How long will this last?

Over at Unqualified Offerings (highclearing.com) we read: (emp add)

Compound the detainee bill with the Congressional Democratic PartyÂ?s existing abdication of all practical war-starting authority to the Executive and you have Presidential and Congressional election losses stretching as far as - from what I can tell, as far as the international bond market will let it stretch.

The relative silence from all quarters (Democrats, liberal pastors, and even 'liberal' Hollywood) in the wake of Bush's recent initiatives is stunning. But most interesting is the international political and business community. It's hard to believe that they see the United States getting stronger by giving Bush more power. So what's happening? (And Chavez doesn't count, he's a buffoon.) When will the smart money boys decide that investing in the U.S. isn't a good move?


posted by Quiddity at 9/29/2006 09:48:00 AM

John Cole get it:

In a post about a bill to allow warrantless wiretapping, he writes: (emp add)

This isn’t about fighting terrorism, coddling terrorists, or keeping America safe. It is about power, and it is little more than using the fear of terrorism to keep the party in power entrenched in Washington.

That's what it is. Fear of terrorism. And as this blog has pointed out (and will do again in a subsequent post) the terrorism threat is much, much smaller than advertised.


posted by Quiddity at 9/29/2006 09:41:00 AM

Divide and conquer:

One result of the Senate vote passing the detainee bill is that it has managed to split Democrats. Progressives are disgusted with the twelve that voted for the bill. Many are ready to give up on the Democratic party.

That's just what Karl Rove wants.


posted by Quiddity at 9/29/2006 09:31:00 AM

This is what waterboarding looks like:

David Corn has the pictures, and the surprising setting - which really puts it in context.


posted by Quiddity at 9/28/2006 01:46:00 PM

A moral catastrophe:

If the Senate passes the antiterrorism bill, it will be this nation's disgrace. There are many, many problems with the bill - as the New York Times editorial pointed out. But it's not the number of problems, it's that each of them rips up a significant civil right or restraint on the executive.

It's hard to care much about politics in the wake of this development. One thing is certain. The Republican party will henceforth have no standing to lecture anybody anywhere about anything regarding "morality".


posted by Quiddity at 9/28/2006 09:58:00 AM

Sullivan on McCain:

Excerpts from a longish post:

I've long tried to give McCain the benefit of the doubt on all of this.   ...   He may have done as much as he possibly can to prevent torture without playing directly into Karl Rove's hands.   ...   Then there are more cynical interpretations.

... it's clear he has also acquiesced to giving complete legal impunity to the civilian architects of the torture policy within the Bush administration. Maybe that's the real deal here - I'll give you legal protection for past war-crimes if you give me the nomination in 2008. But surely McCain knows better than to trust the likes of Rove. He may have sold his soul ... for a promise from a professional liar.

posted by Quiddity at 9/25/2006 07:41:00 AM

comma

posted by Quiddity at 9/24/2006 11:30:00 PM

The eyes have it:

Bush on:

16 June, 2001 - with Vladimir Putin"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul."

13 Jun 2006 - with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki
I've come to not only look you in the eye, I've also come to tell you that when America gives its word, it will keep its word ...

22 Sep 2006 - with President Musharraf of Pakistan
When the President [of Pakistan] looks me in the eye and says, the tribal deal is intended to reject the Talibanization of the people, and that there won't be a Taliban and won't be al Qaeda, I believe him, you know?

posted by Quiddity at 9/24/2006 12:53:00 PM

Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday:

He got upset with the questions from Chris Wallace. Well, he deserved it. So do any Democrats that show up on a Republican-party television network.


posted by Quiddity at 9/24/2006 08:27:00 AM

Andrew Sullivan got suckered:

From his post of 15 September: (excerpt)

By chance I bumped into Senator John Warner last night at the fifth anniversary party for the Chris Matthews Show. I was able to go up and shake him warmly by the hand and thank him from the depth of my heart for protecting this country's honor. He replied quite simply: "It's just the right thing for the country." The sight of so many Republican senators and one former secretary of state finally standing up against the brutality and dishonor of this president's military detention policies is a sign of great hope.

