Tangled Webs

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Why They Hate Us

If you want a single, anecdotal story that is occurring daily in Iraq and clearly explains why they want us out more than anything else, give this a read.

I have a theory. Just like in America, a majority of the Iraqi's want the U.S. out of Iraq. So why hasn't the Iraqi government voted us out? As occurred in Vietnam, the current government has two motivations to keep the U.S. in Iraq. One is protection ... if the U.S. leaves the current leaders will be immediately "expendable" shall we say. But a second reason is money. As long as the U.S. is in Iraq, government officials can continue to siphon off all the money they'll ever need and salt it away. Then when the inevitable fall occurs, they'll be set for life outside of Iraq.

It's going to take a full scale violent overthrow of the Iraq government to change this dynamic, or a U.S. withdrawal. While the latter doesn't seem too imminent, the reappearance of Sadr along with the the key Iraqi government leaders being out of country this summer (including Talabani's famous visit to a U.S. fat farm to lose weight), you have to wonder about a coup. I hope al Maliki doesn' t forget his Swiss account number when he's running for that helicopter.

Weekend Reading

I've written here many times before about the illusion of the unemployment picture in the U.S. Economist and headline writers extol the low unemployment rate and economic boom we've been enduring (yes, enduring) since Bush took office.

In the New York Review of Books James Lardner has written a review of several books on the changing corporate culture towards employees over the past 20 or so years. These books document via general trend observation and anecdotal stories of the "downward mobility" of American workers. It's also noted that this movement downward is no longer limited to blue collar workers. In a key graf Lardner says:

From their different vantage points, Uchitelle, LeRoy, and Bogle are writing about the breakdown of what some have called the postwar social contract, and about the rise of a new "money power" more daunting, in some ways, than that of the late 1800s and early 1900s. To gain their political ends, the robber barons and monopolists of the Gilded Age were content with corrupting officials and buying elections. Their modern counterparts have taken things a big step further, erecting a loose network of think tanks, corporate spokespeople, and friendly press commentators to shape the way Americans think about the economy. Much as corporate marketing directs our aspirations disproportionately toward commercial goods and services, the new communications apparatus wants us to believe that our economic wellbeing depends almost entirely on the so-called free market—a euphemism for letting the private sector set its own rules. The success of this great effort can be measured in the remarkable fact that, despite the corporate scandals and the social damage that these authors explore; despite three decades of deregulation and privatization and tax-and-benefit-slashing with, as the clearest single result, the relentless rise of economic inequality to levels so extreme that since 2001 "the economy" has racked up five straight years of impressive growth without producing any measurable income gains for most Americans—even now, discussions of solutions or alternatives can be stopped almost dead in their tracks by mention of the word government.

This is the process that Thom Hartman of Air American credits with starting during the Reagan administration .... the dismantling of the middle class.

Ironically, these books all note the economic impact of a lost middle class. Sure, the rich get richer but the country doesn't.

It's a good read worth taking a few minutes to give yourself an inside view of the "jobs numbers" extolled by the media and conservatives. It's an amazing feat to cause this wholesale destruction of an blue collar economic base while retaining those same voters with red-herring issues such as immigration, prayer in the schools, Terry Schiavo, and gays.

Troop Reductions!

Yeah, right.

Well today we have another story out about how the Bush administration is planning on reducing the troop levels in Iraq next year. According to Glenn, this is at least the sixth such story since the start of the war.

Yawn.

Friday, May 25, 2007

I Like To Watch

Each Friday The NewsHour has the two pundits Mark Shields and David Brooks on for political analysis. I like to watch this segment because I think it's probably the most down-to-earth representation of conventional wisdom in Washington without a bunch of nutbars, screamers and cable teevee nonsense. Both Shields and Brooks are very mainstream, thoughtful, and can articulate the dissenting positions of the Washington left and right quite well.

Tonight I noted that, in discussing the war resolution, it was the impression of both that there is not a willingness by voters to "end the war". Thus Shields, the liberal, reflected the this-was-probably-the-best-they-could-get CW.

What?

I'm not sure what poll they were referring to but all the polls I've seen reflect a voting public that wants the war to end. Not end precipitiously. I've not seen anyone suggests that the army just pack up tomorrow and withdraw. But rather for the start of the end to begin. And that's exactly what the Democrats sent to Bush and he vetoed it. It's a total red herring to argue that no one supports "immediate withdrawal". It's a gross rationalization and an incorrect assessment of what anti-war Dems have been trying to do.

The inside-the-beltway punditry have very thick heads. Much like cows. And it's going to obviously take much much more unrest, death, expense and loss in the international arena before these people get "it".

Update: Apparently I'm not the only one to notice this.

Sadr 2.0

There's a whole lot of buzz about Moqtada al Sadr's return (if he ever left) to Iraq. He seems to be rolling out a new P.R. campaign in southern Iraq stressing the need to get the U.S. out, including a willingness to team up with Sunnis.

His calls for withdrawal are not unique. What is interesting is the timing of his new P.R. initiative. With the Iraqi government looking increasingly impotent and with pressure in the U.S. for withdrawal, it cannot be an accident that Sadr has reemerged with such vigor.

