Politics

by hilzoy

Another homage to The Editors, below the fold, to spare people on dialup.

*** Now with updated, extra kittens!

Read more

by hilzoy

I don’t know Cindy Sheehan. I have no idea what kind of person she is. She could be wonderful; she could be awful; I have no idea. Nothing I have seen to date seems to me inconsistent with her being a normal, angry, grieving mother, but for all I know, appearances could be deceiving.

I do know that I hate seeing people slimed. That’s why I decided to look more closely at this story from the New York Sun:

“But as sad as Ms. Sheehan’s loss is – and we don’t belittle it – she has put herself in league with some extreme groups and individuals.

For starters, Ms. Sheehan has been posting on Michael Moore’s Web site, writing, “We have such a strong coalition of groups. GSFP, Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out and the Crawford Peace House. I talked with John Conyers today and he wrote a letter to George signed by about 18 other Congress members to request that he meet with me. I also talked to Maxine Waters tonight and she is probably going to be here tomorrow.”

It turns out that the Crawford Peace House Web site includes a photo depicting the entire state of Israel as “Palestine,” and it carries a link to a report that when Prime Minister Sharon visited Crawford, the “peace house” greeted him with an “800-foot-long banner containing all of the United Nations resolutions that Israel is in violation of.” The Crawford Peace House site also features a photo of Eugene Bird, who has suggested that Israeli intelligence was responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, and Military Families Speak Out all have representatives on the steering committee of United for Peace and Justice, an anti-war umbrella group. They share that distinction with the Communist Party USA. UPJ organized the march during the 2004 Republican Convention in New York, at which a New York Sun poll of 253 of the protesters found that fully 67% of those surveyed said they agreed with the statement “Iraqi attacks on American troops occupying Iraq are legitimate resistance.” In other words, Ms. Sheehan’s “coalition” includes a lot of people who think the persons who killed her son were justified.”

This story has been cited on a bunch of right-wing blogs — notably, this post by Mark in Mexico, entitled “Communists, traitors, mentally ill flock to Cindy Sheehan.” (“Her grief and desire for retribution have caused her to allow herself to be exploited by some of the worst that America has to offer.”) Even the (fortunately) inimitable Jeff Gannon has cited it. So let’s deconstruct it.

Read more

by hilzoy

Uwe Reinhardt, a health economist at Princeton, has a great op ed in the Washington Post today. It’s about the administration’s failure to ask for any sacrifice from us to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Excerpt:

“The strategic shielding of most voters from any emotional or financial sacrifice for these wars cannot but trigger the analogue of what is called “moral hazard” in the context of health insurance, a field in which I’ve done a lot of scholarly work. There, moral hazard refers to the tendency of well-insured patients to use health care with complete indifference to the cost they visit on others. It has prompted President Bush to advocate health insurance with very high deductibles. But if all but a handful of Americans are completely insulated against the emotional — and financial — cost of war, is it not natural to suspect moral hazard will be at work in that context as well?

A policymaking elite whose families and purses are shielded from the sacrifices war entails may rush into it hastily and ill prepared, as surely was the case of the Iraq war. Moral hazard in this context can explain why a nation that once built a Liberty Ship every two weeks and thousands of newly designed airplanes in the span of a few years now takes years merely to properly arm and armor its troops with conventional equipment. Moral hazard can explain why, in wartime, the TV anchors on the morning and evening shows barely make time to report on the wars, lest the reports displace the silly banter with which they seek to humor their viewers. Do they ever wonder how military families with loved ones in the fray might feel after hearing ever so briefly of mayhem in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Moral hazard also can explain why the general public is so noticeably indifferent to the plight of our troops and their families. To be sure, we paste cheap magnetic ribbons on our cars to proclaim our support for the troops. But at the same time, we allow families of reservists and National Guard members to slide into deep financial distress as their loved ones stand tall for us on lethal battlefields and the family is deprived of these troops’ typically higher civilian salaries. We offer a pittance in disability pay to seriously wounded soldiers who have not served the full 20 years that entitles them to a regular pension. And our legislative representatives make a disgraceful spectacle of themselves bickering over a mere $1 billion or so in added health care spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs — in a nation with a $13 trillion economy!

Last year kind-hearted folks in New Jersey collected $12,000 at a pancake feed to help stock pantries for financially hard-pressed families of the National Guard. Food pantries for American military families? The state of Illinois now allows taxpayers to donate their tax refunds to such families. For the entire year 2004, slightly more than $400,000 was collected in this way, or 3 cents per capita. It is the equivalent of about 100,000 cups of Starbucks coffee. With a similar program Rhode Island collected about 1 cent per capita. Is this what we mean by “supporting our troops”?

