Thursday, August 16, 2007
Jon Stewart: Journalist
This video shows Dick Cheney in 1994 stating that going into Baghdad to take out Saddam Hussein would be a terrible thing. The country would likely fracture and there would be chaos. The story has received much play over the past several days, showing how much of a difference a decade makes.
Last night Jon Stewart had on Steven Hayes, the biographer of Cheney, and he asked him to address the issue. Hayes started in with the 9/11 changes everything spiel, but Stewart cut him off. 9/11 did not change the fact that Iraq would be tough to put back together again after Saddam was deposed. Hayes argued that 9/11 did change things, and we had to go in because of WMD no matter what the risk.
This is why Stewart is an excellent journalist. He got to the meat of the subject. Even if "we had" to go in to Iraq, no matter how difficult, that is not what Cheney was saying. He was saying we would be greeted as liberators. The administration was saying it would be cheap, easy, there would be flowers thrown at us. Cheney knew very well that wasn't true.
Even if you give the benefit of the doubt on if the administration believed there were WMDs, but they couldn't prove them, there is no doubt that Cheney lied to the American people about how easy an operation deposing Saddam would be for our country to achieve.
Stewart tells jokes, he is funny, but he has a way of cutting away the extraneous crap and getting to the heart of the matter. Cheney lied.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Et Tu Bill O'Reilly, Et Tu?
All the polls show most Americans do not believe the war is going well and want to wind it down, feeling the effort is not worth much more American blood and treasure.
There comes a time when enough's enough. The U.S. military did not lose the Vietnam War, the country just became exhausted by it and a deal was made to get out of there. Same thing is happening in Iraq. After four years many Americans are just sick of it.
Doesn't help the Iraqi government is incompetent and the people themselves largely ungrateful. A poll taken by D3 Systems asked Iraqis if they supported the coalition. Just six percent "strongly support" it. Sixteen percent "somewhat support" our efforts, 32 percent "somewhat oppose" us and a whopping 46 percent of Iraqis "strongly oppose" the coalition.
Numbers like that many Americans say, "See ya."
When you start losing the numbskulls at Fox News, you are in real trouble. O'Reilly is now going to focus his efforts on the "War on Thanksgiving", and sexually harassing more of his employees. The war is dead to him now.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Three Sunni Muslim mosques were torched and mortar bombs hit Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone on Thursday, police said, despite curfews imposed after suspected al Qaeda militants hit a revered Shi'ite shrine.
Thousands of Iraqi and U.S. soldiers were on the streets of Baghdad and other cities trying to enforce the curfews that were imposed after Wednesday's bombing, blamed on al Qaeda, felled the two golden minarets of Samarra's al-Askari mosque.
Police said more than a dozen mortar rounds hit the Green Zone, home to Iraq's parliament and the U.S. embassy, causing some casualties, but they had no further details. Smoke could be seen billowing into the sky from several areas.
The headline grabbed me on this one. This is not a bad episode of the Brady Bunch where Mike lectures Greg about responsibility of getting home on time. A curfew is something you order when you can actually enforce it.
What this does show is that the surge isn't enough. We can not enforce a curfew after we beefed up our presence in Baghdad. I would suspect that we figured Mosques of Sunni sects as being high priority targets for Shia retaliation but we were impotent to prevent another tit for tat cycle.
If anybody sees any light at the end of the tunnel with this strategy, it would be nice to hear.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A September progress report on the U.S. troop increase in Iraq that President George W. Bush called an important moment for his war strategy is unlikely to be a "pivotal" assessment, officials now say.
Amid unrelenting bloodshed in Iraq and scant signs of progress by the Iraqi government in meeting political benchmarks, the White House sought to temper expectations of rapid strides resulting from a security crackdown begun at the start of this year.
"I have warned from the very beginning about expecting some sort of magical thing to happen in September," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters on Wednesday.
Our expectations were pretty damned low to begin with Tony. The Bush administration has a gift of disappointing us no matter how generously we grade them on a curve. The Iraqis and our troops continue to suffer the consequences with no end in sight.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Over at Talking Points Memo, they posted some excerpts from Bob Shrum's new book where he reveals that Time columnist Joe Klein was acting as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign. This situation is an indicator of why the democrats caved this week on the Iraq funding bill.
Kerry hires Bob Shrum, a man with the worst track record on the planet. Bob Shrum worked as a consultant in Presidential races for the 1980 Teddy Kennedy campaign, in 1988 for Dick Gephardt, in 1992 for Bob Kerrey, in 2000 for Al Gore, and after this record of achievement, John Kerry hired him in 2004, because he wanted to pick a winner.
Joe Klein wrote the anonymous book 'Primary Colors', not using his real name because it was a personalized not too flattering fictional account of the Clinton marriage and their careers. But Kerry was great friends with Klein, and he craved his advice even though Klein was wrong on the war amongst other issues.
