Donate to the DNC!
Single Donations: 179 $17155.01
Sustainer Donations: 75 $1805.03
Recurring Donations: 405 $10215.1
Total Donations: 659 $29175.14
As of 5/24/04
The mystery of how Tom Friedman manages to find people all over the world who sound just like him has been solved. From Pandagon:
Watching Friedman interview people, though, it's clear where it comes from - Friedman himself. The interviews were all in English with largely (if not totally) non-native English speakers. When someone would answer a question, Friedman would rephrase it using an American idiom, say it to them, and wait for them to repeat it back to him. Sometimes it would work, sometimes it wouldn't, but it strikes me as an apt enough explanation for why people in Friedman's columns seem to be using his words. It's because they are.
I'm not sure how much better this is than theory b - the "just makes shit up" theory.
Here's an excerpt from Wallace Shawn's Diary, published in the Nation in '03. I hadn't seen it then.
Meanwhile, I read my New York Times, and it's all very calm. The people who write there seem to have a need to believe that their government, while sometimes wrong, of course, is not utterly insane, and must at least be trusted to raise the right questions. These writers just can't bear the thought of being completely alienated from the center of their society, their own government. Thus, although they themselves would have considered a "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq two years ago to be absurd and crazy, they now take the idea seriously and weigh its merits respectfully and worry gravely about the danger posed by Iraq, even though Iraq is in no way more dangerous than it was two years ago, and in every possible way it is less dangerous.
In fact, the dispassionate tone of the "debate" about Iraq in the New York Times and on every television screen seems psychotically remote from the reality of what will happen if war actually occurs. We are talking about raining death down on human beings, about thousands and thousands of howling wounded human beings, dismembered corpses in pools of blood. Is this one of the "lessons of Vietnam" that people have learned--that the immorality of this unspeakable murdering must never be mentioned? That the discussion of murder must never mention murder, and that even the critics of murder must always criticize it because it turns out not to be in our own best interest? Must these critics always say that the murders would come at too high a price for us, would be too expensive, would unbalance the budget, hurt the economy, cause us to stint on domestic priorities; that it would lose us our friends, that it would create new enemies? Can we never say that this butchering of human beings is horrifying and wrong?
(Off Camera) It did. It did. There's still debate. I for one believed that Ronald Reagan didn't know that Oliver North and others may have been diverting money to the Contras, which arguably, George and I have this argument all the time, was against the law, because everyone knew he wanted to help the Contras. He made speech after speech about the freedom fighters in Central America to overthrow the Communist leaning government in Nicaragua but because he was depending on other people to do it. And George, I have maintained that his first term worked so well because he had such good people in place. His second time he moved people. People moved. They wanted to go to this department, that department. It didn't work so well because he didn't have people in the right places.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) You know, Sam, we only have ...
COKIE ROBERTS
(Off Camera) You know, it wasn't a diversion to the Contras that bothered him, it was arms for hostages, and he kept saying, I know that this happened but I don't really believe it happened. I mean, he had a terrible time wrapping his mind around the idea that the United States had actually done it.
SAM DONALDSON
(Off Camera) But this may be destructive for the future. On March 6th, 1987, Howard Baker and others convinced the president that he needed to make a speech to the nation, there was an impeachment, you know that word, thing brewing on Capitol Hill, and he said, something to the effect that although my heart tells me that I didn't do it, the facts are that I did. He, in other words, admitted a mistake.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
(Off Camera) Accepted responsibility and survived.
SAM DONALDSON
(Off Camera) Accepted not only responsibility but the blame in the sense that he did it.
COKIE ROBERTS
(Off Camera) He said mistakes were made, however, though. He did use the passive voice.
SAM DONALDSON
(Off Camera) Well, maybe I'm rewriting history too much.
Well, why stop now Sam. You've been on a roll for years.
As summarized by the WSJ, the crux of the government’s position in this memo is that the executive has full unreviewable power in Guantanamo, not subject to check by the courts (at least absent some congressional action?). That this might be legally possible does not make it legally or morally correct.
Thus, it appears that the memo somewhat undermines the argument that the government made before the Supreme Court, where it argued that Gitmo was outside the jurisdiction of the courts because, being subject to residual Cuban sovereignty albeit US control, it was not part of the US for jurisdictional purposes. It’s not impossible to have different conceptions of ‘domestic’ jurisdiction for the reach of a statute and judicial review — but it’s uncomfortable and IMHO presumptively wrong.