UPDATE: (Welcome Atrios visitors!) What struck me when I read that post by Sullivan exactly one week ago was the apparent sincerity of Warner. And Sullivan seemed to be engaged in an honest exchange. In a somewhat similar vein, we read this at TAPPED:

Why would [McCain] sacrifice his accelerating rapprochement with the right over this issue, particularly right before the 2006 election. [...] Our honorable editor man, however, leaned back and offered the novel interpretation, "Maybe McCain just believes in this, and is doing what he thinks is right."

This compromise, or whatever you want to call it, should be the death-knell for any notions that "moderate" Republicans will be anything other than enablers of Bush.


posted by Quiddity at 9/22/2006 10:30:00 AM

Tony Judt on the Strange Death of Liberal America:

That's the sub-head (or "deck") of a very interesting essay by Judt, Bush's Useful Idiots. In particular he discusses parallels between U.S. and Israli statecraft.

Highly recommended.


posted by Quiddity at 9/22/2006 12:48:00 AM

The David Broder matrix:

In a column praising "independence" and "centrism" - without really saying what that's supposed to be about, Broder mentions several politicians. Here is how they are described:

	characterization
Republican
Sen. John McCain	not an ordinary man
Sen. Lindsey Graham	not an ordinary man
Sen. John Warner	not an ordinary man
Colin Powell	one of the most admired Americans
George W. Bush	lawless and reckless
Michael Bloomberg	man of the center
Sen. Lincoln Chafee	has virtue of independence
Sen. Mike DeWine	forming a center for the Senate
Democrat running as an independent
Joe Lieberman	man of the center
Democrat
Al Gore	arrogant know-it-all
John Kerry	arrogant know-it-all
Rep. Sherrod Brown	loud advocate of policies that offer a false hope

Clearly, Broder is a one-party man. Republican. He sees no role for Democrats. If there is a problem, it's up to Republicans to fix it (with the Democrats doing nothing more than voting to support whatever policies McCain, Warner, et al, advocate).

He also takes to task "vituperative, foul-mouthed bloggers on the left". Apparently, he's never listened to Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Mike Gallagher, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, or read Little Green Footbals, Protein Wisdom, Powerline, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler - to mention just a few.


posted by Quiddity at 9/21/2006 08:58:00 AM

Jonah Goldberg is losing it:

In an Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times, Jonah goes after former New Jersey Governor and self-outed gay, James McGreevy. You know, the guy with all sorts of problems, including corruption while in office.

But get this, nowhere in the essay does Goldberg mention McGreevy's political affiliation (he's a Democrat). In fact, no political parties are mentioned at all. How could Goldberg pass up such an opportunity?


posted by Quiddity at 9/21/2006 05:41:00 AM

Look who Bush gave the Presidental Medal of Freedom to:

In a White House webpage devoted to telling "The Rest of the Story: Iraq's Links to Al Qaeda" (does Paul Harvey approve of this?) the president is defending himself from a report in the Washington Post that he falsely claimed links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. As part of that defense, the White House takes issue with the Post: (emp orig)

The Washington Post Says That A CIA Report From Late September 2002 Claimed That Saddam Did Not Have Links To Al Qaeda. "The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report." (Walter Pincus, "CIA Learned in '02 That Bin Laden Had No Iraq Ties, Report Says," The Washington Post, 9/15/02)

And how is that rebutted? Not by challenging the Washington Post story. But by highlighting Tenet's misleading testimony before Congress. Here are the three bolded bullet points made:

• In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda.
  
  
• Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda.
  
  
• In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda.

So here we have a defense being made based on the incompetence (or worse) of the guy Bush gave one of the highest civilian awards to.

posted by Quiddity at 9/19/2006 09:41:00 AM

How dry I am!

