
| « August 2007 | The Blog home page | October 2007 » |
|
Sunday, September 30, 2007
|
| Beauchamp Talks |
|
Last week we heard from Scott Beauchamp's commanding officer, Col. Ricky Gibbs. Gibbs said that Beauchamp had admitted to the investigating officer that his stories for the New Republic were false--or, as he put it later in the briefing, that, while Beauchamp had not "recanted," he "does not stand by the story." Col. Gibbs also said that Beauchamp was free to speak with the press. The New Republic's last update on the matter (on August 10) had suggested that the Army was preventing them from speaking with their author. Now one of the bloggers from Blackfive has sat down with Beauchamp in Iraq. He does not report the substance of his conversation with Beauchamp, but he does have this to say:
The Army has officially said that Beauchamp is free to talk to the media, that he no longer stands by the stories, and that the stories are false. Which leaves us with this simple question: Have the editors at the New Republic spoken to Scott Beauchamp? And--if he’s choosing not to speak to them--do they stand behind his stories? ![]()
|
| Desperate for Bad News |
![]() Today's Huffington Post cherry picks a four year old quote from Atkinson's report on IEDs. The Washington Post today prints the first in a series of stories by Rick Atkinson on the IED threat in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Pentagon's response to it. The title of the piece: "'The IED problem is getting out of control. We've got to stop the bleeding.'" That quote is damning, but fortunately, it's also four years old:
It's heard to say where this series is going, and to be honest, I don't have too many complaints about the first piece. As a history of the IED problem, it seems accurate so far, ending in mid-2004 with the military's "Manhattan Project-like" approach to defeating the IED. I remain deeply skeptical of that approach, which the military pursued with little success in an attempt to find a technological rather than a tactical solution to the IED problem. There is no silver-bullet, miracle jammer, or armored vehicle that will completely eliminate the threat from the IED--the only real solution is to kill the bad guys who are building, facilitating, and emplacing these devices. But Atkinson seems to get that, quoting Admiral Macy in the introduction to the series:
And then Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England:
Indeed. Here's the recent analysis from Former Spook:
We're still a long way from defeating the IED, and further still from victory in Iraq, but this headline is a cheap shot at a time when the exact opposite is true--the military may finally be getting the IED problem under control, and as MRAP vehicles begin making their way over to Iraq, the situation is likely to improve even further. We still have to stop the bleeding, but there too, the trend is overwhelmingly positive. Atkinson's introduction appears cautiously optimistic, but the defeatist left, desperate for bad news, is sure to cherry pick the worst bits from this report, as the Huffington Post has done by putting up the four year old quote that Atkinson's editors chose to use as a headline. But that doesn't change the real story here: IED fatalities are down 64 percent over the last six months. What are the chances of a headline like that popping up in the Washington Post at the end of this series?
|
| Kristol on Sunday |
|
Yesterday, six of the top thirteen college football teams in the AP poll--all of them heretofore undefeated--lost to lower-ranked or unranked opponents. Upsets happen in sports. And upsets happen in politics. Especially in multi-candidate fields where almost all of the leading candidates have never run for the office in question before, and where none of the candidates right now is drawing majority support in the polls. Should Hillary Clinton, who leads Barack Obama by about 40 to 23 percent in national polls, be favored over her less experienced opponent? Sure. But could Obama upset Clinton? Easily. He will have as much money as she has for paid advertising--and the punditocracy undervalues the importance of such advertising, while overvaluing the value of pundit-consensus-judgments. Obama is about even with Clinton (along with Edwards) in Iowa. If Obama beats Clinton in Iowa, he'll probably win New Hampshire--and then what? Probably an upset for the Democratic nomination that wouldn't be as big an upset as the D.C. consensus now believes it would be. In politics, as in sports and in life, things change. Michigan suffered a stunning upset to Appalachian State, was trounced by Oregon--and has since won three games in a row. Momentum shifts. Fred Thompson was all the rage in the late spring-early summer. Then he delayed his entrance into the race, had an easygoing launch--and the pundits disapproved. But he's second right now in most national polls, and is tied for second in Iowa and for first place in South Carolina. Not bad. Meanwhile, Giuliani is doing well nationally--but his supporters have to be worried by his apparent inability to move above what looks like a 30-percent ceiling. Romney probably has put together the best campaign of the GOP contenders, and he's done very well so far in polling in Iowa and New Hampshire. But his supporters have to be worried that Romney's early leads there may be beginning to dissipate as the other candidates begin focusing on, and advertising in, those states. On the other hand, Giuliani could stay in front, and Romney's impressive early showing may turn out to be for real. Plus, McCain is still in the hunt. We don't know. What we do know is that it would be amazing if things stayed just as they are. Politics is dynamic--especially the politics of a multi-candidate race with a new and compressed primary schedule. It's unlikely that a present snapshot will capture a three-months-off future outcome. And this, too, we know: conventional wisdom is often wrong. Now, one could respond: So are strained attempts to contravene conventional wisdom! To which I'd have to say: Fair enough.
