Month: August 2007

Progress In Iraq (Not!)

by

by hilzoy

From the NYT:

“An independent commission established by Congress to assess Iraq’s security forces will recommend remaking the 26,000-member national police force to purge it of corrupt officers and Shiite militants suspected of complicity in sectarian killings, administration and military officials said Thursday.

The commission, headed by Gen. James L. Jones, the former top United States commander in Europe, concludes that the rampant sectarianism that has existed since the formation of the police force requires that its current units “be scrapped” and reshaped into a smaller, more elite organization, according to one senior official familiar with the findings. The recommendation is that “we should start over,” the official said.

The report, which will be presented to Congress next week, is among a number of new Iraq assessments — including a national intelligence estimate and a Government Accountability Office report — that await lawmakers when they return from summer recess. But the Jones commission’s assessment is likely to receive particular attention as the work of a highly regarded team that was alone in focusing directly on the worthiness of Iraq’s army and police force.”

Start over. On the entire national police force. This is hardly encouraging news, though it’s not a surprise either, especially not after “the working draft of a secret document prepared by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad” obtained by the Nation, which says the following about the Ministry of the Interior (MOI), which is in charge of the police force:

MOI is a ‘legal enterprise’ which has been co-opted by organized criminals who act through the ‘legal enterprise’ to commit crimes such as kidnapping, extortion, bribery, etc.”

Meanwhile, the National Security Network has compiled a list of problems with assessing the administration’s claims that violence in Iraq has been reduced:

“For the past month, the Bush Administration and General Petraeus have asserted that a drop in violence is evidence that the “surge” is working. Unfortunately, the evidence is difficult to validate. Underreporting civilian deaths is, sadly, nothing new. A number of U.S. agencies differ with the Administration’s assessment that sectarian violence is down and in fact there are inconsistencies within the Pentagon’s own reporting. The Iraq Study Group concluded that in the past car-bombs that don’t kill Americans, murders, and inter-ethnic violence were not tracked in order to demonstrate reduced violence. Recent analysis indicates that some of these trends continue. More importantly, the military has refused to show the public any evidence to support the claim that violence is down.”

The full list of issues with the numbers is worth reading in its entirety. One item is particularly striking:

“There were significant revisions to the way the Pentagon’s reports measure sectarian violence between its March 2007 report and its June 2007 report. The original data for the five months before the surge began (September 2006 through January 2007) indicated approximately 5,500 sectarian killings. In the revised data in the June 2007 report, those numbers had been adjusted to roughly 7,400 killings – a 25% increase. These discrepancies have the impact of making the sectarian violence appear significantly worse during the fall and winter of 2006 before the President’s “surge” began.”

Spencer Ackerman reports this as well, with useful graphs. As he points out, this might be an artifact of a change in methodology. In any case, it would be nice if the Pentagon explained what accounts for a 25% increase in its own figures for the same month.

It would also be nice if the administration would share with us its basis for the claim that violence in Iraq is coming down. But from where I sit, it doesn’t seem to be true. (See, for instance, Kevin Drum.)

And it certainly won’t go down if the Iraqis have to disband their police force.

[UPDATE: More on the Pentagon’s numbers below the fold.]

Read more

More On “The Antitotalitarian Left”

by

by hilzoy

(Note: this is a response to a post on Andrew Sullivan’s blog. Most of the posts I’ve written while guest-blogging there have fit both places; this one, however, is more a Sullivan post. But I put it here anyways. If you want the background, here’s the post I’m responding to, and here’s Steve Clemons’ response, which he posted before I posted this.)

I agree with Steve Clemons’ response to Jamie’s post ‘Whither the Antitotalitarian Left?‘. But I am also puzzled by one other point that Jamie makes:

“With the impending realist takeover of the Democratic Party, anti-totalitarianism will recede, and this is unfortunate. Whereas once the AFL-CIO had a large and effective international office, you’d be hard-pressed to hear, for instance, what they’re doing for Iraqi trade-unionists. (…)

Liberal interventionism, as a doctrine, has worked and ought to stay alive in the hearts of those claiming to be liberals–in spite of the failures of Iraq. Beyond the particularities of specific military interventions, what is most worrying is that the left has become so embittered by the response to 9/11 that it has withdrawn into a feral crouch from which it is more suspicious of what the Western democracies do to protect themselves than it is with the plight of oppressed people abroad. (…)

We may very well have a Democratic president. But what will inform their foreign policy values now that the Democratic Party is not animated by the anti-totalitarianism of old, but rather a mere hatred for the president and a serious lack of faith in even the potential role America can play in the world?”