The Howler writes: (15 Sep 06)

... it's hard to read Bush's remarks this week [to a group of conservative journalist] without thinking of the semi-psychiatric diagnosis which has floated around for some time - the diagnosis of Bush as a "dry drunk," a man who channeled his own painful struggles with alcoholism into disordered and grandiose thinking.

Dry Drunk Syndrome (A 12-step concept, which others disagree about)

... TRAITS Persons experiencing a full-blown DRY DRUNK are ...

• Grandiosity, put very simply, is an exaggeration of one's own importance. ...
• Judgmentalism is mutually related to grandiosity. It means that the alcoholic is prone to make value judgments - strikingly inappropriate evaluations - usually in terms of "goodness" or "badness".
• Intolerance leaves no room for delaying the gratification of personal desires. ...
• Impulsivity is the result of intolerance or the lack of ability to delay gratification of personal desires. Impulsivity describes behavior which is heedless of the ultimate consequence for self or others.
• Indecisiveness is related to impulsitivity in the sense that while the latter takes no realistic account of the consequences of the actions, the former precludes effective action altogether.

Well, Bush certainly thinks very highly of himself, makes value judgments (how many times have you heard him talk of "good" and "evil"?), and could be considered intolerant in some ways. But is he impulsive? Or indecisive? And where in the Dry Drunk Syndrome is there room for Bush's manic exercise regimen?


posted by Quiddity at 9/18/2006 02:38:00 AM

Questions:

President Bush (15 Sep 2006):

... Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"?

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley (17 Sep 2006):

I'm saying that nobody knows what humiliating treatment is. What does it mean?

Indeed, these are difficult questions.


posted by Quiddity at 9/17/2006 07:01:00 PM

Bush crackup watch:

9 September - Digby

... if you'd like to see [Bush] get really testy and aggressive at the suggestion that the GOP might lose this fall, watch this footage of him and Charles Gibson. [...]

Watch the whole thing as he has his hissy fit and then slouches all over the back seat of the limo until by the time the tape is finished he looks like some sort of Roman Emperor waiting for Gibson to peel him a grape. Very creepy.

11 September - TAPPED (Charles Pierce)

Matt Lauer of The Today Show got an interview in the Oval Office with George W. Bush. [...] To Lauer's enormous credit, and given the strange circumstances, he pushed as hard as was possible on the subject of the president's right to torture people. The way you knew he'd pushed hard was that the president began talking in smaller and smaller circles. He needs to be able to do this to keep people safe. He kept repeating that he needed these powers "within the law," and that "we don't torture." Lauer started to describe "water-boarding." The president refused to talk about "techniques that we use on people." He began to sputter, "Let me finish." Once again, he climbed on his little one-man railroad that traveled from "protecting the nation" to "we don't torture" to "within the law." You half-expected little springs to start bouncing out of his ears.

15 September - TAPPED (Ezra Klein)

BUSH'S PRESS CONFERENCE. This is by far the pissiest press conference Bush has given. He's furious. I assume his feet are manacled behind the microphone. Otherwise, he'd be stalking across the stage, tearing apart the podium, and occasionally leaping into the crowd to rip out David Gregory's heart. The content is no finer than the normal Bush fare ... but the attitude is entirely different. Where Bush is generally petulant and unhappy at these events, he's now snapping at reporters, straightforwardly insulting them, yelling from the podium, losing control, and generally evincing a combativeness and barely suppressed rage that I've never seen from him before.

posted by Quiddity at 9/15/2006 04:10:00 PM

September 14:




UPDATE: Some think that maybe Osama has been captured, for a variety of reasons, including unveiling at the "appropriate" time.


posted by Quiddity at 9/14/2006 01:48:00 AM

Crazypeople mail:

Want to read some wild stuff? Check out the letters to the New York Post about ABC's Path to 9/11, and objections made by Clinton. From the last letter in the bunch:

There is no person walking this Earth today in the Western democracies who bears more responsibility for 9/11 than Clinton. When it came to fighting terrorism, he did nothing.