|
|
Saturday, September 29, 2007
|
| Thinking About Crime |
|
During the September 5 GOP debate in New Hampshire, Mayor Giuliani had this little noticed dig at Governor Romney:
Besides Giuliani's logical fallacy--if something is impossible, can you really accomplish it?--there are a couple of things to note about this statement. One, Giuliani left office in 2002, while Mitt Romney didn't become governor until 2003. So a direct comparison is, strictly speaking, unfair. Two, the crime discussion is probably only beginning. For an example, read this Boston Globe story, which reports that "newly released figures show that murders were up 7.5 percent in the Bay State and 25 percent in Boston from 2002 to 2006 while Romney was governor." Now it should also be noted that assault and rape figures fell during the same period. And a Romney spokesman told the Globe that the former governor has "a strong record on public safety." Furthermore, I'm not sure crime will be the dispositive issue in the 2008 GOP primary. In fact, I'm pretty sure it won't be dispositive. But the Globe story suggests that for every ad that runs in Iowa attacking Giuliani's positions on abortion, gun control, immigration, etc., etc., there will be another ad attacking Romney's flip-flops and, of all things, his record on crime.
|
| Gingrich Out? |
|
According to NBC's First Read blog, Newt Gingrich will not run for president. Apparently Gingrich received notice only yesterday that he would have to shut down his American Solutions project before running. This was enough, it seems, to prevent Gingrich from announcing. Note that it was not a perceived lack of pledges that reportedly convinced Gingrich not to run. ![]()
|
| Death to Earmarks! |
|
House minority leader John Boehner of Ohio and Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina have labored long and hard to make an issue out of Democratic phoniness in supposedly cleaning up the dubious practice of earmarks. Remember earmarks? Those are the items of special interest spending--pork in its purest form--that senators and House members stick into bills without any deliberation or vote. Indeed, earmarks are largely hidden from public view. Democrats promised that once they controlled Congress they would reform the process and put a spotlight on earmarks. They've done some reforming, but have still found ways to keep many earmarks from being exposed to the light of day. Boehner, who has never authored an earmark, pointed this out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Thursday. Coburn and DeMint have been screaming bloody murder. So you might think earmarks are on the verge of becoming a good Republican issue. Nope. And there are several reasons for this. It was under the 12-year Republican reign in Congress that the number of earmarks skyrocketed. It was the crooked use of earmarks that sent Republican congressman Duke Cunningham to jail--he traded them for money and gifts--and put other Republicans in hot water. At the moment, Republican senator Ted Stevens of Alaska is Capitol Hill's most famous earmarker. He's under investigation by a federal grand jury--and earmarks are part of the probe. Last year Republicans actually took steps to reform earmarks, but those steps weren't enough. It didn't change the story line, popular with the media and Democrats, that Republicans alone are the abusers of earmarks. This idea dovetailed with the "culture of corruption" that Democrats accused Republicans of cultivating. The result: It's hard for Republicans to pass the blame for earmarks to Democrats. But there is a way, one most Republicans balk at, especially those on the House and Senate appropriations committees. It's simply to propose to ban earmarks altogether and ask President Bush to veto any spending bill with earmarks in it. My guess is that nothing short of a death-to-earmarks stance will lift the burden of earmarks from the backs of Republicans. When something is killing you politically, the only way out is to get rid of it entirely.
|
| Beltway Boys Preview |
|
Fred Barnes writes in with a preview of this weekend's Beltway Boys:
You can watch Beltway Boys on the Fox News Channel tonight at 6 p.m. The show is repeated at 11:30 p.m. Saturday and again at 6:30 a.m. Sunday. All times are EST.
|
|
Friday, September 28, 2007
|
| Too Cool for School |
![]() I hated middle school, but if anything could have made it better...
