Tangled Webs

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

I Always Liked E.J.

E.J. Dionne shows his highness Broder and Joe Klein how to write like a pundit (via Froomkin):

In his Washington Post op-ed column today, E. J. Dionne Jr. points fingers at some of his journalistic colleagues (could they include The Post's Dan Balz and David S. Broder?) who "seem eager to declare that 'the system' has come down with some dread disease, to proclaim that an ideological 'center' blessed by the heavens no longer exists, and woe unto us. . . .

"Is Washington a mess? In many ways it is. The simplest explanation has to do with some bad choices made by President Bush. He started a misguided war that is now sapping his influence; he has treated Democrats as if they were infected with tuberculosis and Republicans in Congress as if they were his valets. No wonder he's having trouble pushing through a bill whose main opponents are his own ideological allies.

"Maybe you would place blame elsewhere. But please identify some real people or real political forces and not just some faceless entity that you call the system. Please be specific, bearing in mind that when hypochondriacs misdiagnose vague ailments they don't have, they often miss the real ones."

Thank you.

As I've written before. When I was a working psychotherapist you could always tell when we had a serious borderline or narcissistic personality disorder in the office. How? Not by the personal preening, flashy clothes, or faux charm. No. We could tell because everyone else in the office would start fighting with each other!

No Bother

I know it's an effort, but shouldn't you be doing your day job first?

Not that it would have altered the final result. But one of the reasons for the relatively low vote tally in favor of the Gonzales no-confidence resolution was that presidential candidates Biden, Dodd and Obama didn't bother to show up.

Mudcat Is Sorry

The Edwards advisor who was such a jerk in his first blog post yesterday is now apologizing.

Political Calculation

This is interesting:

Is the failure to stall the Iraq War dragging down the new Dem-controlled Congress?

A new poll finds that Congress' approval rating is at its lowest in a decade -- and that less than one-third of liberals approve of the job Congress is doing.

Good job with the optics and politics of Iraq Dems.

I wonder when the punditry and pols in Washington are going to figure out that the opinon polls on issue really do make a difference. When you have an overwhelming majority of America saying they want us out of Iraq, they mean it. And when you ignore the will of the people, it may cost you. The situation is such that in 2008, Congressional control may depend on who voters like less, not who they support.

Too bad. The Iraq war funding bill was a magnificent opportunity. I understand why they decided what they did, but I still think it was a mistake.

When China Sneezes .....

.... we get a cold:

The reason that this news [China needing to cool down it's economy due to enormous growth and inflation] is of such interest to the US is because of the implications it holds for China's monetary policy, which faces increasing pressure to cool down the Chinese economy. The classic ways to do that would be to raise domestic interest rates, and/or to allow the currency to appreciate against the dollar. Either of these steps could cause a reduction in official Chinese purchases of US bonds, thus contributing to a rise in interest rates in the US.

We're Nuts

I had read about this case awhile back and thought it was crazy. It looks like someone is trying to correct it:

A judge overturned the sentence of a Georgia man who, at 17, was given 10 years imprisonment for engaging in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old, everybody reports. The case had been frequently cited as an example of the problems inherent in mandatory minimum sentencing. Georgia's attorney general promised to appeal.

What's up with people who think that kids 1) don't engage in sex, 2) should have the book thrown at them when they do? Besides eating, sex is probably of the highest priority for a human being. Sure, kids need guidance on the subject, but I personally don't consider a ten year prison sentence guidance in anything but how to be a criminal.

Proof Of Civil War

When you can't tell the difference between the soldiers and the civilians, isn't that then called a battlefield?

LAT stringers in Iraq have witnessed 18 incidents this year in which U.S. troops have opened fire in crowded civilian areas, often in the course of responding to roadside bombings or other attacks. Although military officials claim troops are trained to exercise restraint in civilian-populated areas, anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise: "They were confused and angry and suspecting anyone around. If a bird had passed by, they would have shot it," said one Iraqi man, recalling one such incident.

