Some of Jerry Falwell's students felt that the danger of protesters at his funeral was so high that they prepared and brought low-burn gasoline bombs to use on the protesters. The level of paranoia this demonstrates is frightening in itself.
Digby predicts that when a Democrat is elected President in 2008 it will set off a spate of right-wing terrorist activities right here in USA. Timothy McVeigh (See also an interview with Timothy McVeigh.) and Eric Rudolph (See also Eric Rudolph at Wikipedia) are not the only crazies the right-wing has to field with bombs and guns. Both had numerous supporters who aided and hide them. The "Army of God strongly supported Eric Rudolph, and a variety of right-wing militants, gun-nuts and religious types apparently provided some support to Timothy McVeigh. The FBI has played down the people who actually aimed and set off those two and carefully not gone after them.
The anthrax letters sent to a variety of Democratic politicians and News media in 2001 figures has to be considered American right-wing terrorism, based on the fact that the targets are all considered enemies by so many right-wingers. (See also the Anthrax attack website by Ed Lake.
With Bush in office, the right-wing (and especially the Christianists) have felt they were making progress in bringing America into the Dominion. I'm sure that the election of 2006 shook them up, but right now it could be just a setback. But a strong election of a Democratic President in 2008 together with further deterioration of the national Republican political position could set off a bunch of the crazies. Since the police forces are often right-wing themselves, they won't make a big deal of it. The question is whether the media will.
With the media track record over the last 15 or so years, I doubt they will look at it or report it if they see it.
Orcinus has been following such things. Go look at his writings on "Eliminationism in America."
See also:
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
"Caging" - an explanation of the term
Monica Goodling used the term "caging" in her testimony this morning, and at one site I read the term was described as committing a crime. Monica was probably not using the term in its criminal sense.
"Caging" has two meanings. First, it is a term used in direct mail operations to describe the process of opening, sorting, and coding donor mail and correspondence. The coding creates a "caging list" which is the organized data that is then given to the organization using the services of the direct mail contractor. That processed information is used to update the customer's lists.
The second meaning of "caging" is a form of voter suppression. It is a term that describes the process of challenging the validity of the voter registration of a voter so that they are required to prove they are registered before their vote will be counted. Wikipedia offers this description of the use of "caging" to suppress voter turnout:
I seriously doubt that Monica Goodling was using the term "caging" in its second meaning as she was testifying before the House Committee this morning.
"Caging" has two meanings. First, it is a term used in direct mail operations to describe the process of opening, sorting, and coding donor mail and correspondence. The coding creates a "caging list" which is the organized data that is then given to the organization using the services of the direct mail contractor. That processed information is used to update the customer's lists.
The second meaning of "caging" is a form of voter suppression. It is a term that describes the process of challenging the validity of the voter registration of a voter so that they are required to prove they are registered before their vote will be counted. Wikipedia offers this description of the use of "caging" to suppress voter turnout:
Voters targeted by caging are often the most vulnerable: those who are unfamiliar with their rights under the law, and those who cannot spare the time, effort, and expense of proving that their registration is valid. Ultimately, caging works by dissuading a voter from casting a ballot, or by ensuring that they cast a provisional ballot, which is less likely to be counted.This form of voter suppression obviously works a lot better on people who do not routinely carry a variety of forms of ID and who find it difficult to get time off from work to take care of personal matters, so the Republicans tend to use it to reduce Democratic voter turnout.
With one type of caging, a political party sends registered mail to addresses of registered voters. If the mail is returned as undeliverable - because, for example, the voter refuses to sign for it, the voter isn't present for delivery, or the voter is homeless - the party uses that fact to challenge the registration, arguing that because the voter could not be reached at the address, the registration is fraudulent. It is this use of direct mail caging techniques to target voters which probably resulted in the application of the name to the political tactic.
On the day of the election, when the voter arrives at the poll and requests a ballot, an operative of the party challenges the validity of their registration.
While the challenge process is prescribed by law, the use of broad, partisan challenges is controversial. For example, in the United States Presidential Election of 2004, the Republican Party employed this process to challenge the validity of tens of thousands of voter registrations in contested states like Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The Republican Party argued that the challenges were necessary to combat widespread voter fraud. The Democratic Party countered that the challenges were tantamount to voter suppression, and further argued that the Republican Party had targeted voter registrations on the basis of the race of the voter, in violation of federal law.
I seriously doubt that Monica Goodling was using the term "caging" in its second meaning as she was testifying before the House Committee this morning.
Bush cries "Wolf" again - tries to hype bin Laden threat
According to the Associate Press bush has declassified some bin Laden related Intelligence the day before he is to give a big speech on Terrorism at the Coast Guard Academy.
Besides, bin Laden and al Zarqawi had a very prickly relationship, and al Zarqawi did not take orders from bin Laden. At times they agreed to work in association, but neither trusted the other much, as I understand the situation from news reports.
In short, I strongly suspect that this is simply more Bush/Cheney disinformation caused primarily by the fact that Bush's latest poll ratings are lower than a snake's belly and dropping. It's the old "Get into low poll ratings, selectively declassify some Intelligence that makes Bush look good (while keeping the rest classified) game."
How many times does the little boy have to cry "Wolf" before everyone realizes he is doing it for attention, not because he sees a wolf?
WASHINGTON - President Bush, trying to defend his war strategy, declassified intelligence Tuesday asserting that Osama bin Laden ordered a top lieutenant in early 2005 to form a terrorist cell that would conduct attacks outside Iraq — and that the United States should be the top target.There is no reason to believe that this, if true, was anything more than contingency planning on bin Laden's part. Two years ago al Qaeda was scrapping around for funds, and al Zarqawi would have been looking to al Qaeda for funding for efforts outside Iraq if he had any hot proposals.
The information mirrored a classified bulletin from the Homeland Security Department in March 2005, reporting that bin Laden had enlisted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, his senior operative in Iraq, to plan potential strikes in the U.S. The warning was described at the time as credible but not specific and did not prompt the administration to raise its national terror alert level.
The declassification of the intelligence came a day before Bush was scheduled to speak about terrorism at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
Besides, bin Laden and al Zarqawi had a very prickly relationship, and al Zarqawi did not take orders from bin Laden. At times they agreed to work in association, but neither trusted the other much, as I understand the situation from news reports.
In short, I strongly suspect that this is simply more Bush/Cheney disinformation caused primarily by the fact that Bush's latest poll ratings are lower than a snake's belly and dropping. It's the old "Get into low poll ratings, selectively declassify some Intelligence that makes Bush look good (while keeping the rest classified) game."
How many times does the little boy have to cry "Wolf" before everyone realizes he is doing it for attention, not because he sees a wolf?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
"Duke" Cunningham - the most corrupt Congressman ever.
Ken Silverstein at Harpers Magazine writes about the greed and corruption which is on display in the new book The Wrong Stuff: The Extraordinary Saga of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the Most Corrupt Congressman Ever Caught. He asked Marcus Stern, one of the authors of the book, six questions about Cunningham and published the reported answers in his article in Harpers.
I had not realized that Cunningham was so blatant as to sit down to lunch with Mitchell Wade (the man who was bribing him,) pull out a piece of Congressional stationary, and list on one side the amount of the contract he would get for Wade (in $ Millions) and on the other side list how much he expected back as a "gift" for each contract. For the first $16 million contract Wade was to provide a yacht. (Wade did provide the yacht, later renamed the "Duke - Stir" by Cunningham.) Then Cunningham expected Wade to give him $50,000 for each further million dollars of contract up to $50 million. After that there was a volume discount. For contracts above the $50 million total Cunningham only expected a $25,000 "gift" per million dollars of contract.
How utterly crass! A volume discount? On bribes? You give volume discounts to favored customers to keep them from going to the competitors. Who was Cunningham competing with? [Think about it.] Then the idiot Cunningham actually wrote all this down. After all that, he even had Mitchell Wade pay for the meal. That was item one in the article.
Questions two and three are quite interesting, but question four is especially so. It is where the Marcus was asked how early in his life Cunningham displayed his greed.
The key is the grandiosity. Very clearly this describes Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Another element that shines out like the headlight from an oncoming freight train is the refusal to take responsibility for what happens to him. It is always the fault of someone else. The whole thing is wrapped around ego defense. There is an inherent feeling of inadequacy, and the defenses include presenting (and believing) the grandiose fantasies and never, never, never admitting any failure. With such perfection (unrecognized by lesser people) it always must be the fault of some other person.
These people are really dangerous. They also do not ever look to themselves as the cause of the problems they face, so they can never get better. They lie, they manipulate, they grab what they want and they ignore the havoc they leave behind themselves by blaming others for going after them. See it?
Cunningham is utterly blatant. G. W. Bush has so many protective handlers around him that it is difficult to be sure he fits the same pattern. But I strongly suspect that he does.
I had not realized that Cunningham was so blatant as to sit down to lunch with Mitchell Wade (the man who was bribing him,) pull out a piece of Congressional stationary, and list on one side the amount of the contract he would get for Wade (in $ Millions) and on the other side list how much he expected back as a "gift" for each contract. For the first $16 million contract Wade was to provide a yacht. (Wade did provide the yacht, later renamed the "Duke - Stir" by Cunningham.) Then Cunningham expected Wade to give him $50,000 for each further million dollars of contract up to $50 million. After that there was a volume discount. For contracts above the $50 million total Cunningham only expected a $25,000 "gift" per million dollars of contract.
How utterly crass! A volume discount? On bribes? You give volume discounts to favored customers to keep them from going to the competitors. Who was Cunningham competing with? [Think about it.] Then the idiot Cunningham actually wrote all this down. After all that, he even had Mitchell Wade pay for the meal. That was item one in the article.
Questions two and three are quite interesting, but question four is especially so. It is where the Marcus was asked how early in his life Cunningham displayed his greed.
We looked at his childhood in the 1940s–he was an average kid, maybe with a penchant for bullying, but nothing out of the ordinary. Then in 1972 he shot down three MIGs over Vietnam in seven minutes and was shot down himself. He returned home to the U.S. a war hero, to parades and honors and awards. Almost immediately you begin to see a mixture of greed and entitlement on his part. He was quickly nominated for the Navy Cross, the highest medal the Navy awards, but he and his radioman went to their commander, Ron McKeown, and said they wanted to hold out for the Medal of Honor. McKeown was stunned, he told them you don’t hold out for the Medal of Honor, you die for it. McKeown told us that Cunningham wanted the Medal of Honor because it came with a lifetime stipend, which we calculated would have been about $100 per month. Under great pressure he accepted the Navy Cross but according to his wife he always felt cheated by that.I find Item 5 especially interesting.