When the kids sit in the cockpit, do they pretend they're in a dogfight with an F-22, or strafing pro-democracy protesters? HT Alert 5
|
| Missile Defense Brings Down Simuated North Korean Missile |
|
The Missile Defense Agency reports on a successful test today:
Reuters notes that the "threat-representative target" was intended to simulate an incoming North Korean missile:
|
| Merkel Sends Human Rights Signal To Beijing |
![]() Merkel says goodbye to the Dalai Lama after meeting at the chancellery. (REUTERS/Markus Schreiber/Pool) Even before the brutal crack-down in Burma turned the international spotlight on China’s cynical unwillingness to pressure the military junta in neighboring Rangoon, it was German Chancellor Merkel who--by receiving the exiled Tibetan leader Dalai Lama last Sunday in Berlin--decided to send a clear signal to Beijing emphasizing the importance of protecting fundamental human rights. Merkel was not only the first German chancellor to meet with the Dalai Lama. She also decided to receive him at her official residence for what was billed as "private and informal talks" about the Dalai Lama’s "work as the Buddhist Tibetan religious leader and his commitment to his Tibetan homeland." Ever since China forcibly annexed its Himalayan neighbor in 1950 and launched a tough campaign of repression against the native Buddhist Tibetans, Beijing has viewed any international red-carpet treatment for the "god king" as a threat to its political legitimacy and territorial integrity. In the run-up to the Merkel-Dalai Lama talks, China had tried hard to prevent the sensitive meeting from happening. Last Friday, for instance, Beijing summoned the newly arrived German ambassador there to warn against the potential negative political and economic fall-out for relations between the two countries. Beijing also canceled several senior-level bilateral meetings during this week’s UN General Assembly opening session in New York for "scheduling reasons." According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, the meeting "grossly interferes with the internal affairs of China," "hurts the feelings of the Chinese people and seriously undermines China-Germany relations". While the Merkel government stressed the peaceful nature of the Dalai Lama’s international campaign to achieve autonomy--though not independence--for Tibet and confirmed its continued commitment to the "One China" policy, the German Chancellor nonetheless seized the opportunity to demonstrate that she is not willing to sacrifice her own political beliefs and principles on the altar of close political and economic ties with a rising China. Merkel’s timing in sending a human rights message to Beijing was carefully chosen, coming just a few weeks after the chancellor’s trip to China (which was overshadowed by reports of PLA cyber attacks against German government computers), and less than a year before the start of the 2008 Olympics. Despite the blustering, Beijing knows too well that it would be counterproductive to make too big of a deal of the Dalai Lama visit, especially since it does not herald any major shift in Germany’s China policy. Just today, the ruling conservative CDU/CSU Bundestag group announced that Chancellor Merkel will give a major major foreign policy address on Asia at a conference in Berlin on October 26. She will leave for another Asia trip right after the speech, thus emphasizing the region’s growing political and economic importance. Domestically, Angela Merkel got rave across-the-board political and media reviews for receiving the Dalai Lama, including from the opposition FDP and Green parties. Only SPD Chairman Kurt Beck, whose party is a member of the ruling Grand Coalition and who would surely like to take Merkel’s post after the next general elections, slightly criticized the chancellor, indicating that he would have chosen a more "neutral ground" for such an encounter. As an editorial in the left-leaning Berliner Zeitung put it:
During the past two weeks or so, Germany seemed to be gripped by a certain "Dalai Lamania" as the Tibetan spiritual leader was on a non-stop political and media tour across the country. For Chancellor Merkel, the meeting in Berlin was also an important opportunity to reach out to centrist voters by once again stressing her personal commitment to the protection of human rights (remember her frank criticism of Russian President Putin in that regard). Traditionally, it had been the SPD party and the Greens who were widely seen as the champions of "soft" issues such as human rights; the tenure of former chancellor and Putin buddy Gerhard Schroeder notwithstanding. Gearing up for the next general elections to be held by the fall of 2009, Merkel is smartly expanding her party’s appeal to the rapidly growing number of swing voters in Germany. One final observation: While the Dalai Lama’s campaign to improve the human rights situation in Tibet in the face of Chinese repression is certainly a worthy cause, it was astonishing to see how otherwise strictly secular politicians from the SPD, Green, FDP, and Left party (and even some CDU folks) bowed down before the "god king," referring to him as "His Holiness." It should be pointed out that these are the same people who generally refuse to address Germany’s top Catholic and Protestant leaders Karl Cardinal Lehmann or Bishop Wolfgang Huber with their appropriate titles, opting instead for a more informal, i.e. less respectful, "Herr Lehmann" or "Herr Huber."
|
| Required Reading 09/28/2007 |
|
From the Wall Street Journal: Why We're Winning Now in Iraq, by Frederick W. Kagan. From HughHewitt.com: Activism vs. Punditry, by Dean Barnett. From the Washington Post: France Flips While Congress Shifts, by Charles Krauthammer. From the Guardian: Struggling Alone, by Vaclav Havel.\ From the Atlantic: Outsourcing Conflict, by Robert D. Kaplan. Scenes from Burma
|
| Gingrich's Pledge |
|
Over at Town Hall, Patrick Ruffini has what may be the most perceptive post of the week. Here are the key grafs:
Writes Ruffini: "Newt is either totally naive (highly unlikely) or knows exactly how the Internet game is played. This deal is rigged." The high point of the Gingrich non-campaign campaign was his debate with Mario Cuomo at Cooper Union. That was in February. I've been assuming he won't run. But Ruffini may be on to something here.