9/11 is the price we all paid for electing Clinton president.

You tell 'em, Marc Arenstein of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.


posted by Quiddity at 9/12/2006 12:49:00 AM

A modest proposal:

In Bush's speech this evening to the nation about 9/11, he said:

One of the strongest weapons in our arsenal is the power of freedom. The terrorists fear freedom as much as they do our firepower.

Okay then. Here's the proposal: Pull the troops out, and at home, double the amount of freedom for each citizen.


posted by Quiddity at 9/11/2006 10:40:00 PM

"the voices of skeptics who believe that 9/11 was more a fluke than a harbinger are beginning to be heard"

That's from the New York Times Week in Review, and a position this blog has held for years. More from the article:

[F]ive years of evidence suggests that the terrorist threat within the United States is much more modest than was feared after 9/11, when it seemed quite possible that there were terrorist sleeper cells in American cities, armed with “weapons of mass destruction” and awaiting orders to attack. ...

“The idea that we are surrounded by terrorists who could strike anywhere, anytime, is a complete misconception,” said Karen J. Greenberg, director of the Center on Law and Security at New York University. ...As time has passed without a new attack, the voices of skeptics who believe that 9/11 was more a fluke than a harbinger are beginning to be heard.

“A perfectly plausible explanation is that there are no terrorists here,” said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University who advances the doubters’ case in an article in Foreign Affairs. “I don’t say there’s no threat, but the threat has been massively exaggerated.”

Over at TAPPED, Sam Rosenfeld comments on the same article:

The GOP, needless to say, has lacked much incentive over the last five years to dampen the sense of danger and crisis stemming from the terrorist threat. ...

For a while after 9-11 it was quite understandable to think that a genuinely new and pervasive threat was on the scene, and that further spectacular attacks were in store relatively soon. In the ensuing years, not only the fact that there hasn't been a repeat attack on American soil (excepting the unsolved anthrax attacks) but also the eventual publication of serious empirical research on the relevant issues ... have, I think, lent some ample support for the suspicion that the terrorist threat to America, while obviously real, is simply less extensive and acute and more manageable then we had thought.

... the actual number of individuals who comprise transnational terrorist networks and possess the will and capacity to carry out major, long-planned attacks on American soil turns out to be, simply, very small. Islamic terrorists lack the numbers and means that most of us originally assumed they had to execute sustained and repeated mass-casualty attacks.

It's politically dicey, of course, to put forth this argument ...

No kidding. But eventually the true scale of the threat will be recognized, and the politics-by-fear won't work any more.


posted by Quiddity at 9/11/2006 03:45:00 PM

In the year 2026:

If George Bush lives as long as his dad (who is currently 82), he'll be 80 years old in 2026 - which will also be the 25th anniversary of the attacks on 9/11. Presumably, he'll still be placing a wreath at the site of the World Trade Center.



The interesting question is, what will the verdict be on Bush at that time? Generally speaking, after 25 years, emotions subside and a more objective perspective takes hold. It is the view of this blog that Bush will be seen as negligent in the face of warnings of attacks and also to have taken a modest threat (that of Al Qaeda) and blown it all out of proportion in order to expand state police power and for partisan gain.


posted by Quiddity at 9/11/2006 08:28:00 AM

Found in a very old book:

posted by Quiddity at 9/08/2006 08:23:00 PM

Bush's totally absurd reasoning:

On ABC World News yesterday, Charlie Gibson interviewed president Bush. There was this exchange: (emp add)

Gibson: I heard you say just yesterday, "The hardest thing I have to do is to get people to understand how Iraq is a critical part of the war on terror."

President Bush: Right.

Gibson: And that's the one thing that I question, whether people do have any sense of that. For loathsome as he may have been, Saddam Hussein was not connected to al Qaeda, and he was not behind 9/11.