5. Has Cunningham expressed remorse for his crimes?The Psychiatrists have a label for this kind of behavior. It is "Narcissistic Personality Disorder." Here is a good thumbnail definition:
Cunningham feels railroaded and widely blames his predicament on Mitch Wade, his co-conspirator, and on the media. At his sentencing on March 3, 2006, he told the court that repentance will be a lifelong endeavor, that “no man has ever been more sorry,” and that he “accepted responsibility” for his crimes. But after he was sentenced and taken away to a jail in San Diego, he told the deputy federal marshal who put him in his cell, a guy named Dave Dallaire, that it was all a misunderstanding and that he had been “ramrodded.” His wife, Nancy Cunningham, said in an interview with Kitty Kelley last year that he claimed he was innocent, had been railroaded by the government, that he had signed the plea agreement under duress, and that he even thinks he will pardoned by President Bush. He lied up until the moment that he pleaded guilty and engaged in cover-up practices, clumsy as they were. There’s no reason to think the tears he shed in court were genuine. I received a letter from him last September that was filled with rage at the media and at Mitch Wade.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a pattern of self-centered or egotistical behavior that shows up in thinking and behavior in a lot of different situations and activities. People with NPD won't (or can't) change their behavior even when it causes problems at work or when other people complain about the way they act, or when their behavior causes a lot of emotional distress to others (or themselves? None of my narcissists ever admit to being distressed by their own behavior -- they always blame other people for any problems). This pattern of self-centered or egotistical behavior is not caused by current drug or alcohol use, head injury, acute psychotic episodes, or any other illness, but has been going on steadily at least since adolescence or early adulthood. [ From Narcissistic Personality Disorder.]There are nine criteria in Paragraph 301.81 of the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual IV (DSM-IV) that apply to this diagnosis. A person meets the diagnosis if they meet five of the nine criteria.
1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)This pattern seems quite obvious to me. My second wife was a narcissist. I was unaware of this until after our divorce, when I tried to understand what went wrong. Oddly enough, she got her Masters in Social Work while we were married and it was she who introduced me to the DSM-IIIR (upgraded now to the DSM-IV.) She met eight of the nine criteria.
Translation: Grandiosity is the hallmark of narcissism. So what is grandiose?
The simplest everyday way that narcissists show their exaggerated sense of self-importance is by talking about family, work, life in general as if there is nobody else in the picture. Whatever they may be doing, in their own view, they are the star, and they give the impression that they are bearing heroic responsibility for their family or department or company, that they have to take care of everything because their spouses or co-workers are undependable, uncooperative, or otherwise unfit. They ignore or denigrate the abilities and contributions of others and complain that they receive no help at all; they may inspire your sympathy or admiration for their stoicism in the face of hardship or unstinting self-sacrifice for the good of (undeserving) others. But this everyday grandiosity is an aspect of narcissism that you may never catch on to unless you visit the narcissist's home or workplace and see for yourself that others are involved and are pulling their share of the load and, more often than not, are also pulling the narcissist's share as well. An example is the older woman who told me with a sigh that she knew she hadn't been a perfect mother but she just never had any help at all -- and she said this despite knowing that I knew that she had worn out and discarded two devoted husbands and had lived in her parents' pocket (and pocketbook) as long as they lived, quickly blowing her substantial inheritance on flaky business schemes. Another example is claiming unusual benefits or spectacular results from ordinary effort and investment, giving the impression that somehow the narcissist's time and money are worth more than other people's. [Here is an article about recognizing and coping with narcissism in the workplace; it is rather heavy on management jargon and psychobabble, but worth reading. "The Impact of Narcissism on Leadership and Sustainability" by Bruce Gregory, Ph.D. "When the narcissistic defense is operating in an interpersonal or group setting, the grandiose part does not show its face in public. In public it presents a front of patience, congeniality, and confident reasonableness."]
In popular usage, the terms narcissism, narcissist, and narcissistic denote absurd vanity and are applied to people whose ambitions and aspirations are much grander than their evident talents. Sometimes these terms are applied to people who are simply full of themselves -- even when their real achievements are spectacular. Outstanding performers are not always modest, but they aren't grandiose if their self-assessments are realistic; e.g., Muhammad Ali, then Cassius Clay, was notorious for boasting "I am the greatest!" and also pointing out that he was the prettiest, but he was the greatest and the prettiest for a number of years, so his self-assessments weren't grandiose. Some narcissists are flamboyantly boastful and self-aggrandizing, but many are inconspicuous in public, saving their conceit and autocratic opinions for their nearest and dearest. Common conspicuous grandiose behaviors include expecting special treatment or admiration on the basis of claiming (a) to know important, powerful or famous people or (b) to be extraordinarily intelligent or talented. As a real-life example, I used to have a neighbor who told his wife that he was the youngest person since Sir Isaac Newton to take a doctorate at Oxford. The neighbor gave no evidence of a world-class education, so I looked up Newton and found out that Newton had completed his baccalaureate at the age of twenty-two (like most people) and spent his entire academic career at Cambridge. The grandiose claims of narcissists are superficially plausible fabrications, readily punctured by a little critical consideration. The test is performance: do they deliver the goods? (There's also the special situation of a genius who's also strongly narcissistic, as perhaps Frank Lloyd Wright. Just remind yourself that the odds are that you'll meet at least 1000 narcissists for every genius you come across.) [More on grandiosity.]
2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Translation: Narcissists cultivate solipsistic or "autistic" fantasies, which is to say that they live in their own little worlds (and react with affront when reality dares to intrude).
3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
Translation: Narcissists think that everyone who is not special and superior is worthless. By definition, normal, ordinary, and average aren't special and superior, and so, to narcissists, they are worthless.
4. Requires excessive admiration
Translation: Excessive in two ways: they want praise, compliments, deference, and expressions of envy all the time, and they want to be told that everything they do is better than what others can do. Sincerity is not an issue here; all that matters are frequency and volume.
5. Has a sense of entitlement
Translation: They expect automatic compliance with their wishes or especially favorable treatment, such as thinking that they should always be able to go first and that other people should stop whatever they're doing to do what the narcissists want, and may react with hurt or rage when these expectations are frustrated.
6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
Translation: Narcissists use other people to get what they want without caring about the cost to the other people.
7. Lacks empathy
Translation: They are unwilling to recognize or sympathize with other people's feelings and needs. They "tune out" when other people want to talk about their own problems.
In clinical terms, empathy is the ability to recognize and interpret other people's emotions. Lack of empathy may take two different directions: (a) accurate interpretation of others' emotions with no concern for others' distress, which is characteristic of psychopaths; and (b) the inability to recognize and accurately interpret other people's emotions, which is the NPD style. This second form of defective empathy may (rarely) go so far as alexithymia, or no words for emotions, and is found with psychosomatic illnesses, i.e., medical conditions in which emotion is experienced somatically rather than psychically. People with personality disorders don't have the normal body-ego identification and regard their bodies only instrumentally, i.e., as tools to use to get what they want, or, in bad states, as torture chambers that inflict on them meaningless suffering. Self-described narcissists who've written to me say that they are aware that their feelings are different from other people's, mostly that they feel less, both in strength and variety (and which the narcissists interpret as evidence of their own superiority); some narcissists report "numbness" and the inability to perceive meaning in other people's emotions.
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
Translation: No translation needed.
9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes
Translation: They treat other people like dirt.
The key is the grandiosity. Very clearly this describes Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Another element that shines out like the headlight from an oncoming freight train is the refusal to take responsibility for what happens to him. It is always the fault of someone else. The whole thing is wrapped around ego defense. There is an inherent feeling of inadequacy, and the defenses include presenting (and believing) the grandiose fantasies and never, never, never admitting any failure. With such perfection (unrecognized by lesser people) it always must be the fault of some other person.
These people are really dangerous. They also do not ever look to themselves as the cause of the problems they face, so they can never get better. They lie, they manipulate, they grab what they want and they ignore the havoc they leave behind themselves by blaming others for going after them. See it?
Cunningham is utterly blatant. G. W. Bush has so many protective handlers around him that it is difficult to be sure he fits the same pattern. But I strongly suspect that he does.
Josh Marshall reports on the Personal Democracy Forum 07
The --- What? Huh?
That was my first reaction. Probably yours, too. So get past it and go watch the video at TPM. Here's why.
It is about the use of technology, the Internet and its many and expanding permutations, in politics. Josh's video itself is an example. It is a tool of journalism, distributed by Internet rather than TV. It opens journalism to everyone.
The video itself is overall interesting. The first significant part was an interview with Andrew Raseij starting at about 1 minute 40 seconds. Andrew's challenge to the candidates is to ask "Who is America's first tech President? What are the candidate's positions on such issues as Net Neutrality? Providing broadband access to every American?"
The second significant part is the interview with Jeff Jarvis. Mr. Jarvis is watching the way the world changes. He likes to watch the election through U-Tube. Mr. Jarvis' issue is how the candidates use the Internet to get elected to office, and how voters and potential voters can use U-tube to excerpt candidate statements on a particular issue and aggregate them over time. This would display inconsistencies, which the next interviewer should ask about - then post on U-Tube.
The video is worth watching - maybe even the first minute and forty seconds if you are happy with a distant shot of a smiling Tom Friedman and pictures of New York City from a cab. I have to ask -- why did Josh publish his cab ride to the conference? I got nothing from that. I am also sufficiently non-social so that I really don't care who he was schmoozing with. The rest was really worthwhile, though, so watch it.
Josh also promises more. For someone reading this, Josh is exploring where the medium we are using right now is going in the context of its impact on politics.
For more on this, see does the Democratic Party have an advantage on-line?. It is about the nexus of the Internet, sociology (or social psychology) and politics. The Internet is the rapidly changing element in that triad, and the other two elements are being dragged along and adapting to the changes.
That was my first reaction. Probably yours, too. So get past it and go watch the video at TPM. Here's why.
It is about the use of technology, the Internet and its many and expanding permutations, in politics. Josh's video itself is an example. It is a tool of journalism, distributed by Internet rather than TV. It opens journalism to everyone.
The video itself is overall interesting. The first significant part was an interview with Andrew Raseij starting at about 1 minute 40 seconds. Andrew's challenge to the candidates is to ask "Who is America's first tech President? What are the candidate's positions on such issues as Net Neutrality? Providing broadband access to every American?"
The second significant part is the interview with Jeff Jarvis. Mr. Jarvis is watching the way the world changes. He likes to watch the election through U-Tube. Mr. Jarvis' issue is how the candidates use the Internet to get elected to office, and how voters and potential voters can use U-tube to excerpt candidate statements on a particular issue and aggregate them over time. This would display inconsistencies, which the next interviewer should ask about - then post on U-Tube.
The video is worth watching - maybe even the first minute and forty seconds if you are happy with a distant shot of a smiling Tom Friedman and pictures of New York City from a cab. I have to ask -- why did Josh publish his cab ride to the conference? I got nothing from that. I am also sufficiently non-social so that I really don't care who he was schmoozing with. The rest was really worthwhile, though, so watch it.
Josh also promises more. For someone reading this, Josh is exploring where the medium we are using right now is going in the context of its impact on politics.
For more on this, see does the Democratic Party have an advantage on-line?. It is about the nexus of the Internet, sociology (or social psychology) and politics. The Internet is the rapidly changing element in that triad, and the other two elements are being dragged along and adapting to the changes.
The American Center for Voting Rights has vanished without explanation.