|
| Edwards's Public Money |
|
Via Ben Smith, this Jeanne Cummings piece on John Edwards's decision to accept public matching funds makes a lot of sense. Basically, Cummings writes, Edwards had no other choice:
This decision will limit Edwards's ability to compete in the coming air war, but it's still way too early to declare any serious candidacy over. Edwards has an opening if Obama fizzles and the peace party rejects Clinton. Edwards's decision on 27 September came a day after the Service Employees International Union delayed their presidential endorsement. Coincidence?
|
| Cell Phone Leadership |
|
It's a common refrain of Rudy Giuliani's that leadership involves doing things that are unpopular. Here's an ABC News article in which Giuliani says:
Apparently, this principle extends to answering phone calls from your wife while addressing the National Rifle Association. According to the Fox News / Opinion Dynamics poll Marc Ambinder cites here, a whopping 81 percent of voters would prefer that presidential candidates wait until finishing their speech before taking a cell-phone call.
|
| Energy in the Executive |
|
Yesterday National Review Online featured a piece on American energy policy by John McCain that can be found here. McCain writes that "America's dependency on foreign oil is a major strategic vulnerability for our nation." In short, McCain proposes to "implement an energy plan that won't be another grab bag of handouts, a full employment act for lobbyists, nor another round of tax breaks and other subsidies to big oil." Remember: "Change Begins with Us"! My favorite part of the McCain essay--and the full article is well-worth your time--comes toward the end:
Since Sarkozy's election and France's policy shift on Iran, conservatives have--rightly!--been reluctant to engage in Franco-criticism. Which is what makes McCain's riff so refreshing.
|
| Daily Blog Buzz: Burma Watch |
|
This week, the world has been watching the violent government crackdown on the pro-democracy uprising in Burma. "Citizen journalists" have been responsible for much of the reporting by cell phone text messages to bloggers worldwide. But the Burmese government blocked Internet access and cell phone lines in an effort to curb news distribution. Via Instapundit, the Wall Street Journal reports:
Bill Toddler at Pajamas Media has great coverage of the "Internet warriors," the "behind the scenes computer-savvy students have given the world a front row seat into the junta's brutal repression via the Internet." He notes:
Mike Nizza at The Lede discusses "Ko Htike, an expatriate Burmese citizen living in London," who first reported the murder of a Japanese journalist at the hands of the junta. OnDeadline reports that Ko Htike is having difficulty reporting due to the blackout, but some bloggers are "funneling the latest news and rumors to a widget." Michelle Malkin is keeping an eye on the latest regarding the Internet blackout. She has some of the latest videos, too, so keep a watch on her blog. Gateway Pundit also has an informative news roundup. In an informative editorial, NRO editors note: "The last time protests on this scale rocked Burma, in 1988, the junta had killed 3,000 people before the dust settled." Hopefully, the current crackdown won't finish in the same way. But, unfortunately, as Ed at Captain's Quarters says, "The end of Internet access will damage the ability of the activists to get images and stories of brutality out to the world. However, that will probably make little difference, because the world hasn't exactly rushed to the aid of the Burmese. Oh, the world has issued their own version of "challenge documents" in condemning the actions of the military junta by condemning them in diplomatic terms for their crackdown on peaceful demonstrations -- but they have done little to put pressure on Burma to end it." For all the latest updates, keep checking the widget and Burmanet News.
|
| Cognitive Dissonance Watch: National Security Edition |
|
Lawmakers deplore 'frightening' state of Army readiness:
As Bush seeks $190B more for war, Dems signal protracted battle looms:
If Congressional leaders truly believe that the military is overstretched, shouldn't it be a priority to fund ongoing conflicts, rather than allow them to further deplete current inventories? And while we're on the topic, it would be entirely appropriate to consider legislation to expand the army:
Several Democratic presidential candidates--including Senators Obama and Clinton--support an expansion of the army. Hopefully Geren's initiative will get a warm welcome on the Hill.
|
| Quote of the Day (So Far!) |
|
President Bush on 27 September: "Endless hours sitting in an airplane on a runway with no communication between a pilot and the airport is just not right." When was the last time Bush flew commercial? Any guesses? In any case, let's hope the administration has read the Wall Street Journal editorial on FAA reform that can be found here.