I do not question the claim that “anti-totalitarianism” has receded in the Democratic Party. This is surely true. And there’s a good reason for it: totalitarianism is no longer the major danger that we face abroad. Despite George W. Bush’s attempts to paint al Qaeda as a totalitarian group bent on imposing a Caliphate on the world, al Qaeda is not a totalitarian organization, and its natural allies are not totalitarian regimes but failed states. In fact, there are not that many totalitarian states presently in existence; of those, some (e.g., Myanmar) pose no threat to us, while others threaten us not because they are totalitarian, but for some other reason. (E.g., North Korea threatens us because of the possibility that it might export its weapons, not its ideology.)

Our central foreign policy problems — for instance, failed states and the violence they foster, the rise of China, Iraq and the risk of further destabilization in the Middle East and Pakistan, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the collapse of our moral standing in the world in general and the Middle East in particular — have very little to do with totalitarianism. For this reason, it would be odd if anti-totalitarianism were still the driving force behind liberal foreign policy — not quite as odd as if we were all animated by fear of German militarism or the Bonapartist menace, but odd nonetheless.

I am, however, puzzled by the claim that the Democratic Party is about to undergo a “realist takeover”, and that it is animated by “a mere hatred for the president and a serious lack of faith in even the potential role America can play in the world.” What is the evidence for this claim? As best I can tell, the only evidence Jamie provides for his assertions about what motivates Democrats is his link to this article about a new foreign policy think-tank. It describes the people in that think-tank as believing that Democrats ought to be less interventionist and more realistic. But it presents very little evidence that Democrats are in fact following that prescription; in fact, when the article Jamie cites characterizes Democratic foreign policy as a whole, it is carefully noncommittal (e.g., “Just how much influence their argument is having on the front-runners in the Democratic presidential race is not immediately apparent.”)

The article does argue that some Democratic candidates have moved in realist directions, but its evidence is fairly weak. For instance, to support the claim that this is true of Hillary Clinton, it notes that in a recent speech on her foreign policy priorities, she “listed national interest first and values last, a slight shift, but a significant one to the finely-attuned ears of the foreign policy establishment.” As causes for concern go, the order in which Hillary Clinton lists her points doesn’t rank very high on my list. Moreover, as the article notes, and as I argued earlier, Barack Obama is not a foreign-policy realist at all. In general, the article describes the Democratic Party as one in which there is a “a genuine clash of worldviews”, not one that’s about to be taken over by anyone. So I’m not sure how linking to this article supports Jamie’s position.

There are Democrats who think that the idea of promoting democracy abroad has been so tarnished by George W. Bush that we should leave it aside for now and concentrate on rebuilding our own moral credibility. This is not exactly foreign policy realism: many people who hold this view think that rebuilding our moral credibility involves doing straightforwardly good things in other countries, and generally reclaiming the right to stand for our values. Others, myself included, think that we should make the case that George W. Bush has never been serious about promoting democracy to begin with, rather than ceding the term ‘promoting democracy’ to him. Some Democrats (and Republicans) are tempted to conclude that the United States has neither the patience nor the wisdom to try to promote our values abroad at all. But I don’t think many of us are animated solely by “mere hatred for the president and a serious lack of faith in even the potential role America can play in the world”, especially not if we’re talking about policy makers and advisors, as any discussion of a “takeover” of the Democratic Party must. I’d be interested in any evidence to the contrary that Jamie might present.

That brings me to my next point, which I’ll discuss below the fold.

Read more

Larry Craig’s Own Personal Absalom, Absalom!

by

by publius

Over at Volokh, Dale Carpenter has an interesting, and touching, post on the GOP’s dysfunctional relationship with homosexuality. It’s more than hypocrisy, Carpenter says, something more complicated. I think he understates the base’s visceral dislike for homosexuality (which is what’s driving all this in the first place), but it’s still an interesting post:

The big, open secret in Republican politics is that everyone knows someone gay these days and very few people – excepting some committed anti-gay activists – really care. . . . So to keep religious conservatives happy the party has done two things. First, it has steadfastly resisted efforts to ease anti-gay discrimination in public policy, even when Republican politicians know better. . . . Second, to keep the talent it needs and simply to be as humane and decent as politically possible toward particular individuals, the party has come up with its own unwritten common-law code: you can be gay and work here, we don’t care, but don’t talk about it[.]