This is tragic of course. Yet I can't blame these soldiers. They don't know who's gonna shoot them and who's going to shake their hand. The entire country is a battlefield. To call it anything but a war is to wantonly ignore the situation.

More on Pet Food

They are still finding tainted pet food, this time it's Science Diet.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Oh Jeebus

John Edwards, please have a chat with your blogging consultant. What is it about Swampland? It only ends up with uppity "centrists" who are really conservatives"

I have bitched and moaned for years about the lack of tolerance in the elitist wing of the Democratic Party, or what I refer to as the "Metropolitan Opera Wing". These are the people who talk of tolerance but the only true tolerance they ever exhibit is for their own pseudo-intellectual arrogance.

If you want a perfect example of how this "intolerance" is helping the Democrats lose national elections, check out the responses to Joe Klein's post on Paris and Libby. To be clear, I have no problem with incivility [utter and complete BULLSHIT apparently]. After all, I'm in the political business. However, as a pilgrim in the blogosphere, I thought blogging was for exchange of ideas, not personal attacks. Like his post or not, Klein in no way compromised the integrity of the fourth estate. This was not a news story. He was simply stating his opinion. Unless fourth estate integrity has been compromised, there is no rationale for calling him a "jackass", "fool", or "elite white guy".

That's a graf from his (remember, he's a Democrat) opening blog post encouraging an open dialog.

I really wish that someone would begin a "Blogging 101" class. These idiots who are supposedily on the liberal side continually do not understand that blogging is a very very public forum where anyone, I repeat ANYONE, (including not incidently Republican trickster or "trolls" as they're known) from entering comments in whatever form they choose. To then take that very narrow feedback and paint a very broad brush of the "elite left blogospher" is really nothing short of bigotry. What's the deal. Are all these political "leaders" and "pundits" thin skinned idiots?

I wonder.

Or is all this just a thin disguise for a southern Democrat who would embrace Joe Lieberman with a big wet kiss?

Gee, I wonder how his future posts will be greeted since he offered such a warm hearted welcome to his readers.

Swell

I figured this was going to happen eventually. What a mess:

Since September 11, 2001, the U.S.'s Pakistan policy can be summed up in two words: Pervez Musharraf. But within the U.S. intelligence community, and in Pakistan, there's a growing belief that the U.S.-friendly military dictator's days are drawing to a close -- and possibly within the next few months. It may be time for the U.S. to face what it's long feared in the nuclear state: the prospect of chaos, rising Islamism or anti-Americanism that follows Musharraf.

The article goes on to say that "intelligence officials" also think that a smooth transition can occur resulting in a government friendly to the U.S. Maybe. Given the intelligence community's track record, it's hard to know what to believe. What we know is that there is a very very stong fundamentalist Islamic element in Pakistan that could easily take advantage of any power vacuums.

Good News

At least for now, until the Supreme Court gets ahold of it.

Republican Watch

I find this amazing:

As Senate Democrats prepare to push a no confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales forward, a Democratic aide in the Senate said the party did not expect to reach the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture on a likely Republican filibuster to allow an up or down vote on the measure.

"We're working under the assumption that we'll get our side and none of the Republicans," the Senate Democratic staff member told RAW STORY Monday morning. "I'm almost certain it will be a party line vote."

Olympia Snowe? Susan Collins? Chuck Hagel? Outraged calls for resignation? They're all pretty brave as long there's no real record of their intent. It's simply astounding that this close to 2008, and with Bush's poll ratings down the drain that Republicans continue to following tribal custom. I guess it's a "live by the sword die by the sword" situation.

Not that it matters. I've predicted all along that Bush will keep Gonzales no matter what Congress does. It would take an impeachment to remove him and it's clear that Dems just don't have the votes. Bush's protection racket stays in place.

Going forward, it's going to be very important for Democratic voters to remember how Congress works. The fact that Dems have a majority does not automatically translate into the ability to actually do anything. The benefit of 2006 is the ability to 1) investigate (and publicize), 2) moderate nominees and 3) stop further nutbar legislation. While I think that the Democrats caving on the Iraq war funding bill has hurt their momentum, I can understand what they're up against in terms of Congressional Republicans. They have very thick heads. It will take a stronger majority and a louder voice by American's for change to actually do something progressive. The work to build a progressive majority must continue along this vein. To count on Republican "moderates" is a fool's game.