|
| Hey, Brother, Can You Spare $2,300? |
|
Yesterday I received the following fundraising appeal from Chris Dodd:
And today I get a fundraising appeal from Barack Obama that has "Hey" as its subject line:
Now, it's nice that Chris Dodd and Barack Obama are pretending to be friends of mine. And there's no doubt I'd enjoy being their friend, too. But why the psuedo-informality? Isn't that a little, you know, contrived? Shouldn't someone running for president present himself more formally? It's not like I'm giving a buddy five bucks to pick up a six pack before the game. They are asking me to give them potentially thousands of dollars to support their campaign to become the most powerful individual in the world. Presumably those people who are most inclined to donate to them can see through a silly gimmick like this.
|
| Back to 1984 |
|
A reader writes:
Goot point! I'd disagree with two things, however. One, the war is unpopular (for now), so if the Democrats continue to criticize it without lurching toward McGovernism, it probably won't hurt them. Two, presidential contests are, in the end, between two individuals, so if the Democrats have a strong candidate versus a weak Republican, they'd be helped. As respected as Mondale may have been in 1984, Reagan was certainly the better politician.
|
| Email's Up |
|
Start working on those letters to the editor. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts--and again, if you don't send criticism, I won't mind!
|
| Col. Gibbs: 'The incidents did not take place' |
|
The Pentagon's Blogger's Roundtable series featured Col. Ricky Gibbs this morning. Gibbs is the commander of the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Multi-National Division-Baghdad, and one of the 5,000 soldiers under his command is Scott Thomas Beauchamp. I asked Col. Gibbs whether the stories told by Scott Thomas Beauchamp in the New Republic were true, and whether his command was "stonewalling" and preventing Beauchamp from speaking to the media, as the New Republic claimed in its last statement on the case on August 10. In response to the first question, Gibbs said that he had directed an investigation into Beauchamp's allegations and determined them to be false. "The incidents did not take place," Gibbs said. And Beauchamp "admitted that himself" to the investigating officer. For clarity, I asked Gibbs again, did Beauchamp admit the stories were false? "He did admit to the investigating officer that the incidents did not take place." At the end of the call, Gibbs returned to the subject of Beauchamp's confession to say that "Beauchamp did not recant," but that "he does not stand by the story." This caused some puzzlement among the folks on the line. Still, if the investigation has concluded that the incidents did not take place, Beauchamp has signed a letter consenting to that conclusion, as we understand he has, and he no longer stands by the stories, one wonders how that doesn't amount to a recantation. I think it's probably just semantics. That may be enough to keep him out of trouble with the Army, but how can the editors at the New Republic continue to stand by a story that their own author will not defend? At least we know when those editors say that they "refuse to rush to judgment" they are being honest.
|
| A Consultant's Take |
|
The Lombardo Consulting Group is due to release the latest edition of their election monitor. Here's a preview:
The other major findings are that the Clinton campaign is beginning to resemble the 1999 George W. Bush campaign in its institutional strength; Obama continues to negate the rationale for his candidacy by refusing to attack Clinton; Giuliani's attack on Move On and Clinton was the boldest, most successful political move during September; Michigan may matter more than you may think; and
Democrats, like the Republicans before them, are in danger of hubris. Many Democrats assume 2008 is a lock, so it's just a question of winning the party's nomination. The strategy for this is to pander to as many Democratic special interest groups as possible. But you know what happens when you assume . . .
|
| Birth Pangs |
|
Just a note to let you know that, at the moment, the email address at the bottom of our posts isn't functioning correctly. I'll make an announcement once the address is up and you can send me your thoughts, criticisms, and so forth. On second thought, if you don't send criticism, I wouldn't really mind.
|
| Cindy's Journal |
|
It's been three months since Cindy McCain has penned an entry to her blog. As Fred Willard's character in A Mighty Wind might say, "Wha' happened?" Cindy McCain is a charming lady and a wonderful advocate for her husband. But if she doesn't want to blog--and really, who can blame her?--the McCain folks should probably take down that part of their website.