This uneasy mix of the public and the private is not exactly what I’d call hypocrisy. It’s perhaps better described as a form of ideological schizophrenia: private acceptance welded to public rejection. It’s a very unstable alloy.

For the closeted gay Republican, this alloy means a life of desperation and fear and loneliness, of expressing one’s true feelings only in the anonymity of the Internet, of furtive bathroom encounters, of late nights darting in and out of dark bars, hoping not to be seen. It means life without a long-term partner, without real love.

In reading this, I thought of Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom! There are some fascinating parallels between Mr. Craig and Mr. Sutpen’s tragic falls. Major spoilers below, so I’ve put it below the fold.

Read more

Benchmarks: Then And Now

by

by hilzoy The President’s Address to the Nation, January 10, 2007: “I’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the … Read more

The GAO Report On Iraq

by

by hilzoy From the Washington Post: “Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range … Read more

Uh, No.

by

by hilzoy Apparently, the editors responsible for keeping the Washington Post’s style spare and lean were on strike today: “Consider the bathroom stall, that utilitarian public enclosure of cold steel and drab hue. It can be a world of untold secrets, codes and signals as invitations to partake. Like foot-tapping: Who knew? Let us peer … Read more

Democrats: Grow A Spine

by

by hilzoy From the Washington Post: “A growing clamor among rank-and-file Democrats to halt President Bush’s most controversial tactics in the fight against terrorism has exposed deep divisions within the party, with many Democrats angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center. The Democrats’ … Read more

Katrina: Two Years Later

by

by hilzoy When George W. Bush finally managed to get to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, he said this: “Tonight I also offer this pledge of the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes, to help citizens rebuild their … Read more

A Question of Motives

by

by publius Over at the TPM empire, I see that Republican Senators Norm Coleman (MN) and John McCain have called on Craig to resign. That’s quite a step. To be cynical, though, they were likely motivated to take this extreme step for two completely different reasons. Coleman — being up for re-election in a Blue … Read more

Copyright Law v. iPhone Freedom Fighters

by

by publius Big news brewing on the iPhone front. As you may have heard, a teenager (not Miss Teen South Carolina, sources report) posted instructions about how to “unlock” the iPhone. Unlocking it means you can use it on other networks and not just AT&T’s. There’s a little wrinkle though – copyright law. I’m still … Read more

Larry Craig

by

by hilzoy From Roll Call: “Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon. Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International … Read more

Why Conservatives Opposed Gonzales

by

by publius Ah, Fredo, we hardly knew ye. Actually, we did knew ye, we just didn’t much like ye. I don’t have much to add — the man should never have been nominated in the first place, and will probably rank as one of the weakest AGs in American history. On a brighter note, it’s … Read more

At Last!

by

by hilzoy From the NYT: “Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington. Mr. Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by … Read more

Over Lunch

by

by hilzoy I thought I knew most of the major blunders of the Bush administration’s foray into Iraq. But Roger Cohen has come up with a new one. He’s talking about Zalmay Khalilzad: “Khalilzad’s anguish centers on May 6, 2003. That’s the day he expected Bush to announce his return to Iraq to convene a … Read more

Bush’s Speech: The Contest

by

by hilzoy Remember a few days ago when I wrote this about Bush’s recent speech, the one in which he invoked Alden Pyle? “For Bush to compare opponents of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq to Alden Pyle is like King Leopold of Belgium countering criticism of his genocidal policies in the Congo, which resulted … Read more

The Obama Doctrine

by

Oh dear: it’s only my second day as a guest-blogger at Andrew Sullivan’s place, and I’m already getting into a disagreement. My co-guest-blogger Jamie links to an article he wrote in the Providence Journal about something he calls the Obama Doctrine. From his article:

“Judging from his statements thus far, it appears that Illinois Democratic senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama — though many steps away from becoming leader of the Free World — has presciently formulated his own doctrine: The United States will remain impassive in the face of genocide.”

This would be strange if it were true — after all, one of Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisors is Samantha Power, a human rights activist and scholar best known for her book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Luckily, however, it’s not. I’ll try to explain why, and provide evidence, below the fold.

