The answer was a big cosmic mystery to President Bush and Dick Cheney in the last debates, but the Boston Globe has done a bit of reporting, and it seems like it might have something to do with the way Republicans have weilded political power. This might also explain why we are running up huge deficits paying for jacked-up federal programs that don't really work. It's a three-part series, well worth reading in its entirety, but here is a summary of the major findings:
The House Rules Committee, which is meant to tweak the language in bills that come out of committee, sometimes rewrites key passages of legislation approved by other committees, then forbids members from changing the bills on the floor. The Rules Committee commonly holds sessions late at night or in the wee hours of the morning, earning the nickname "the Dracula Congress" by critical Democrats and keeping some lawmakers quite literally in the dark about the legislation put before them. Congressional conference committees added a record 3,407 "pork barrel" projects to appropriations bills for this year's federal budget, items that were never debated or voted on beforehand by the House and Senate and whose congressional patrons are kept secret. Bills are increasingly crafted behind closed doors, and on two major pieces of legislation -- the Medicare and energy bills -- few Democrats were allowed into the critical conference committee meetings, sessions that historically have been bipartisan. The amount of time spent openly debating bills has dropped dramatically, and lawmakers are further hamstrung by an abbreviated schedule that gives them little time to fully examine a bill before voting on it. The dearth of debate and open dealing in the House has given a crucial advantage to a select group of industry lobbyists who are personally close to decision-makers in Congress.
And conservative movement big-shot Grover "Progressive Taxation == the Holocaust" Norquist may hold another clue:
"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship," said Grover Norquist, a leading Republican strategist, who heads a group called Americans for Tax Reform."Bipartisanship is another name for date rape," Norquist, a onetime adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, said, citing an axiom of House conservatives.
It looks - knock on wood - like the Afghanistan elections have gone off successfully. Matthew Yglesias lists some possible contributing factors:
- Karzai is a more skilled leader than Iyad Allawi.
- International involvement per se has a value beyond spreading the burden because it makes foreign involvement look less imperial.
- Afghans are less concerned about the Palestinian issue than are Arabs, which makes it easier for Americans and other Westerners to credibly pose as helpers.
- The motivation of the Afghan War was clear (al-Qaeda attacked us and the Taliban was protecting al-Qaeda) making Afghans less suspicious of our troops.
- Afghans got to try out the whole "civil war and ethnic conflict" thing over a prolonged period of time before the invasion, which has decreased the appeal of communal brinksmanship.
- The decision to allow the central government to be extremely weak lowered the stakes of conflict in Kabul encouraging various actors to compromise.
- Though it will be a big problem in the medium- and long-term, widespread poppy cultivation has provided Afghans with economic options despite a chaotic security situation and a desperately screwed-up infrastructure.
- Better cooperation between key regional actors (US, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan) in Afghanistan than in Iraq, where the US, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey haven't been able to get on the same page.
- Zalmay Khalizad is a better proconsul than Paul Bremer.
My sense is that #2, #6, and #8 are the big ones, and the ones which may make this invasion turn out differently for us than for the Soviets. Hopefully, the successful elections will be followed by a drawing-down of the foreign presence and influence in that country. Afghanistan still has some outstanding problems - the Kabul government is Tajik-heavy in a country that is majority Pashto, it is fairly secular in a country which favors a conservative Islam, its military power is almost entirely controlled by foreigners in a country which is notoriously resistant to foreign control - but there is definite cause for hope.
In comparing this positive progress to Iraq, the obvious difference is that this Afghan democracy was put together as something of an afterthought to the invasion, as opposed to being the life's work of the pure true believers at the American Enterprise Institute. (I postulate the Universal Law of Democracy, which states that the chance of a democracy succeeding is inversely proportional to the number of Michael Ledeen's children serving in positions of great authority. I say "universal" because this law applies not just to Iraq and Afghanistan, but also to our own American revolution in 1776.)