|
| Observations on Couric |
|
Via Instapundit, Mark Steyn makes a few observations about Katie Couric's problem with the word 'we:'
|
| What Limbaugh Said |
|
The folks on the Left are beside themselves today--thinking that by dint of a truncated quote, they will succeed in shutting down Rush Limbaugh and taking him off the air. Before lining up next to the folks from Crooks and Liars, FireDogLake, Media Matters, ThinkProgress, Huffington Post, and the rest, at least read the full transcript. In Limbaugh's comments after the exchange quoted by the left, he makes clear he is referring to people like Jesse MacBeth--a 'phony soldier' the left would understandably like to forget. Limbaugh's offhand comment was poorly chosen. It's clear that there are 'real soldiers'--real by anyone's criteria--who oppose the war in Iraq and they're entitled to their views. But much like the recently manufactured controversies over Bill O'Reilly's comments, and President Bush's comment about Saddam having killed "all the Mandelas," the left is trying to pull a fast-one by taking Rush's statement out of context. It's also clear and undeniable that the political left has eagerly stood behind fakers who spout tales about Iraq that are at times false, or ridiculous, or both. From Jesse MacBeth to Scott Thomas Beauchamp, liberals and anti-war moonbats have suspended logic and reason to embrace people because they liked what they had to say, regardless of whether the tales made sense, or their credentials were as they claimed. Limbaugh is big enough to defend himself and his healthy ego. But his attackers ought to render his comments honestly and own up to their own embarrassing record.
|
| 116 Million |
|
According to the AP, that's the number of Americans for whom there has never "been a time when there wasn't a Bush or Clinton in the White House, either as president or vice president." I'm one of them! The rest of the AP story concerns political dynasties. It doesn't contain much new information. There's a quote from . . . David Gergen, the conventional-wisdom machine who worked for both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Still, it's always worth remembering that intangible concerns--do we really want two families dominating the executive branch of the federal government for more than two decades?--play a difficult-to-quantify role in voters' decisions. Which is why, in the end, a candidate who embraces change might have broad appeal.
|
| Kristol Calling |
|
Bill Kristol called in from the road to encourage you to read WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor John Podhoretz's latest column. Here's Pod's take on the Dems:
And here's Pod on the GOP:
This is the best articulation so far of the "frontrunner" theory of the race. That is, the national polls will end up determining the results of state races. But Bill points out over the phone that there's just as much evidence that the frontrunner theory is wrong. Obama is within 5 points of Clinton in Iowa in the RCP average of state polling. And this is two months before the serious advertising wars begin. Who's to say that Obama or Edwards won't gain in the coming months and end up trouncing Clinton in Iowa, thus throwing the Democratic race into disarray? On the GOP side, the CNN/WMUR poll certainly shows that Romney's early-state lead is soft. But Giuliani has only gone up by a couple of points, whereas McCain is surging and Thompson is in a comfortable fourth place without, well, campaigning. In other words: This is the most volatile and open-ended presidential primary in recent memory.
|
| China's Saffron Problems |
|
Beijing is taking some heat for blocking, along with Russia, a UN security council resolution condemning Burma, but the Communist party has other things to worry about besides international opinion and an Olympic boycott. The friendly junta that gives China an outlet to the Indian Ocean is facing a big challenge. Worse, the Chinese people are watching their neighbors--not far off Europeans--protest bravely in the face of overwhelming force. Last night, my friend Kejian in Hangzhou skyped me. He says popular Chinese internet bulletin boards are dominated by statements of support for the democracy protests in Burma. Volunteers are translating news from English sites that are not blocked by censors. And, my friend pointed out, photographs don’t need translation. Later he reported that censors were starting to block and delete a lot of Burma postings. One hopes it is no coincidence that President Bush announced he would attend a ceremony next month to honor the Dalai Lama, whom Beijing regards as an “evil splittist,” and button-holed Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi in the Oval Office to press him on Burma on the same day. Meanwhile, the crackdown continues. You can read an eyewitness account at Radio Free Asia, a list of Burma's pro-democracy blogs at Pajamas Media, and a lot of other news at Michelle Malkin's site. And here's the video of the murder of Japanese journalist Kenji Nagai.
|
| Money |
|
According to the Wall Street Journal, most of the GOP candidates will come up short when they announce third quarter fundraising numbers in the coming days. John Harwood reports: "Among major Republican candidates, only late-starting Thompson and longshot Huckabee claim to have beaten second-quarter haul." Traditionally, the third quarter is the weakest fundraising period of the year. And money plays a less dispositive role in politics than most political reporters are inclined to believe. But Harwood raises a good question: Just how much of his own money will Mitt Romney give to his campaign in the third and fourth quarters? My understanding is that Romney is prepared to spend whatever it takes to get him elected. That means millions of dollars when it counts--the weeks between Thanksgiving and the Iowa caucuses, when the air wars will begin and early primary and caucus voters will learn more bad things about the leading GOP candidates than they ever wanted to know.