Update: Seven Republicans voted to move no-confidence forward. As usual, the stupid ass boltin' Joe Lieberman voted with Republicans. I really really really wish the guy would leave the party. He's an embarrassment.

I believe this issue is now dead. Everyone seems to agree Gonzales should go. Republicans won't go on the record. Bush won't move him out. Dems can't even get a non-binding resolution of no-confidence past a filibuster much less move to impeach him. What's left? On the good side, politically, it's probably good he stays to continue making mistakes and being in office while revelations come out. But yet another institution, the Federal justice system, will continue to be a shambles and likely get even worse.

Update II: Here's the list of Republicans who did vote for the resolution: Coleman, Collins, Hagel, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Sununu. Simply not enough.

Wanker Joe

Juan Cole points to yet another reason why the Iran war hawks, aka Boltin' Joe Lieberman, are completely out-to-lunch:

That is why Senator Joe Lieberman's call for aggressive air strikes on Iran are unlikely to eventuate. Bush needs Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council in order to avoid immediate and complete defeat in Iraq, and SIIC is very, very close to Iran [my emphasis]. Lieberman doesn't seem to understand, by the way, that Iraqi Shiites would mind the US bombing their coreligionists and would probably massacre the entire British garrison in Basra as well as interdict US fuel convoys to the north from Kuwait and Basra. His irresponsible warmongering would get a lot of US troops killed for no good reason.

Minor detail as Joe continues to get your various Arab types all mixed up. They are, afterall, all the same. Right?

In other news, Juan casually mentions that Iran is cooperating, via the use of it's military, with Turkey in pursuing Kurdish insurgents in northern Iraq. Is it any wonder the Kurds don't want the U.S. to leave?

Chart of the Day

I found this chart (click to enlarge) really quite interesting for a number of reasons. It shows the per capita Federal employment for various Presidential administrations:

Wow. First I was surprised to see that under GW, the level of employees has stayed quite low. Given the propensity by dub to spend money like a drunken sailor, I expected more bloat. I guess this goes to show that the money has been going to private businesses, not to government. Which brings me to my next conclusion: is it really any wonder that the Federal government is performing so poorly? You name the area of responsibility and the Federal government's quality of service has materially declined. As they say, you get what you pay for and Republicans have been seeking the goal of an impotent Federal government for some time. If Americans are unhappy with the Feds, one area they need to look at is their own willingness to pay taxes.

Finally, is Clinton partially responsible for the government we have? Certainly during his administration (and a GOP dominated Congress) there was a committment to reduce the size of government. Looks to me like they were quite successful. Perhaps they were depending on good management to make it possible to do more with less. So much for that plan.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Pacing Himself

Gen. Pace was not renewed as the head of the joint chiefs. The presenting story was ~~that he needed to spend more time with his family~~ that his confirmation would be contentious. This is an explanation that smells to me.

Steve Clemons offers us another possibility. The short version? Pace was fired for being too political, i.e. the Libby letter and some previous comments about gays. Not to mention that his association with the mess in Iraq might have started to smell like old fish.

High Broderism

Remember, David Broder is part of the liberal media:

Despite the absence of any underlying crime, Fitzgerald filed charges against Libby for denying to the FBI and the grand jury that he had discussed the Wilson case with reporters. Libby was convicted on the testimony of reporters from NBC, the New York Times and Time magazine — a further provocation to conservatives.

I think they have a point. This whole controversy is a sideshow — engineered partly by the publicity-seeking former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife and heightened by the hunger in parts of Washington to “get” Rove for something or other.

Like other special prosecutors before him, Fitzgerald got caught up in the excitement of the case and pursued Libby relentlessly, well beyond the time that was reasonable.

That's right. There was no underlying charge .... at least none that can be proven because Libby obstructed justice!!! (and continues to as firewall in chief)

Now to be fair. I can understand how Broder might question the whole Libby prosecution. After all, Libby never even got a blow job!

