own leopard skin leotard and demand that any expression of dissent against our Dear Leader be criminalized.
Say- were you aware that other than (former American colony) the Phillipines, the United States is the ONLY country in the world that subjects its children to the inanity of a pledge of allegiance? Just thought you should know...
April 7, 2004, Linkmeister
Linkmeister is the nom de blog of Hawaii's Steve Timberlake, a nice, friendly liberal blogger and linker extraordinaire (Steve, by profession, is a researcher of marketing and internet kinds of things, and often finds links as exotic and interesting as his home state, pictures of which he often puts up as well; Steve tells us he's a navy brat who followed his family around, until ending up in... Oahu. Tough break.) The blogroll comes and goes like the Hawaiian breeze, but lists heavily (but not exclusively) to port. In these compassionate conservative times, its good to see that Steve posts his resume (and other self-marketing items) on the blog. Steve is a frequent commenter here and was a huge help during our (world exclusive!) primary blogbursts... I'm delighted to point his blog out to y'all.
TD Designation: Pointer
April 7, 2004, Who You Gonna Believe? Me-- Or your own eyes? (Redux)
Naturally, Richard Clarke lacks utter credibility, because, of course, he is merely a disgruntled former employee trying to sell books. That the President is cravenly merely trying to deflect criticism is irrelevant. Oh-- he's also trying to sell... his abysmal record in office. Alas, the electorate may well (at least ased on the insane electoral college distribution, according to polls) reelect him at the moment (in all fairness, narrowly). Where was I going?
Oh yes-- if you don't want to believe Richard Clarke that the Bush Administration treats terrorism with the same lack of seriousness we have come to expect from it, how about believing around 2/3 of the people working on counter-terrorism in the White House, as that many have left since 9-11, largely because the Bushmen's insane obsession with the no-threat-to-the-United-States Saddam Hussein has made actual counter-terrorism designed to thwar, you know-- TERRORISTS-- a very unfunny joke.
Let's see... oh yes, they are all disgruntled grousers upset because they were passed up for some kind of promotion to the deputy underscretary of something or other... You see? Once you start dissembling and wanting to believe whatever bullshit you want to believe-- there's no real end to it. And it saves that troubling expenditure of energy for thinking for yourself... Viva Il Duce Dubya!
April 7, 2004, They Hate Us for our Edom
Perhaps its some other kind of cheese that stinks to high heaven-- but as predicted on this very blog, the heavy hand of collective punishment has reared its ugly head, as American helicopter gunships fired at a mosque in Fallujah, killing at least 40 Iraqis. Get the picture? Its this sort of thing that tends to result in bus-bombings in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv or Haifa. Well, the American military has decided to employ similar tactics. Again, boys and girls-- this is shoot first, ask questions later. Will this result in a rather nasty and inevitable backlash? Time will tell-- but I think you know where I'm coming from...
We are not in control of huge parts of Iraq, and we are making it clear that all we will do is continue to blow things up. There is no question-- none whatsoever-- that as of 7 April 2004, the place is in semi-disarray, and a "sovereignty transfer" of the American-election-dictated June 30th deadline will be handing over an illegitimate occupation to an illegitimate puppet interim authority (in the eyes of many, if not most, Iraqis). That's a formula for... more bad sheet falling on the 100,000 U.S. troops we will have to leave in Iraq AFTER 30 June.
Well, the President can think about this in Crawford, where he will be (duh) undisturbed by this, or any other affairs of state. The National Security Advisor will be consulting with her fashion consultants on what to wear to the 9-11 Commission hearings late tomorrow (where, hopefully, the Good Friday holiday, the Pope's message, that sort of thing, will drown out the post-testimony spin until Monday, or at least the Sunday talk shows).
In short, all is right with the world. If you are worth at least $100,000,000, I suppose.
April 7, 2004, The Few, The Proud, The Deserving of Better than This
At least twelve American Marines were killed in fighting near Ramadi, Iraq. Apparently, although this comes right after the declaration of the Baby Sadr revolt that Mr. L. Paul (why does the God damned-- I and I hope he is-- President keep calling him Jerry) Bremer caused, this action seems to be blamed on holdover Saddam Baathist loyalists (we all know that Howard Dean was an irresponsible lunatic for even SUGGESTING that the capture of Saddam would not make one American anywhere any safer).
