ShadowFox & Rabid Badger

Back to shiver looking for a spine

2008-11-23T00:47:00.007-06:00

Back in 2003, Jim Hightower spread Paul Keating's comment about Tom Delay far and wide:

... Here's how one of his own congressional constituents describes him: "Tom DeLay is a shiver looking for a spine to run up."

Of course, if one has no spine, there are few shivers he has to worry about.

I am no expert or a wonk in these matters. But something needs to be said about the rumor of cabinet appointments so far. For the most part, they appear to be short-term risk averse but with much long-term risk attached. This does not appear to be a plan of someone who hopes to set a new standard after eight years of nonsense, but rather someone who is looking for a couple of years comfortable coexistence before trying to run for office again. It is hard to pin this down as playing it safe or being spineless, yet, this is the impression I am getting. Of course, as one of the most overused cliches of football (both American and European variety) suggests, once a team is ahead, the worst strategy it can use is playing not to lose.

I suppose, these are some strong words. I find myself in a particularly odd spot because I was not a blindly overwhelmed Obama supporter who expected great things from his presidency. I simply expected that any team he appoints would be better than either one that they would replace or one that would follow John McCain into Washington.

With Bush administration members burrowing into the fabric of civil service (surprisingly easily, considering that they must be hired through the non-political branch), and the rumored cabinet members and associated managers so far largely being center-right politically, if not outright Republicans, it should still be possible to steer a progressive course (and I don't mean "progressive" as "ultra-liberal"), but that task is a bit more difficult than it would have been in past transitions. For all the whining from the Right that Obama is a Socialist, there is little in his selection process so far to suggest that there is even a hint of Socialism in his administration.

To take stock to date, so far, there have been rumors that appear solid when it comes to AG (DoJ), HHS, Treasury, OMB and DHS. The two at DoD, State and Commerce are still speculations, although the direction is clear. That still leaves Ag, ED, Interior, HUD, Transportation, Labor, VA, EPA and Trade Rep to be determined, as well as non-cabinet members of the NSC and the National Security Adviser (who does appear to have been chosen). There is no obligation to keep CIA, NSA and FBI directors either (not quite cabinet--especially with DHS taking over--but still important administrators). And some of the subcabinet positions may well be more important than others, although, obviously, it is not likely we'd hear about them prior to the cabinet coming together.

What's the assumption so far?

HRClinton at State (with Kerry and Richardson being common speculations earlier)
Holder as AG (with Edwards's career in an outhouse, he certainly was not going to be candidate and I have not heard many other names mentioned)
Geithner at Treasury (with Summers and Rubin as the shadows that were on nearly equal footing with him from the start)
Napolitano at DHS
Orszag at OMB
Gates remaining at DoD
Richardson at Commerce (assuming that State is taken)
Daschle at DHS
Brennan at CIA

I have no problem with Gates keeping his job--unless an obviously better candidate comes along, Gates is enough of a realist that he should mesh well with the new administration. Daschle--although close Bill Clinton ally in the past--is an Obama person who can put a stamp on healthcare reform. I know nothing about Orszag, except that he appears to be welcomed by a lot of people as very competent (and, considering his previous experience, that makes a lot of sense).

Richardson is a question mark. He appeared to be headed to the Senate without much of a fight, should he have chosen that route. He's been a solid administrator, except for some questions about his behavior toward women in the office. So his executive skills and diplomatic skills appear to be far better than his people skills. Fine, since I am not about to question his qualifications, as long as he keeps his hands to himself and his mouth shut, except when on task, I can live with him.

Not so for Summers, whose bad habits as the President of Harvard and past accounts of his management style at the Treasury suggest that he can't play with other children. Luckily, Geithner is is ahead of him for the post. Policy-wise, I defer to others' approval of Geithner. And I have nothing against Summers as a top policy adviser, which he would be as the head of th NEC. But I would rather not see him as a public face of the administration or in charge of substantial staff. Butting heads during meetings is his forte and if he does that in the privacy of policy meetings, so much the better.

Holder is his own person with experience at the DoJ under Bill Clinton, but I don't question his credentials. Even some conservative bloggers welcomed his potential appointment, although FNC and some of the more rabid popular bloggers have been dogging him on the Marc Rich pardon, Elian Gonzales and other inanities. That leaves HRC and Napolitano as the black sheep and Brennan as a big question mark.

I am not comfortable with HRC at State at all. She has the skills and the connection to pull off the external part of the job. HRC is not a bad person to send out globe-trotting as a messenger of good will. Not so obvious is her connection back home. Whose policy is she going to pursue? She can't easily go rogue on major policy points or in diplomatic situations, but how much pull will she have in determining this policy--will she defer to non-cabinet advisers when outvoted or will she stubbornly insist on her own measures?

Some have also questioned her management skills in large non-homogeneous enterprises, such as the Department of State. Her campaign, despite a number of successes, was essentially mismanaged (although much blame for that can be placed at the feet of other people, ultimately, HRC is responsible not only for hiring these people, but also for supervising them and agreeing with them). Her past attempt at a top-down healthcare reform was a dismal failure--and one cannot blame solely conservative opposition for that. Some of the proposals that the AMA criticized back in the 1990s included essentially deprofessionalizing some of the specialties, such as anestesiology and radiology, and handing the tasks to non-MD personnel, such as nurses and technicians. It's not just a question of the support staff being unskilled at the tasks that they would have to take over--that can be rectified with a gradual transition that includes proper training. But it would also have taken important diagnostic and complex treatment monitoring tasks from positions that carry greater responsibility to support staff that carries no formal responsibility because they generally don't make decisions. What's important here is not the details of the proposal, but how some of the larger issues, particularly cost reallocation, had been handled. Many of the solutions HRC's task force had come up with were worse than the problems they were trying to solve.

There is also the question of how HRC's departure would affect the Senate. It would not have an impact on party balance--NY governor is a Democrat and the state is highly unlikely to elect a Republican, unless the Democratic candidate self-destructed during the campaign. Judging from the 2008 election results, New Yorker got over Elliott Spitzer very quickly, so there is no long-term party image damage. But there is a question of caucus leadership. The same reasons that make her well-known diplomatically (not just as a former First Spouse) also promote her to leadership role in the Senate. Although the somewhat arcane Senate rules prevent her from chairing any committees, she can have leadership role for the whole caucus (cannot happen without any of the present leadership giving up their positions, of course, but that may happen). And, barring any major issues, the position in the Senate is safe for as long as she wants it. Despite the Republicans initially foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of Hillary Clinton, she has proved to be skilled at her job and popular with constituents (the qualities that are usually absent in Senators who lose their positions--such as Sununu, DeWine, Smith, Dole, etc.). And, after two terms, unseating a Senator becomes virtually impossible (although, of course, it has happened).

On the balance, it seems that HRC would be better off staying put and the country would be better for it. It also appears that the Democratic Party would benefit greatly from HRC not going to State and bringing a gaggle of supporters with her.