Read more

Miles Deep, Inches Wide

by

by G’Kar I just wanted to express a quick note regarding my location (occupied Narn) and how it affects my assessment of the situation on the ground there. While I see a lot here, I hardly see everything even in my relatively small slice of the pie. Therefore, while I can provide some useful on-site … Read more

Think First, Speak Second

by

by publius

I know that O’Hanlon is the wanker du jour, but let’s not ignore this op-ed by relatively-liberal Democrat Brian Baird. Basic story — Baird voted against the war, but recent events persuaded him to speak out for more time. As a result, the Washington Post gets to write lines like this: “[T]he administration indicated their belief that the political debate in Washington has moved in the administration’s favor this month, pointing in particular to a number of Democrats who have spoken positively of some security improvements in Iraq.”

I have a veritable treasure chest of “wanker”-derived adjectives, but I’m not going to use them. Baird seems like a good guy, and frankly, I suspect many of his ideological fellow travelers might be having similar thoughts — especially those who don’t read blogs. So rather than attacking him, I want to explain in the most substantive, non-snarky way I can the problem with Baird’s position (which includes his speaking out publicly).

1 – Understand that Bush will never leave. It’s clear that the administration will keep the maximum number of troops in Iraq until they are forced to do otherwise. As Josh Marshallsomeone I read explained [I think Josh Marshall, but I couldn’t find the link], the administration’s incentives are now distinct from the nation’s incentives. They are playing out the clock in hopes that something — anything — will turn their way before they leave. The good faith supporters of this strategy cling to the hope that something will change. The bad faith supporters (Kristol) see the writing on the wall and want to buy time to push the eventual withdrawal to a Democratic administration that can be blamed for “losing.” Both positions, however, are irresponsible, even if for different reasons.

2 – The debate is not stay or leave, but stay or start leaving. The political (and military) reality is that it’s not remotely possible to withdraw rapidly. Baird’s op-ed is doing a bit of strawman attacking. The most that could happen — and only then with collapsed GOP support — is that we can begin the process. That’s what the upcoming debate is about — whether or not Congress can muster the numbers to force the beginning of a withdrawal. Bush, of course, will not budge unless forced.

3 – The only way to force Bush to start leaving is through political pressure to Congress. Democrats simply don’t have the numbers to force anything on this President. GOP support has to collapse. This will only happen if the GOP feels political heat on Iraq.

4 – There is a brief window of time to force Bush’s hand. Fall 2007 was gearing up to be the administration’s most vulnerable window. It’s not just the timing of the Petraeus report, but the very nature of the appropriations process that makes this a unique, if fleeting, opportunity. It’s pretty much now or never. If Bush can survive the next month or two, he’s home free and can dump our (admittedly humiliating) withdrawal off to the next President.

5 – Bush needs to buy time. All Bush needs to do is buy some time, primarily with congressional GOP members. He’s just got to squeak through. Accordingly, the plan is to seize on anything that can buy that time. What people like O’Hanlon and Baird don’t (but should) realize is that they’re playing squarely into the administration’s hand by providing Congressional Republicans cover. Their op-eds let Republican legislators go on TV (or go to a state fair back home) and say, “Even Democrats are saying we need more time.” It’s difficult to overstate the political consequences of Baird and O’Hanlon’s actions. At the very least, they’re creating doubt within the minds of the public (often busy people who don’t have time to read up on Brookings’ comings-and-goings) by generating unfavorable talk show debate agendas. And, even worse, they’re releasing steam from the political pressure cooker — the one source of pressure that could actually lead to change.

Ok, fine, you say. But what if Baird and O’Hanlon really mean it? Are you asking them to be blind ideologues who should ignore facts and their deeply-held beliefs? It’s a fair question. After all, if it’s truly a bad idea to withdraw even one troop, then Baird and O’Hanlon are doing the right thing. Apparently, Baird and O’Hanlon really believe that we should keep them there for the indefinite future. So again, if that’s what they truly believe, what’s wrong with them saying so?

Read more

Just Wondering …

by

by hilzoy For some unfathomable reason, the Wall Street Journal has run columns by Ted Nugent on several occasions. Why they would want to give the author of songs like “Wang Dang Sweet Poontang*” a platform to complain about hippies and their “cowardly, irresponsible lifestyle of random sex” is a mystery. But then, there’s a … Read more

Brzezinski Endorses Obama

by

by hilzoy Over the past few years, there have been a few people who have, in my opinion, been unusually and consistently insightful on foreign policy generally, and Iraq in particular. Wes Clark is one, and Zbignew Brzezinski is another. That’s why I find it significant that Brzezinski has come out for Obama: “MR. HUNT: … Read more

‘Facts’

by

by G’Kar Can you be right even when you’re wrong? How about wrong even though you’re right? That question sprang to my mind reading Matt Yglesias’ explanation of what has happened with the current move of some Sunni insurgent groups towards the U.S. and the Iraqi government: “Iraq’s Sunni Arabs are the insurgency“. Anyone with … Read more

Bush’s Speech

by

by hilzoy

Once upon a time, we used to expect our Presidents to have some idea what they were talking about. Once upon a time, when a President said something completely ludicrous, people were shocked and worried. For instance, when Gerald Ford said that “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration”, no one just chuckled and thought: ha ha ha, isn’t that funny. They had the quaint, old-fashioned idea that our country’s leader ought to know better.