Less obvious (and probably wrongheaded) is this: if we look at al Qaeda and similar groups as part of a larger "Islamist insurgency" instead of just as terrorists, the difference in Afghanistan is that these forces have already been discredited by the invasion itself, while they have been given an opportunity by the overthrow of Saddam's generally secular regime in Iraq. Now, it is certainly arguable that the US victory in Afghanistan was incomplete - that we failed to capture or kill as many al Qaeda as we could have - but it's hard to spin the al Qaeda/Taliban defeat into anything less than humiliating. Going from 90% control of a country to, in a matter of weeks, pockets of control and/or sympathy at best, does not encourage the powers that be - the warlords – to rally around your banner. To the warlords, even those who are favorably inclined to Osama and friends, it doesn’t seem strategically smart to invest yourself in a known loser. From our vantage point, it just looks like the potential rivals to Karzai won’t coalesce around an Islamism with feet of clay.
In Iraq, on the other hand, it is secularism that has lost, and it is generally conservative religious figures who are leading the successful and newsworthy resistance to the invasion. There isn’t necessarily any real coordination between these groups, and there are probably a lot of deep divisions between, say, Sadr’s Shia Medhi Army and the Qaeda-linked Zarkawi jihadis. On the other hand, as Sadr’s crossover popularity with Sunnis shows, there is a broad popular support for some sort of religious-based resistance movement, and if none of the existing ones appeal to you, they may well inspire you to start your own. From this point of view, the fall of secular Saddam to American forces could be viewed as more of a confirmation of the power of the Islamist movement (Allah) than the power of American secularism. And the incompetence and cruelty that the Americans have shown since would be further confirmation of that view.
The Patriots set the record: 19 straight wins. Yes, they didn't look that great. Yes, the Dolphins are a pathetic football team. People who think this means something are delusional. The Patriots never play well against bad teams, and they never play poorly against good teams. Generally, they just play better than their opponent; or, if that isn't an option, they just play well enough to score more points. Plus, they play something called "defense". Not always fun to watch, but it works.
In other Boston sports news, Todd "Bledsoe" K. muses:
I'm so looking forward to the ALCS, so that I might taste Boston's delicious tears once again. Sweet, sweet New England, your tears are so sweet, salty and delicious. Pour them into my goblet so that I may taste the pain and misery once again.
Todd displays, yet again, his profound ignorance of the sports world. No true Red Sox fan has any doubt but that the Yankees will win this series, and any Red Sox fan who claims otherwise is either 11 years old or a narc. As I explained roughly one year ago today:
But I didn't just sit here on the edge of my seat wondering if the Red Sox would beat the Yankees in an extra-inning playoff game seven. And I know that they were winning and it really looked like they might really do it this time. But it never looked like Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas would hook up in Romancing the Stone, either - she was so clean and he was so grimy - but, incredibly, this is exactly what happened. After watching that movie ten or fifteen times, I learned to anticipate this development, and was no longer fell to the floor, overcome by shock and amazement, gasping "no!" and "impossible!" and "how could they fall in love, against all odds ... once again!?!?" I no longer expect the movie to end with Danny DeVito open-mouth kissing the villianous Zack Norman, and I no longer expect the Red Sox to win important games against the Yankees.
There are now more ways than ever to fit a John Kerry vote into your lifestyle!
1. The Kerry/Edwards campaign site - Get your Kool-Aid straight from the source. Also, this site contains policy proposals, for those who are interested in that sort of thing (nerds). OLD SKOOL!
Typical member: Partisan Democrat.
Bush-hatred: Assumed very high, but not necessary.
2. Republicans For Kerry - Kind of think John Kerry would be a good President, but not all that compatible with him philosophically? Republicans for Kerry highlights the warm fuzzy things about Kerry's responsible and courageous nature, while glossing over the uncomfortable fact that Kerry is going to tax you bastards back to the Stone Age. TRES CONTRARIANE!
Typical member: One of the four Republicans who doesn't consider it their only civic duty to "learn libruls what-for."
Bush-hatred: Barely acknowledged, yet blazing with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns.
3. John Kerry Is A Douchebag But I'm Voting For Him Anyway - For people who understand that while there are many, many douche-y things about John Kerry, he just isn't in the same industrial strength FDNY-approved hydro-blasting douche-geyser category as George W. Bush ("the 'W' stands for 'Douche'"). RESPECT YOURSELF IN THE MORNING!