Once again-- the casualties were nowhere near this a year ago, when I was putting up a lot of war related postings. A dozen dead a day is between four and five thousand dead a year; those are Vietnam era numbers-- for a deployment much smaller than we had in Vietnam. The good news is these casualty rates wil certainly decline; the bad news is many, many more Americans will die or be maimed in what can only be construed as the most cynical war in American history-- or WORSE, as Mrs. TD points out-- if this were the LEAST CYNICAL WAR in American history-- a war fought entirely for the fantasy of liberating a people who had no interest in being liberated by foreign invasion, or to bring them democracy when they would frankly prefer theocracy or dictatorship (albeit one headed by their own co-religionists).
It was pointed out to me at a recent family gathering that politics have become a taboo subject, like religion always is, and for the same reasons. One cannot debate the merits of another's core religious beliefs-- because at their core, they require a leap of faith, and cannot be explained rationally. It has become unfortunate that in American life in 2004, we have achieved precisely the same situation-- with politics. (As if to prove my point, one of the people with whom I was having this conversation pretty much wanted to rip my heart out when I suggested that the negative tone and outright poison that is now American politics, although in part could be explained by Republican excesses to "get Clinton", should involve a healthy serving of blame to Bill Clinton himself for hiring the loathsome Sydney Blumenthal and other professional scoundrels to besmirch the reputations of anyone who dared make an allegation against the President.)
The American military has been ill-used. The men and women in uniform have my sympathies; their commander in chief cares not a whit about them-- THAT is why he hasn't bothered attending a single funeral or memorial. Yes, the "politics" would involve recognizing that we have taken casualties at all-- but its FAR WORSE than that. George W. Bush could not give two shits about people who he has ordered to their deaths, while he continues to use the White House and the trappings of Presidential office as an exercise studio. I wish that were not true, but there is no evidence whatsoever that it is not.
As Mike Finley brilliantly puts it, George W. has co-opted the word "freedom"-- made it his bitch-- even while mocking freedom at every turn-- freedom of religion while giving into the excesses of American fundamentalists at the expense of the rest of us, freedom of speech while barb-wiring would be protestors in "First Amendment Zones" so that the leader of a democratic nation need not bother seeing dissent, freedom from unreasonable search and seizures meant with expansions of so-called anti-terrorism legislation to be used against political enemies. Oh, but the terrorists (and now the Iraqi insurgents) "hate our freedom". Bullshit, Mr. President-- its YOU who hates freedom. The terrorists may want to take our very LIVES_- but it is you sir, who remain the threat to our FREEDOM.
Well, your talking dog starts a new (temporary) position tomorrow, perhaps (perhaps not) restoring his faith in... something? He'll wish himself good luck in his new endeavor, and wish the rest of you Godspeed, especially our men and women in uniform the world over.
April 5, 2004, Holy Shiite! (sorry...)
IMHO, it was pretty inevitable that the results of Mr. Sykes and Monsieur Picot's' drawn up divisions in the World War I era, which made "Iraq" out of Kurdish, Sunni and Shia enclaves (and put the minority Sunni in dominion over the others) would eventually collapse. Amazingly, this arrangement held fast almost a century through a series of French colonial agents and eventually a series of dictatorships-- the last, of course, being Saddam Hussein's Baathist one. Well, we've known the Sunnis were upset with our ouster of Saddam, as the Sunni triangle had been the hotbed of anti-American occupation activity.
Well... what would happen if the majority Shia also decided that they too have had enough with the foreign invaders and interlopers? We got the answer: Iraqi Shiite Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has declared open season on Coalition forces; he is now a wanted man. Around ten American troops were killed yesterday in what appears to be nationwide rioting in light of al-Sadr's call for an uprising against the occupation. (Unqualified Offerings feels that our little move of closing down al-Sadr's little toy newspaper may have been the day we lost the war; I, of course, feel that day was when the Supreme Court elected George W. Bush-- but you say tomato...)
This, boys and girls, is what we call "bad". Despite Senator Lugar's rather intelligent call to consider postponing the June 30th "sovereignty transfer" date in the event that Iraq isn't stable enough to transfer, the President has made it 100% clear that that date has absolutely NOTHING to do with conditions on the ground in Iraq and absolutely EVERYTHING to do with conditions here among the American polity: under no circumstances does the President want to OFFICIALLY be responsible for Iraq less than four months before the election.
So-- if the Iraqis are in the middle of a civil war (of OUR creation and responsibility), a civil war which, of course, will unquestionably be the almost ideal incubating conditions for more terrorists, of the Islamist and other varieties, well-- that's too damned bad.
Remember the cakewalk that was "the battle of Baghdad". Forget it: that battle is taking place even as I write this: the casualty count (which, as we know, in the occupation phase has dwarfed that of the combat phase) will only go up dramatically, until we get out one way or another (helicopters off the CPA HQ roof, as suggested by Veep Moomaw?)