Under George W. Bush, of course, we have come to expect much less. He is, after all, the same President who told Vladimir Putin that Russia should model itself on Iraq, and who told us that “when I was going to college, I never dreamed that the United States of America could be attacked,” even though he went to college at the height of the Cold War, when large numbers of intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads were pointed straight at our cities. After enough statements like that, it’s easy to become blasé about these things. Easy, but wrong. We should never allow ourselves to get used to the idea that our President, the man who commands our armed forces and deploys our diplomats, has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about.

That’s why it’s worth dwelling on the speech he gave yesterday. It was an absolutely appalling mishmash of error, illogic, and slander. Admittedly, it’s a little hard to get your hands around: as Josh Marshall said, “To get a grasp on an argument, to support it or take it apart, requires that it have some grounding in reality or actual fact.” Bush’s speech had no such grounding: it was a sort of free-floating fantasy whose only discernible connection to the actual world was in its lethal effects. Still, it’s worth trying to understand. I do my best below the fold.

Read more

Our “Military Crusade”

by

by hilzoy From an op-ed in the LATimes: “Last week, after an investigation spurred by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the Pentagon abruptly announced that it would not be delivering “freedom packages” to our soldiers in Iraq, as it had originally intended. What were the packages to contain? Not body armor or home-baked cookies. Rather, … Read more

How Markets Work

by

by publius

Anonymous Liberal says the following about the Bush Administration’s strong push against public health care for children.

But people like this need to realize that this isn’t some grand experiment. We’re not dealing with hypotheticals here. When policies like this are put in place, real children–ones with real hopes and dreams and fears–are made to suffer. Some even die.

I used to think the same thing. Given the media coverage, it’s easy (very easy) to paint this as a shameless effort to put the needs of large fat men with bags of money for heads before children’s health. But to be contrarian, I think A.L. is missing the point. Like so many others, A.L. needs to develop a more sophisticated view of markets. Understanding how markets work will help everyone understand why Bush’s policies actually make sense. A tough pill, ’tis true. But don’t blame me – blame the laws of economics.

To help this process along, I’m pasting below the fold a pamphlet that taught me everything I know about markets and children’s health. It’s written as a Q & A dialogue, which I found a bit annoying, but it’s informative nonetheless.

Read more

Genetic Discrimination In The Military

by

by hilzoy

From the LATimes:

“While genetic discrimination is banned in most cases throughout the country, it is alive and well in the U.S. military.

For more than 20 years, the armed forces have held a policy that specifically denies disability benefits to servicemen and women with congenital or hereditary conditions. The practice would be illegal in almost any other workplace.

There is one exception, instituted in 1999, that grants benefits to personnel who have served eight years.

“You could be in the military and be a six-pack-a-day smoker, and if you come down with emphysema, ‘That’s OK. We’ve got you covered,’ ” said Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University.”But if you happen to have a disease where there is an identified genetic contribution, you are screwed.””

(Full disclosure: Kathy Hudson is a colleague.)

There are many problems with this system. The most obvious is its fundamental unfairness: it does not deny coverage for all diseases that are not caused by a person’s military service. If no one has any idea why you got sick, or even if, as in the emphysema case discussed above, it’s clear that your illness is not due to your military service but to some other non-genetic cause, you’re covered. But if you have a genetic disease, you’re out of luck. Another is that it seems wrong not to cover veterans with serious illnesses: they put their lives on the line for us, and we should be willing to help them when they need it. A third problem that it gets the nature of genetic disease wrong:

“Only in a few cases, such as Huntington’s disease, does a specific mutation in a particular stretch of DNA guarantee the onset of illness.

In most cases, a faulty gene increases an individual’s risk of developing a disease, but does not ensure it. Typically, an external event is necessary to trigger the onset of a medical condition.

Such was the case with an Army helicopter gunship pilot who was reassigned to desk duty after she became too pregnant to fly.

