Tangled Webs

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Walled In

This is no surprise:

The NYT fronts a look at how U.S. officials are trying to figure out a way to prevent British citizens of Pakistani descent from being able to enter the country without a visa. Officials say they are concerned that many of the terror plots uncovered recently involve Britons who have ties to Pakistan, and just like any British citizen they could enter the United States without a visa. For some reason the paper decides to refer to this, in the story and headline, as a "visa loophole."

I've got an idea. Let's have a "skin darkness test" that determines if you get in or not. Better yet, how about just not letting anyone in.

Seriously, this story is an example of how Bush has spread terrorism. Now "home grown" al Qaeda types are showing up throughout Europe and the rest of the world motivated by the jihad against the imperialist Americans. Now they're coming from Briton, our strongest ally, not just the middle east. There is no way they'll be able to stop a terrorist from entering the country. The solutions have to be more subtle, with more international support and will take quite a while to implement ... thanks to G.Dub.

Call. Now.

Pelosi is taking a tally from the American public on the impeachment issue. Call. Now.
202-225-0100.

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Time For Another Shipment Of Friedman's

David E. Sanger wrote in Friday's New York Times: "The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush's top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials.

"In interviews over the past week, the officials made clear that the White House is gradually scaling back its expectations for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The timelines they are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year."

Republicans other than Bush think Bush will come to his senses by September.

I. Don't. Think. So.

That's why Republican watch is so fun.

One Picture .....

Idiots

I was going to publish this post here but decided against it. Please go to the link if you want to read it.

I don't know about you, but I remember feeling like I wanted to upchuck when I watched this event and the punditry coverage. I think it may have been the last straw when I decided that watching the cable news was bad for my health. I also want you to notice that in reading this time-capsule piece, all the players involved are still prominent pundits telling us exactly what things mean.

I thought it was pretty easy to say what it meant. This is what stupid looks like:

But, hey. At least we know one reason Chris Matthews got all hot and bothered:

Yep:

Best Laid Plans Division

Just four years ago ........

By Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt

BAGHDAD, May 2 -- The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today.

The United States currently has more than five divisions in Iraq, troops that fought their way into the country and units that were added in an attempt to stabilize it. But the Bush administration is trying to establish a new military structure in which American troops would continue to secure Baghdad while the majority of the forces in Iraq would be from other nations.

Under current planning, there would be three sectors in postwar Iraq. The Americans would keep a division in and around Baghdad; Britain would command a multinational division in the south near Basra; and Poland would command a third division of troops from a variety of nations.

Ah, that Michael Gordon. Always on top of the real story .....

Quote of the Day

“Congress is back in session. This always helps to boost business.”

Deborah Jeanne Palfrey, the “DC Madam,” in January 1994

Pardon Me Madam ....

.... but I am a bit confused:

NEW YORK As the so-called "D.C. Madam" case unfolds in the nation's capital, with alleged prostitution ringleader Jeane Palfrey claiming a list of thousands of prominent clients, Washington-area editors say they are following the story, but remain reluctant to print such a list, were it available, without serious scrutiny.

"You would have to evaluate it to the extent humanly possible and verify it," said Michael Tackett, Washington bureau chief for the Chicago Tribune. "If one of the names is wrong and you print it, how do you unring that bell for that person?" He said reprinting a list from another news outlet is not an excuse for getting it wrong. "You've got to verify it yourself," he said.

From what I've heard, there are some pretty prominent government officials on this list. Lots of them. Likely from both parties. But I suspect it's skewed toward Republicans. That's the only reason I can think of that would justify the reluctance of the Washington press corpse to pursue this story like dogs in heat. Wasn't it just a few short years ago that they pursued stained dresses, stories of cigars and murder conspiracies against Clinton with great abandon?

Rich Get Richer

Here is a handy dandy chart showing some disparity in the American economy. The ML index is an index of wealthy spending. The MSCI is all consumer spending. Guess who's spending more?

According to Barry Ritholtz's post, some between 37% and 70% of consumer spending comes from the top 20% of wage earners. While that's a fairly large range, even at the lower end you can clearly see who's propping up consumer spending. We are, indeed, in a new gilded age. And the pundits wonder why people are pessimistic about the economy?

Iraq Milestone Day

For a variety of reasons:

But the good news is tempered by the 104 American soldiers killed in April, the highest total for 2007, which the story notes and the Post leads with. The paper ties the increasing death toll to the 11-week-old surge/escalation—the effort to reduce violence by putting more soldiers in the field. It was also the deadliest month for British soldiers with 11 fatalities.