Napolitano's issues are quite different. She is certainly a very competent administrator and executive. Her state AG, gubernatorial and US Attorney experience is unquestioned. She would bring long-term immigration experience to DHS--something that would be refreshing after six years of trying to solve all immigration problems with a couple of labor busts and a border fence to the South. But that's where the benefits end.

Napolitano brings legal and immigration experience to the table in a department that is also responsible for national security infrastructure, intelligence and much else that falls outside the relatively narrow issue of immigration. And, although it would be good to have a lawyer who is actually inclined to follow the law at the helm, she would have to rely on others to take charge of the intelligence operations. Taking over a department that's been subservient to the Vice-President's office for some time, this is a very weak position to take and is likely to lead to internal problems within the chain of command.

But a far greater problem is strategic long-term position that is undermined by Napolitano leaving her state. She has long been considered a strong Senatorial candidate--either against McCain in 2010 or against Kyl two years later. Strategically, it is probably better to have her run against Kyl, although it is also possible, had she run as a popular governor in 2010, McCain would change his mind and retire rather than stay in a tough fight with a potential loss loming.

At the same time Arizona has no Lt. Governor, so a Republican Secretary of State would ascend to the governorship. Even if Brewer remains as loony as she is claimed to be in her Michelle-Bachmann-like zeal, she would have a boost of incumbency in the next elections and, barring any major disasters, would be favored to win in a state that is much closer than it used to be but is still heavily Republican. That means two bad outcomes for the Democrats--losing a governorship and a potential Senate seat in one swoop. Some continue to argue that Napolitano need not be entrenched at DHS, but it would be ridiculous to assume that she would only take over for two years only to run for Senate in 2010 (especially since much of the second year would be lost to campaigning, even if she did not resign immediately--which is unlikely). And, if she stays there the full four, to run in 2012, voters have short memories and she would not be as popular then as she is now. It was different in New Hampshire this year with Shaheen and Sununu. Sununu was a one-term, weak Senator who got elected essentially on nepotism earlier, and Shaheen was not running as a governor, having lost to Sununu earlier, but getting a boost from the general Republican depression and Obama's popularity in the state. And it was still close enough to conclude that Sununu might have recovered in different cycle. McCain and Kyl are both strong, long-term Senators, who are popular in their own right.

So chosing Napolitano hurts the Democratic Party both at the state and the national level, unless, of course, the Pary has concluded that Napolitano could not win a Senate seat in either case. Even then, her leaving makes reclaiming the governorship that much tougher. This is even worse, considering that 1) Arizona will be gaining in its Congressional delegation following the 2010 census and 2) there will be no gubernatorial counterbalance to Republican-dominant legislature when the district boundaries are redrawn. So, potentially, this may cost the Democrats not only a governorship and a Senate seat, but also a couple of House seats. Given other redistricting dynamics for the next cycle, this is not good news.

In some ways, Richardson is in a similar predicament. It is widely considered that the next Senate seat will be his for the taking. Even with the state leaning Democratic over the last few election cycles, Senate races are often unpredictable when the personalities involved are less dominant. So Richardson's absense would give an element of risk into that race as well. On the other hand, it would be much easier for him to abandon his Commerce post than it would be for Napolitano to leave DHS without major consequences. So I am not as concerned about Richardson overall as I am about Napolitano.

That brings the last questionable name on the list--Brennan. Andrew Sullivan cites Ambinder (and is, in turn, quoted by Kevin Drum):

Marc reports the Republican, former chief-of-staff for George Tenet (who authorized war crimes as CIA head), admirer of Dick Cheney, CEO of the company one of whose contract employees improperly accessed Obama's and McCain's passports, and defender of renditions and "enhanced interrogations" is still Obama's front-runner pick to head the CIA. No, I'm not making this up. ... Why is such a man even considered for the post under Obama? This man cannot end the taint of Bush-Cheney. He was Bush-Cheney.

Even though Sullivan identified once concession that Brennan made--having been involved in politicizing intelligence leading up to the Iraq War--it does not appear to be enough to balance his continued defense of torture and other slip-ups that clearly align him with the more radical of the Cheney stooges. Sullivan summarizes his opposition by essentially comparing the potential nomination to keeping Gates at the DoD:

It's fine not to uproot the entire agency and to have some continuity. But for Obama to appoint a Bush-Cheney apologist to the CIA? How on earth did this idea get this far?

On the other hand, Brennan was one of the earliest intelligence wonks to jump on the Obama bandwagon and got positive reviews along the way.

"The world is a very complicated place and there are not always easy solutions to a lot of the problems out there," says John Brennan, a top Obama intelligence advisor and former senior CIA official who co-founded the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and the National Counterterrorism Center, a post-9/11 effort to integrate the US government's terror threat intelligence. "If you look at the world in black and white, you miss a lot of the subtleties out there. 'Either with us or against'—the world is not divided into good and evil a lot of time. Despite America's military might, a lot of these problems do not lend themselves to kinetic solutions"—i.e. the use of force.

In this context, Brennan may not be a surprise. But in a profession where one has to adapt to potentially hostile surroundings to gather information, his resume does not inspire complete confidence. Did he exhibit a genuine preference for Obama brand of policy or was he simply one of the first rats jumping off the sinking ship, hoping not to get caught up in maelstroem.

So this is three highly questionable candidates out of a rather short list of nominations that are either "finalized" or are close to it. That still leaves eight cabinet posts and a few associated positions open, but it does not look promising. Education, Labor and Transportation are often token positions, wasted on some questionable characters--for example, the Bush appointments were, initially, two token minorities with minimal qualifications for the jobs and a token carry-over Democrat, moved from another department. When one nominee went bust, she was replaced with a wife of then-Senate Majority Leader. Sure, these deparments are far more central to the Democratic message than to Republican, but it does not mean that the appointments will be more meaningful (remember Romer?).

On the balance, it is clear that the cabinet, as it is shaping so far, shows far more grown ups and far less sycophancy than its predecessor in any of its incarnations. But this does not mean that the selections are well-balanced or deliver a clear positive message. It further appears that the nominees proposed so far may well have a negative long-term strategic impact on the Democratic Party, which is not what most of us want to hear this year.

UPDATE (11/26, early AM):
The other name previously mentioned next to Summers and Geithner was that of Robert Rubin. Well, since the weekend, it's become mud. The sage of Clintonomics has been tied to Citigroup for over a decade. With the Citi near-collapse and subsequent bailout, Rubin's star is suddenly not shining quite as brightly.

Brennan now is toast! He has removed his name from the hat, serving a parting shot on his critics who have been trying to tie him to the Bush administration policies. His bitterness does not exactly make him look innocent--I am more convinced now that he was an opportunist who thought he could jump on the winning team before anyone else did and snatch a piece of the prize. OK, no schadenfreude here, but I was not exactly rooting for him to get to the top. It seems far safer for the rest of us (the rest of the world, that is) if he remains an adviser. Perhaps, in a couple of years, when the "other" appointment does not work out--and, assuming that Brennan will stick around in some capacity--he may rise back to the top, vindicated. But if he ends up in some Blackwater-style operation instead, we can all compare notes later.