This memo may also strengthen the case, set out by Eric Muller, that Deputy Solicitor General Paul D. Clement knew or (more likely) should have known that he was making a false statement when he said “[i]t’s … the judgment of those involved in this process [of interrogating POW’s and enemy combatants] that the last thing you want to do is torture somebody or try to do something along those lines.”
So the right to set aside law is "inherent in the president". That claim alone should stop everyone in their tracks and prompt a serious consideration of the safety of the American republic under this president. It is the very definition of a constitutional monarchy, let alone a constitutional republic, that the law is superior to the executive, not the other way around. This is the essence of what the rule of law means -- a government of laws, not men, and all that.
Republicans who say that these people do not represent the GOP as a whole can prove this by taking them on. But they won't, will they? They never do.
Indeed. And immediately afterwards, Sully chastizes Tony Kushner for daring to say mean things about Dear Leader, who of course has embraced these people.
And, while I'm slumming at Sullyville I notice he's taken the words of Arthur Schlesinger from 1982, where he's commenting on the economic health of the Soviet Union, and comments "They really thought that the Soviet Union wasn't evil." I have no idea whether Schlesinger thought the Soviet Union was "evil" in 1982, but nor does Sullivan as that kind of judgment isn't present anywhere in the quote.
The person he gets the quote from, Virginia Postrel, is a bit more honest, owning up to the fact that "Few of Reagan's conservative allies thought the Soviet Union was in any danger either." But, Andy hasn't yet come on board with the "Reagan was a visionary" theme -- he thinks we're still on the "Democrats and Leftists are commie symps" theme.
But, the truth is well into the 80s much of the Right in this country spoke admiringly of the Soviet economy, as did the CIA. Many talked of it being "brutally efficient." Capitalism had not yet "won," and so the communist planned economy was derided not on its failure as a system of production, but as an exploitive system in which people were not given the rewards of their own labor, along with its political and cultural repression. If Leftists still believed that a Soviet style planned economy could succeed as an economic system, then they weren't alone.
The Soviet Union could only be the threat they believed it was if it had an economy that could sustain its military budget. Right wingers almost universally scoffed at the notion that the Gorbachev-era reforms were real, mostly seeing them as some sinister to trick to catch us unaware.
Reagan may truly have been one of the few who believed the Soviet economy could be destabilized, even if there's little evidence our expanding and wasteful military spending had much to do with the actual result. But to pretend that "the Left" was out there praising Soviet economic might while the Right was not is just completely dishonest.
To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."
And, after reading it, you'll understand that the clowns in office are utterly unable to implement such a thing.
...shorter DeLong and Eichengreen: The success of the Marshall plan was less a consequence of the direct aid or investment, and more a consequence of its role in establishing successful market based mixed economies and financial stability. The aid helped to provide the conditions which allowed for the establishment a kind of "social contract" which eased conflict between various interest groups in the economy.
Bush: “I think it's fair to say that, you know, that the enemy didn't lay down its arms like we had hoped.”
Brokaw: “And you were not greeted as liberators like Vice President Cheney said that you would be.”
Bush: “Well, I think we've been -- let me just -- I think we've been thanked by the people of Iraq. And I think you'll hear more of that from people like Prime Minister Alawi and the foreign minister, who both have repeatedly, ‘Thank you for what you've done, and by the way, help us.’
“It's not easy work to take a country from tyranny to a free society. And we'd been there a little over a year. And it's-- you might recall if you're looking for parallels in World War II, it took about four years to get an active reconstruction effort going.
"part of the war on terror is not only go after al-Qaida, to go after those who sponsor them, provide them safe haven, and as well as to spread freedom. That's the long-term hope for winning the war, this war that we're now in."
“And in my speech that you referred to, I make-- pointed out that in the immediate aftermath of World War II, there was a-- the Soviet Union exploded a bomb, that China went communist. It was a question of whether or not the Greek government would go communist.
“The reconstruction effort was halting at best. The marshal plan hadn't been started. And I-- my only point is, these are difficult assignments. It was a difficult assignment then. It's a difficult assignment now. And what America must do is understand the consequences of getting it right. And the consequences of getting right is that a free society in the Middle East is going to help change the country, change the countries in the Middle East and make us more secure and the world more peaceful.”
It's quite true. The Marshall Plan didn't start right away. In fact, it wasn't implemented until 3 years after WWII ended.