Bush: No, I understand that people ask, "How can this be a connection, between the war on terror and," you know, "How can Iraq be a connection when Saddam Hussein didn't order the attacks?" And you know, I understand that concern, because he didn't order the attacks. The enemy, however, believes that Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Osama bin Laden has called Iraq central to the war on terror. And if we lose, if this young democracy fails, the enemy will be emboldened. They will have resources in which to launch attacks. They have declared their desire to have a caliphate throughout the Middle East, and one of their targets is to topple modern governments.

Friends, moderates, reformers across the Middle East will say, "Where was the United States?" And so the stakes are incredibly high here, Charlie, and yes, this is a part of the war on terror. It is a central part of the war on terror.

Gibson: But the point that I make and that many of the critics make is that Iraq wasn't a part of the war on terror until we went in there.

Bush: I think we … (overlap) Gibson: Now because of Iraq, they're being produced, because (crosstalk)

Bush: I … I … listen, I understand it's dangerous and troublesome, but I think it's very important for the American people to ask, "Why, why is it that Osama bin Laden wants to drive us out of Iraq before this democracy can sustain itself?" One reason is they want a launching pad, another launching pad, a safe haven similar to Afghanistan. And the other reason is because Osama bin Laden recognizes that this is an ideological struggle, and the way to defeat an ideology of hate is with an ideology of hope, and that's liberty and democracy.

Some say, "Well, it's impossible for democracy to take hold in the Middle East." Well, that's true if we leave. But the Iraqis themselves have said, "We want to live in a land of liberty, we want to be free," and that's why 12 million people voted.

This … this struggle is akin to the Cold War. And what I'm not going to let happen on my watch, Charlie, is to concede and cede territory to an enemy that wants to hit us again. An enemy that has made their intentions clear — that is, drive the United States out of the Middle East, and the first place to do so is in Iraq: "Let us defeat the forces of reform and moderation, let us have oil from which to punish the West economically, and let us have a weapon of mass destruction." That is their desire, and their goal, and we must not let them succeed. And so absolutely, Iraq is tied to the security of the United States.

Gibson: A very good argument, that you just made for what you did in Afghanistan and what you did in working with the Pakistanis, to go after the Taliban, who were at the center of this, but Iraq was not, until we went in.

Bush: Charlie, I just told you, the president's job is to confront a threat, and … and if … if I can walk you back in history, uh, Saddam Hussein was clearly a threat. He was a sponsor of terror, he was shooting at American airplanes, he had invaded a neighbor, he had killed thousands of his own citizens, he had used weapons of mass destruction. We have learned since that he did not use them, but he had the capacity to use weapons of mass destruction. He was paying for suicide bombers, the families of suicide bombers.

It wasn't just the United States that saw a threat — Republicans and Democrats saw a threat. The international community saw a threat. He was given a last chance, and it was his choice to make.

Presidents don't get do-overs. But I did. … I'm going to make this statement to you: This world is safer and better off without Saddam Hussein in power, and now the challenge is to help the reformers and moderates fight off the extremists in Iraq and develop a … and help a country grow that can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself, and will be an ally in the war on terror. Victory in Iraq is a major defeat toward the extremists and the radicals who want to do America harm.=

Bush is saying here:

• I invaded Iraq back then because today, Al Qaeda says it's the place to fight.
• Saddam was a threat.

The first argument is similar to the kind of reasoning you'd hear from a drunk who got into a bar fight:

I hit him first because he returned my punch.

And the second argument is the old 'Saddam is a threat', but now officially detached from 9/11 - which is something Bush did not make clear back in 2003.

But back to the first argument Bush presented, that we went in to Iraq because after the invasion it became a place to fight terrorists. Will that fly with anyone, including Bush supporters? It's so transparently out of sequence.


posted by Quiddity at 9/08/2006 04:09:00 PM

From Gingrich's mouth to Bush's ear:

Does anybody remember this from Gingrich's op-ed, The Only Option is to Win, in the Washington Post on August 11?

Our enemies are quite public and repetitive in saying what they want. Not since Adolf Hitler has any group been as bloodthirsty and as open.