Election, part 521

2008-11-06T02:06:00.002-06:00

In case anyone is still wondering:

Coleman and Franken are separated by less than 500 votes. Must.have.recount. Coleman is bleating some complete nonsense that the result is "too important" for a recount. And I thought Franken was the comedian in that race!
As the tabulation approaches the final few votes, Merkley pulled ahead of Smith by about 6000 votes, but the difference is now approaching 0.5% (it's 0.42% right now). The reason why this is significant is that only a few thousand votes ago, Smith was ahead by nearly 2%. As the remaining districts kept coming in, Merkley gradually pulled ahead. If the few remaining votes to be counted break the same way as the last couple of thousands, the margin may well pass the mandatory recount limit. I suppose a recount is likely nonetheless. Besides, both candidates pulled in just over 47%, so there is good reason to wonder about Smith's survival. Meanwhile, the count is stuck at 99%. The Oregonian has called the race for Merkley. I am not sure that this is definitive--since Oregon is mail-only election, the count won't be finalized at least for another couple of days. On the other hand, the separation is nearly double that of the Alaska Senate race and that one still quite a few votes to count.
With Merkley likely pulling this off, the count of Republican moderates in the Senate is shrinking to 4. Should Coleman lose, it will be down to 3, with two of them in Maine. Big Tent?
Last night several outlets--but not NYT--declared both Georgia presidential count and Senate race as Republican victories. But, not so fast... Both races had Republicans over 56% with supposedly over 99% of precincts counted. Not so fast! TPM followed AP in reporting that early voting results from the Atlanta area were not included in the totals. Oops! The count went from 99% yesterday to 96% tonight. As further numbers came in, the Republican totals dropped precipitously toward 50%. The presidential race has now been called--the actual split is not important, only the plurality is needed to carry the state. Not so for the Senate--Chambliss is sitting (and has been all day) at 49.83%. Since it's below 50%, that points to a mandatory run-off (Georgia is a funny state). The question I have--and it was my guess last night, even before the story broke--is there a mandatory recount if someone is close to 50% in order to avoid a run-off, or does state law prefer a run-off to a recount? I doubt this is a trivial question.
Both Alaskan races appear to have tilted Republican, although the latest numbers I am looking at on the NYT tracker sit at 76% of precincts. Doesn't make much sense--others have it at 99%. I wonder why Alaska would be so slow--and I also wonder what Alaskans are thinking, voting for these two creeps. It does, however, explain Sarah Palin's "popularity" in the state. Apparently, corruption is a required event in this pageant. I wonder if it will be necessary to have Palin run for president in order to keep her from running for reelection in Alaska. Set phasers on stun.
Washington gubernatorial race was not close this time around. (Say good-bye to Rossi!) But one of the House races seems to be headed for a recount. Or maybe not.
Jean Schmidt won in Ohio. Sad. But, on the comedic note, we'll still have Mean Jean and Michelle Bachmann to kick around. With a relative paucity of Republican congressmen these days, do their chances for appearing on cable news shows increase?
The total presidential vote showed a higher percent turnout of registered voters (although some states also allow same-day registration) than the Nixon-Kennedy race. So much for the mandate argument from four years ago when Republicans kept claiming that Bush got the most votes of any presidential candidate in history. The talking heads are already whining that 52% is not a landslide and not a mandate. It's a slim margin. Yeah, and I am just as slim.
I've already heard two radio talk-show hosts claiming that "we're going to impeach [Obama]!" I kid you not! "Sore losers" does not begin to describe these idiots. Actually, Jay Severin's exact words appeared to be more scatological (not the "impeach" part).
Remember the debate kerfuffle on strategy vs. tactics?
Obama has a bigger lead in the still-unfinished North Carolina than McCain does in still-unfinished Missouri. It looks like the final electoral count will not stay at 349.
Indiana went against the polling trend and turned out for Obama. Florida and Ohio also beat the poll projections in his favor. NC and MO lived up to "too close to call" expectations. Interestingly, most of the final tallies across all states appeared to match closely the poll numbers for the trailing candidate. The winner in most states got more than projected. So much for the Rovian observation that Republicans always beat the projected poll numbers.
In case you missed it--Obama beat the Gore and Kerry numbers for the Jewish vote. Exit polls suggest 78%. It might actually be higher. This is after many right-of-center observers predicted the opposite and the McCain campaign and its satellites broke the bank on sending out fear-smears even in the last few days of the campaign. So there are several possibilities. Here are a couple: Obama's debate performance was sufficient to overcome some fears (at least, among Jewish voters); McCain lost all credibility on foreign policy by the end of the campaign; the projected right-shift never happened to begin with. Obama failed, however, to impress the French Jews. On a related note, Russian treasury bailed out a "Jewish banker" to the tune of $2 billion and "Germany’s parliament agreed on a resolution that calls anti-Semitism a 'problem in German society that still demands serious attention.'"I am still waiting for a Bill O'Reilly apology for anything and for the latest odds on a snowball in hell.

Jeepers Freepers

2008-11-04T05:05:00.002-06:00

Barack Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, died from cancer on the eve of elections. Most people pay their respects and offer condolences. Some bite their tongues. Not so for the FreeRepublic conspiracy theorists.

It's understandable that they have conniptions over Obama's birth certificate (some Hillary supporters are still fuming on the subject). And that's crazy enough. But would they stop short of accusing Obama of either murdering his grandmother to get the sympathy vote or keeping her on ice to maximize the impact of the announcement? Not so much--that's exactly what they would do!

For openers,

Obama’s grandmother dies of cancer in Hawaii

Nice timing. That’ll pick up a few sympathy votes for sure.

2 posted on Monday, November 03, 2008 4:57:13 PM by PeterFinn (Sarah Palin for President in 2012.)

OK, so it's just perverse schadenfreude. But it gets worse.

Cancer patients usually pass away from a planned terminal sedation.
This may be the first politically timed terminal sedation ever, though.

9 posted on Monday, November 03, 2008 4:59:53 PM by counterpunch (It’s the SOCIALISM, Stupid!)

Did he have power of attorney over her? Did he decide to stop any kind of life support?

22 posted on Monday, November 03, 2008 5:02:49 PM by nikos1121 (The first black president should be another Jackie Robinson)

Wow, just before the 6:00 news. How convenient

33 posted on Mon Nov 3 17:04:49 2008 by NYC Republican (PLENTY of time for analysis/I-told-you-so in 2 days. Now, Infuriate the MSM--- Support McCain/Palin)

There is no point copying the entire thread. You get the picture.

Some suspect that Obama offed his granny to get the sympathy vote--either as well-timed euthanasia or just in cold blood.