Typical member: People who think joining is lame; former Kerry-bashers who don't want to seem like big hypocrites; honest people.
Bush-hatred: Capable of burning holes in granite with flaming eye beams of pure hate.
4. Kerry Haters For Kerry - Do you really hate Kerry? Not just think he's a bit of a douche, but really can't stand the man? Voting for him anyway, because another term of George W. Bush's "leadership" is more than mortal man can bear? You're home. CYNICAL ... TO THE X-TREME!
Typical member: Player haters.
Bush-hatred: Constantly surrounded by a crackling field of high-voltage hate-tricity, which, if harnessed, could free us from our dependence on Middle East oil.
"Going Upriver", the new film about John Kerry's Vietnam and post-Vietnam experience, is being made available for free download by the director. I've seen it, and it's quite good.
In other John Kerry movie news:
The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation's homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiar with the plan said Friday. ...Sinclair has told its stations — many of them in political swing states such as Ohio and Florida — to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," sources said. The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry — a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester — of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war. Sinclair will preempt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the film, which may be classified as news programming, according to TV executives familiar with the plan.
Sinclair had previously refused to show Nightline's tribute to the Iraq War dead on the grounds that it was "too political".
Worst. President. Ever.
An editor at the paper suggested that I use this week's column to try to make the most honest and persuasive case I could for President Bush's reelection. At first I was skeptical. To say that I consider Bush a "bad" president would be a severe understatement. I think he's bad in a way that redefines my understanding of the word "bad." I used to think U.S. history had many bad presidents. Now, my "bad" category consists entirely of George W. Bush, with every previous president redefined as "good." There's also the fact that, on a personal level, I despise him with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. What I'm saying is, advocating Bush is kind of tricky.
I heard that.
First, read Digby.
That's the real question: which Bush shows up tonight. Kerry's looking very strong and confident recently - check out yesterday's press conference ("Sen. Kerry (D-MA) Statement on Iraq & Weapons of Mass Destruction Report"), especially how he handles the press afterwards - and he's not one to choke in the clutch. The way the debate plays out is entirely dependant on Bush's performance.
On the one hand, Bush's dismal performance last weeks means that almost anything will seem like an improvement. On the other hand, he's been an idiot his whole life, he was an idiot last week, and I don't think there's much anyone can do about it in just a few days. If Bush gets hard questions, he's toast. If he gets questions for which he has pre-packaged answers, and if he makes it all about Kerry, anddoesn't fumble that, he'll probably survive. Realistically, there's no way Kerry isn't going to kick his ass, but if he only kicks his ass a little bit, it could definitely be spun as a comeback and a victory. I give it 50/50. Should be interesting.
So the new monthly job numbers are out, and they suck. But what else is new?
And that's not all:
I have obtained (do not ask me how, for I cannot - I must not - tell) what I believe to be an authentic copy of the most forbidden, most blasphemous, most shrill tome ever penned by the hand of man - if indeed it was so penned. I hold in my hand, on these unbound, brittle leaves of strange manufacture, the last testament of the mad, shrill, and foul scribe known to us as "Krugman". This copy is far from complete - references are made to previous chapters which have presumably been lost to history - and yet, considering the lengths to which humanity has gone to ban, burn, and exorcise from human memory any trace of this book, it is miraculous that so much as this survives. Miraculous ... or whatever the opposite of miraculous is, like really nasty and bad. So, I shall begin my translation, painstakingly copying, as best I can, the crazed and wavering binary on these pages into some semblance of rational ASCII. The Krugmanomicon. I begin:
I first used the word "Orwellian" to describe the Bush team in October 2000. Even then it was obvious that George W. Bush surrounds himself with people who insist that up is down, and ignorance is strength. But the full costs of his denial of reality are only now becoming clear.
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have an unparalleled ability to insulate themselves from inconvenient facts. They lead a party that controls all three branches of government, and face news media that in some cases are partisan supporters, and in other cases are reluctant to state plainly that officials aren't telling the truth. They also still enjoy the residue of the faith placed in them after 9/11.