The American Center for Voting Rights, an organization established to stop fraudulent voting, has disappeared. Here is what Richard L. Hasen at Slate wrote about it:
With no notice and little comment, ACVR—the only prominent nongovernmental organization claiming that voter fraud is a major problem, a problem warranting strict rules such as voter-ID laws— simply stopped appearing at government panels and conferences. Its Web domain name has suddenly expired, its reports are all gone (except where they have been preserved by its opponents), and its general counsel, Mark "Thor" Hearne, has cleansed his résumé of affiliation with the group. Hearne won't speak to the press about ACVR's demise. No other group has taken up the "voter fraud" mantra.Now that we know at least nine U.S. Attorneys were "asked to resign" over the issue of not brining enough cases of voter fraud in courts, what happened? That is essentially 10% of the total 93 U.S. Attorneys.
The death of ACVR says a lot about the Republican strategy of raising voter fraud as a crisis in American elections. Presidential adviser Karl Rove and his allies, who have been ghostbusting illusory dead and fictional voters since the contested 2000 election, apparently mounted a two-pronged attack. One part of that attack, at the heart of the current Justice Department scandals, involved getting the DoJ and various U.S. attorneys in battleground states to vigorously prosecute cases of voter fraud. That prong has failed. After exhaustive effort, the Department of Justice discovered virtually no polling-place voter fraud, and its efforts to fire the U.S. attorneys in battleground states who did not push the voter-fraud line enough has backfired. Even if Attorney General Gonzales declines to resign his position, his reputation has been irreparably damaged.
But the second prong of this attack may have proven more successful. This involved using ACVR to give "think tank" academic cachet to the unproven idea that voter fraud is a major problem in elections. That cachet would be used to support the passage of onerous voter-identification laws that depress turnout among the poor, minorities, and the elderly—groups more likely to vote Democratic. Where the Bush administration may have failed to nail illegal voters, the effort to suppress minority voting has borne more fruit, as more states pass these laws, and courts begin to uphold them in the name of beating back waves of largely imaginary voter fraud.It's pretty clear from the firings of the U.S. Attorneys followed by the resulting exposure of the politicization of the Department of Justice and now the overnight disappearance of the American Center for Voting Rights that the fraud was not by voters but by the Bush White House.Perhaps even with the demise of ACVR, the hard work—of giving credibility to a nonproblem—is done. The short organizational history of ACVR, chronicled indefatigably by Brad Friedman of the Brad Blog, shows that the group was founded just days before its representatives testified before a congressional committee hearing on election-administration issues chaired by then-Rep. (and now federal inmate) Bob Ney. The group was headed by Hearne, national election counsel to Bush-Cheney '04, and staffed with other Republican operatives, including Jim Dyke, a former RNC communications director.
Consisting of little more than a post-office box and some staffers who wrote reports and gave helpful quotes about the pervasive problems of voter fraud to the press, the group identified Democratic cities as hot spots for voter fraud, then pushed the line that "election integrity" required making it harder for people to vote. The group issued reports (PDF) on areas in the country of special concern, areas that coincidentally tended to be presidential battleground states. In many of these places, it now appears the White House was pressuring U.S. attorneys to bring more voter-fraud prosecutions.
Monday, May 21, 2007
What is happening to the Iraqi leadership in Iraq?
Juan Cole runs down the list of Iraqi leaders currently outside Iraq for a variety of reasons.
- Abdul Aziz al-Hakim has arranged to get chemotherapy in Iran (rather than Houston.)
- Jalal Talabani has come to the U.S. for a weight-reduction program.
- Muqtada al-Sadr is in hiding in the Kufa area of Iraq.
Despite its elected government, Iraq is actually run by a small handful of movers and shakers. These include the two Kurdish leaders, Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani. Then on the Shiite side you have al-Hakim and Da'wa Party leader Nuri al-Maliki. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and Sunni Arab vice president Tariq al-Hashimi are on the margins of the top Shiite/Kurdish club.Having half these guys outside of Iraq or, like Muqtada al-Sadr, out of pocket, at once may just be coincidence, but it is suspicious. What's coming down in the near future?
A brief bit on Jim Webb in GQ
Jim Webb is an interesting man and definitely a Senator to keep your eye on. Here is the intro to the GQ description of him:
I just think he was speaking for a majority of Americans. That seems like a pretty good strategy for winning to me. I also don't think that Giuliani would be able to successfully paint Webb as soft and "reactive" on terrorism, either. I hope the Democratic field of candidates for the Presidential nomination get the message.
His razor-thin victory in a swing state delivered the Senate to the Democrats. Since then, Senator Jim Webb has publicly refused to shake the hand of George W. Bush, delivered the most devastating State of the Union response in memory, and had to explain why an aide brought a loaded gun into the Capitol. It’s been a busy few months for the straightest talker in D.C.Webb became a Democrat because he felt that the Republican Party had gone off the rails. He campaigned on the many errors the Republicans had made and were making. Then, surprising the experts, he won.
I just think he was speaking for a majority of Americans. That seems like a pretty good strategy for winning to me. I also don't think that Giuliani would be able to successfully paint Webb as soft and "reactive" on terrorism, either. I hope the Democratic field of candidates for the Presidential nomination get the message.
Reid can't trust Bush, so will hold Summer sessions to avoid recess appointments
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid has had it with President Bush's unacceptable recess appointments. According to U.S. News and World Report he will call the Senate back into session every ten days during the normal Summer recess so that Bush cannot appoint any more unacceptable individuals to jobs that last until the end of the Bush term.
Good for Harry!
Good for Harry!
Does the Democratic Party have an advantage on-line?
The Washington Post has a story today (on the front page, interestingly) that confirms what those of us who are interested in politics and spend a lot of time on the Internet have already suspected. The Democrats currently have an advantage over Republicans on the Internet.
More interesting is the speculation in the story about why the Democrats/Progressives have this advantage. To me this leads to the question - is the advantage systemic or is it just temporary until the conservatives/Republicans catch up? I'll address that further down. Think about the reasons for such a advantage as you read this:
Unfortunately for the Republican conservatives, the Internet is full of people who disagree with others in various levels of civility. Democrats and Progressives thrive on such disagreements. Those lively discussions are what allows communities to develop on-line such as Daily Kos.
So, yes, I think the problem that Republicans/conservatives have with the Internet really is systemic. If they ever adapt successfully to the Internet, they will become Democrats. Cantankerous, disagreeable Democrats, surely, but what's new about that? The difference is that they will have lost their group identity as conservatives. They will have lost whatever it takes to present a unified, cohesive face to the rest of the world.
It's not so much that the Democrats have an advantage as that the conservatives are limited in ways the prevent them from using the bottom-up structure of the Internet. The angry, ethnocentric and isolationist right-wing organizations are a danger to democracy, but the Internet is an arena in which their group cohesiveness cannot be maintained if they are to take advantage of the political power of the masses of people. Cohesive groups give conservatives and Republicans political power. Using the Internet successfully will require that they abandon that very cohesiveness and certainty that has worked so well for them recently. I don't think they can do that successfully.
Their response is going to have to be to try to destroy the Internet. But that is for a later discussion.
More interesting is the speculation in the story about why the Democrats/Progressives have this advantage. To me this leads to the question - is the advantage systemic or is it just temporary until the conservatives/Republicans catch up? I'll address that further down. Think about the reasons for such a advantage as you read this:
Republican [--] Michael Turk, who was in charge of Internet strategy for President Bush's 2004 campaign -- puts the problem his party faces more bluntly: "We're losing the Web right now."I suspect that the Republican Party hierarchical model is what limits them. The conservatives tend to be Right-wing Authoritarians, and one of the characteristics of such people is that they are uncertain unless an authority gives them permission to hold certain beliefs. They gather in groups to hear the accepted positions, and then share those opinions among themselves. Since such people have an us-and-them view of people, any disagreement has to come from "them."The most recent figures from Nielsen/NetRatings provide one measure of the gap. Looking at the Web sites of presidential candidates from the two parties, it found that former senator John Edwards's site had about 690,000 unique visitors in March, when the Democrat's wife, Elizabeth, announced that she had a recurrence of cancer. That was more than the combined number of visitors to the sites of the three leading GOP contenders, Rudolph W. Giuliani (297,000), Sen. John McCain (258,000) and Mitt Romney (76,000).
There are other measures as well. No Republican comes close to matching the popularity of another Democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, on YouTube, MySpace and Facebook, the social-networking triumvirate. The Democrats are ahead in the online money race. The top three Democrats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama and Edwards, amassed more than $14 million over the Internet in the first three months of 2007; in contrast, the top three Republicans, Giuliani, McCain and Romney, collected less than half of that, $6 million. Furthermore, ABC PAC, the conservative fundraising site, has raised $385 so far for Republican presidential hopefuls; Act Blue, its liberal counterpart, has collected about $3 million for Edwards alone.
One reason for the disparity between the parties, political insiders say, is that the top Republican candidates are not exciting voters the way the Democratic front-runners are. Another is that it takes a certain level of technical skill and understanding to be an online strategist, and Republicans admit that "the pool of talent in the Democrats' side is much bigger than ours."
But an underlying cause may be the nature of the Republican Party and its traditional discipline -- the antithesis of the often chaotic, bottom-up, user-generated atmosphere of the Internet.
"We've always been a party of staying on message," All said. "It's the Rush Limbaugh model. What Tony Snow says in the White House filters down to talk radio, which makes its way to the blogs."
Peter Leyden, director of the New Politics Institute, a San Francisco-based think tank that in recent months has been advising Democratic members of Congress and their staffs on how to take full advantage of the Web, argues that the culture of Democrats is a much better fit in the Internet world.
"What was once seen as a liability for Democrats and progressives in the past -- they couldn't get 20 people to agree to the same thing, they could never finish anything, they couldn't stay on message -- is now an asset," Leyden said. "All this talking and discussing and fighting energizes everyone, involves everyone, and gets people totally into it."
If conservatives have mastered talk radio -- with Limbaugh as the undisputed king of the AM dial -- those on the left hope to achieve the same dominance on the Internet.
Unfortunately for the Republican conservatives, the Internet is full of people who disagree with others in various levels of civility. Democrats and Progressives thrive on such disagreements. Those lively discussions are what allows communities to develop on-line such as Daily Kos.
So, yes, I think the problem that Republicans/conservatives have with the Internet really is systemic. If they ever adapt successfully to the Internet, they will become Democrats. Cantankerous, disagreeable Democrats, surely, but what's new about that? The difference is that they will have lost their group identity as conservatives. They will have lost whatever it takes to present a unified, cohesive face to the rest of the world.
It's not so much that the Democrats have an advantage as that the conservatives are limited in ways the prevent them from using the bottom-up structure of the Internet. The angry, ethnocentric and isolationist right-wing organizations are a danger to democracy, but the Internet is an arena in which their group cohesiveness cannot be maintained if they are to take advantage of the political power of the masses of people. Cohesive groups give conservatives and Republicans political power. Using the Internet successfully will require that they abandon that very cohesiveness and certainty that has worked so well for them recently. I don't think they can do that successfully.
Their response is going to have to be to try to destroy the Internet. But that is for a later discussion.