Klein himself was trying to play many parts. He was not only reporting on the campaign and preparing to write a book about consultants; he was also a constant critic and yet another sometime adviser. After the Kerry appearance at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner, he told [Kerry spokesman] David Wade: "Great speech, but it's too late"--then turned around and stalked away. With Klein, it was almost always too late for us, in part because we didn't always take his persistent advice. He would chastise Kerry on the phone when he didn't like a speech, counseling both Kerry and me about what the canddiate should say and what our strategy should be. He argued to Kerry, for example, that his health care plan should call for an individual mandate, requiring all Americans to buy health insurance. Rejecting his advice was uncomfortable for Kerry, who liked Joe, craved his approval, and worried what his columns would say when we didn't take his recommendations.
In one excerpt, it is revealed that Klein wanted Kerry to vote for the supplemental funding, but Kerry at the end backed down, before using his tortured rhetoric of for it before he was against it.
Kerry was continually trying to please Klein, while at the same time listening to Bob Shrum, never bothering in the process to figure out what was the right thing to do. He needed to lead and ask people to follow.
This is exactly what the problem of the democrats is now. They just refuse to lead. George Bush is between 28 and 34% in the polls right now. 70% of the public wants out of Iraq, and they get into a game of chicken with Bush that they were never prepared to fight until the end. They are indecisive, unsure of themselves, worried what the elite pundits will think about them, and are acting like political marionettes.
If Bush wasn't so incompetent, his administration so corrupt, so pig headed stubborn (yes, a lot of ifs), he would be immensely popular. The American people like politicians who are confident. The same public that voted for Ronald Reagan voted for Clinton. A public that can name all the Brady Kids, but can't name four Supreme Court Justices is going on a vibe more than a fact based assessment. They instinctively follow somebody who says they know the way from A to B, and have a plan to get there.
This blind faith in people who are confident about directions can often lead to disaster and hilarity, as any wife of a guy who refuses to pull over and get help on a long road trip can attest.
But, this is the society that we have. The democrats look weak. The only thing the democrats have going for them is Republican corruption, and the vast unpopularity of the war. The democrats could actually lose in 2008 if they decide to go the Obama and Hillary route yesterday of holding their tongues when asked about this bill. It's cowardly.
They want to lift their fingers up to the wind and see if they can get away with it before deciding what they believe in. Who is inspired by that? Certainly not I, nor the American people regardless of their ideological bent.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
They caved to Bush on Iraq funding, like most people assumed they would. Bush is between 28 and 33% in the latest polls that came out. The vast majority of the American people want out, and the democrats run and hide because big bad Bush is playing hardball.
Do they even want to lead? I am disgusted. My cynical side says they are playing this just like the Republicans play the abortion issue. The democrats will go to the voters in fall 2008 and say that we can get out of Iraq only if you just give us some more money and more seats.
Bullcrap. If they had the power of conviction, they would have played chicken with Bush until he blinked. They would have passed two bills every week. One for reauthorization with benchmarks, and one for funds only to be used for withdrawal. They should be ashamed of themselves today. Their cowardice is making them own this war too. I hope they have to face the widows of those who fall this summer and fall and are forced to explain themselves.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The Bill Moyers documentary on the press conduct during the run up to the war was excellent. If you didn't watch last night, it's online here. One thing that was brought up a bit which was the thing that sold me against the WMD claims was the fact that nobody could find them. Rummy, though this may shock you, lied when he said we knew where the WMD locations were.
Why wouldn't we at the very last minute sneak a word to the inspectors about exactly where they could find the WMDs if we had actual proof? Actually we did tell the inspectors about alot of places to look, and they always came up empty. It should have told us, and especially the media something.
Another point that was mentioned was the absurdity of a Saddam/Osama link. Hussein was ruthless against fundamentalists. He was supposed to be inviting in a fundamentalist organization with a charasmatic leader into his country? As if. It would be the equivalent of saying that Ted Kennedy and Sam Brownback are both Catholics so obviously they have to be in cahoots. We know that would be a very stupid argument to make, because we have knowledge of their positions and their alliances. Our media was too lazy or cowered to bother to refute the Saddam/Osama claims.
Tim Russert looked really bad in his interview as well. He pulled out that I am a poor country boy from Buffalo routine last night and it didn't stick. He has been in DC how long now? He also had no coherent answer to the question regarding Judy Miller's aluminum tubes story, and Dick Cheney pointing to the story that likely he or his minions leaked, in a self referring circle jerk.
I am not one for the navel gazing. I watched way too many Fred Friendly media wankathons on PBS when youthful. However, the media has not done enough to acknowledge how badly they screwed up. But more importantly, they haven't developed processes to prevent such a catostrophic lack of intellectual curiosity from leading us into such a flawed war again.