However, there's an important disction to be made. We've already spent the amount of money we spent on the Marshall plan (in real terms). So, if the Marshall Plan for Iraq hasn't even begun yet, then where the fuck has all the money gone? [text corrected to say 3 years, not 4. Yes, Marshall had cooked it up earlier but it wasn't until 1948 that anything really started to happen.]
Jesse and Ezra are young. They're smart. Unlike young and not very smart Republicans they aren't being bankrolled by Richard Mellon Scaife. Give them a few bucks to help them with some transition costs they're both facing.
For many delegates at the three-day convention, religion and politics commingle with comfort, purpose and zeal. Delegates on Friday approved a platform that refers to "the myth of the separation of church and state."
"Faith is important to the vast majority of Texans," said Tina Benkiser, a Houston lawyer re-elected Friday as state GOP chairwoman. "And when you have real faith, that is who you are, and obviously what you want is your principles and your ideals to be put in public policy.
"And I think Texans clearly agree because they have put us in stewardship of statewide government at every branch of government," she said.
...
A plank in a section titled "Promoting Individual Freedom and Personal Safety" proclaims the United States a "Christian nation."
"The party affirms freedom of religion and rejects efforts of courts and secular activists who seek to remove and deny such a rich heritage from our public lives," says a passage added this year.
The rewritten "Celebrating Traditional Marriage" section now calls for legislation making it a felony for anyone to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple or for a "civil official" to perform a wedding ceremony for such couples.
Also new this year is a section declaring that the Ten Commandments "are the basis of our basic freedoms and the cornerstone of our Western legal tradition."
"We therefore oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols."
The platform continues to approach gambling as a moral issue, damning it as "devastating" to families.
Why do they hate America and our Founding Fathers?
I hope the faux philo-Semites out there take note of the fact that declaring America a "Christian Nation" isn't exactly inclusive for Jews.
Despite the ensuing [Iran-Contra] investigations, he left office in 1989 with the highest popularity rating of any retiring president in the history of modern-day public opinion polls. His populist brand of conservative politics still inspires the Republican Party.
Look, this is literally true (though arguably he was roughly tied with Ike, depending on exactly how one would determine this )if it means "retiring president in the history of modern-day public opinion polls up to that point." However, the history of modern-day public opinion polls now includes 2 more retiring presidents, one of whom [Clinton] clearly has him beat.
So, the AP article is technically true, but nonetheless quite misleading.
And, more generally, Reagan only had strong poll numbers between about '84-'86. The rest of the time his poll numbers were low by historical standards, as the chart posted below with the averages confirms. Professor Pollkatz gives the entire picture, which as I've remarked on before is really quite fascinating.
If you look at Pollkatz's graph, the comparison between Clinton and Reagan is interesting. Clinton stumbed out of the gate and had really low poll numbers when he first entered office, but after that his numbers track the path of Reagan's almost precisely, until late in their terms. When Iran-Contra hit, Reagan's numbers plummet and stay low until a bit of generous nostalgia pumped up the very last (but only the very last) numbers. When Lewinsky hit, Clinton's numbers went up and stayed up all the way to the end.
CHICAGO (AP) - Tom Clancy, the novelist and political conservative, declared in a recent interview that Ronald Reagan would ``always be my president.'' But for many in the publishing community, which wrapped up its annual convention Sunday, their president remains Bill Clinton.
His keynote speech Thursday at BookExpo America became a celebration both of Clinton the president and of Clinton the author of ``My Life,'' which comes out June 22 with a first printing 1.5 million.
``He got this convention off to a great start and his book will continue the whole phenomenon of political books,'' said Oren Teicher, chief operating officer of the American Booksellers Association.
One can only guess how Clinton would have fared in an election against Reagan, who died Saturday at age 93. But as memoirists it is no contest. While ``Ronald Reagan: An American Life'' was a commercial disappointment, Clinton's ``My Life'' has booksellers so worked up that some have dared invoke the ``H'' word - not Hillary but Harry, Harry Potter.
But, this sounds interesting as well:
Great interest was expressed for Philip Roth's upcoming novel, ``The Plot Against America,'' which imagines the United States under the reign of President Charles Lindbergh.
Who would have thought it? Some two years after he left office hounded by right-wing detractors and stained by his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton now ranks as this nation's third best chief executive, according to a recent CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. Only Abraham Lincoln (chosen by 15%) and John F. Kennedy (13%) finished ahead of Clinton (11%) in the April poll, which asked Americans who was "the greatest" president. George W. Bush managed to tie Clinton for third place.