Eleanor Clift warns Democrats about the '08 election
Rudi Giuliani is setting up his argument to the voters - elect him and he will continue aggressively fighting terrorists. Elect a Democrat and the Democrats will return to the pre-9/11 defensive posture of simply responding when attacked. Eleanor Clift of Newsweek warns that if the Democrats don't quickly take this challenge on before it takes hold then Giuliani could well win the White House in 2008.
I think that Ms. Clift has an excellent point. The Democrats need to be presenting a muscular posture against terrorism to the public. I suspect that we will be seeing all of the Democratic candidates for the Presidential nomination coming out with such policies soon.
I think that Ms. Clift has an excellent point. The Democrats need to be presenting a muscular posture against terrorism to the public. I suspect that we will be seeing all of the Democratic candidates for the Presidential nomination coming out with such policies soon.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
U.S.Occupation of Iraq is financially strengthening al Qaeda
The world wide effort to battle terrorist organizations had, until about a year ago, been putting great pressure al Qaeda. It was believed that al Qaeda was quite strapped for funds. According to Greg Miller at the L.A. times that ended about a year ago when Pakistan withdrew troops from the northeastern area abutting Afghanistan.
More from the LA Times Article:
The results of the misguided decision to attack Iraq instead of al Qaeda are surprisingly expressed by President Jimmy Carter recently and published in the International Herald Tribune:
The U.S. occupation of Iraq is a major element in strengthening al Qaeda, and contributes greatly to the violence in that country. Cheney, Bush and the Bush administration argues that the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without strengthening al Qaeda and leaving behind even greater violence and chaos than is there right now, but all fact-based indicators suggest that it is the presence of our troops which motivates much of the trouble in that country.
A good analogy might be that the U.S, troops in Iraq are the equivalent of a stick in a wasps nest being shaken around, and the wasps will continue to attack anything close to the nest until the stick is removed, at which time they will calm down.
The funds flowing from Iraq to al Qaeda is just another example of excited wasps reacting to the presence of the stick (the American troops) in Iraq. We will greatly help the iraqi people and ourselves when we remove our troops from Iraqi soil. The sooner the better. The arguments against our pull-out have little left to support them if our presence there is strengthening al Qaeda and its affiliates while it motivates Iraqis themselves to attack our troops.
In one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said that Al Qaeda's command base in Pakistan is increasingly being funded by cash coming out of Iraq, where the terrorist network's operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the anti-American insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity.The key point to look at is this:
The influx of money has bolstered Al Qaeda's leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping and reasserting influence over its far-flung network. The trend also signals a reversal in the traditional flow of Al Qaeda funds, with the network's leadership surviving to a large extent on money coming in from its most profitable franchise, rather than distributing funds from headquarters to distant cells.
"Iraq is a big moneymaker for them," said a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official.This information comes from a renewal of effort by the CIA in Pakistan to target bin Laden and his deputy, al Zawahiri.
The evolving picture of Al Qaeda's finances is based in part on intelligence from an aggressive effort launched last year to intensify the pressure on Bin Laden and his senior deputies.This is a reversal of priority for the Bush administration. Late in 2005 the CIA disbanded the special unit which had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants.
As part of a so-called surge in personnel, the CIA deployed as many as 50 clandestine operatives to Pakistan and Afghanistan — a dramatic increase over the number of CIA case officers permanently stationed in those countries. All of the new arrivals were given the primary objective of finding what counter-terrorism officials call "HVT1" and "HVT2." Those "high value target" designations refer to Bin Laden and Zawahiri.
The surge was part of a broader shake-up at the CIA designed to refocus on the hunt for Bin Laden, officials said. One former high-ranking agency official said the CIA had formed a task force that involved officials from all four directorates at the agency, including analysts, scientists and technical experts, as well as covert operators.
The officials were charged with reinvigorating a search that had atrophied when some U.S. intelligence assets and special forces teams were pulled out of Afghanistan in 2002 to prepare for the war with Iraq.
More from the LA Times Article:
In a written response to questions from The Times, the CIA said it "does not as a rule discuss publicly the details of clandestine operations," but acknowledged it had stepped up operations against Bin Laden and defended their effectiveness.This kind of effort is what the attack on al Qaeda after 9/11 should have looked like. Instead, for some reason the Bush administration used the opportunity to redirect American efforts in the a fruitless preemptive attack on Iraq which has reduced American security rather than increased it.
"The surge has been modest in size, here and overseas, but has added new skills and fresh thinking to the fight against a resilient and adaptive foe," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in the statement. "It has paid off, generating more information about Al Qaeda and helping take terrorists off the street."
The CIA spies are part of a broader espionage arsenal aimed at Bin Laden and Zawahiri that includes satellites, electronic eavesdropping stations and the unmanned airplanes.
The results of the misguided decision to attack Iraq instead of al Qaeda are surprisingly expressed by President Jimmy Carter recently and published in the International Herald Tribune:
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," the Nobel Peace Prize winner told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."Think about that. America's values as seen to be applied around the world were one of the strongest elements that led to America's success over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. By reversing those values the Bush administration has made America a much less powerful nation in moral terms. The occupation of Iraq on no real security grounds is seen as the reversal of American moral values among other things.
The U.S. occupation of Iraq is a major element in strengthening al Qaeda, and contributes greatly to the violence in that country. Cheney, Bush and the Bush administration argues that the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without strengthening al Qaeda and leaving behind even greater violence and chaos than is there right now, but all fact-based indicators suggest that it is the presence of our troops which motivates much of the trouble in that country.
A good analogy might be that the U.S, troops in Iraq are the equivalent of a stick in a wasps nest being shaken around, and the wasps will continue to attack anything close to the nest until the stick is removed, at which time they will calm down.
The funds flowing from Iraq to al Qaeda is just another example of excited wasps reacting to the presence of the stick (the American troops) in Iraq. We will greatly help the iraqi people and ourselves when we remove our troops from Iraqi soil. The sooner the better. The arguments against our pull-out have little left to support them if our presence there is strengthening al Qaeda and its affiliates while it motivates Iraqis themselves to attack our troops.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Rasmussen poll - Bush at lowest reading ever.
Contrary to the hopes, prayers and predictions of David Broder, Bush continues to fall in the polls. His approval of only 34 in the Rasmussen poll is the lowest that poll has ever recorded for him. But I am less interested in gloating at the public recognition of what I have known since before 2000 than I am in reading the analysis of why he is so low. Iraq and his poor performance in the War on Terror have brought him down, but immigration is what is currently dragging him even lower.
I made my big mistake as a voter when I voted for Nixon in 1968. [Excuse - I was an Army Captain on active duty in Germany with no information other than the Stars and Stripes official Army newspaper and the International Herald Tribune. Nixon appeared to be able to stop the Viet Nam War. I was young, ignorant, and uninformed. I voted absentee. Of course today I am older.] Except for crossing over in the Texas open primaries in 1980 to vote in the Republican Primary for Bush against Reagan, I have never since seen a Republican on an election ballot in Texas worth voting for.
With luck, the average American voter will follow a path similar to the one I did after Viet Nam and Nixon. Conservatives have proven that they are bad news every time they have ever been given power. Never as bad as this time, though.
The President’s ratings have tumbled each time immigration reform dominates the news. While the President advocates a “comprehensive” reform focused primarily on legalizing the status of illegal aliens, our most recent survey shows that most voters favor an enforcement first policy. Last year, following a nationally televised Presidential Address on immigration, just 39% of Americans agreed with the President’s position.What can I say? Bush is getting justice for his incompetence and failed policies, but more than that, the voters are being shown what happens when they make a really bad decision. Those still capable of thinking are moving away from Bush.
Most politicians and DC pundits continue to misunderstand the immigration issue. One article today suggests that Republicans oppose “an open, immigrant-friendly society.” In fact, polling consistently shows that most Republicans favor an open and welcoming immigration policy that welcomes all except national security threats, criminals, and those coming to live off the US welfare system. The last time we polled on that question, Republicans favored such a policy by a 56% to 30%. Numbers for Democrats were essentially the same (54% to 29%).
While favoring an immigrant-friendly society, most Americans also favor a society in which the laws are observed by everyone. By a 3-to-1 margin, voters say it doesn’t make sense to consider additional laws until the government first gains control of the borders and enforces existing laws.
Earlier surveys on immigration have found support for building a barrier along the Mexican border and positive attitudes towards citizen patrols along the border. Another survey found that most Americans consider current immigration laws a threat to both national security and the economy. Three-fourths of all Americans believe it is too easy for people from other countries to enter the United States.
Of course, the President’s Job Approval was already low before the immigration issue hit the news. Confidence is also low when it comes to the overall War on Terror. Most Americans believe that history will judge the U.S. mission in Iraq a failure.
I made my big mistake as a voter when I voted for Nixon in 1968. [Excuse - I was an Army Captain on active duty in Germany with no information other than the Stars and Stripes official Army newspaper and the International Herald Tribune. Nixon appeared to be able to stop the Viet Nam War. I was young, ignorant, and uninformed. I voted absentee. Of course today I am older.] Except for crossing over in the Texas open primaries in 1980 to vote in the Republican Primary for Bush against Reagan, I have never since seen a Republican on an election ballot in Texas worth voting for.
With luck, the average American voter will follow a path similar to the one I did after Viet Nam and Nixon. Conservatives have proven that they are bad news every time they have ever been given power. Never as bad as this time, though.
Be VERY suspicious of all stories saying the Iranians are unified and out to get us.
Edward Luttwak provides a good description of how bad the information the American public has regarding the make up of the Iranian nation. Here is a sample of what he says:
Go read the entire article. It's worth it.
Then ask yourself if we are being given accurate information from the Bush administration or from the main stream media? Do we in the public know enough to feel threatened by Iran? (If you come to any answer other than a resounding "NO", go back and review it again. Because the real threat has to come well before we attack that country. Trusting Bush we made that mistake in 2003. That damned sure hasn't turned out as expected, nor has it turned out well.
We are being fed the same lines of bullshit about Iran by Cheney, Bush and company. If there is a sane rationale for the military action we are being pushed towards then is is nowhere in evidence.
As for the claim that the "Iranians" are united in patriotic support for the nuclear programme, no such nationality even exists. Out of Iran's population of 70m or so, 51 per cent are ethnically Persian, 24 per cent are Turks ("Azeris" is the regime's term), with other minorities comprising the remaining quarter. Many of Iran's 16-17m Turks are in revolt against Persian cultural imperialism; its 5-6m Kurds have started a serious insurgency; the Arab minority detonates bombs in Ahvaz; and Baluch tribesmen attack gendarmes and revolutionary guards. If some 40 per cent of the British population were engaged in separatist struggles of varying intensity, nobody would claim that it was firmly united around the London government. On top of this, many of the Persian majority oppose the theocratic regime, either because they have become post-Islamic in reaction to its many prohibitions, or because they are Sufis, whom the regime now persecutes almost as much as the small Baha'i minority. So let us have no more reports from Tehran stressing the country's national unity. Persian nationalism is a minority position in a country where half the population is not even Persian. In our times, multinational states either decentralise or break up more or less violently; Iran is not decentralising, so its future seems highly predictable, while in the present not much cohesion under attack is to be expected. [Highlighting mine - Editor PPS.]Edward N. Luttwak has been in the business of studying military and political strategy for over forty years that I know of, and while I have disagreed with some of his conclusions, he has always worked from verifiable facts as far as I have seen. If he ever disagrees with anyone on TV, especially FOX, Luttwak will be correct.