When our son, then a recent Princeton graduate, decided to join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him thus: “Do what you must, but be advised that, flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded.” The intervening years have not changed my views; they have reaffirmed them.

Unlike the editors of the nation’s newspapers, I am not at all impressed by people who resolve to have others stay the course in Iraq and in Afghanistan. At zero sacrifice, who would not have that resolve?”

Read more

by Charles

Shades of 1990.  Hillary Clinton, in accepting the role of "directing a new initiative to define a party agenda for the 2006 and 2008 elections" for the Democratic Leadership Council, has basically announced that her emphasis will be a Better Ideas Party instead of a No Party for the Democrats.  Will most Democrats go along or will fissures widen?  Hard to know.  Ron Brownstein:

The appointment solidified the identification of Clinton, once considered a champion of the party’s left, with the centrist movement that helped propel her husband to the White House in 1992. It also continued her effort, which has accelerated in recent months, to present herself as a moderate on issues such as national security, immigration and abortion.

This is smart politics on Hillary’s part since is perceived as solidly left of husband Bill.  Joining the DLC will allay concerns of moderate Democrats.  If she can develop an agenda and at the same time bury the hatchet a little with hardliners such as moveon.org and dKos, this can help maintain her prominence, and she can be a unifying force.  Hillary may move the DLC a bit (or more) to the left since the DLC is solidly pro-CAFTA and most Democrats (including Hillary) are against it.  Despite this, the DLC still wanted her on board.  Brownstein again:

While many liberal activists insist the party’s highest priority must be to block Bush’s initiatives, DLC officials universally argued that Democrats would not recover until they fill in their own agenda.

"I think the nation fully understands what we are against," Vilsack said in an interview. "I think it is incumbent now to show what we are for."

Sounds like Vilsack has been reading Barone, and Hillary might as well have been reading me.  The strategy worked for Bill fifteen years ago, and it could work today.

Read more

by von

Over on RedHot, Adam C., Mark Kilmer, and Augustine are debating ways to counter the impression that the repeal of Roe v. Wade means the repeal of legalized abortion.  They’re correct in two respects: First, if Roe were removed tomorrow, it would not mean that abortion would suddenly become illegal. The matter would simply be thrown to the legislatures and — in the first instance — whatever state laws are currently on the books.

Second — and I don’t care how much of a living Constitutionalist you may be — they’re also right that Roe is hard to defend as a "judicial" (as opposed to "legislative") decision.  One can argue the epistemological nuances of what separates a "judicial" act from a "legislative" one.  But, whatever criteria you end up choosing at the end of the day, you’re going to be hard-pressed to fit Roe into the judicial box.  It just ain’t a very good opinion, per traditional criteria.

What I think they miss (‘tho Augustine skirts around it here) is that, as a practical matter, overturning Roe will almost certainly prompt the U.S. Congress to act.  In what will surely be an apocalypic battle between the forces of good and evil (which is which will depend on your personal perference), some sort of new set of abortion laws will shortly emerge as the law of the land. 

And, thus, the marketing problem:  Adam C., Mark Kilmer, and Augustine can, and should, correct the misconception that eliminating Roe means eliminating one’s right to abort one’s child. The problem is the implication of their remark:  And as soon as Roe is gone, we’re gonna try to make it illegal to have an abortion.  Talk about the text being overwhelmed by the subtext!

‘Course, it’s easy for me to take potshots from the peanut gallery:  I think Roe was wrongly decided and would be happy to see it go.  Yet, I’m annoying conflicted on what regulations should be implemented in the post-Roe world.  I suppose that I could take a cue from the poll-tested Democratic response.  If the DLC folks say that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," my equally bland nonresponse is that abortion should be "safe and rare — and legislated to make it so."

Read more

by hilzoy

After being caught a bit off guard on Monday, Republicans spent yesterday and (so far) today mounting their response to Karl Rove’s outing of Valerie Plame. As I noted earlier, there are some situations that it’s really hard to spin, and this is plainly one of them. I mean: how exactly do you explain the fact that one of the President’s senior advisors outed an undercover CIA agent to discredit her husband, and that the President was so unconcerned about this that he has, to date, done nothing in response? (Though yesterday we learned, via poor Scott McClellan, that the President still has confidence in Rove. I guess outing CIA operatives just isn’t that big a deal to him. And today he said this: “”I also will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports.” Newsflash, Mr. President: unlike most of the rest of us, you don’t have to rely on the media. You could just say: Karl, would you step into my office for a moment?, and decide for yourself.)