Ronald Reagan, a conservative icon, garnered 10% of the vote, followed by Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter. Bush's father, the 41st president, was chosen by just 2% of the respondents, tying with Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson.
Fellow GOP Sen. John Cornyn called Mr. Reagan "one of our greatest presidents." - an assessment shared by more and more historians over the years. "He left the Oval Office as the most popular president in the modern era. Ronald Reagan loved America - and America loved him back."
After pressure from troops who wanted recognition for fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan -- and not just in one all-encompassing "Global War on Terrorism" -- President Bush quietly signed legislation Friday night establishing separate new medals for their service.
Rep. Silvestre Reyes called the "Global War on Terrorism" medal a "purely political" device. (Courtesy of www.defenselink.mil)
A week before launching the Iraq invasion in March 2003, Bush established a single "Global War on Terrorism" medal that later proved unpopular in the ranks. But before recessing last month, the House and Senate overwhelmingly approved legislation to create Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom medals, giving troops specific recognition for the campaigns in which they served.
Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), a Vietnam combat vet who was among the bill's original sponsors, called the Global medal a "purely political" device that sought to more closely connect the Iraq war to the fight against al Qaeda. He criticized Bush's decision to sign the law without fanfare: "In Texas we would call it chicken[poop]," he told us yesterday. "We call it thumbing his nose at something he doesn't like."
The occasion of a man's death is not the time to pile on him, but nor is it the time to let the mythmakers get away with manufacturing reality.
Reagan was not the most popular president in modern history - that honor goes to Bill Clinton.
Reagan did pass what was, at the time, the largest tax cut in history. That was quickly followed up with what still holds the record for the largest tax increase in history.
The number of nondefense federal employees grew under Reagan, as they did under the first Bush. The number shrunk when Clinton was in office.
The economy under Reagan grew at an average rate of 3.5%, a healthy clip matched by the economy under Bill Clinton. The unemployment rate averaged 7.3%.
We all know what happened to deficits and the federal debt.
I have plenty of my own reasons for disliking the politics of the Reagan administration, but unless the only thing of importance to conservatives is the top marginal tax rate, judged by their own criteria there was not much to cheer about during that time.
When George W. Bush makes his D-Day anniversary visit to the Normandy beaches on Sunday, we’re going to hear a lot of well-honed speeches trying to compare the righteous combat forced on us in World War II with the war of choice we’ve entered into in Iraq. But only speechmakers from coddled, comfortable backgrounds who’ve never heard a shot fired in anger, much less seen “dead men by mass production,” would dare use the blood of those who died at Normandy 60 years ago to try to cleanse their conscience of those dying in Iraq today.
The United States entered World War II, as it had entered World War I, to defeat a proven aggressor and bring the war to an end. The Bush administration actually won its righteous war, in Afghanistan after the aggression of September 11, 2001. But that victory came too quickly, it seems, for our leaders to get much satisfaction from it. So they sent our kids to Iraq. And what is the goal there today, now that the reasons we were given at first have proved to be grand delusions? To spread democracy? To extirpate the very idea of terrorism? To work the will of God? Sixty years ago, those who thought they could teach the world how to live the only right way, which was their way, and launched unprovoked wars claiming this was the only thing could do to defend their values—those were the people we called the enemy.
But let’s be clear about the soldiers. Our soldiers. Those men and women in Iraq today are, indeed, just as heroic as those at Normandy. They have been put in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, but that’s not their fault. They are fighting and dying and trying to build something good as soldiers, despite the most foolhardy civilian leadership in the modern history of the United States. Like any G.I. Joe in World War II, they’re making the best of a bad situation.
Gorenfeld has a useful chart. Perhaps Judy Woodruff and CNN correspondent Ed Henry should take a look at it. From Henry's report, in which he recycles York's and Gillespie's smear:
HENRY: Soros also equated the Iraqi prisoner abuse to the 9/11 attacks. Republican party chairman Ed Gillespie blasted Soros for making that connection and made it clear that if Democrats take the billionaire's money, they'll have to answer for his opinions.
Apparently Mr. Henry also hates everything America stands for.
It's sad that people like Byron York, who appear to hate everything American stands for, are increasingly coming to dominate our discourse.
Unless of course you believe that America stands for orchestrating dishonest smear campaigns against holocaust survivors who have devoted substantial time and money to promoting Democracy, in which case Byron York is your man.