Others opine that she might have died much earlier--e.g., when Obama flew to Hawaii a week earlier, then returned to the East Coast without waiting another day for her birthday.

Yet others wondered why Obama flew back when it was announced that she fell and broke her hip and now she died from cancer.

The only group that was finally deterred was concerned about the fact--and was building its conspiracy theories on it--that the original wire report did not contain the time of death. This was finally put to rest by comment #215 or so, because later reports did mention more details. Still the entire discussion was taking place in a vacuum--they continued to discuss publication times of the local papers as if it was happening in DC.

What a bunch of cold-hearted bastards! No wonder they get worked up about "sharing the wealth" and judicial nominees who would empathize with "those less fortunate"!

It's all part of the same package.

Corrupting Influence

2007-05-20T11:45:00.000-05:00

I've been corrupted! I joined the sloganeering crowd--you may or may not have noticed (and, judging by the traffic, you haven't), but I've added a slogan to the "blog description". It's at the top of the page, but, if you are too lazy to look up there--or are using an RSS feed--here's what is says.

It's not about the Democrats, stupid--it's about Democracy!

I wish more people would reflect this sentiment.

On stabs in the back and other assorted weaselitude

2007-05-15T18:02:00.000-05:00

James Taranto puts out his nonsensical remarks daily. I've been mostly skipping them--too much real work--but I have a break in the drudgery today so, I thought, I'd give it a minute (I dutifully archive all the crap that ends up in my mailbox and I did have a reason to subscribe to Taranto's daily musings once upon a time). And I see that Taranto is still a lying weasel that he's always been.

Pretty Ugly
"Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is calling on his supporters to turn this year's Memorial Day into a day of antiwar activism, saying that the best way to honor the troops is to demand an end to the Iraq war," the Washington Post reports. Edwards, who voted for the war, has set up a Web site for his effort, supportthetroopsendthewar.com.

Andrew Sullivan has observed of Edwards, "He's pretty, he has flowing locks, he's young-looking." But as lovely as Edwards may be on the outside, it is ugly to try to turn a solemn day honoring those who died in the service of their country into a political stunt.

What'll he think of next, turning Christmas into a day of pro-abortion activism?

Note the strategic use of the hair comment, which had absolutely nothing to do with the story. It may be preaching to the choir, but he's still trying to reinforce the message. And, in case you missed it, it's about stabbing the troops in the back! (See here, here, here, here and here.) The reason I am particularly aware of the issue is because I have just spent nearly two hours researching it and sending some correspondence on it literally just before opening Taranto's screed. Of course, the other thing that Taranto does not tell you is that everything that the Bushies do is a political stunt. They've made the self-promoting abuse of the troops-as-backdrop into a ubiquitous routine. Any odds on Bush appearing before the troops just before or on Memorial Day?

Nice Going, Nancy
The Jerusalem Post reports on one Syrian who wasn't happy about Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to dictator Bashar Assad:

Mamoun Homsi is a courageous pro-democracy activist who had been one of the few independent members of Syria's puppet parliament. In March 2002 he was thrown out of the legislature and sentenced to five years in prison. As he was dragged off to jail, Homsi shouted, "This is a badge of honor to me and others like me. Long live the people!"

Released after four years in 2006, Homsi immediately left the country, saying there was no possibility of changing the regime by reform, and that any criticism would bring more imprisonment.

Homsi wrote Pelosi a letter urging her not to visit Syria as such a step would only strengthen the regime. Last week, the government seized all of his assets in the country, leaving his family destitute.

I wonder if Mr. Homsi made any comments on the visit by Rice. Did he write a letter to her as well?

That Explains It!
"A U.S. troop pullout from Iraq would leave the country as a potent launchpad for international terrorism and Washington would be forced to go back in within a couple of years, a leading al Qaeda expert said on Tuesday," Reuters reports:

Rohan Gunaratna told a security conference at Lloyd's of London insurance market that Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 1990s, would become a "terrorist Disneyland" where al Qaeda could build up its strength unchallenged.

And to think, that strange lady in L.A. thought Disney wanted to liberate Iraq.

Huh? And the point is...? Yeah, yeah--it's about the pottery barn rule again...

Speaking if which, I actually followed the link included in this piece. That lead to Taranto's clap-trap from April 30. In addition to the "strange lady" coverage, there was this:

Lynching Was Bad, but . . .
Speaking of the Los Angeles Times, on Friday the paper printed an exceptionally idiotic column by Rosa Brooks titled "9/11 Was Bad, but . . ." Brooks suggests that people who worry about terrorist attacks are "irrational wimps":

The 9/11 attacks were appalling and tragic, but they did not threaten the survival of the nation. . . .

Of course, 3,000 dead is 3,000 too many. But keep it in perspective. As a nation, we have survived far worse. We lost more than 100,000 Americans in World War I, more than 400,000 in World War II, 37,000 in Korea, 58,000 in Vietnam--all without allowing our national character to turn into quivering jelly.

Every year, we also lose millions of Americans to preventable accidents and disease. We're more likely to die on the road than as a result of Al Qaeda's machinations. Annually, we lose some 43,000 people to auto accidents. For the grieving families, that's 43,000 deaths too many. But, although we surely could reduce auto fatalities if we chose to make it our top national priority, the Bush administration has yet to announce a "War on Highway Deaths."

This is unoriginal as well as fatuous. It's not even original in the L.A. Times, which published essentially the same piece three months ago. But in the hope that our new friends at the Times won't make the same mistake a third time, let's repeat our analogy that shows why this is such a ridiculous argument.

According to this table, 4,742 people were lynched in America between 1882 and 1964. That's an average of but 57 people a year, and the number of annual lynchings peaked in 1892, at 230. By the standards Brooks applies to 9/11, lynching was not a big problem. It killed far fewer people than war, disease, accidents, etc.

Yet if someone were lynched tomorrow, would we shrug it off because the number of deaths is only 1/43,000th of the annual car-crash toll? Of course not. It takes a stunning degree of moral obtuseness to treat a murder in the furtherance of a hateful ideology--be it white supremacy or Islamic fundamentalism--as the equivalent of an accidental death.

A similar bit of foolishness comes from Ian Buruma, who won an award at the book festival. In yesterday's Times, he opines:

Just as Jews, during some traditional Passover feasts, ask God to bring down his wrath on the Gentiles who "don't know him," and many Christians believe that hell awaits those who don't subscribe to their faith, Muslims are led to believe that killing the enemies of Islam can be justified.

"Just as"? Surely there is a difference between believing or hoping that God will punish unbelievers and taking it upon oneself to do it. It doesn't speak well of the editors of the L.A. Times that they not only publish such nonsense but do so habitually.

I wonder what rock Taranto was hiding under when Derbyshire and the rest of the idiots were referring to the victims of the VaTech massacre as, for all practical purposes, "irrational wimps".