Update: Does Broder read the Washington Post? Carol Leonnig has done the reporting on Libby and has done a thoroughly credible job. She writes today about the "Five Myths About Scooter and the Slammer". Care to guess which myths those would be?

3. Libby didn't leak Plame's identity.

Oh, brother, am I tired of this one. Libby wasn't charged with the crime of knowingly leaking classified information about Plame; he was charged with lying to investigators. But the overwhelming weight of the evidence at the trial -- including reporters' notes of their interviews with Libby -- showed that Libby had indeed leaked classified information about Plame's identity, even though that wasn't what put him in the dock. The jury agreed that Libby lied when he said that he'd been telling reporters only what other reporters had told him about Plame's role at the CIA.

What is unclear is whether Libby knew she was a covert CIA agent at the time he discussed her with reporters -- a key point in determining whether this was an illegal leak. But Walton said that Libby "had a unique and special obligation" to keep such secrets, well, secret.

I know using google or researching stuff for a op-ed piece is a lot to ask of the Washington weenie crowd. But couldn't he just read his own paper? I'm sure they get copies free.

Update: Rick Perlstein explains to us how Broder, the "dean" of the Washington journalists, has been a wanker since 1972.

Oblivious

Isn't this just typical? I really think this little vignette epitomizes the Bush administration:

The office of Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt called Sen. Craig Thomas's (R-WY) office Thursday afternoon to request a meeting with the late senator, the Washington Post reports.

Thomas passed away on Monday after a seven month battle with leukemia.

"Needless to say, grief-stricken Thomas staffers were stunned."

Boltin' Joe Is Stupid

That asshole Lieberman had this to say today:

"Iraq is now the main front in the long war we are fighting against the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. In fact 90% of the suicide bombers in Iraq today killing Iraqis and American soldiers are foreign Al Qaeda fighters. Iran is training and equipping soldiers, Iraqis, to come in and kill American soldiers and Iraqis," said Lieberman.

I'm not quite sure why I even waste the pixels on this crap. There is not a single portion of his statement that is factually correct. Nada.

Iraqi's had nothing to do with 911 (for the seven millionth time) and is populated largely by Shiites (bin Laden is Sunni and hated Saddam who was secular). Al Qaeda is a very very small portion of the insurgency and only exists because of the anarchy we've releaseed in Iraq. Iran is Shiite, al Qaeda is Sunni and they hate each other. If Iran is doing anything, it's arming Shiite militias to kill al Qaeda members as well as U.S. troops.

Lieberman is either 1) stupid or 2) mendacious or 3) both. There's no other answer for saying something so blatantly false.

George W. Soprano

Summer puts up a quote from an article showing us the similarities between the U.S. and the Soprano's:

Under our devoutly Christian leader, we are all highly moral. We have right and God on our side as we fight the evildoers. Except that, well, we’ve been feeling kind of weird. And, to tell the truth, we have a few skeletons in our closet.

Somebody whacked some of our crew, and we were scared, so we whacked Iraq. Just like Tony ordered the hit on Adriana. Steps were taken, as Sil would say. Except it turned out there were some unexpected consequences. We basically killed an entire country, and a whole lot of Americans, and people are dying all the time. And what are we doing? Nothing. We’re going to the Bada Bing. We’re having dinner at Artie’s. Same old same old. Everything’s fine. It’s just fine.

Yep. Just fine. Hey's let's go shopping for that new plasma teevee so we can see Paris when she's released!

Dose of Reality

We're stuck for awhile:

The Post makes another interesting point—even if opponents of the war get their way, a total pullout from Iraq would take almost a year to execute. According to one official, any withdrawal would have to go through southern Iraq (to Kuwait), and it would take "at least 3,000 large convoys some 10 months to remove U.S. military gear and personnel alone."

Of course, this assumes an orderly withdrawal. Seems to me that we were able to withdraw from Vietnam a lot more quickly when we had to, leaving everything behind, including those loyal to the U.S.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)