|
| A GOP "Snub"? |
|
Last night on PBS, Tavis Smiley hosted a debate on minority issues. The Republican candidates for president were invited, and only six of them showed up: Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, and, yes, Alan Keyes, whose current profession seems to be running for offices of which he has absolutely no chance of winning. Since the four candidates who are most likely to be the GOP nominee did not show up, however--Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain--conventional wisdom seems to be congealing around the idea that the debate was a horrible poke in the eye of minority voters and consigned the GOP to defeat in 2008. For an example, you can read David Yepsen's take here. An editorial in the San Diego-Union Tribune makes this point:
Um, maybe this is just me, but isn't this hyperbole? Are minority voters going to decide to vote against the GOP nominee next year because he didn't take questions from Tavis Smiley? Isn't it far more likely that those voters will base their decisions on their own evaluations of the individual candidates' strengths and weaknesses, their own partisan loyalties, and the Republican and Democratic nominees' policy positions? We live in a 24-hour news cycle. Every story is deemed the most important story ever, until it is discarded in favor of the next most important story ever. But the idea that the GOP's relationship with minority voters will be decided on the basis of one debate broadcast on PBS is just silly.
|
|
Thursday, September 27, 2007
|
| More on Burma |
![]() Again, Andrew Sullivan, has the best coverage of developments in Burma. The Bush administration has imposed sanctions on the leadership in Burma...I'm sure that'll do a lot of good, especially given the fact that "China and Russia signaled last night that they would block any UN sanctions against Burma." Meanwhile, a friend of Reason blogger Kerry Howley wrote yesterday with this disturbing message:
Without the internet, it seems that Burmese have only one source of information. Again, Kerry Howley:
On the effort to tie this to the 2008 Olympics in order to leverage Beijing's assistance, the Washington Realist quotes the Nixon Center's Drew Thompson:
The Economist also weighs in:
And if you want to see video, Sullivan links to some good stuff at YouTube. But the video below is also instructive. It shows the wedding of Thandar Shwe, the daughter of the junta's senior general, Than Shwe. And keep in mind this is a country with a per capita GDP of roughly $1,800. It's a stark contrast to the images now coming out of Burma, like the one at the top of the post from Burma Digest.
|
| Romney's Domestic Vision |
|
Mitt Romney has come under fire lately, and new poll showing him losing ground in New Hampshire has put his campaign on the defensive. It's worth remembering, then, that Romney's campaign has made the most impressive and specific contributions to the GOP policy discussion thus far, especially on the domestic side of things. A brief synopsis of Romney's major initiatives can be found here. In particular, Romney's proposal for tax free savings for individuals with adjusted gross income levels of under $200,000 deserves greater discussion. One of Romney's opponents ought to adopt it. For Romney, the problem may be that in order to become your party's nominee, much less president of the United States of America, it takes a lot more than smart ideas and sentences including the phrase "adjusted gross income levels."
|
| (Corrected) Iraq by the Numbers |
|
USA Today has an interesting tally of insurgent casualties today, reporting that Coalition forces have killed some 19,000 insurgents since over the last four years.
Meanwhile, Coalition casualties are remarkably low for the month of September, with 60* U.S. troops KIA so far this month. With a little luck, this will be the lowest count in more than a year. But one also needs to figure in the increase in force levels. As Petraeus advisor David Kilcullen pointed out in a post at Small Wars Journal in June,
So, relative to the same time last year, if casualty figures had risen in proportion to troop levels, we'd be at 150 KIA a month. Instead, we're hovering around 60*. That's 60 percent more soldiers, with 30 percent fewer killed. And as far as Iraqi units, while they are increasing in number and visibility, their casualties dropped dramatically over the last two months--this will be the first time ever that Iraqi Security Forces will see two consecutive months with less than 100 KIA (barring a major incident over the weekend). Also, the number of civilians killed has dropped to just over 600, the first time that numbers been below 1,000 in over a year, and less than a quarter of what it was in March (2,762). (All numbers from iCasualties.org) The worst number ever for Iraqi civilian deaths was September of last year--so if this can't be explained as cyclical. And as far as Coalition deaths, I don't see any pattern there either that would indicate September typically offers a lull in the fighting. It's hard to explain this any other way: the surge is working, fewer Iraqis are dying, fewer Americans are dying, and fewer bad guys seem to be dying, too. That's progress. *Correction: My math was fuzzy here, my apologies. 39 U.S. troops have been killed in action, not the 60 I'd quoted above. Another 23 died in theater from "non-hostile" causes. U.S. deaths from hostile fire have been on the decline at a rate of roughly 20 percent a month since May. ![]() Pentagon numbers on insurgent deaths, from USA Today.
|
| Bring Out the Funk |
|
Via Michael Goldfarb, at post time the Daily Kos poll found here shows that respondents prefer George Clinton to Hillary Clinton by an overwhelming margin. Say what you will about the Kossacks, but they have excellent taste in music.