Finally,

Good Point!
"Wouldn't it be weird if French President-elect Nicolas Sarkozy turns out to be more pro-American than all the Democrats running for U.S. president?"--Jim Seay of Henrico, Va., quoted in the Richmond Times Dispatch's "Your Two Cents" feature

Don't hold your breath, Jimbos!

Law does not apply

2007-04-22T14:56:00.000-05:00

If you want to know why almost no one takes Hamas seriously as civic representatives of the Palestinian territories, all you need is the latest headline in the Jerusalem Post: Hamas calls for new attacks on Israel.

Hamas on Sunday called for new attacks on Israel after nine Palestinians were killed in a surge of fighting over the weekend.
Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum urged Palestinians to be prepared for a new round of confrontation.
"The blood of our people is not cheap," he said in a statement faxed to The Associated Press. "Therefore we are calling on ... (Hamas's armed wing) and the Palestinian resistance groups to be united in the trench of resistance and to use all possible means of resistance and to respond to the massacres."

The Corsicans and their blood feuds got nothing on these idiots. Let's not forget that the Palestinians killed this week were all involved in the very activities for expansion of which Mr. Barhoun is now calling for.

The two Aksa terrorists, including a top bombmaker, were killed in the Casbah of Nablus after IDF troops surrounded a building where they were hiding and ordered people out, the group said. Most occupants came out, but the two operatives remained holed up inside. An exchange of fire broke out, and the two men were killed.
...
On Saturday night, IAF helicopters killed a member of a Kassam rocket cell in a car in the northern Gaza Strip, wounding one of his confederates. It was the second such missile strike since Israel accepted a Gaza cease-fire in November.
Earlier Saturday, Gazans fired four Kassam rockets into Sderot; one scored a direct hit on a home, sending several people into shock.
Three terrorist organizations - Islamic Jihad, and Fatah's Aksa Martyrs Brigades - claimed responsibility for the rocket attacks in a joint statement.
They said they were carried out to avenge the deaths of three terrorists killed by border police in Jenin earlier in the day.

The Daily Star (Beirut) has a different headline, but substantially the same facts:

Two teenagers among dead as Israelis raid Gaza, West Bank
Karim Zahran, 17, was shot dead while throwing stones at Israeli troops near the city of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank, Palestinian security sources and medics said.
The Israeli Army said troops fired at a man in a crowd who was about to throw a Molotov cocktail at soldiers.
In the northern West Bank town of Nablus, the army shot dead two gunmen from Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a militant group affiliated with President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement, Palestinian security sources and the army said. The Palestinian sources identified the dead men as Fadel Nur, 23, and Amin Lubadi, 25, and said they were killed during heavy exchanges of fire with the Israeli troops.
...
Al-Aqsa Brigades vowed to retaliate for the killings.
"We do not cooperate with the Israelis and we use only the language of arms, as it's the only one they understand," Al-Aqsa official Nasser Al-Kharaz told AFP. He also called on Abbas "to cease all contacts and meetings with the Israelis as these do not bring anything and give the world the illusion that Israel speaks of peace."

The Daily Star gives an even better idea of how crass Barhum's comments were.

"We call on Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades [the armed wing of Hamas] and all other Palestinian resistance factions to unite and use all means to respond to the massacres of the occupation," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum said.
Another Hamas spokesman, Ghazi Hamad, called on "the international community to pressure the Israeli government so it stops its crimes against the Palestinian people."

Massacres of the occupation?? Crimes against the Palestinian people? Why not just ask, as a condition for peace, for 10 Israelis to be sent voluntarily to Gaza daily to be blown up? The attitude also explains why the PA police is impotent to stop any crimes either within the territories or against Israelis. They want criminality with impunity. I am not going to try to split hairs over whether throwing rocks, as opposed to throwing a Molotov cocktail, constitutes sufficient threat to the IDF to provoke it to shoot. It's a minor point compared to the rest of this situation.

There is even a bit of irony here. Note that even Arab and other developing world publications have finally adopted more appropriate language and identify Palestinian gunmen and bombmakers who have a tendency of dropping dead from Israeli raids as "Palestinian militants". (Never mind that even Western European papers still tend to adopt the "facts" from Palestinian sources, often ignoring the Israeli version of each story.) In the past, there was no implication in print reports that these men were involved in any sort of adverse activity when IDF soldiers just happened to have killed them.

So this change in coverage is an improvement, right? Perhaps. On the other hand, "militant" has become almost a badge of honor and the response from Palestinian groups remains the same--militant or not, with or without the gun, they reserve the right to retaliate for any Palestinians killed.

An odd parallel--Dahlia Lithwick seems to have come to similar conclusions about Alberto Gonzales's testimony. She is wondering if Gonzo's testimony was not just an elaborate bird-flipping by the White House. Keeping Gonzo in place is not denial--it's a provocation to a virtually impotent Democratic Congress: No matter how criminal we get, you can't touch us (or we'll cry "politics").

Bomb Bomb Iran

2007-04-20T00:38:00.001-05:00

There is a lot of buzz on McCain's off-the-cuff "Bomb Iran" joke. The YouTube video is floating up the charts.

When I first spotted the header at Steve Clemons's The Washington Note blog early Thursday, I did not bother to read the actual post (the picture appeared sufficient)--I simply assumed that Steve or one of his guests was reusing a Carter-era parody song to mock a McCain policy statement. My reaction to the post turned out to be somewhat recursive. Scott Paul wrote,

When I first read it as an unrelated comment to my last post, I brushed it off as a joke.

It's no joke.

Speaking at a VFW meeting in South Carolina, McCain asked when the U.S. would "send an air mail message to Tehran. " McCain replied: "You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, anyway..."

Ann Althouse adds,

Is he trying to be Reaganesque?

alluding to Reagan's "The bombing will begin in five minutes" joke.

McCain is undeterred.

"Please, I was talking to some of my old veterans friends," he told reporters. "My response is, Lighten up and get a life."
When reporters asked if the joke was insensitive, McCain said: "Insensitive to what? The Iranians?"

McCain does not have my vote, but he has my support here. Note how Paul missed the euphemism in the vet's "airmail message" prompt . It's the same kind of mail as the one Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper) warns Jeffrey (Kyle MacLaclan) about in Blue Velvet when he threatens to send him a "love letter". McCain simply replies in kind--especially to the generation that grew up listening to the Beach Boys.

But the joke is far from new. There were several versions popping up during the Iran hostage crisis (Vince Vance and the Valiants was the best known version), and they persisted through the early 1980s. Some, like Vince's, had a definite Right Wing tinge, but not all.

However, there was no YouTube in the 1980s. In fact, there was barely an embryo of an internet. So, not surprisingly, few people remember the lines like "Went to a mosque, gonna throw some rocks. Tell the Ayatollah..."Gonna put you in a box!" " (from Vince's version), "A-rockin'-n'-a-rollin', Nuke'm 'till the'r glow'n'" or "Bomb Ira-a-an, just like Viet-Na-a-am!" (from other versions) that lurked around the college counter-culture music circuit. Beatnik coffee houses are not the internet and 45s are not CDs.