Go read the entire article. It's worth it.
Then ask yourself if we are being given accurate information from the Bush administration or from the main stream media? Do we in the public know enough to feel threatened by Iran? (If you come to any answer other than a resounding "NO", go back and review it again. Because the real threat has to come well before we attack that country. Trusting Bush we made that mistake in 2003. That damned sure hasn't turned out as expected, nor has it turned out well.
We are being fed the same lines of bullshit about Iran by Cheney, Bush and company. If there is a sane rationale for the military action we are being pushed towards then is is nowhere in evidence.
Pete Moore describes the CPA theories of the 2004 insurgency
This is fascinating. Pete Moore is a political scientist studying the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, and he was reviewing a bunch of documents on line when he discovered that he could get into the Word documents and see all the changes that had been made before each document was published. He found an internal CPA document that presented the various theories about why the insurgent attacks were declining in number in late 2003. From Salon, here is what Pete learned:
Then the occupation itself by foreign troops was (and is) seen as an insult to the Iraqi people and nation. The Iraqis are rightly proud of the fact that their society was in fact the source of all human civilization. Writing, numbers, hydraulic engineering, written law, agriculture, the first cities - all of that started along the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. They have been conquered by barbarians before, but always got rid of them one way or another.
The Americans are just another bunch of conquering barbarians whose ancestors were northern hunter-gatherers 3,000 years after the ancestors of the Iraqis had invented civilization. And the descendants of these barbarians dare come in an try to teach civilization to the Iraqis? The Iraqis were all of civilization when civilization wasn't cool. And the American parvenus don't even realize how insulting they are being. It doesn't help a bit that George W. Bush is very clearly a great deal more stupid than Gen. Tommy Franks thinks Douglas Feith is.
It is clear that the American (OK - call it Coalition - same difference) occupation of Iraq is a high-level cultural insult to Iraqis. Add to this the utter stupidity of Jerry Bremer in forcing the Iraqi military into unpaid unemployment, and the insurgency is rather easily explained. It should have been anticipated, if the Bush Administration and the CPA personnel had a clue about the nature of Iraqi society and culture. That they had no clue is clearly demonstrated in the above document ressurected by Pete Moore.
The hints have been there, and the level of disaster that Bremer initiated when he disbanded the Iraqi Army has been clear to many of us from the time he did it. This is strong documentation of what set off the Insurrection in Iraq.
Think an understanding of this could lead to a solution? I do. But the solution will have to include the evacuation of the U.S. military from Iraq. There is no way any American military presence in Iraq will be able to do enough positive to offset the strong reason to continue the insurgency as long as they are there.
Presumably, staffers at the CPA's Information Management Unit, which produced the weekly reports, were cutting and pasting large sections of text into the reports and then eliminating all but the few short passages they needed. Much of the material they were cribbing seems to have come from the kind of sensitive, security-related documents that were never meant to be available to the public. In fact, about half of the 20 improperly redacted documents I downloaded, including the March 28 report, contain deleted portions that all seem to come from one single, 1,000-word security memo. The editors kept pulling text from a document titled "Why Are the Attacks Down in Al-Anbar Province -- Several Theories." (The security memo and the last page of the March 28 report can be seen here, along with several other CPA documents that can be downloaded.)The Iraqi Army was dissolved by Jerry Bremer, head of the CPA, on May 15, 2003. The Iraqis did not expect to be occupied by American armed forces for an extended period of time, and the senior leaders of the Army generally expected to work with the Americans to create a new government to replace Saddam and then usher the Americans out. Instead Bremer dissolved the military and even stopped paying military pensions to the families of soldiers. That, plus the deBaathification program that refused to allow anyone who had belonged to the Baath Party work for the government in a state where most employment was with the government created a highly trained and disaffected class of unemployable individuals, most with military training and weapons at home.
Microsoft Word's "Mark up" feature shows the time and date of the deletion and the identity of the person doing the deleting, but it doesn't give the original author of the passage or when it was written. The title and hints in the text point to a memo written by one person in December 2003 or January 2004, when daily attacks on coalition forces in Anbar, the heavily Sunni province west of Baghdad that is the heartland of the insurgency, were the lowest in many months. These were the CPA's salad days. Prior to the al-Sadr uprising and the Abu Ghraib scandal and the failed siege of Fallujah later in 2004, the CPA believed that it was succeeding in reshaping Iraq. In his book "The Assassins' Gate," George Packer depicts late 2003 and early 2004 as the last phase of quiet isolation for the CPA, before the facts on the ground began to impinge on its Green Zone idyll. "Why Are the Attacks Down" shows the CPA on the cusp, as the author gives a half-dozen different theories for the short-term decline in violence.
One explanation given for the downturn is called "Rounding Up the Bums." It suggests that the U.S. military might have successfully quelled the insurgency. Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne in Iraq until May 2004, was well known for using aggressive tactics. The memo describes Swannack and other generals as believing that American raids on suspected insurgents were driving the bad guys "underground." The memo acknowledges collateral damage, but is blithely unaware of the implications. "Most raids also leave in their wake a number of innocents who were either rounded up and detained or had their houses busted up ... But there appears to be sufficient care in how the attacks are carried out, adequate information in the community about the mild reality of detention, and sufficient civil affairs clean up afterwards that this has not been a major factor." By April 2004, the infamous Abu Ghraib pictures had begun to surface, visual evidence of how the military had been alienating the Iraqi civilian population.
A second explanation hinges explicitly on an old ethnic stereotype about how Arabs only understand force. The "Crossed the Line" argument insists that violence is intrinsic to Arab culture: "[It] is a form of political discourse as well as being culturally acceptable for settling disputes and scores." The memo then argues that the violence in Anbar was quelled once the Americans proved they could be more violent. The Americans brought out a bigger stick, namely Gen. Abizaid's threat to "some 70 Sheikhs and community leaders" in Anbar "to unleash hell," twinned with the U.S. Air Force dropping some timely Joint Direct Action Munitions on the province.
A third explanation, "Occupation Ending," says that the insurgents are backing off because they think the U.S. is about to depart. "What they" -- meaning the Iraqis -- "have gotten wrong," says the memo's author, "is the idea that the military will be leaving Iraq in June, which one individual said he was sure was a major factor in the diminishing attacks. Oh well, this is one time it might be best that folks don't fully understand things." Supposedly, the CPA's June 2004 deadline for handing over sovereignty to the Iraqis was misread by some locals as implying the withdrawal of American troops, and thus caused the number of insurgent attacks to decrease. (Four years later, the Bush administration often says any deadline for troop withdrawal would increase attacks.)
A fourth argument, "Project Money Flowing," embraces an enduring pillar of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Economic development and free trade, according to the money theory, would solve political disputes. American cash was coming to Anbar, and violence was abating. "While the amounts of money are still modest, especially in Fallujah, there are a number of visible projects ongoing that have employed some people and given the appearance that help is on the way." If the violence was going down in Iraq, according to this theory, it must have been because the CPA's various development projects were paying off. In 2007, few would argue that there are many signs of economic development anywhere in Iraq, or that billions in U.S. aid has mitigated opposition to the American presence.
A fifth theory, "Engagement," says that Iraqis have begun to have hope thanks to sustained contact with Americans. "We'll take some credit here. We have been engaging widely with ... ex-Baathists, ex-Army. While many are tiring of the refrain that if you stay with us things will get better, for some they actually have improved and that many have given hope to entire groups." The author calls these people "the various groups of losers in the New Iraq."
A final argument for the downturn in attacks offers what briefly looks like a flash of reality. The "Operational Pause" theory surmises that reduced attacks may be a statistical blip. They may increase again as "terrorists" regroup for future fights against the Americans and "other Iraqis." But then the author calls this "a boring theory," and notes, "There are very few persons we have met who subscribe to this."
Nowhere in any of these theories, including the "boring" one, does the author address the dissolution of the Iraqi Army as a major contributor to the violence. Nowhere, in fact, does the author seem to know which "bums" or "losers" are attacking the Americans or why. Indeed, the most remarkable passage in the entire deletion is a simple statement by an Iraqi businessman, whom the writer quotes in passing while explaining why American-induced economic prosperity will end the fighting. "It is nothing personal," the Iraqi says. "I like you and believe you could be bringing us a better future, but I still sympathize with those who attack the coalition because it is not right for Iraq to be occupied by foreign military forces." In the world of the CPA circa 2004, first one American glosses over this Iraqi's prophetic words, and then another tries -- unsuccessfully, as it turns out -- to delete them.
-- By Pete Moore
Then the occupation itself by foreign troops was (and is) seen as an insult to the Iraqi people and nation. The Iraqis are rightly proud of the fact that their society was in fact the source of all human civilization. Writing, numbers, hydraulic engineering, written law, agriculture, the first cities - all of that started along the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. They have been conquered by barbarians before, but always got rid of them one way or another.
The Americans are just another bunch of conquering barbarians whose ancestors were northern hunter-gatherers 3,000 years after the ancestors of the Iraqis had invented civilization. And the descendants of these barbarians dare come in an try to teach civilization to the Iraqis? The Iraqis were all of civilization when civilization wasn't cool. And the American parvenus don't even realize how insulting they are being. It doesn't help a bit that George W. Bush is very clearly a great deal more stupid than Gen. Tommy Franks thinks Douglas Feith is.
It is clear that the American (OK - call it Coalition - same difference) occupation of Iraq is a high-level cultural insult to Iraqis. Add to this the utter stupidity of Jerry Bremer in forcing the Iraqi military into unpaid unemployment, and the insurgency is rather easily explained. It should have been anticipated, if the Bush Administration and the CPA personnel had a clue about the nature of Iraqi society and culture. That they had no clue is clearly demonstrated in the above document ressurected by Pete Moore.
The hints have been there, and the level of disaster that Bremer initiated when he disbanded the Iraqi Army has been clear to many of us from the time he did it. This is strong documentation of what set off the Insurrection in Iraq.
Think an understanding of this could lead to a solution? I do. But the solution will have to include the evacuation of the U.S. military from Iraq. There is no way any American military presence in Iraq will be able to do enough positive to offset the strong reason to continue the insurgency as long as they are there.
What's wrong with economic logic
I have a complaint with the discipline of economics and with the Libertarian doctrine which believes that all of society can be reduced to what selfish individuals do to improve their lives. But first, let me share a joke with you.
The trouble with economics is that it is the study of things that can be measured quantitatively in money. It then for the most part ignores things that cannot be measured in money. Value can be placed on goods and services when a transaction, measured in money, can occur between a buyer and a seller who are independent of each other.
So what is the value of family? In fact, what is the value of any person who has no money? And how do you measure power? In fact, how do you even precisely define power so that it can be measured and quantified? [Hint: we all recognize power when we see it - but it cannot be defined or measured precisely.]
