Edward _

Is al-Zarqawi Dead?

by

OK, so even ABC’s evening news is reporting that, to paraphrase an AP story, there are efforts under way to determine if terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was among the dead in Mosul where eight suspected al-Qaida members died in a gunfight, and three insurgents detonated explosives and killed themselves to avoid capture, suggesting an … Read more

Wanna Win the War? Sacrifice Bush

by

by Edward

As seems to have become my habit recently, I wrote this post before reading Hilzoy’s preceding post. What a freakin’ brilliant effort that is, I must say. I could not agree with her more and only offer these paltry-by-comparison observations because eventually I let myself dare dream one step past her assessment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Three things I’ve read recently have led me to believe that Iraq is defnitely lost unless there’s some way to change the President. First was the manifesto at No End But Victory:

This is not a partisan issue. This is not a left- or right-wing issue. This is an American and Iraqi issue, and all men of good faith must now come together to remind our leadership that whatever our politics, and whatever we thought of the decision to go to war, there can be only one end:

Victory.

I disagree with much of the text before and after this excerpt, but I believe this part is indeed the case. Victory in Iraq will require a united effort of Americans, left and right, and although I opposed invading Iraq for too many reasons to list, once we were in, I knew failure was not an option we could allow ourselves to become resigned to. Not if we want the world to become safer. Letting Iraq descend into Civil War would make us less safe than we currently are. We must keep that fact foremost in our minds when formulating our future plans.

The second thing I read was Frank Rich’s column in today’s New York Times. It’s available to subscriber’s only, but I’ll quote the relevant bits (I’ve retyped this from the print version…please forgive any typos):

Only since his speech about "Islamo-fascism" in early October has Mr. Bush started trying to make distinctions between the "evildoers" of Saddam’s regime and the Islamic radicals who did and do directly threaten us. But even if anyone was still listening to this president, it would be too little and too late. The only hope for getting Americans to focus on the war we can’t excape is to clear the decks by telling the truth about the war of choice in Iraq: that it is making us less safe, not more, and that we have to learn from its mistakes and calculate the damange it has caused as we reboot and move on.

Mr. Bush is incapable of such candor.

I ultimately want to disagree with Mr. Rich that we’re on our way of out Iraq. I’m holding tight to the hope that something can turn this around, but I agree with his assessment that clearing the decks–that is, changing the narrative and thus the public opinion that’s increasingly against the effort–requires telling the truth about the war.

Finally, I read David Brook’s column in today’s New York Times (also only by subscription online). Mr. Brook’s offered the most sobering, yet ultimately most optimistic information on what changing public opinion will take:

As a survey by the Pew Research Center suggests, most journalists and most academics think the war is unwinnable….. When you talk to serious, nonpartisan experts with experience on the ground, you find that most think the war is at least a 50-50 proposition. Everyone I’ve spoken to, given the consequences of bugging out, believes that it is therefore worth struggling on.

That’s the sobering part…what was optimistic was the part I left out of that quote:

[B]ut 64 percent of military officers believe the U.S. can prevail.

Now, while that perception might be wishful thinking or a misguided example of the sort of can-do attitude that makes our military the superior organization is, it’s also possible that it’s the professional assessment of folks who’ve spent their lives in the business of such things. I’m hoping it’s the latter.

Read more

Bush Has Lied

by

by Edward

UPDATE: Apologies to Hilzoy for not realizing earlier I was using the same article she deconstructed in her excellent post here to illustrate my point.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What any thinking person watching the debate over the veracity of how the Iraq invasion was sold must conclude at this point is that, as Wolfowitz suggested, what we’re really debating is a matter of emphasis. If you believe all the talk of mushroom clouds is fair rhetorical game, then you’ll probably insist the President didn’t lie. He merely overdramatized the case. If on the other hand, you believe sending troops into battle is not something a president has the wiggle room to be "technically" or "arguably" correct about, but rather should aspire to a much higher standard, then you’ll probably insist the President did lie. He knew he was overselling the case, but did it anyway.

The White House has recently taken to saying that the "Democrats have lied" (video) about Bush lying in the lead up to the war. This lets them turn the charge around in a short, pithy sound bite. Whether it will play or not remains to be seen. But since the White House itself has started calling people liars, let’s look at whether calling Bush a "liar" is libel or simply calling them like we see them?

We’ve beaten selling the war to death, with most folks who support Bush insisting it’s time to move on and win the war (although I’d still love to hear what that will look like). But we’re still fighting the war, so both sides should agree that how we’re fighting it is fair game for debate. I’d hope both sides would also agree that whether the President is lying about how we fight it is important as well.