In addition, today is the day that Bush keeps the war going by vetoing the timeline for withdrawal legislation, and it's the four year anniversary of "mission accomplished".

Meanwhile, the green zone gets hotter:

Things don't seem very safe in the Green Zone, either, as the Post gets this unusual under-fire quote from a military flak: " 'There is a duck-and-cover going on right now,' said Lt. Col. Christopher C. Garver, a U.S. military spokesman, before quickly getting off the phone. Later, Garver confirmed there had been an assault on the Green Zone, but it was unclear what had happened. Local Iraqi television stations reported 10 explosions inside the zone."

Monday, April 30, 2007

More Of The Story Comes Out

Murray Waas of the National Journal:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed a highly confidential order in March 2006 delegating to two of his top aides -- who have since resigned because of their central roles in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys -- extraordinary authority over the hiring and firing of most non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department. A copy of the order and other Justice Department records related to the conception and implementation of the order were provided to National Journal.

In the order, Gonzales delegated to his then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, and his White House liaison "the authority, with the approval of the Attorney General, to take final action in matters pertaining to the appointment, employment, pay, separation, and general administration" of virtually all non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department, including all of the department's political appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Monica Goodling became White House liaison in April 2006, the month after Gonzales signed the order.

The existence of the order suggests that a broad effort was under way by the White House to place politically and ideologically loyal appointees throughout the Justice Department, not just at the U.S.-attorney level. Department records show that the personnel authority was delegated to the two aides at about the same time they were working with the White House in planning the firings of a dozen U.S. attorneys, eight of whom were, in fact, later dismissed.

A senior executive branch official familiar with the delegation of authority said in an interview that -- as was the case with the firings of the U.S. attorneys and the selection of their replacements -- the two aides intended to work closely with White House political aides and the White House counsel's office in deciding which senior Justice Department officials to dismiss and whom to appoint to their posts. "It was an attempt to make the department more responsive to the political side of the White House and to do it in such a way that people would not know it was going on," the official said.

Not that it will really matter, but it sure looks like a smoking gun to me. Karl Rove was at the head of an intense deliberate program to politicize the Department of Justice. Not only are these actions immoral, they are unconstitutional.

Another day. Another revelation.

Fascinating

Here is a graphic that depicts the results of a recent Pew research poll (click to enlarge):

Wow. Hillary Clinton seen as more liberal than Gore or Obama? And Republicans seeing themselves more aligned with Gingrich than Guiliani or McCain.

Interesting.

Wolforich

You're hearing some headline nonsense about Wolfowitz not resigning from the World Bank. But I'll bet you haven't heard this:

Secondly, allegedly on June 1st, Wolfowitz becomes eligible for some large financial bonus -- for performance and time on the job. One estimate puts this figure at about $400,000. Wolfowitz wants to make sure those funds are credited to his private bank account before saying farewell to an institution that has come to despise him.

It's all negotiations. Wolfy is trying to cut a deal to be sure and get his bonus before leaving. I wonder how much Bush's cut will be for supporting him?

Republican Watch

"Cracks are starting to show in the near-monolithic Republican support for the Iraq War," according to Roll Call. Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), who was one of two Republicans in the House that voted in favor of the Iraq War supplmental bill, said that in the next few months, the number of Republicans "willing to stray from the party line will grow significantly."

Said Gilchrest: "They are going to start popping off...I think by midsummer we could see that happening, breaking the logjam."

Meanwhile, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) "has described his strategy as forcing Republicans to vote 'again and again and again' to back the war until they tell Bush they've had enough. A string of Iraq votes are planned from now to October that will put Republicans on the spot. In addition to the new war supplemental, the upcoming fiscal 2008 Defense authorization and Defense appropriations bills will hit the House floor by the end of June."

Keep it up. Make them vote over and over and over again for the war. Front and center.