Within its limits, economics is a powerful tool for explaining what is happening in business and society. Unfortunately, too few discussions of society and business address the limitations of what can be demonstrated and proven with economic tools.
Of the three individuals asked what they were doing in the joke above, economics is stuck at the level of the first one.
Why does this matter? Because business managers operate in the world of economics, where costs and results can be quantified. Many of them cannot make the shift to government in which the main thing that matters in getting things done is power.
This seems to me to also be what is wrong with so many of the very wealthy conservatives who are financing the think tanks that provide ideas and parking places for activists until they can get government jobs. Those wealthy conservatives see society through the prism of their wealth, and work to manipulate government in order to protect that wealth and even to augment it. But in the end, they measure success by whether they have more dollars at the end of a time period than they had at the beginning. Yet very frequently their children (like Paris Hilton) have severe emotional problems.
I am not going to say that Economic logic is wrong. The problem is that like all human disciplines, it is limited. When it is misapplied to things that are not properly described in economic terms the application of economic logic is worse than useless. It inhibits the application of common sense.
That's what I think is wrong with economic logic. It too often directs strategic thinking towards nothing but quantitative dollar values and ignores the fact that the purpose of the work is to build a cathedral.
A common parable about leadership goes as follows:[This comes from The Reality-Based Community.]
Halfway through the construction of the cathedral, the architect died. The bishop, not knowing what to do, went out to walk through the stoneyard, and found a man hammering on a chisel. "Bless you, my son. What are you making?"
"About twelve centimes a day, your excellency."
The bishop moved on, and found another mason doing the same thing. "Bless you, my son, what are you making?"
"Your excellency, I'm making the third voussoir for the second arch on the right up there," pointing up toward the vaulting.
"Bless you, my son, " said the bishop, feeling a little better, and walked on to another mason hammering on his chisel. "And what are you making?"
"As any fool can see, your excellency, meaning no disrespect, a cathedral."
"Bless you, my son. Put down your chisel and come with me, I have a job for you."
The trouble with economics is that it is the study of things that can be measured quantitatively in money. It then for the most part ignores things that cannot be measured in money. Value can be placed on goods and services when a transaction, measured in money, can occur between a buyer and a seller who are independent of each other.
So what is the value of family? In fact, what is the value of any person who has no money? And how do you measure power? In fact, how do you even precisely define power so that it can be measured and quantified? [Hint: we all recognize power when we see it - but it cannot be defined or measured precisely.]
Within its limits, economics is a powerful tool for explaining what is happening in business and society. Unfortunately, too few discussions of society and business address the limitations of what can be demonstrated and proven with economic tools.
Of the three individuals asked what they were doing in the joke above, economics is stuck at the level of the first one.
Why does this matter? Because business managers operate in the world of economics, where costs and results can be quantified. Many of them cannot make the shift to government in which the main thing that matters in getting things done is power.
This seems to me to also be what is wrong with so many of the very wealthy conservatives who are financing the think tanks that provide ideas and parking places for activists until they can get government jobs. Those wealthy conservatives see society through the prism of their wealth, and work to manipulate government in order to protect that wealth and even to augment it. But in the end, they measure success by whether they have more dollars at the end of a time period than they had at the beginning. Yet very frequently their children (like Paris Hilton) have severe emotional problems.
I am not going to say that Economic logic is wrong. The problem is that like all human disciplines, it is limited. When it is misapplied to things that are not properly described in economic terms the application of economic logic is worse than useless. It inhibits the application of common sense.
That's what I think is wrong with economic logic. It too often directs strategic thinking towards nothing but quantitative dollar values and ignores the fact that the purpose of the work is to build a cathedral.
Friday, May 18, 2007
The value of loyalty from Bush is being shredded
Sidney Blumenthal has a new and excellent article in Salon on Bush and his paramount virtue, Loyalty.
This dependence on loyalty to the leader is the only thing that holds Bush's poorly led Presidency together. It certainly does not represent any reward to the great decisions that have been made.
It intrigues me. Loyalty is a very personal value, one that does not stretch down into an organization to provide a controlling mechanism. Good decisions presented well to subordinates would do that, but those good decisions have been mostly absent in this administration, and the ability to communicate the value of a decision made intuitively by a leader is nonexistent. Bush is supposedly quite a likable guy, but his skills (if any) certainly do not include leading a large organization. Unfortunately, his choices in subordinates seem to accentuate his weaknesses rather than work to supplement his positives.
The collapse of loyalty as a characteristic of the Bush Presidency is very much what would be expected as the Presidency continues to fail to a greater extent than any previous Presidency.
I'm a Texas Democrat. I am not surprised at the sad, sick nature of Bush's Presidency, only at the depth of its collapse. It remains interesting to observe the nature and mechanism of the collapse, however.
Loyalty to Bush is the ultimate royal principle of the imperial presidency. The ruler must be unquestioned and those around him unquestioning. Allegiance to Bush's idea of himself as the "war president," "the decider" and "the commander guy" is paramount. But the notion that the ruler is loyal to those loyal to him is no longer necessarily true. While he must be beheld as the absolute incarnation of kingly virtue, his sense of obligation to those paying homage has become perilously relative.This and the linked articles offer a great insight into the sad Presidency of George W. Bush.
Those who feel compelled to tell the truth rather than stick to the cover story are cast in the dust, like McNulty. Those Bush defends as an extension of his authority but who become too expensive become expendable, like Wolfowitz. And those who exist solely as Bush's creations and whose survival is crucial to his own are shielded, like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
This dependence on loyalty to the leader is the only thing that holds Bush's poorly led Presidency together. It certainly does not represent any reward to the great decisions that have been made.
It intrigues me. Loyalty is a very personal value, one that does not stretch down into an organization to provide a controlling mechanism. Good decisions presented well to subordinates would do that, but those good decisions have been mostly absent in this administration, and the ability to communicate the value of a decision made intuitively by a leader is nonexistent. Bush is supposedly quite a likable guy, but his skills (if any) certainly do not include leading a large organization. Unfortunately, his choices in subordinates seem to accentuate his weaknesses rather than work to supplement his positives.
The collapse of loyalty as a characteristic of the Bush Presidency is very much what would be expected as the Presidency continues to fail to a greater extent than any previous Presidency.
I'm a Texas Democrat. I am not surprised at the sad, sick nature of Bush's Presidency, only at the depth of its collapse. It remains interesting to observe the nature and mechanism of the collapse, however.
Al Gore has a new book coming out May 22.
Al Gore is publishing a new book called The Assault on Reason. Digby has an excellent review with excerpts.
America and the world were the losers when Bush and the conservative U.S. Supreme Court stole the 2000 election in Florida. About the only positive aspects to the theft of that election that I can see is the fact that it has allowed the conservative movement to collapse in front of the world and demonstrate that there is nothing but popular nastiness behind it. What we have had is the rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter linked with the management skills of Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and Michael T. Brown ("Hell of a job, Brownie.")All of this is combined with the ethical skills of Paul Wolfowitz, Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney, and the dry-drunk bully George W. Bush.
The recent "debates" of the Republican candidates for the Republican nomination for President has put this all on display once again. With luck, these extremists are doing more to destroy the Republican Party than they are to destroy America. With them exposed and gone from the public forum, perhaps America can begin to recover.
Perhaps.
No Guarantee. It is quite possible that American has lost the spark of what made it a shining example of democracy for the world and that the loss is beyond recovery.
If so, it is thanks to conservatives, self-centered rich men, frightened preachers more interesting in power than in God and a bunch of fellow travelling Libertarians riding along with the rest of that group in hopes that the power they grab can be used to create their impossible "utopia."
America and the world were the losers when Bush and the conservative U.S. Supreme Court stole the 2000 election in Florida. About the only positive aspects to the theft of that election that I can see is the fact that it has allowed the conservative movement to collapse in front of the world and demonstrate that there is nothing but popular nastiness behind it. What we have had is the rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter linked with the management skills of Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and Michael T. Brown ("Hell of a job, Brownie.")All of this is combined with the ethical skills of Paul Wolfowitz, Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney, and the dry-drunk bully George W. Bush.
The recent "debates" of the Republican candidates for the Republican nomination for President has put this all on display once again. With luck, these extremists are doing more to destroy the Republican Party than they are to destroy America. With them exposed and gone from the public forum, perhaps America can begin to recover.
Perhaps.
No Guarantee. It is quite possible that American has lost the spark of what made it a shining example of democracy for the world and that the loss is beyond recovery.
If so, it is thanks to conservatives, self-centered rich men, frightened preachers more interesting in power than in God and a bunch of fellow travelling Libertarians riding along with the rest of that group in hopes that the power they grab can be used to create their impossible "utopia."
Has anyone read "First Post?"
This is not an on-line news source that I am familiar with. I was looking at my own blog, and there was a paid google ad at the top for an article Is Osama bin Laden dead from Typhoid?, so my curiosity get the better of me. I checked out the article and then went to the home of First Post to see if I could find out more about it. All I can say so far is that it is slickly produced, appears British (with a URL ending in UK), and has several articles on subjects that interest me. Osama bin Laden and Paul Wolfowitz.
The Osama article was first published September 23, 2006. I had to go to page 2 to find that. You'd think that there would be confirmation or disconfirmatiion since then, but I have seen neither.
Just wondering what is behind "First Post." Anyone know?
The Osama article was first published September 23, 2006. I had to go to page 2 to find that. You'd think that there would be confirmation or disconfirmatiion since then, but I have seen neither.
Just wondering what is behind "First Post." Anyone know?
Bradblog has been discussing vote rigging
For a series of blogs on the Clint Curtis / Tom Feeney / Yang Enterprises Inc. (YEI) Voting-Rigging Scandal [Key Articles & Documents]voter fraud] go to Bradblog. This series started in December 2004 and runs up to recent stories.
Here is what is wrong with the NSA domestic spying program
Kevin Drum provides the best description I have yet seen of the core reason why we should be shocked at the story of Gonzales trying to coerce then AG Ashcroft to reapprove the NSA domestic spying program even when he was zonked out in intensive care.
We still don't know what the program is or more important, what it was.
We still don't know what the program is or more important, what it was.
On torture and Republican applause lines
I'm with Kevin Drum. Discussions of when torture should be acceptable make me sick. Such a discussion is essentially someone asking demanding that we prescribe for them them in advance when it becomes acceptable to destroy the village in order to save it. The person making the demand should understand that what he is demanding is itself unacceptable.
Not only do the Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination fail to see how very unacceptable, even unAmerican, their demands are, they are feeding the torture demands to their core believers as an applause line. Kevin also quotes from a Washington Post article by By Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar. [*]
But, Hey! The Republican candidates for the nomination as President can use approval of torture as an applause line with their audiences! It can't be ALL bad, can it?
[Yes. It CAN be all bad and it is.]
[*] Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.
Not only do the Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination fail to see how very unacceptable, even unAmerican, their demands are, they are feeding the torture demands to their core believers as an applause line. Kevin also quotes from a Washington Post article by By Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar. [*]
Fear can be a strong motivator. It led Franklin Roosevelt to intern tens of thousands of innocent U.S. citizens during World War II; it led to Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt, which ruined the lives of hundreds of Americans. And it led the United States to adopt a policy at the highest levels that condoned and even authorized torture of prisoners in our custody.This article makes several key points that I want to emphasize.