Dr. Melissa Fries, an Air Force geneticist who became involved in the case, said the pilot developed a blood clot in her leg — a typical complication of pregnancy that is exacerbated by inactivity.

She was diagnosed with chronic thrombophlebitis, a condition that disqualified her from flying. The pilot, who declined to discuss her case, decided to retire from the Army.

As part of her medical work-up, doctors discovered she had a genetic mutation for Factor V Leiden, which is found in 5% of Caucasians and increases their risk of developing blood clots.

An Army physical evaluation board, which determines disability benefits, denied her claim because of the mutation.

Her military doctors were stunned since her thrombophlebitis was probably caused by her pregnancy and desk job. They downplayed the role of her mutation because 99% of Factor V Leiden carriers never develop blood clots.

Military doctors now discourage their patients from getting potentially life-saving genetic tests, undermining their ability to provide top-notch care.

“If someone called me up with regard to genetic testing, I had to say, ‘That might not be something you want to pursue,’ ” Nunes said. “That’s very hard to say.””

If you are in the military, you get sick, and it turns out that there’s a genetic component to your illness, then you will be denied coverage unless you can show that your service exacerbated your condition — a hurdle that people with non-genetic diseases do not have to meet. The genetic component of your disease might not be very large, and it might not increase your risk of getting the disease by that much; its existence alone is enough to have your coverage denied. As I said above, this is unfair. But it’s also likely to become a much larger problem in the future. As time goes on, we are going to discover that more and more diseases have some genetic component, and therefore more and more members of our armed services are going to discover that they are not eligible for health benefits after discharge, even if they have diseases that were covered without question before.

This is just wrong, and someone should try to change this policy.

Read more

Republicans Against Reproductive Freedom

by

by hilzoy Via TPM, the Baltimore Sun: “At National Right to Life’s conference this year, Mitt Romney set out to convince anti-abortion leaders he was their candidate. At the podium, he rattled off his qualifications. To a layman’s ears, it sounded pretty standard for abortion politics. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He supports … Read more

Carl Levin Gets It Wrong

by

by hilzoy Normally, I respect Carl Levin. But I just don’t get this at all: “Declaring the government of Iraq “non-functional,” the influential chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said yesterday that Iraq’s parliament should oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet if they are unable to forge a political compromise with rival … Read more

Income Data

by

by hilzoy From the NYT: “Americans earned a smaller average income in 2005 than in 2000, the fifth consecutive year that they had to make ends meet with less money than at the peak of the last economic expansion, new government data shows. While incomes have been on the rise since 2002, the average income … Read more

Sammy 4 Prez

by

by publius This AJC article on Sam Nunn’s toe-dipping into the presidential waters illustrates quite nicely why things like Unity08 don’t make any sense. [T]he Georgia Democrat, who made his name nationally as a defense-minded hawk, has watched what’s happened to the country, and he’s more than a bit ticked — at the “fiasco” in … Read more

Why Democracy Promotion Scares Me: Part 74 of a Series

by

by publius There are many things to take away from Peter Baker’s article on the rise and fall of Bush’s democracy promotion “vision” following his re-election. Frankly, I’m skeptical that Bush was the strong causal force behind “democracy promotion” that the article portrays. However, assuming Bush really was driving this policy, the article is frankly … Read more

The Great Mystery of Tom Friedman

by

by publius Wow – I never saw this 2003 Friedman/Charlie Rose interview, but . . . wow. I haven’t read the entire transcript, but there’s really no missing context that could help lines like this (via Atrios): We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big state right … Read more

The Qualifications Dodge

by

by publius Like Scott Lemieux, I was annoyed by this Washington Post editorial supporting Leslie Southwick’s confirmation to the 5th Circuit. While the editorial’s wankerishness was characteristically high, that’s not what annoyed me. What annoyed me was the Post’s rationale – i.e., that Southwick should be confirmed because he is qualified. It’s an argument you … Read more

Open Thread

by

by hilzoy Caption contest: Completely unrelated quote, from Thoreau: “That man who does not believe that each day contains an earlier, more sacred, and auroral hour than he has yet profaned, has despaired of life, and is pursuing a descending and darkening way.” Otherwise, what’s on your mind?

There They Go Again …

by

by hilzoy From McClatchy: “Top Commerce and Treasury Departments officials appeared with Republican candidates and doled out millions in federal money in battleground congressional districts and states after receiving White House political briefings detailing GOP election strategy. Political appointees in the Treasury Department received at least 10 political briefings from July 2001 to August 2006, … Read more