And here is Bush on September 5:

Now, I know some of our country hear the terrorists' words, and hope that they will not, or cannot, do what they say. History teaches that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake. ... The world did not heed Lenin's words, and paid a terrible price. ... The world ignored Hitler's words, and paid a terrible price.

posted by Quiddity at 9/08/2006 12:18:00 AM

Question for the Bush administration:

Have any people died while being interrogated by the CIA using an "alternative set of procedures"?

Andrew Sullivan says "Dozens of corpses are the result of the president's "safe and lawful" interrogation methods."


posted by Quiddity at 9/07/2006 01:19:00 PM

Self proclaimed "liberal Democrat" Alan Dershowitz supports Bolton:

In the Washington Times, no less: (excerpts)

On the basis of his performance, I have become a Bolton supporter. He speaks with moral clarity. He is extremely well prepared. He is extraordinarily articulate. He places the best face on American policy, particularly in the Middle East during this crucial time. [...]

Were he not to be confirmed as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at this crucial juncture it would send a powerful message to the international community that Senate Democrats do not stand behind our policy in the Middle East. It would be seen as undercutting American policy toward Israel. Even if that were a misunderstanding, it would have a devastating impact on the world's perception of America's solidarity with Israel.

posted by Quiddity at 9/07/2006 01:10:00 PM

"they should have to wait no longer" - Bush

Regarding Bush's speech yesterday, Andrew Sullivan writes:

Here's the money quote of the speech:

We're now approaching the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks -- and the families of those murdered that day have waited patiently for justice. Some of the families are with us today -- they should have to wait no longer. So I'm announcing today that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and 11 other terrorists in CIA custody have been transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. They are being held in the custody of the Department of Defense. As soon as Congress acts to authorize the military commissions I have proposed, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on September the 11th, 2001, can face justice.

This is the Rove gambit: make this election a choice between legalizing torture or enabling the murderers of 9/11 to escape justice. The timing is deliberate; the exploitation of 9/11 gob-smacking; the cynicism fathomless. There is only one response: call them on it and vote for their opponents in November.

Bush says the families "should have to wait no longer". So, how long have they been waiting? Here are the capture dates for the three men mentioned:

• Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - 1 March 2003 (3 1/2 years ago)
• Abu Zubaydah - 28 March 2002 (4 1/2 years ago)
• Ramzi bin al-Shibh - 11 September 2002 (4 years ago)

After holding these guys for three to four years, Bush decides that now, exactly two months before the election, it's time to send "Congress legislation to specifically authorize the creation of military commissions to try terrorists for war crimes" in order for them to "face justice" because the families "should have to wait no longer".

Is anybody buying this story?

And what should the Democrats do? They should say, "Mr. President, for four years you've had these guys in custody. Give us four months to come up with appropriate legislation so that they can be tried for war crimes."


posted by Quiddity at 9/07/2006 04:08:00 AM

Mind blowing:

Over at Slate, there is an interesting article by Timothy Noah, Coulterized Conservatives, which looks at the trend towards greater stridency (and illogic and flat out lying) taking place by conservative commentators. At one point, he refers to a new book by Dinesh D'Souza, The Enemy At Home. It's beyond belief. From the Doubleday web page about the book: (emp add)

About this Book

In THE ENEMY AT HOME, bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza makes the startling claim that the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist acts around the world can be directly traced to the ideas and attitudes perpetrated by America's cultural left.

D'Souza shows that liberals - people like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Moyers, and Michael Moore'are responsible for fostering a culture that angers and repulses not just Muslim countries but also traditional and religious societies around the world. Their outspoken opposition to American foreign policy - including the way the Bush administration is conducting the war on terror - contributes to the growing hostility, encouraging people both at home and abroad to blame America for the problems of the world. He argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom - from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture.

The cultural wars at home and the global war on terror are usually viewed as separate problems. In this groundbreaking book, D'Souza shows that they are one and the same. It is only by curtailing the left's attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries.