But no one seems to have bothered to check more recent archives either. Here's one version (Adam Kontras) that appeared almost exactly a year ago.
[Update NOTE: The clip will pop up in a new tab or window. It starts with a brief ad.]

No wonder that the site that distributes the Kontras clip came up with a humorous take:

John McCain Rips Off AtomFilms!!

It is unusual that the same song not only served for multiple parodies at different time periods, but that it spawned versions from both ends of the political spectrum (although the ones from the Left were distinctly more ironic). The fact that McCain tapped into the same channel shows that he still has a sense of humor and can still connect the dots. His critics, on the other hand, are getting stale. Meanwhile, the Corner is poll-watching...

Gun control

2007-04-18T13:49:00.000-05:00

[UPDATE: some changes and additions made to the text; links updated]

Steve Soto beat me to the punch, but the buzz is just beginning to rise. There have been many exchanges over gun control since the Virginia Tech shooting--with some comments being plainly delusional--but, best I can tell, no one proposed a rational approach to policy change following the tragedy. Rep. Jane Harman took the opportunity--in my view, inappropriately--to plug her bill to renew the assault weapons ban. She failed to explain how her proposal would have prevented or mitigated the most recent disaster.

Conservative blogs put on a dog and pony show to convince the masses that it would have been better if Virginia Tech did not have a gun ban because than any half-cocked student or professor with a concealed weapon could have taken out the creep. (And this is only some of the nonsense that's flying out there. There is also a distinct blame-the-victim tinge to their comments.) None of them consider the other likely consequences (especially in light of John Derbyshire's admission of utter inability to shoot straight). With multiple gunmen, the likely outcome indeed would be a possibility--nothing more--that someone would have shot the perpetrator. There is also a distinct possibility that the resulting barrage of bullets would result in significant collateral damage, compounding the tragedy. And, to make matters worse, there is also the possibility that, in a rush to resolve the situation, NYPD style, the police would end up shooting the "hero". And if they did not do it, a bunch of "heroes" likely would shoot each other. Color me unconvinced.

My initial instinct was that the gun dealer would be blamed. I was likely mistaken. The state should escape liability. But the university itself--and, yes, I know it's a state institution--may well be on the hook, especially with the latest revelations. Cho's background may also take the wind out of gun advocates' sails.

Here's the news, in a nutshell:

The Centreville man responsible for Monday's shooting rampage at Virginia Tech was questioned by police twice in 2005 after female students complained he was harassing them and was hospitalized after he was reported to be suicidal, the campus police chief said this morning.
...
In the first case -- in November 2005 -- officers referred Cho to the university discipline system. The next month, at the request of the second female student, officers met with Cho to ask him not to contact her again.
Hours later, a friend of Cho's called campus police to say he seemed suicidal, Flinchum said. Police then contacted Cho again and persuaded him to undergo an outside psychiatric evaluation. Officials said they did not send Cho to the campus counseling center because staff there do not have the authority to involuntarily hospitalize patients.
Cho was admitted to Carilion St. Albans Psychiatric Hospital in nearby Radford, Va., on Dec. 13, 2005. Officials said they believe Cho entered the hospital voluntarily. They would not say how much time he spent there, citing privacy rules. [emphasis added]

To sum up, the kid was 1) a serial stalker, 2) became despondent and suicidal when confronted, and 3)was institutionalized for mental problems as a result.

An average Second Amendment dead-ender will say, "So what? You can't make laws to take all crazy people into account. If someone wants to get a gun, he can get illegally. Are you going to penalize all normal people because of some crazy guy?"

There is a simple concept known as hedging. We don't lock our doors to prevent burglaries--we do it to make them more difficult. We don't invent draconian travel restrictions to guarantee that terrorists will not find their way in. No--we do it to make it more difficult for them. Abortion opponents demand waiting periods, notifications and multiple consultations. Do they think that they are stopping abortions? No--they are making them more difficult, acting as a deterrent in at least some cases. [Note: I don't support these tactics, but for unrelated reasons.]

Why not institute a background check that puts up red flags not only on ex-felons, but and those who satisfy conditions (1), (2) or (3).

Mental health advocates might object that I am proposing taking rights away from people simply because of their health problems. Although this may nominally be true, the health problems are not the cause of the action I propose--it is the specific nature of the problem that makes gun possession an unjustifiable risk.

People enter mental health facilities for a number of reasons. Not all of these pose risk, but certainly, if the cause is depression, suicidal tendencies (a variation on depression, I suppose), drug or alcohol abuse or more pervasive disorders (e.g., schizophrenia), possession of guns poses a risk. Certainly an involuntary hospitalization points to an extensive problem and lack of self-control that would be anathema to gun possession. I am sure there are professional publications that outline all the risk factors for random violence, and they should confirm my theory. I am not suggesting that every behavioral flag should turn into a background check flag, but there is no question that some represent a major change in risk and should be considered in a background check.

Specific forms of obsessive behavior--such as stalking or domestic abuse--are also major risk factors that should be taken into account. Not all stalkings result in abuse, and, of those, fewer still involve weapons, but the risk is unacceptable, compared to the risk from an average person without these problems. Domestic abuse reports and stalking reports--should go into a closed law-enforcement database that is only used for gun permits and sales. I am not suggesting that it should be used for other purposes.

Add these to the restrictions on felons--especially those who were involved in violent crimes or drug-related crimes--and we have a fairly comprehensive background check. On top of this, of course, there is the usual restriction on non-citizens--not even the most zealous Second Amendment advocate would argue against this particular restriction (in fact, they are likely to demand it).

There are some fine points that need ironing. For example, in Wisconsin, the first drunk-driving conviction is not a felony. For my money, someone who drives drunk shows the kind of lack of self-restraint that should result in the deprivation of a gun license, irrespectively of whether the specific offense is a felony. If one drives drunk, what would prevent him from handling a gun drunk?

Worse yet, many states don't even require a license or a permit, so implementing any restrictions would be difficult. But not impossible...

Even Second Amendment zealots admit that civilian gun ownership is meant to support a militia--not the White Supremacist or survivalist kind, obviously, although, some of the true nuts do not make that distinction. And, since the purpose is, ostensibly, "a well-regulated militia", there is no reason why militia-related training--er, gun handling training--should not be required. Want to buy a gun? No problem--just show proof of recent training for the type of weapon you want to buy or sign up for a class. And mandate periodic "continuous education" type training as a condition for perpetual extension of a permit. This should also weed out people who get red-flagged after getting a permit or whose mental condition slowly deteriorates.

Tommy, can you hear me?