Fear is the justification offered for this policy by former CIA director George Tenet as he promotes his new book. Tenet oversaw the secret CIA interrogation program in which torture techniques euphemistically called "waterboarding," "sensory deprivation," "sleep deprivation" and "stress positions" -- conduct we used to call war crimes -- were used. In defending these abuses, Tenet revealed: "Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through: the palpable fear that we felt on the basis of the fact that there was so much we did not know."
We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.
The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation. [Snip]
As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture -- only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works -- the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real "ticking time bomb" situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule.
To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military's mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.
This has had disastrous consequences. Revelations of abuse feed what the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, which was drafted under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, calls the "recuperative power" of the terrorist enemy.
Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its "recuperative power."
- Politicians can use fear to draw attention to themselves and gain power, but that fear the politicians feed also destroys much of what has made America a shining example of good civilization.
- Torture supposedly has worked to provide short-term needed information, but that can't be proven. If torture has ever worked, the cases are classified and the people who have used it don't want to be associated with the use of what are actually war crimes.
- Torture is supposedly to be used only in very extreme and very rare cases. But when American sends soldiers into combat that is automatically sending them into very extreme and hopefully rare situations. Thinking gets you killed. Instead of thinking a soldier must rapidly react as trained and follow orders if he is to survive. That combat soldier must not be placed in the position of having to practice "situational ethics." He can't do it an live. If the commander permits something, that soldier will do it.
- The indiscriminate use of torture destroys the legitimacy of the government. Since the purpose of insurgency is to destroy the legitimacy of the government, the indiscriminate use of torture becomes a tactic that allows the insurgents to win.
- Since there is (and cannot be) any solid evidence that the use of torture really works, the use of torture has no up side. It cannot be shown to be a winning tactic.
- Put all the above together:
- A frightened soldier cannot use good judgement. He must quickly react as trained. Thus the use of torture cannot be controlled by an organization.
- If permitted to torture, he will do so, and his judgement of when to use torture or not cannot be good judgement.
- But the use of indiscriminate torture creates more enemies than it protects America from. In a counterinsurgency situation, this is a self-defeating tactic.
- In short, torture cannot be shown to be winning tactic, especially since its use cannot be controlled. However, the use of torture can easily be shown to be a losing tactic. That's why it's use has been forbidden in the past.
But, Hey! The Republican candidates for the nomination as President can use approval of torture as an applause line with their audiences! It can't be ALL bad, can it?
[Yes. It CAN be all bad and it is.]
[*] Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Did Bremer create the Shiite - Sunni Civil War in Iraq? Nir Rosen thinks so.
According to Nir Rosen, before May 2003 when Jerry Bremer arrived in Iraq the Iraqis generally considered themselves to be Iraqi rather than members of one or the other religious sects. Iraq was not ruled by the Sunnis. It was ruled as a dictatorship by Saddam Hussein, who gave preferences to family and friends from Tikrit where he was from.
So how could this be true since it is so far from what we have been told by the administration and by the reporters who have been to Iraq?
Bremer does not speak Arabic. That is what Rosen said. The following is my opinion of what else might account for the ignorance of the Bush administration.
The western reporters also do not speak Arabic (it is a difficult and time-consuming language to learn), and the editors do not publish stories that are far different from the going narrative. The Neocons who wanted the invasion of Iraq as far back as the early 90's do not speak Arabic, and the members of Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress were trying to manipulate America into invading Iraq and placing Ahmed Chalabi in power as the new head of state of Iraq. The INC members were manipulating the NeoCons. Beyond that, the dedicated Bushies in the White House do not listen to disagreements. Those who disagree simply are removed from any position of power in government.
Beyond even that, according to Seymour Hersh in his book "Chain of Command," after the end of the Cold War the CIA essentially ceased to run operatives in the Middle East. Intelligence gathering became a process of getting Intelligence from allied country Intelligence Agencies such as Mossad and comparing it to satellite data. Speaking and reading Arabic ceased to be a requirement for being an Intelligence Officer or Analyst in the Middle East. Then the Directorate of Operations was required to obtain high level approval from committees who had no knowledge iof the langauge or country before recruiting new spies or even keeping and paying existing spies. Walk-ins were actully turned away.
So the people who were making the decisions did not speak Arabic, the American Intelligence Agencies had no capability to either gather or analyze data on Iraq and the Middle East, and the American government was run by people who distrust academics and refuse to listen to disagreement, especially since they were committed to invading Iraq and felt that 9/11 gave them the only opportunity they would have.
Nir Rosen's explanation provides an explanation for the depth of disaster that we find ourselves in within Iraq. No other reasonable explanation comes even close.
Feel free to either disagree or to add supporting facts. I expect that latter, but would love to see the former.
In Bremer's mind, the way to occupy Iraq was not to view it as a nation but as a group of minorities. So he pitted the minority that was not benefiting from the system against the minority that was, and then expected them both to be grateful to him. Bremer ruled Iraq as if it were already undergoing a civil war, helping the Shiites by punishing the Sunnis. He did not see his job as managing the country; he saw it as managing a civil war. So I accuse him of causing one. [Snip]There is a great deal more in the article that demonstrates that Bremer totally failed to understand Iraq.
Bremer claims that Iraqis hated their army at the time of the U.S. invasion. In fact, the army was the most nationalist institution in the country, one that predated the Baath Party. In electing not to fight U.S. forces, the army was expecting to be recognized by the occupation -- and indeed, until Bremer arrived, it appeared that many soldiers and officers were hoping to cooperate with the Americans.
Bremer is wrong to say that Shiites hated the Iraqi army. He treats Iraqis as if they were Hutus and Tutsis, claiming that "Shiite conscripts were regularly brutalized and abused by their Sunni officers." This is just not true. To be sure, Sunnis were overrepresented in the officer corps, and Shiites sometimes felt as if they faced a glass ceiling. But just as there were Shiite ministers under Hussein, there were also Shiite generals. At least a third of the famous deck of cards of Iraqi leaders most wanted by the Americans were Shiites.
So how could this be true since it is so far from what we have been told by the administration and by the reporters who have been to Iraq?
Bremer does not speak Arabic. That is what Rosen said. The following is my opinion of what else might account for the ignorance of the Bush administration.
The western reporters also do not speak Arabic (it is a difficult and time-consuming language to learn), and the editors do not publish stories that are far different from the going narrative. The Neocons who wanted the invasion of Iraq as far back as the early 90's do not speak Arabic, and the members of Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress were trying to manipulate America into invading Iraq and placing Ahmed Chalabi in power as the new head of state of Iraq. The INC members were manipulating the NeoCons. Beyond that, the dedicated Bushies in the White House do not listen to disagreements. Those who disagree simply are removed from any position of power in government.
Beyond even that, according to Seymour Hersh in his book "Chain of Command," after the end of the Cold War the CIA essentially ceased to run operatives in the Middle East. Intelligence gathering became a process of getting Intelligence from allied country Intelligence Agencies such as Mossad and comparing it to satellite data. Speaking and reading Arabic ceased to be a requirement for being an Intelligence Officer or Analyst in the Middle East. Then the Directorate of Operations was required to obtain high level approval from committees who had no knowledge iof the langauge or country before recruiting new spies or even keeping and paying existing spies. Walk-ins were actully turned away.
So the people who were making the decisions did not speak Arabic, the American Intelligence Agencies had no capability to either gather or analyze data on Iraq and the Middle East, and the American government was run by people who distrust academics and refuse to listen to disagreement, especially since they were committed to invading Iraq and felt that 9/11 gave them the only opportunity they would have.
Nir Rosen's explanation provides an explanation for the depth of disaster that we find ourselves in within Iraq. No other reasonable explanation comes even close.
Feel free to either disagree or to add supporting facts. I expect that latter, but would love to see the former.
Ignore per capita GDP - look at Median Hourly Income
Here is why the public doesn't think the economy is doing well. That's because it's not doing well. From Monster dot com story back in September 2006:
Say three people earn $100 a week each. The total paid is $300. Then a month later, two get pay cuts to $75 per week and one get a raise to $150. The total paid is still $300 and the average paid per worker is still $100 a week, but two workers are worse off.
But in the second case, the Median wage, that is the wage of the middle wage earner is $100 in the first case and $75 in the second case.
So look at the second paragraph quoted from the New York Times above. While GDP has gone up, the net profits are all going to corporation rather than to labor. The corporations are either hording the money, spending it on capital or on buying other companies (more of the latter) or increasing the payments of dividends and top management pay. The economy is becoming more productive, but the results of the productivity are not being shared with the workers who actually make the products and services. This is a distribution problem. And since the economy has been being supported by consumer spending rather than investment spending, the economy cannot expand as rapidly.
In the long run, the economy produces to feed demand, and most demand is consumer demand. When consumer demand slows, so does the economy. Much of the increased consumer demand in the last few years has come from the housing boom, but with the slow collapse of the housing bubble, that source of funds is drying up. [I suspect this is why I have been getting a lot more offers for refinancing or second mortgages on my house.]
I am not going to predict an economic collapse. Things are too complicated for that. But the economy is slowing down its rate of growth, and will not pick up again soon. All I will really say for sure is that the general population that thinks the economy is not getting better is right and has been for several years. What we have been getting has been propaganda to try to get us all to spend more, but since the median income has been stagnate or even dropping, that is silly.
Right now sensible people will be getting out of debt as fast as possible. Individually that is the best idea. For the economy, it means that wages have to go up or we are all in trouble.
This week, the New York Times ran a story (log in required) that detailed just how much the economy has grown -- and how little the average Joe’s wages have kept up with this growth. It’s not a new topic, but the article revealed some sobering facts:As pointed out by Kevin Drum, Gross Domestic Income divided by the total number of people in the U.S. gives the number usually reported as saying the economy is doing well. Unfortunately, that is an average figure. Averages are effected badly by outliers, that is, a single number that is a long way from the average/
* After factoring for inflation, Americans’ median hourly wages have declined 2 percent since 2003, while productivity, the amount an average worker produces in an hour, continues to rise.
* Workers’ pay now makes up the lowest share of GDP since the government began recording the data in 1947. In the meantime, corporate profits are at their highest share since the ’60s.
In plain English: Most of us are working harder but being paid less (comparatively speaking) for it. According to the article, the disparity has a lot to do with factors like the decline of unions, globalization and outsourcing, and technology.
Say three people earn $100 a week each. The total paid is $300. Then a month later, two get pay cuts to $75 per week and one get a raise to $150. The total paid is still $300 and the average paid per worker is still $100 a week, but two workers are worse off.
But in the second case, the Median wage, that is the wage of the middle wage earner is $100 in the first case and $75 in the second case.
So look at the second paragraph quoted from the New York Times above. While GDP has gone up, the net profits are all going to corporation rather than to labor. The corporations are either hording the money, spending it on capital or on buying other companies (more of the latter) or increasing the payments of dividends and top management pay. The economy is becoming more productive, but the results of the productivity are not being shared with the workers who actually make the products and services. This is a distribution problem. And since the economy has been being supported by consumer spending rather than investment spending, the economy cannot expand as rapidly.