A report by ABC out today suggests what any thinking person watching must conclude at this point is that no manner of emphasis will clear the President from charges that he lied to the public about whether or not the US tortures people:

Read more

The Case for War (Sans Smoke and Mirrors)

by

by Edward

Take out all the rhetoric…take out the insinuation…take out implied connections and hyperbole, and what do you have left? What exactly was the case for invading Iraq? If the administration had made the case for war without any exaggeration, what would they have had at their disposal to convince the nation to back an invasion?

To compare what we heard with what we now know was known at the time, here’s an honest effort to provide the facts as understood by the administration about the time Bush made his speech outlining the threat and laid the groundwork for his case for war at the Cincinnati Museum Center (October 7, 2002), a point at which it’s clear he thinks we should invade. There are possibly some anachronistic "facts" in here, but I don’t think so.

What would we have heard had Bush made the case for war using the cold-hard truth? Perhaps something like this…

Read more

The Bush Legacy: America’s Human-Rights Record Is Now A Subject of Legitimate Debate

by

by Edward The Economist has published an editorial (with such a strong title it bears repeating: "How to lose friends and alienate people: The Bush administration’s approach to torture beggars belief") denouncing the Bush administration’s nebulous-at-best stance on torure. It should be required reading in the ethics classes the President recently ordered his staff to … Read more

Libby 5; Rove ?

by

by Edward The NYT is reporting that Libby’s been indicted on 5 counts: Vice presidential adviser I. Lewis "Scooter’ Libby Jr. was indicted Friday on charges of obstruction of justice, making a false statement and perjury in the CIA leak case. Karl Rove, President Bush’s closest adviser, apparently escaped indictment Friday but remained under investigation, … Read more

“Up or Down” Dead, Dead, Dead

by

by Edward

John Cole on RedState tries valiantly to save the GOP’s right to resuscitate the recently departed talking point that all Bush’s nominees deserve an up or down vote in the Senate, but it’s the most faithless sort of wishful thinking and as such deserves debunking. In response to this post by Kos, using the GOP’s own words against them, Cole takes out his hair-splitter and tries to find a difference in how the GOP derailed Harriet’s turn before the Judiciary Committee:

When Republicans and conservatives speak of a desire for an up or down vote for judicial nominees, it is born out of the frustration of the recent past in which nominees were bottled up in committee in perpetuity, were never given hearings, were never given a vote, and simply had their nomination blocked through procedural maneuvering. In fairness, this occurred under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, and in Senates led by Republicans and Democrats.

But that is not what happened in the Miers case, and to assert otherwise is to engage in a flight of fancy. A desire for an up or down vote for judicial nominees is in no way anathema to the desire (and, I might add, right) to loudly voice one’s displeasure with a nominee.

Harriet Miers was nominated to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. She was given a date for confirmation hearings (they were to begin on November 7th), she had meetings with Senators, she was filling out questionnaires for the Judiciary Committee. She would, one could safely assume, have had a vote in the Judiciary Committee at the commencement of the confirmation hearings, and predicated on the outcome of that vote, a vote would have been held in the Senate at large.

In other words, she was going to get her ‘up or down vote.’ There were no calls to ‘blue slip’ her, there was no move to filibuster her (indeed, the Gang of 14 stated they would break any filibuster attempts), there were no attempts at procedural moves to block her nomination, and she was not going to be bottlenecked in committee forever.

What’s most laughable about this is this bit: "she was going to get her ‘up or down vote.’ " It’s laughable because web site’s had been set up and the call went far and wide that what the base wanted was not an up or down vote but her nomination to be withdrawn. In fact, on the Withdraw Miers website, they list the folks calling for the withdrawal and list the Senators who had expressed "Reservations," long before the hearings had offered Harriet a chance to answer her critics, including

Senator Rick Santorum
Senator Sam Brownback
Senator Trent Lott
Senator George Allen
Senator Lindsey Graham
Senator Jeff Sessions
Senator David Vitter
Senator John Ensign
Senator John Thune

So who exactly is it in the GOP that still believes the President has the right to have his choice, his chosen nominee, receive an up or down vote? Cole would like you to believe they never stopped believing this was the proper process, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

Read more

Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow

by

Via Harley on Tacitus US News and World Report is either desperate to scoop the rest of the MSM or being somewhat coy about what they know, but either way, apparently it’s time to buckle your seat belts: Sparked by today’s Washington Post story that suggests Vice President Cheney’s office is involved in the Plame-CIA … Read more

Boortz’s Choice

by

Well the argument has now surpassed farce and entered a realm so surreal we’ll need poets to make sense of it all for us. In a nation built on two important premises—1) that all people are created equal and 2) that all people share the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—it’s now become acceptable to say that our government (one of, for, and by these same equal people) should give advance warning of a terrorist strike to our wealthy citizens before our other citizens. Wealth is now openly discussed as a justifiable criteria for putting citizens at head of the queue for the lifeboats. Wealth alone.

This my friends is FUBAR.

Media Matters reprints the text of a program by right-wing radio host Neal Boortz. Here is the bulk of it:

Read more