Still, I give the GOP an A for effort. Here are some of their talking points:

Read more

I don’t know whether Rove committed a crime in l’affair Plame.  (In fact, I rather suspect that he didn’t.)  But this defense of Rove in The Wall Street Journal is ridiculous:

Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove’s head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we’d say the White House political guru deserves a prize–perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He’s the one who warned Time’s Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson’s credibility. He’s the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn’t a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove. …

Either the law matters or it doesn’t.  The WSJ has decided that it doesn’t in this case — though, strangely, it doesn’t come out against the covert agent law generally.  Maybe it’s saving that for its next editorial, where it’ll write that Rove deserves the same kudos as Martin Luther King or Gandhi for disobeying an unjust law in the service of the greater good — here, the fundamental right to discredit a political opponent.

Indeed, this reader looks forward to learning from the WSJ what other laws are unjust because they interfere with my ability to discredit a political opponent.  I’d suggest libel and slander laws as obviously vulnerable; surely, others are as well. Also, it’d be nice to know how many WSJ board members are required to approve a violation of the law.  A bare majority?  Two thirds?  One?  Inquiring minds, and all.

(It’s hard to believe that I’m on the same side as these idiots.)

UPDATE:  John Cole is, again, doing the yeoman’s work of the Plame Game, separating the legit disputes from the stupid and the silly.  See here, and then here.

UPDATE 2:  I’d be remiss if I didn’t also link to a member of the tinfoil hat gang:  here’s Preston’s take.  So far as I can tell, Preston’s claim is that Miller has decided to sit in jail for the next five or six months in order to embarrass Rove.  Or maybe it’s because Miller fears a non-existent prosecution under 50 U.S.C. 421 (it doesn’t apply to her).  Or maybe Wilson actually blew his wife’s cover (JPod seems to favor this "theory," which, so far as I can tell, is based on nothing).  It’s kinda unclear, because, well, Preston doesn’t really concern himself with nuances like the "facts" or "the law" or "common sense". 

Thank God no serious person is linking this guy.  I mean, it’d be mighty embarrassing if, say, you were a respected law professor and somehow ended up endorsing this idiocy on your blog.

Read more

by hilzoy

Today, the White House press corps finally deigned to notice the fact that Karl Rove has been named as one of the people who outed Valerie Plame. The White House hasn’t put up a transcript of the relevant press briefing yet, but ThinkProgress has one here, and Crooks and Liars has video. I’d feel sorry for Scott McClellan if I weren’t so puzzled by the question: how does he look himself in the mirror, knowing that saying these ridiculous things is his life’s work?

“QUESTION: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

QUESTION: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that’s why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation — or questions related to it.

QUESTION: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved, so why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation?

MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.
And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.”

Read more

by hilzoy

Newsweek reports (h/t rilkefan):

“It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. “Subject: Rove/P&C,” (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. “Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation …” Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, “please don’t source this to rove or even WH [White House]” and suggested another reporter check with the CIA. (…)

In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson’s criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time’s editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine’s corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a “big warning” not to “get too far out on Wilson.” Rove told Cooper that Wilson’s trip had not been authorized by “DCIA”—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, “it was, KR said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.” Wilson’s wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: “not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there’s still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger … “

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame’s name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak’s column appeared; in other words, before Plame’s identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. “Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper,” Luskin told NEWSWEEK.

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was “absolutely no inconsistency” between Cooper’s e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. “A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame’s identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false,” the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson’s trip to Africa.”

We may not know who that ‘source close to Rove’ is, but we do learn that one of the people who has been talking to Newsweek is Rove’s lawyer:

“Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper’s lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.”

Read more

by hilzoy

Via Crooks and Liars, a truly amazing story:

“Four years ago, as the state labored to eradicate citrus canker by destroying trees, officials rejected other disease-fighting techniques, saying unproven methods would waste precious time and resources. But for more than six months, the state, at the behest of then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris, did pursue one alternative method — a very alternative method. Researchers worked with a rabbi and a cardiologist to test “Celestial Drops,” promoted as a canker inhibitor because of its “improved fractal design,” “infinite levels of order” and “high energy and low entropy.” But the cure proved useless against canker. That’s because it was water — possibly, mystically blessed water.” “

Read more

by hilzoy

When Republicans, Charles included,* complain about Democrats’ having no ideas, it is often hard for me to know exactly what they mean. Luckily for me, I don’t have to decide, since it seems to me that on all the remotely plausible interpretations of the claim that Democrats have no ideas, that claim is simply false; while on one interpretation that isn’t plausible, but that sometimes seems to be what Republicans who say this actually mean, it is true but completely predictable. So I’ll just run through them in order.

(Note: none of this will be particularly new to those of you who do, well, read progressive blogs. Lots of people have made lots of good points. Think of me as collecting them in an easy, hopefully readable form, for the delectation of others.)

Read more