In the long run, the economy produces to feed demand, and most demand is consumer demand. When consumer demand slows, so does the economy. Much of the increased consumer demand in the last few years has come from the housing boom, but with the slow collapse of the housing bubble, that source of funds is drying up. [I suspect this is why I have been getting a lot more offers for refinancing or second mortgages on my house.]
I am not going to predict an economic collapse. Things are too complicated for that. But the economy is slowing down its rate of growth, and will not pick up again soon. All I will really say for sure is that the general population that thinks the economy is not getting better is right and has been for several years. What we have been getting has been propaganda to try to get us all to spend more, but since the median income has been stagnate or even dropping, that is silly.
Right now sensible people will be getting out of debt as fast as possible. Individually that is the best idea. For the economy, it means that wages have to go up or we are all in trouble.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The position of War Czar
There are proper roles for the military and for the civilian government leadership. The role of the military is to understand the technical military details in depth and to provide honest and clear advice to the civilian leadership. The role of the civilian leadership is to understand both the military advice and the national policy requirements that might or might not require military action, and to provide clear guidance and political support to the military for those military actions that are undertaken.
The Bush administration has been filling many policy positions with military people, which suggests that they don't understand the difference between the kinds of management needed to accomplish tasks and the kinds of management needed for the policy level of government (or the strategic level in business.)
From Josh Marshall we get some of the doubt regarding why so many policy positions are being filled by military people, and why a War Czar is needed at all.
Lt. Gen. Lute is, by all reports, a quite competent General. It is interesting that the Bush administration couldn't bring back a retired General. The ones they asked all refused, so they had to reach down below four stars and choose an active duty officer who they could order to take the job.
Lute's appointment proves that the current National Security Advisor, Steven Hadley, isn't competent as National Security Advisor (well, Duhh!) so they are trying to bring in someone to do his job for him. They are very likely also bringing in a goat to blame when America has to pull out of Iraq, since the Bush administration insists on calling our occupation of Iraq a war and defining our abandonment of the occupation as "losing the war." With Lt. Gen. Lute installed as War Czar, it won't be Bush's fault that we have to withdraw (and by their definition, "lose") in Iraq.
If you like train wrecks or car crashes, the Bush administration has been fun to watch. It is a long, slow-motion train wreck. The disaster is assured. The only question is how large the casualty count will be.
The Bush administration has been filling many policy positions with military people, which suggests that they don't understand the difference between the kinds of management needed to accomplish tasks and the kinds of management needed for the policy level of government (or the strategic level in business.)
From Josh Marshall we get some of the doubt regarding why so many policy positions are being filled by military people, and why a War Czar is needed at all.
What we hear repeatedly expressed as the danger now...both with this nomination, and with constantly rhetorically making Gen. Petraeus responsible for "the plan" in Iraq...is that the military will be held accountable for the policy. As a military friend privately comments, "This is simply wrong".Of course, it isn't like they have been placing competent civilians in the civilian policy positions either. Look at Alberto Gonzalez, Don Rumsfeld, Michael D. Brown (FEMA) and Monica Goodling (DoJ).
There's also a serious debate going on within military circles about what might be termed Constitutional issues...a debate which could well get to the Congress, since the Senate will be required to hold hearings and to approve Lute's nomination. Here's the private comment of a very well-known retired general, which has resonance for Japan's debate over revising Article 9:
"The czar business is certainly unprecedented and is either a tacit admission that the in-place structure does not meet the needs of the time or is a political maneuver by a desperate president shuffling the deck chairs.
This is serious stuff, indeed, for it calls into question the basic construct of the US military for over half a century.
It remains to be seen what Lute's brief will be and given Title 10, what authorities he is given. In any case POTUS is tampering with fundamentals and it will have serious consequences that I hope have been fully analyzed and understood.
Certainly the Congress which gave birth to the National Security Act and all the legislation that followed has to weigh in on this.
Given the anti-Bush temperament of that body, I find it stunning that the President has given it another reason to attack him for not knowing what he is doing.
Lt. Gen. Lute is, by all reports, a quite competent General. It is interesting that the Bush administration couldn't bring back a retired General. The ones they asked all refused, so they had to reach down below four stars and choose an active duty officer who they could order to take the job.
Lute's appointment proves that the current National Security Advisor, Steven Hadley, isn't competent as National Security Advisor (well, Duhh!) so they are trying to bring in someone to do his job for him. They are very likely also bringing in a goat to blame when America has to pull out of Iraq, since the Bush administration insists on calling our occupation of Iraq a war and defining our abandonment of the occupation as "losing the war." With Lt. Gen. Lute installed as War Czar, it won't be Bush's fault that we have to withdraw (and by their definition, "lose") in Iraq.
If you like train wrecks or car crashes, the Bush administration has been fun to watch. It is a long, slow-motion train wreck. The disaster is assured. The only question is how large the casualty count will be.
How much longer in Iraq before we win(?) lose(?) withdraw(?) change strategy(?)
Today Atrios wrote this:
"It was six months ago today that General Abizaid said the following:
- Pressed by Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., on how much time the U.S. and Iraqi government have to reduce the violence in Baghdad before it spirals beyond control, Abizaid said, "Four to six months."
-Atrios 08:57"
Jerry Falwell's death
I haven't been sure how to respond to the Reverend Falwell's death. He has been a man who has had a massive impact on public life in America. In my opinion, most of his impact has been negative. But I think it unlikely that I will be called on to give a eulogy at his funeral, so what I think isn't too important. Whatever, here it is anyway. I finally found the words to get close to what I feel.
The Newshour last night had someone who graduated from Falwell's Liberty University and spoke at length about what a truly fine person Rev. Falwell was in person, and how quick he was to offer a hug to so many. OK. I never knew him personally, and I doubt that he would even allow me to walk on the said-to-be-beautiful campus of his Liberty University. I knew (know?) his through his works as reported by the media. Since he made his bones through his Television activities, followed by his establishment and operation of the organization he called the "Moral Majority." (See also Wikipedia on the "Moral Majority.") my reaction to his death is based on those activities.
Rick Perlstein today writes about his public works, and his writing in fact matches my memories quite well. Rick begins with the rather shocking statement "He was, of course, a monster." and then he goes on to present his (strong) evidence for that statement.
As I say, I know Rev. Falwell through his public works and not as a living person. I can accept that in his personal life he was (as attested) a really fine, warm, and loving human being. I offer my sympathies to those close to him for their loss. But I judge his worth only through his most public works. Those are what matter to most of us.
Based on his public works, I am glad he is no longer with us. I certainly don't think he spoke or acted well for organized religion, and his incursion into politics has helped to bring much of the worst side of the American character into a leadership positions in both the Republican Party and in the governmental structures of America.
Perhaps with his demise, the rest of us can begin to recover and look to the better aspects of America.
The Newshour last night had someone who graduated from Falwell's Liberty University and spoke at length about what a truly fine person Rev. Falwell was in person, and how quick he was to offer a hug to so many. OK. I never knew him personally, and I doubt that he would even allow me to walk on the said-to-be-beautiful campus of his Liberty University. I knew (know?) his through his works as reported by the media. Since he made his bones through his Television activities, followed by his establishment and operation of the organization he called the "Moral Majority." (See also Wikipedia on the "Moral Majority.") my reaction to his death is based on those activities.
Rick Perlstein today writes about his public works, and his writing in fact matches my memories quite well. Rick begins with the rather shocking statement "He was, of course, a monster." and then he goes on to present his (strong) evidence for that statement.
As I say, I know Rev. Falwell through his public works and not as a living person. I can accept that in his personal life he was (as attested) a really fine, warm, and loving human being. I offer my sympathies to those close to him for their loss. But I judge his worth only through his most public works. Those are what matter to most of us.
Based on his public works, I am glad he is no longer with us. I certainly don't think he spoke or acted well for organized religion, and his incursion into politics has helped to bring much of the worst side of the American character into a leadership positions in both the Republican Party and in the governmental structures of America.
Perhaps with his demise, the rest of us can begin to recover and look to the better aspects of America.
Who is the toughest Republican? In last night's debate they try to answer.
In last night's debate of Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination the candidates try to answer the burning question of the core of Republican party voters. Which one of them is the biggest, meanest, nastiest and toughest mother on the block in the nation. Crooks and Liars has the video for download, but here is the quick summary:
I'm sure that these are exactly the characteristics needed for someone who will solve the problems of American - our over-priced and under-delivered health care, our economic problems as demonstrated at present by the slow-motion collapse from the housing bubble and the shrinking of American automotive industry as well as the out-sourcing of many well-paid middle class jobs, the needs for peace in and American withdrawal from Iraq, and the probable next major American disaster (a major earthquake in the San Francisco area.) just to name a very few.
A tough enough President is just what we need to solve all those problems and the myriad others this country faces.
Yeah, sure. Think the republicans can sell that line for the Presidential election in 2008?
Digby adds his comments on the Republican Presidential nominee debate:
McCain - No onI'm sure that the people in New Orleans will be happy to hear that the Republicans will offer the biggest, toughest, meanest bad-ass in the nation to be our next President.TortureEnhanced Interrogation Techniques
Giuliani - Yes onTortureEnhanced Interrogation Techniques
Romney - Yes onTortureEnhanced Interrogation Techniques and while you're at it, Double Guantanamo! (loud applause from audience)
I'm sure that these are exactly the characteristics needed for someone who will solve the problems of American - our over-priced and under-delivered health care, our economic problems as demonstrated at present by the slow-motion collapse from the housing bubble and the shrinking of American automotive industry as well as the out-sourcing of many well-paid middle class jobs, the needs for peace in and American withdrawal from Iraq, and the probable next major American disaster (a major earthquake in the San Francisco area.) just to name a very few.
A tough enough President is just what we need to solve all those problems and the myriad others this country faces.
Yeah, sure. Think the republicans can sell that line for the Presidential election in 2008?
Digby adds his comments on the Republican Presidential nominee debate:
This debate is a window into what really drives the GOP id. The biggest applause lines were for faux tough guy Giuliani demanding Ron Paul take back his assertion that the terrorists don't hate us for our freedom, macho man Huckabee talking about Edwards in a beauty parlor and the manly hunk Romney saying that he wants to double the number of prisoners in Guantanamo "where they can't get lawyers." There's very little energy for that girly talk about Jesus or "the culture of life" or any of that BS that the pansy Bush ran ran on. (Brownback's position, forcing 14 year old girls who've been raped by their fathers to bear their own sibling, will have to suffice for the compassionate "life" crowd tonight.)Financially I have a choice. I can get DSL or I can get cable. I prefer to read, write and continue learning to watching TV, so I missed the debate of the rich men. I'd be curious who felt that the debate was speaking to them and why. Anyone who passes by just might leave a comment and tell me. I'd appreciate it.
John McCain is the only adult on that stage and that scares the living hell out of me considering that he's half nuts too. Wow.
I think Rudy won it. These people don't care if he's wearing a teddy under his suit and sleeping with the family schnauzer as long as he promises to spill as much blood as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)