Not Good

This is not good:

"In a serious rebuff to U.S. diplomacy, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has refused to receive Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on the eve of a critical regional summit on the future of the war-ravaged country, Iraqi and other Arab officials said yesterday. The Saudi leader's decision reflects the growing tensions between the oil-rich regional giants, the deepening skepticism among Sunni leaders in the Middle East about Iraq's Shiite-dominated government, and Arab concern about the prospects of U.S. success in Iraq, the sources said. The Saudi snub also indicates that the Maliki government faces a creeping regional isolation unless it takes long-delayed actions, Arab officials warn. For the United States, the Saudi cold shoulder undermines hopes of healing regional tensions between Sunni- and Shiite-dominated governments and producing a new spirit of cooperation on Iraq ... "

Put together with the earlier story of Maliki purging those who combat Shiite militia's, it's understandable that the Saudi's are less than thrilled with the direction of the Iraq political situation. The regionalization of the Iraq conflict continues apace. You know that regional Saudi players are pumping money and arms into Iraq as quickly/effectively as Iran is sending in support to the Shiites. But strangely, the Bush administration never seems to worry about Saudi intervention in Iraq.

Major FWIW

Never put it past me to pass along the major DC gossip:“She's staying at the Hay-Adams.

I don't know how many people know...but it's probably not many.”

That’s my Desk DeeCee, hard at busybody work, informing me further of what this column has more than hinted at before: that the U.S. Chief of Grief, George W. Bush, has a wife (by the name of Laura, ‘course) who’s so damn put out by the teetotaling Texan’s return to drinking that she had to get outta the White House. Woo-hoo! That be first-class First Lady dish there, my darlin’ goss lovers!

Who knows? But it wouldn't surprise me.

Partisan

Ok, we know about partisanship, but this seems a little extreme:

BAGHDAD, April 29 -- A department of the Iraqi prime minister's office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad.

Since March 1, at least 16 army and national police commanders have been fired, detained or pressured to resign; at least nine of them are Sunnis, according to U.S. military documents shown to The Washington Post.

Maliki is obviously taken lesson from the Bush school of governing.

How in the world can Iraq have any kind of resolution if the leader of the country is a solid partisan on one of the waring sides?

It can't. And it won't.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

DC Punditry

Digby, quote of the day on DC punditry:

I suppose it could also be argued that the DC pundits are just not as smart as the rest of us but I doubt it. They aren't stupid or uninformed. Still, results are results and there must be a reason why so many members of the political media have been so wrong so often for the past decade and a half. Out here in the hinterlands, a whole bunch of us have been able to see through what was going on, while it was going on. It's not just partisanship and it's not just a fluke. From the silly travel office flap in 1993 until David Broder's heinous little screed yesterday, there is a long continuum of establishment petulance, confusion, triviality and error. If it isn't their proximity to those who are spinning them, I can only assume that they are either dumb, craven or Republican. It's got to be something.

I've been reading blogs long enough to remember the "alternative" views of the impending war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was a widely held view in the so-called "liberal" blogosphere that both were wild adventures. Afghanistan was seen as necessary, but necessary to do right. Iraq was very largely seen as an unnecessary trumped up joke that would not turn out well.

Where's the accountability? The same tired and wrong faces continue to show up as the sage anaylsts in newspapers and teevee. Why aren't some of those who were accurate in their prognositications having careers made on their ability to accurate assess the situation? Why do we continue to be exposed to those same wrong "analysts"?

Headlines

Headlines from Juan Cole's blog say it all:

9 US Troops Killed;
60 Killed, 170 Wounded in Karbala;
Over 60 Bodies Found;
Sadr Admonishes Bush

Republican Watch

Citing limited evidence, the LAT concludes that Republicans are having trouble persuading their top choices to run for the House next year. More convincing is its observation that the party has lost its edge in fund-raising—Democrats have more money in the bank than Republicans, a stark reversal from last year. George Bush is blamed for both problems, and Republican officials hope that the party's presidential candidate overshadows him in the minds of voters next year.

The Republicans are, thus far, still on the march off the cliff. As long as they keep Bush in his leadership role for the party (and it's position on the war), traction will be quite difficult for Republican candidates.

I figure that a true Republican revolt will begin sometime in the fall. Wonder how many people will die from now until then in Iraq?

On another note, there are all kinds of mixed signals coming from the White House on the war funding bill. Sometimes they sound concilitory, like they might actually budge on their position. For example, Bush yesterday had almost a pleading tone for Dems to come to the White House to negotiate (Reid declined). Today, Condi threw a gernade into the message. To their credit, the Dems seem to be standing firm and consistent on the issue. In the end, they'll give funding without a "timeline", but I don't think they'll give Bush an open checkbook whether it's limited short-term funding, or some type of benchmarks.

We shall see.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)