So, as Baghdad burns while Condi plays her violin this week (actually, I understand she is a fine classical pianist). The President (and his direct overlord, the Vice-President) are "visiting with" the 9-11 Commission this week, to discuss the 9-11 events. (I believe the Very Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle would be the extent of the President's recollections; to help him along, I believe it goes "In the light of the moon a little egg lay on a leaf, the caterpillar emerges and yada yada yada he eats an apple, a pear, a plum, a strawberry, an orange, on Saturday he pigs out in an eating orgy, chills on Sunday and becomes a butterfly).
Do I resent the fact that clowns and knaves in Black robes have appointed clowns and knaves to sit in the White House? Oh yes...
April 4, 2004, Free Market with Chinese Characteristics
This week's visit to China's People's Daily gives us a mind-blowing lesson in free trade, lamenting that the United States and other major industrial powers may be trying to undermine a previous agreement under which all textile quotas will be eliminated by the end of this year. The fact is, of course, that China's immense textiles industry stands to benefit enormously from the elimination of textile quotas, while politically, other nations, notably the United States, will feel political pressure from their own textile sectors' loss of their remaining protections. I find it mind blowing because China's position on this is 100% right-- and the United States' position is 100% wrong. Period.
Let me make this easy: distortions on trade misallocate resources, and are wrong-- always. While I have heard "infant industries" argued as an exception-- I would accept that for, say, Botswana or East Timor-- NOT for the world's leading industrial power. National security-related restrictions are something else-- and immigration is actually the one area that I think we can and should control for trade purposes-- but that's because its not a distortion better served by subsidies. As to product safety concerns-- domestic products would be subject to the same restrictions-- so fair game.
Going back to trade, we set up a system so that a shirt that China can deliver here for $1 must cost $10 (because that's the cost that American workers can deliver the shirt for). We may preserve a billion dollar industry, but at the cost of making Americans pay, say $5-10 billion more for its products. All because we Americans are too stupid, meanspirited and racist (yes, all three apply) to simply let the products in as cheaply as possible; we would free up that $5-10 billion elsewhere in the economy, and our much more efficient economy could easily generate a billion dollars in dislocation related transfer payments to the WORKERS of the affected industry. But you see, the politics are just too complicated-- easier to make EVERYONE pay too much for products.
Worse, bad trade policy leads to bad foreign policy (duh). Pakistan's Pervez Musharaff was BEGGING President Bush to intercede for textile tariff and quota relief for Pakistan in the aftermath of 9-11-- to shore up his position. Had we done so, we would have had far more leverage with Pakistan on other things (like... delivering... Al Qaeda). But the senators from the Carolinas interceded to protect their politically important constituencies-- and quite literally, the security of the rest of the United States has been undermined to avoid a relatively minor trade concession for an industry scheduled to go "totally free trade" by the end of this year anyway.
Maddening. Unfortunately, it tends to be "my side" that is the worst demagogues on this issue-- because its EASY to see factories close, though when hundreds of thousands of jobs created by having available freed-up capital arrive-- they are spread over everywhere, so no particular Congressman or Senator can take credit for them.
But let me be slightly objective here: the President's jobs record has still been a fucking disaster-- and if asked about it, he will talk about terrorism (the way Senator Kerry might talk about his Vietnam service). BUT-- of the 3,000,000 jobs lost on his watch, economists estimate that only around 10% can be attributed to "outsourcing"-- i.e., functions moved to Bangalore and Rawalpindi. The remaining 90% of job loss is simply from reduced demand-- domestic demand-- for the goods and services, i.e., a recession. Free trade has been a factor-- but a very small factor-- in the net job loss (and indeed, if revised figures are to be believed and 300,000 new jobs created in the last month or two, then its effects have just been wholly offset). The problem with the President's performance has actually been the tax cuts. Not that he cut taxes-- to stimulate economic activity in a recession, cutting taxes is tried and true, as is government spending-- and both have taken place. The PROBLEM is that the tax cuts are (1) back-loaded-- most will not take effect for years, and (2) insanely reverse means-tested to ensure that they are redistributive BUT NOT stimulative, and the government spending has sent lots of money to Iraq and other places where it will not stimulate our economy, or suffers the "reverse means-tested" problem as well.
But other than the pandering shit like the outrageous farm bill, the now reversed steel tariffs and other isolated instances, on trade, this President's record (like those of Presidents Clinton, GHW Bush and Reagan) hasn't been all that bad.
Still, on the whole, it remains ironic when Beijing gets to reeducate us on the virtues of free trade. But there you go...