One of the chief things is there should be accountability for pundits. How networks can put Bill Kristol on the air to pontificate about foreign policy is not confusing. It is offensive. Better journalism please.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
The Washington Post's blog has a disturbing round up of appearances by leading democrats on this week's political gabfests.
Last Sunday, senior Democrats said that they would not hold back funding for the war if the president vetoed a bill including an Iraq withdrawal timetable. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, reiterated that point on ABC's "This Week." He said, "We're not going to vote to cut funding, period."
Should he veto this bill, which means he will be vetoing the money for the troops, we will try to come up with a way, ... trying to compromise with the White House, that both supports the troops and yet changes the strategy in Iraq, which we feel is misguided," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on "Fox News Sunday."
Let me be blunt here. The democrats are being cowards here. President Bush knows that they were going to blink. Why compromise when you know the other side isn't serious? There appears to be two problems here. The democrats don't have the will to fight on this issue. 70% of americans do want us out of Iraq within a year. George Bush's approval rating is in the low 30's, yet democrats still seem to be institutionalizing their fear of the "popular" president, which only exists in Karl Rove's imagination these days.
The other reason is frankly more cynical. Democrats might think that they can run against the GOP and their war again in 2008 to electoral victory. If they say they tried to stop Bush, but couldn't because of the veto pen, they will run on getting the White House and congress back so they can finally stop the war. This frankly is bullshit.
They can defund the war period. The President has until July until funds run out. The democrats could stand firm and say take our bill or leave it. If you leave it, we will appropriate enough money to hold the troops until the end of summer and to redeploy them. If Bush refuses to go along, then the troops will have to come home for lack of funds to prosecute this war. It is Bush's choice to refuse any compromise. He will be responsible. The democrats are trying to have it both ways here. As a democrat this offends me deeply.
It reminds me of Republican abortion and bashing homosexual promises. No, really, we want to put homosexuals in camps and execute abortion doctors, but those pesky (fill in the blanks) are preventing us from doing it. We just need a few more seats, or the white house, to get it done. A tip to any fundamentalist reading this. They are bullshitting you. They are Lucy, you are Charlie Brown, and if you ever kick the football, you may grow tired of the game.
What isn't being spoken of enough is the fact there are over 3,200 dead americans, an Iraqi nation in shambles, and cynical politics is trumping any of those considerations. The american people are not "as political" as many would imagine. They want leadership. They ache for leaders. It's why Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were popular even though their policies were not the same.
The right thing to do, the popular thing to do, the only thing to do is to end this war. Do not look at me next summer for campaign donations to "end the war" by electing you, if you failed to do what you can do now. If you play this game over the dead bodies of those in the Iraq quagmire, you are not much better than the Republicans.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Dick Cheney Has Waited For This Day For Four Years
Today is the fourth anniversary of the war for Iraqi independence, or for their oil, or for WMD's, or Saddam tried to killed my daddy. I am not sure what story is operative at the moment. Here is Dick and Lynn Cheney being greeted with the tradional fourth anniversary gift of flowers by an adoring Kuwaiti royal familyIraqi crowd.
They really have greeted us at liberators. Dick Cheney, through barely disguised tears muttered "You like me, you really like me. Wahh wahhh wahhh wahhh". Lynn Cheney was busy writing 'Sisters II: Underneath the Burka' and was unavailable for comment.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Even though some of us on the looney left think that the national debt and the screwed up priorities of our country are a problem, apparently it's not. This war could end up costing over $1,000,000,000,000 dollars but we can foot the bill.
But even though the war has turned out to be much more expensive than Bush administration officials predicted on the eve of the March 2003 invasion, it is relatively affordable, at least in historical terms.Iraq eats up less than 1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, compared to as much as 14 percent for Vietnam and 9 percent for Korea.
"I think it's hard to argue it's not affordable," said Steven M. Kosiak, director of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense think tank in Washington, D.C.
Well when you put it that way, we are getting good bang for the buck in Mesopotamia.
Bob Kerrey, who left politics after losing to Bill Clinton on the platform that Clinton was unelectable chimes in as well.
If anything, notes former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, that's a testament to how big and strong the U.S. economy has become in the past few decades. "We've demonstrated tremendous capacity to do a very, very expensive program," said Kerrey, a Democrat who now serves as president of the New School. He and others say that the continued strength of the economy itself is a demonstration of the war's affordability.
Kerrey also was in favor of the radical republican overhaul of Social Security. Part of his new strategy might be kill off enough younger americans through combat injuries, suicide, and from inhaling depleted uranium dust that they won't be alive to collect their benefits.
Kerrey is a democrat like Joe Lieberman is a democrat. Enough said.