This has allowed them to engage in what Orwell called "reality control." In the world according to the Bush administration, our leaders are infallible, and their policies always succeed. If the facts don't fit that assumption, they just deny the facts.
As a political strategy, reality control has worked very well. But as a strategy for governing, it has led to predictable disaster. When leaders live in an invented reality, they do a bad job of dealing with real reality. ...
The point is that in the real world, as opposed to the political world, ignorance isn't strength. A leader who has the political power to pretend that he's infallible, and uses that power to avoid ever admitting mistakes, eventually makes mistakes so large that they can't be covered up. And that's what's happening to Mr. Bush.
I must stop now, for I feel unwell. I am no mere acolyte in the dark mysteries of shrillness - I have read the black and deranged Atrios Codex, I have perused the wicked and revolting Yglesias Fragments, I once flipped through the Cliff Notes to the poisonous and damnable Digby Omnibus and ran a mile - but what I read on these old pages fills me with a nameless and bottomless dread. I feel as if the universe I once knew - the sunlight world of rationality, where goodness triumphs and the evil are punished and reason and knowledge are respected - is slipping from my grasp. I feel as if ... as if we were ruled by idiots, idiots and liars, all of us! I cannot take it! I feel as if I shall go ... MAD!!
And now ... what is that sound? ... where is it coming from? ... from inside the walls of my dark study? ... is it inside my head? ... no, I hear it now ... it is coming down through the centuries ... it is clear now, a high, girlish, hysterical voice ... a chanting ... words I have heard before ... OH DEAR GOD IT CANNOT BE!!1!
Aaaiii! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Krugman R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn! Aaaiii!!!! Aaaaaaaaiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!
AAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIII!!!1!
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush and his vice president conceded Thursday in the clearest terms yet that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they tried to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue -- whether the invasion was justified because Hussein was abusing a UN oil-for-food program. ...Vice President Dick Cheney brushed aside the central findings of chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer -- that Hussein not only had no WMDs and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either -- while Bush defended his decision to invade Iraq.
Duelfer found no formal plan by Hussein to resume WMD production, but the inspector surmised that Hussein intended to do so if UN sanctions were lifted. Bush seized upon that inference, using the word "intent" three times in reference to Hussein's plans to resume making weapons.
So there were no WMD, no capacity to make any WMD, no plans to develop the capacity to make WMD, but Duelfer surmises that there was the intent to make plans ... if sanctions were lifted. What rigorous methods did Mr. Duelfer use to come to this supposition? Tiny Revolution looked into the Duelfer report, and found this highly illuminating passage from the intro to Volume I:
This report will also attempt to broaden understanding by recalibrating the perspective of the reader. The Regime was run by Saddam and the calculations he made concerning WMD were based on his view of relevant related factors not ours. Optimally, we would remove the reader temporarily from his reality and time. We would collect the flow of images, sounds, feelings, and events that passed into Saddam's mind and project them as with a Zeiss Planetarium projection instrument. The reader would see the Universe from Saddam's point in space. Events would flow by the reader as they flowed by Saddam.
Look for the Duelfer report at the campus arts center, on a double bill with Laser Floyd.
Are there any problems with this new and improved justification for war?
This week marks the first time that the Bush administration has listed abuses in the oil-for-fuel program as an Iraq war rationale. But the strategy holds risks because some of the countries that could be implicated include U.S. allies, such as Poland, Jordan and Egypt. In addition, the United States itself played a significant role in the creation of the program and how it was operated and overseen.
But there are ways of getting around that sticky wicket:
NEW YORK - The CIA yesterday released a list of firms and people from dozens of countries allegedly given oil vouchers by Saddam Hussein's Government that could be turned into cash.The charts, compiled from 13 secret lists by Iraq's former Vice-President and Oil Minister, detail legitimate contracts to oil companies.
But it is also a who's who of companies, political groups and individuals from whom the former Iraqi Government wanted favours in its effort to subvert United Nations trade sanctions. ...
All names of Americans and British companies and individuals, whether suspected of wrongdoing or not, were deleted from the list, part of which had been published by an Iraqi newspaper in Baghdad after the war in March 2003.
Huh.