Talk about a strained argument. D'Souza looks for something conservative Muslims don't like, and then claims that is the reason for the terrorist attacks. Not U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia. Not support for Israel or Arab dictators in the region. No. It's all that freedom, which D'Souza blames on Democrats (and which Bush talks endlessly about, so he should be charged as well). But if that's the case, where are D'Souza's attacks on Versace or the New York Post's endless coverage of fashion weeks?

This is delusional, if you assume that D'Souza really believes this stuff. On the other hand, it could be that D'Souza is nothing more than a polemicist who will stop at nothing to slime the opposition.


posted by Quiddity at 9/06/2006 06:28:00 PM

Stand aside!

There has been a lot of discussion about ABC's drama about the events leading up to 9/11. How it falsely portrays Clinton and members of his administration as failing to pursue Bin Laden with vigor (and casting Bush in a good light). Some bloggers are denouncing the ABC effort and asking that the network be contacted and critized for airing a politically slanted drama close to an election. Those on the right are pleased with it, and using it to make fresh attacks on Clinton and company.

But Clinton and Berger and Albright are figures of the past. Even with false charges against them, is that going to help the Republicans this fall? Not likely. And perhaps it's a good thing that Limbaugh, Hewitt, Horowitz, and company are spending their time beating up on someone in the 1990's. Better to have false charges (you know they're inevitable) hurled against Bill Clinton than against the crop of Democrats running for Congresss.

Think of it. Is it an effective strategy for Democrats to mention Reagan's firing of PATCO as part of an argument for unseating Sen. Allen of Virginia?


posted by Quiddity at 9/06/2006 01:48:00 PM

Gregory Djerejian on Rumsfeld's speech last week:

Deconstructing Rummy. Excellent. Highly recommended. Belgravia Dispatch is a blog you'll occasionally disagree with (A Republican, Djerejian was in favor of the Iraq War and now thinks it's time to get out or 'do it right') but the writing is superb, informed, and often quite funny.


posted by Quiddity at 9/05/2006 10:24:00 PM

Aren't you glad ...

That Al-Qaeda attacked in early September instead of late October?


posted by Quiddity at 9/05/2006 04:27:00 PM

Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday:

Great fun this morning. At one point during the roundtable, Kristol said this:

It may be that things will look a little better in the next two months in Iraq.

Two months? That's 1/3 of a Friedman. Or conversely, the amount of time remaining until the next election. Maybe it should be called a "kristol".

Then there was this exchange: (emp add)

Elisabeth Bulmiller: How do you define winning the war? What does that mean?

Bill Kristol: A democratic government in Iraq. The country remaining united (with some federation), with the insurgency under control in the sense of not being able to destroy the country or launch a large sectarian civil war. No weapons of mass destruction. No aggression against neighbors. And that's quite possible, incidentally. I think it was very possible three years ago, and I think it remains possible.

So, it was very possible three years ago - and look where we are now. By Kristol's lights, it's still possible, but why should we pay any attention to such a poor prognosticator?

That's pretty much the Bush position too. As long as there are U.S. troops there, it's unlikely the whole place will fall apart. Chances of "winning" are pretty slim, and so the administration and its supporters are arguing against "defeat", which they claim won't happen as long as we don't pull out. For years.

And it might work if the country is prepared to stick it out for a decade or two, with a monthly cost of 50 U.S. casualties and $10 billion. But eventually fatigue and disgust will set in and a withdrawal will take place. And that's way into the future. In terms of politics, for the Republicans the most important thing about the Bush/Kristol plan is this: To put as much time between the instigators of the Iraq War and the denouement of this fiasco.

UPDATE: Welcome Atrios readers! This blog doesn't have the resources to present you the kind of video like they do at Think Progress, but we want you to be sure that the transcript presented above is legit. So here is a small low-fi 300K wav file of Kristol's remarks (8KHz, 8-bit, mono).


posted by Quiddity at 9/03/2006 12:33:00 PM