2007-04-18T11:56:00.000-05:00

Those from Wisconsin and Illinois have always known that Tommy Thompson is not the brightest light bulb on the tree. That has not stopped him from mulling over his presidential aspirations. Some locals have claimed that he might have had a good chance a decade ago--with Bob Dole and George Bush as eventual nominees, Thompson could have made it interesting, they say.

This is doubtful. Thompson never had the financial backing of Bush, and Dole was running on inevitability--the same kind of campaign that John McCain expected to run in this cycle-- because he "earned" the nomination. As we can see from McCain's predicament, even "inevitable" candidates can take a precipitous drop. However, Thompson was hardly the candidate to knock Dole off the perch.

Thompson is an affable enough guy, but that does not make him presidential material. His faux pas before a group of Reform Jews did not win him any supporters. He made matters worse with a backhanded apology--he was trying to be complimentary. Why didn't Imus think of that!

Well, a day later he tried a different tack:

"I was tired, I made a mistake and I apologized," Thompson told a group of Politico reporters and editors in an interview.

"Have you ever made a mistake?," a testy Thompson demanded of this reporter.

That sounds a lot more plausible (except for the "apologized" part). But why get snippy?

The problem with getting snippy is that you end up saying things that make little sense.

Thompson also noted that he had received an award from the Anti-Defamation League and traveled to Israel last year to accept a "Friend of Zion" award from former Prime Ministers Benjamin Netanyahu and Shimon Peres.

Is it just me or does this sound like, "Some of my best friends are Jewish people!" (OK, so he actually says, "I am a friend of the Jewish people," but it's the same message.) If someone accuses you of an ethnically insensitive comment, accept it and move on. Don't dig deeper by trying to explain it, or get defensive and snap at reporters. It makes people think that you really meant it.

Thompson is no Mel Gibson or Pat Buchanan, but he really needs a few lessons in public speaking and diplomacy. A briefing session with Kerry and Biden mulling over jokes that should not have been made might help too. Doesn't matter--Tommy is going home empty-handed in any case. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy!

Vulture Circus

2007-04-18T01:29:00.000-05:00

[UPDATE: Every day seems to bring more!]

The blood of the victims is not even dry yet, but the venom is dripping in full force. And I am not even talking about a misplaced, but, at least, not-quite-in-bad-taste remarks by Dana Perino in representing the President's position. That's mild stuff!

Consider Larry Pratt:

"It is irresponsibly dangerous to tell citizens that they may not have guns at schools," said Larry Pratt, director of Gun Owners of America.

Jacob Sullum has expressed similar sentiments.

How about Michelle Malkin?

Is it too early to ask: "What if?" What if that bill had passed? What if just one student in one of those classrooms had been in lawful possession of a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense?

Or John Derbyshire?

Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22.

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad.

Commenting on Derbyshire's observation, Nathanael Blake also observed,

College classrooms have scads of young men who are at their physical peak, and none of them seems to have done anything beyond ducking, running, and holding doors shut. Meanwhile, an old man hurled his body at the shooter to save others.

Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that.

One can only hope that Derbyshire and Blake find themselves in such a position one day, so that they can show the rest of us how manly they really are. As for Pratt's, Sullum's and Malkin's queries, I suggest just two words--collateral damage.

Then, there is Answers in Genesis's Ken Ham.

Naturalism (in essence, atheism) has become the religion of the day and has become the foundation of the education system (and Western culture as a whole). The more such a philosophy permeates the culture, the more we would expect to see a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness that pervades people’s thinking. In fact, the more a culture allows the killing of the unborn, the more we will see people treating life in general as “cheap.”
I’m not at all saying that the person who committed these murders at Virginia Tech was driven by a belief in millions of years or evolution. I don’t know why this person did what he did, except the obvious: that it was a result of sin. However, when we see such death and violence, it is a reminder to us that without God’s Word (and the literal history in Genesis 1–11), people will not understand why such things happen.

Yes, naturalism and belief in evolution are the driving force behind such events. I guess, Ham added the second paragraph to avoid being unfavorably compared to Ward Churchill and his "Little Eichmans".

Another great find is a self-proclaimed "school shooting expert" Jack Tompson, playing the role on Fox News. Thompson blames everything on video games. "In order to pull this off, with this high a body count, Bill, one has to have rehearsed it to get ready to do it," he said. An idiot Fox anchor plays foil by suggesting, "[Students] described the gunman as chaining the doors behind him...--that sounds like premeditation, does it not?" Then he finishes off the interview, "Jack Thompson, ... he's an attorney and a specialist... Unfortunately, we can use that word in school shootings in America today..."

In case you're wondering, Thompson is the ambulance chaser who specializes in suing schools where such events occur.

The worst, by far, however, is Debbie Schlussel. Not content waiting for information to trickle in, she came up with an advance theory.

* The murderer has been identified by law enforcement and media reports as "a young Asian male."

* The Virginia Tech campus has a very large Muslim community, many of which are from Pakistan (per terrorism investigator Bill Warner).

* Pakis are considered "Asian."

Of course, one must also blame the pro-Muslim bias of the liberal media.

So who is the shooter? What is the shooter's nationality? What is the shooter's religion? Waiting to find out. And wondering why the police and media are referring to the shooter as "Asian" and not by specific nationality.
...
Why am I speculating that the "Asian" gunman is a Pakistani Muslim? Because law enforcement and the media strangely won't tell us more specifically who the gunman is. Why?

Even if it does not turn out that the shooter is Muslim, this is a demonstration to Muslim jihadists all over that it is extremely easy to shoot and kill multiple American college students.

I wish I was making this up! Schlussel goes through multiple updates

The shooter has now been identified as a Chinese national here on a student visa. Lovely. Yet another reason to stop letting in so many foreign students.

The shooter has now been identified as a South Korean national, who is a permanent resident.

The headline still says "S.KOREAN w/Student Visa".

But Schlussel is not done. When a reader points out that "Paki" is a slur, she goes ballistic.

YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM IS FLAWED. EITHER TERM IS CORRECT. WHAT IS THIS--THE IMUS THOUGHT POLICE?
...
UH, ACTUALLY IT ISN'T A RACIAL SLUR. AND WHERE WERE YOU WHEN DICK CHENEY AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FRAN TOWNSEND CALLED THEM PAKIS? SORRY, BUT WE HAVE NO USE FOR THE IMUS THOUGHT POLICE HERE. GO TO OPRAH'S SITE AND HAVE FUN THERE.

When another reader tried to play her game, she got worse.

Ms. Schussel, you are a empty-souled, vampiric monster.
I APPRECIATE THE RESPECTFUL "MS." WITH THE INSULTS. MAKES IT SO MUCH MORE CIVILIZED. FYI, BLOOD IS NOT KOSHER, SO IT IS AGAINST MY RELIGION TO BECOME A VAMPIRE. SORRY TO DISAPPOINT. AS FOR YOUR SPITTING, CONGRATS! YOU ARE IN AN EXCLUSIVE AND DISTINGUISHED CLUB OF SPITTERS, LIKE THE REV. JESSE "I SPIT IN WHITE PEOPLE'S SALADS" JACKSON. YOU MAY NOW RETURN TO YOUR KOOL-AID. I HEAR YOU ENJOY THE PURPLE VARIETY.