A Brand New Medication!!!!

Quote of the Day

There were a few of us after the midterms working hard to define Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel and the compromised Dems to keep them from expanding their power by claiming credit for the midterm results, which we believe happened more in spite of, rather than because of, their efforts.

We took a lot of crap for that.

A. Lot. Of. Crap.

Many people felt we were criticizing Dems gratuitously and foolishly when we should have been celebrating the victories. People were tired, worn out. They wanted a rest, an end to the intraparty fighting. Heck, we were all tired, though there were some among us who felt the post election narrative was as important a fight as the election fight. Others said, no, it's time to start governing, rewarding good behavior, giving the benefit of the doubt. There were long, passionate discussions, online and off. Nerves frayed, and then some.

Okay, it's all water under the bridge. I'm not here to say, "We told you so." I'm here to make a different point.

Here's my point: let's not oversell our victories, and let's not underestimate the strength and nature of the forces against us, even in the Democratic Party. Moreover, let's not ever convince ourselves we can take a rest, or that criticizing Democrats is inherently a problem. It's all situational, case by case, earned or unearned.

Pachacutec of FireDogLake.

The fight is for liberal ideals, not for the Democratic/Green or any other parties.

Support The Troops

Spencer Akerman, who just returned from an embed in Iraq, has a nice article on troop morale in Iraq. In essence he has found that the soldiers want to continue the fight and that they think we are winning. Akerman then cites a number of the improvements that some of the troops are anecdotally experiencing.

I don't find the improvements particularly surprising. The insurgents are, as predicted, changing tactics and attacking outside Baghdad whereas these troops were mostly part of the escalating troops in Baghdad. Plus, Iraq is a bad enough place to be stuck in. To think you're there for nothing would make it unbearable.

Akerman's point regarding the troops and the politics is this:

The uncomfortable reality is this: nothing in Iraq worth fighting for remains achievable, and nothing achievable in Iraq remains worth fighting for. Democrats have made the decision—rightly, I think—that withdrawing from Iraq is the least bad of many bad options. But they shouldn’t kid themselves into thinking that a majority of the troops doing the fighting agree with them. For soldiers like Lieutenant Wellman, this will be hard to accept. As he told me of war doubters back home, “I don’t want them to just support the troops. I want them to support the mission.” This matters, because pretending that in ending the war they’re doing the troops a favor hurts Democrats politically. They risk looking condescending, and, worse, oblivious—which has the broader effect of undermining public trust in the Democrats to handle national security. More basically, it does a disservice to those who serve. For soldiers who are optimistic, being told that the war can’t be won is bad enough. But to be told that politicians are doing them a favor by extricating them from a mission they believe in is downright insulting.

Democrats would do much better to speak honestly: to acknowledge that many fighting men and women want to stay in the battle and would be willing to do so for years longer. There’s nothing wrong with saying that, nor in emphasizing that this is part of what makes us so proud of our military. We wouldn’t want soldiers who were unwilling to fight to the bitter end. Elected officials, however, have to judge what they believe to be in the national interest, and that means calling an end to the occupation of Iraq. Soldiers like Wellman won’t agree, but if Democrats can at least signal that they acknowledge and respect his point of view, they’ll have a better chance at getting Wellman to respect their own. And meeting partway is a lot better than not meeting at all.

Yep. Soldiers are tacticians, not policy makers. We always want soldiers to support the mission ... that's there job. It's our civilian leadership's job to determine the mission and it's importance.

But I do think Akerman misses an important point. Voters don't fully grasp this concept which is why Democrats have chosen the optics of supporting the troops through withdrawal. The message is directed to voters, not to soldiers. So it may not be popular with the military, but it may be necessary in the policy discussion until and unless someone can figure out how to frame it differently.

Give It Up 4 George

The caption could read "My husband gave his life for oil profits and all I got was this lousy flag."

Exit Strategy

From yesterday's news conference, a question from the great Martha Raddatz of ABC News:

"Q Thank you, Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a 'yes' or 'no.'

"THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

Mitch McConnel said the same thing. It's reported that the Iraq parliament has a majority of votes to vote the U.S. out.

What's the holdup?

Revelation Fatigue

I'm reading Froomkin today and the headline is about an impending intelligence report release that shows that Bush was warned, pre-invasion, that a post invasion Iraq would be a mess.

Duh.

These revelations are coming fast and furious. It seems that on any given day there's yet more impeachable information coming out. Instead of a bombshell it seems the impact is a yawn. We've had so many over so long that I believe we are all ........

Housing News

Yesterday the news was trumpeting the "bounce" in new home sales. Record levels they said over and over again. Kinda makes you think the housing slump is over eh? As usual, never believe the headlines. Here's the whole story:

In spite of a record decline in median sales price and a 14 year high in new home sales, actual inventory of homes dropped a mere 8,000 units from 540,000 to 532,000 units.

So, indeed, sales were strong (although I read elsewhere that the sales number is notorious volatile and subject to huge revisions) but look at those prices. And inventory? Still huge.