And, in case you're wondering if she really blames the Muslim-loving media, take a look at another post.

Hmmm . . . I'm sure of all the thousands of students at the memorial mourning the dead at Virginia Tech's convocation, today, the Washington Post took this and chose this particular one at random for its cover shot at its website, WashingtonPost.com. Just a random photo, right? I mean, I'm sure this objective mainstream media outlet would nevah evah have an agenda . . . .

What's the Post's offense? Just having a few Muslim women at the front of the photo. It's interesting that Schlussel does not believe in randomness of the photo after pointing out for two days that there are a lot of Muslims on the Virginia Tech campus. She also eventually mimicked Malkin by posting about the bill to prohibit universities from becoming gun-free zones. There are at least three other posts where she suggests that the shooter was either a Muslim terrorist or trained by Muslim terrorists, because he did such a "professional job".

Malkin may eventually outdo Schlussel for the honor, but, for my money, Olbermann should pronounce Schlussel Worst Person in the World! Unfortunately, Olbermann left Schlussel in third place, giving the "prize" to Derbyshire.

H/t on some links to ScienceBlog and Steve Benen.

How the State Department protects democracy

2007-04-17T23:50:00.000-05:00

There is a bunch of really funny stuff here.

Some is incredibly ironic.

"We see democracy being hijacked all over the place," committee member Chester Crocker told his colleagues.

(I wonder how Chester feels about Dick Cheney.)

Some is just poetic.

"Poverty is a cancer that affects democracy," Atwood argued.

"The real cancer is corruption," Gershman rebutted.

(I wonder how Gershman feels about Dick Cheney.)

And some is linguistically odd.

"We've already gotten some outstanding recommendations. . . . I think the other recommendations are great. . . . I couldn't agree more. . . . I agree completely. . . . Great comments. . . . I find myself in violent agreement with what's been said around the table." [emphasis added]

That would be from the former and future Stanford professor Rice.

The Russians get it (Checks and Balances)

2007-02-18T21:56:00.000-06:00

You can find some interesting, if basic, commentary on the Iraq escalation votes in a Russian publication Kommersant. Sergey Strokan comments in "Anti-Presidential Congress":

After the unceasing debates on Capitol Hill last week regarding George Bush's new strategy in Iraq, the US Congress showed its colors regarding the military operations in Iraq during votes on resolutions put forth by Democratic opponents of the White House. Though the resolutions are nonbinding, the votes themselves were of fundamental importance, since they gave the voters a clear picture of the position that their congressional representatives take on what has become the most significant political issue in America.

In case you expect another rehash of the stories that popped up in the New York Times or the Washington Post, think again:

Nevertheless, despite the appearance of failure in the Senate, not only did the Democrats not act beaten – they actually claimed victory, insisting that a radical about-face has already taken place in the attitude in Congress. The Republicans are increasingly jumping ship and taking the side of the Democrats, which is leaving the White House more and more isolated and weakening the already thinning ranks of its allies. ... The conclusion that the vote in the Senate was a victory for the Democrats was confirmed by influential Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has continued to support President Bush on the question of Iraq. "This is a very, very sad Saturday for the U.S. Senate on the heels of a disaster in the U.S. House," said Senator Graham, who accused the Democrats of "playing stupid political games while people are off over in Iraq trying to win this war."

Despite some good political reporting, one does get the sense that dealing with American politics is still foreign to Russain reporters. At one point, Strokan mentions " Well-known Democratic Senator John Murtha". Elsewhere, he picks up on Lieberman's comments earlier in the week, suggesting, "some wonder whether the resolutions in the House and the Senate may signify a widening gulf between the branches of government that may precipitate a constitutional crisis in America."

At least, someone's paying attention!

UPDATE: For the background on the publication itself, take a look at the Wiki article.

Maybe they should ask creationists for a new theory...

2007-02-14T09:26:00.000-06:00

The Bush administration did not have a good week. Their case for attacking Iran is evaporating. The nuclear build-up clearly was already judged insufficient, possibly because of comparison with the Iraq build-up--even Bush knows the "Fool me, can't get fooled again" line.

A concerted push to paint Iran as an anti-US agressor in Iraq failed--not only was the report questioned on factual information, but even General Pace found the claim problematic, not once, but twice. Even the New York Times is questioning its own zeal in reporting the story.

Speaker Pelosi asserted "No more blank checks for the President" policy. Whether this bark has any bite remains to be seen, but it's been a long time that either chamber stood up to the White House in such clear terms.

And now another rug has been pulled from under the administration. Yesterday, a car bomb blew up a bus that belonged to Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Initial report from the IRNA (official Iranian news agency) put the toll at 18 lives, although later reports from other sources have lowered to figure to 11 dead (and 30+ wounded). IRNA has now also reduced the casualty count. The bomb was stationary, detonated remotely, but there are mixed reports about other circumstances. Some accounts reported two gunmen on motorcycles who opened fire on the bus making it stop next to the rigged car. The Reuters version has four men jumping out of an apparently broken down car, then leaving on motorcycles after the explosion. Four or five men have been picked up in connection with the bombing, although, of course, there is no way to ascertain if these are the same men. IRNA claims that two were arrested immediately after the attack, carrying a camera (!) and grenades.

If I were one of Iranian leaders, I would blame the US for trying to destabilize the country--no evidence is needed for such broad rhetorical statements. Of course, such claims would not have much effect on anyone, other than the zealous Iranian "students" calling for the heads of Americans. On the other hand, Zahedan, which is near the triple point of Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan border, has been stewing for a while. A specific Sunni cell has claimed responsibility here. This has led to some interesting observations, including this lede in the Guadian:

Sunni rebels allegedly linked to al-Qaida were blamed for a deadly car bomb attack which destroyed a bus and killed at least 11 Revolutionary Guards today in the latest outbreak of violence to strike one of Iran's most unstable provinces.

Not exactly a major deviation, but it does have that curious phrase--"linked to al-Qaida". I guess, this rules out any attempt to link Iran with al-Qaeda. It might have been an impossible task even before these reports appeared, but, one would hope, following the revelation, the press should be able to shoot down any such attempt in short order.

Iran and al-Qaeda--a fundamentalist Sunni enterprise--have no love lost for each other. Let's also not forget that Iran offered US help in eradicating the Taliban--an offer that was ill-advisedly rejected in public, although Iranian intelligence likely was used in Afghanistan. Now we learn that this is a two-way street and Taliban-like units on the Afghanistan border are ready to do damage to Iran as well.

crockpot

2006-10-17T10:29:00.000-05:00

Yes, crockpot, not "crackpot". I have been slow in developing and updating this place, but I will get to it... eventually. Maybe today ;-)

So much to do, so little time...