Meanwhile, from the same post linked above is the news that in Sacramento CA a house that was selling for $526,000 got no bids yesterday at half price.

Gasoline Imports

Via The Big Picture we have this interesting chart:

And why is this interesting?

Not only are we increasing imports of oil but we're also increasing the imports of refined products like gasoline.

Nuts.

The Transcript

I've been able to acquire a translated version of the President discussing the war in Iraq from yesterday, special to readers of Tangled Webs:

blah blah blah al Qaeda blah blah blah blah al Qaeda blah al Qaeda blah blah al Qaeda blah blah blah.

I wish any of the nutbars who still support this idiot had a real idea of just how contemptuous he is of them and their intelligence. Then again, anyone who still supports him probably deserves the contempt.

The Vote

A lousy 14 Senators voted against the war funding bill. Just 14.

If you want to know who they are, go here. Clinton and Obama both voted against it (smart moves). There were two real surprises to me who also voted nay. One is Tom Coburn, the nutbar conservative from Oklahoma and the other is Mike Enzi, Republican of Wyoming. There are several Republicans who are listed as "Not voting", having likely taken a convenient powder that day. Chuck Schumer also was a not-voting ... convenient.

Six more soldiers were killed today. Looks like it's going to be a long hot summer in Iraq. Bush yesterday predicted a bloody summer given the insurgents know about the "September" conventional wisdom (isn't that essentially a timeline then?). How in the world will we know if "progress" is being made if Bush continually puts up the insurgent surge strawman everytime we talk about leaving?

It's nuts. My heart goes out to the soldiers and their families who are stuck in the unending violence and mayhem who in their heart of hearts have to know that it's all for nothing.

Maplight

An interesting site that a coworker brought to my attention is MAPLight.org.

MAPLight.org brings together campaign contributions and how legislators vote, providing an unprecedented window into the connections between money and politics. We currently cover the California Legislature and U.S. Congress.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Up From The Memory Hole

From a transcript on May 27th, 1964:

[President] Johnson: And we just got to think about it. I'm looking at this Sergeant of mine this morning and he's got 6 little old kids over there, and he's getting out my things, and bringing me in my night reading, and all that kind of stuff, and I just thought about ordering all those kids in there. And what in the hell am I ordering them out there for? What in the hell is Vietnam worth to me? What is Laos worth to me? What is it worth to this country? We've got a treaty but hell, everybody else has got a treaty out there, and they're not doing a thing about it.

Bundy: Yeah, yeah.

Johnson: Of course, if you start running from the Communists, they may just chase you right into your own kitchen.

Bundy: Yeah, that's the trouble. And that is what the rest of that half of the world is going to think if this thing comes apart on us. That's the dilemma, that's exactly the dilemma.

By The Numbers

THE WAR....Latest poll results on the Iraq war:

76% believe the war is going badly.

63% support a timetable for withdrawal in 2008.

76% think the surge is either making things worse or having no impact.

Only 15% support open-ended funding. The rest either want to cut off funds completely or make them conditional on benchmarks.

Large pluralities trust Dems more on foreign policy (51%-31%) and on making decisions about the war (51%-33%).

Here's An Idea

One of the most prescient posts I've seen on how to actually end the war:

Dem apologists are quick to blame the 'lack of votes' for passing a serious anti-war bill. What they really lack is a leader like Willie Brown - somebody who knows that the legislative process is only about money, and who has the balls and ability to wield the budgetary process to enforce party loyalty and crush the opposition.

I suggested such a starve the cronies strategy in January. Here is what the Dems need to do:

*Throw out all the existing big contractors (i.e. K&R, Halliburton, Bechtel) currently sucking down our bucks. Leave no crony on the payroll. Destroy the main Shrubya victory condition by robbing him of the booty.

*Review all the defense appropriations. Figure out which Repugs and wavering Dems are vulnerable. Take the bastards into a closed room and threaten to pull every dollar spent in their patch - cancel every weapons program, close every base, hell even close their fucking Confederate Historic Parks (One every two acres in the South) and throw the bubbas out of work, if they don't go along. This will help get those 'missing' votes. There need to be consequences for non-cooperation.

*Tie any war funding to Shrubya tax cut repeals. If the Repugs vote for it, they'll be voting in new taxes. Not good for their next election. Box them in and do some good at the same time.

If they were serious about stopping the war, they'd do it. There are still too many craven or compromised Dems on the Hill and I'm afraid Nancy + Harry not = Willie Brown.

Amen

Candidates

Digby is talking about this war funding bill as a repeat of the authorization to attack Iraq. If Dems vote for the funding, they'll be like John Kerry having to defend the vote in 2004 over and over again.

So far, I haven't heard how Hillary, Obama or Richardson are voting. Have you? Biden says he'll vote for it while Dodd won't. Edwards said today he wouldn't vote for it if he was still in the Senate.

I also agree with Digby and Joan Walsh that Dems should stop trying to spin this as a victory. It ain't workin' and makes them look calculating and stupid.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)