|
| Rubber Stamps |
|
According to this AP report, Sen. Robert Byrd has vowed that he will not "rubber stamp" the Bush administration's requested $190 billion appropriation for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This got me thinking. When was the last time a member of Congress said he would "rubber stamp" an administration proposal? For the "anti-rubber stamp" trope to have any value, "rubber-stamping" must exist. Except it really doesn't, when you think about it, and probably can't, as the institutional dynamics of our bipartisan, bicameral legislature prevent any sort of legislation from passing without comment, criticism, or alteration. Memo to Democratic leaders: It's time to improve your cliches!
|
| Politico: Democrats Could be Doing Much More to End War |
|
The Politico states the obvious--notwithstanding their protestations, Democrats in Congress are not doing all they can to end the war in Iraq:
The reason that the war continues is that President Bush stands by his convictions, evidently with little regard for the political price of doing so. On the other hand, Democratic leaders in Congress have decided that their convictions aren't worth the political sacrifice.
|
| Re: The Unit |
|
Jonah Goldberg posts two comments today in response to Tuesday's season premiere of The Unit on CBS. I've been a big fan of the show for its last two seasons. It's not great television and there is no real substance to it. But it is highly entertaining, and for two years it has been hands down the most pro-military show on prime-time television. The cast was routinely called upon to carry out assassinations of Muslim terrorists, and even staged a covert mission into Iran last season. But the season premier included what was obviously an extremely awkward moment for much of the show's audience--myself included--when the wife of the unit's CO remarks:
The accusation is absurd, (I assume the Clinton and Bush families would be counted among them, who are the other four?), but I didn't take it at face value. The woman who utters this is the most loathsome character on the show, bordering on mentally unstable, and the delusional charge only reinforces her status as the show's baddie (she made another character take the fall for her DUI last season). But one of Jonah's readers thinks there might be more to it:
I'm still dubious that the show would run away from its audience like that. Last season closed with the unit on the run from the U.S. government, but again, I'd always assumed this would somehow be revealed as necessary sacrifice for the greater good. But if the show really is heading in another direction, I suspect its audience will as well.
|
| A Game of Inches |
|
It's not even 2008, but for John McCain's presidential campaign, you get the sense that it's already the fourth quarter. McCain is near the endzone but time is running out. Can he make it to overtime or will the senator get sacked at the one yard line? Why all the football metaphors? It must be that letter I just read from former Dallas QB Roger Staubach:
For an example of the latter, see Quincy Carter of the Bossier-Shreveport Battle Wings. Anyway, back to Staubach:
Anyway, you get the idea. Now I have to get back to my picks . . .
|
| Rangel's Slanders |
|
Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has an intriguing personality. He can be fiercely partisan and confrontational, or affable and friendly. He is at times one of the easiest Congressional Democrats to work with on bipartisan initiatives. Yet he is prone to offensive attacks and the politics of personal destruction. In 2005 he dabbled in gutter politics when he called President Bush "Our Bull Conner." He has said that the war to topple Saddam Hussein was "as bad as" the Holocaust. And when it comes to Dick Cheney, Rangel's attacks seem to know no bounds. He has said that Cheney has a personality disorder. He said that Cheney had heart disease, but it was "not restricted to that part of his body." And how he has told the Hill why he holds Dick Cheney--with whom he served in the House of Representatives for years--in such low esteem:
One can understand Rangel's frustration at the inability of the Democratic Congress to accomplish anything noteworthy. Polls show that the voters hold Congress in much lower regard than they do the president. Nevertheless, if Rangel believes the war is criminal, he can't possibly believe that the crime is equivalent to slavery--and that the entire U.S. military, including the many black soldiers serving in Iraq, is complicit. And considering the offenses of Saddam Hussein--who did, essentially, enslave the people of Iraq--it's disgusting to see Rangel throw about slander like this.
|
| Giuliani's Party |
|
Last night the Giuliani campaign organized more than 1,000 house parties across the country and in England to raise money and extend hizzoner's network of grassroots supporters. Giuliani attended a house party in New Jersey, where he participated in a live webcast for party-goers worldwide. That webcast can be viewed in its entirety here. Giuliani was introduced by Yogi Berra, who told the audience the two reasons he is supporting Giuliani: 1) Giuliani is a Yankees fan. 2) Giuliani is Italian. Of course, by this criteria, Yogi Berra could also support a few million other people for president, including me. Yogi, the number's in the book if you'd like to make an endorsement.
|
| McCain's New Ads |
|
Here is the link to the new television and radio ads John McCain is running in New Hampshire. The first ad, "Live Free", is relatively weak. The second ad, however--"One Man"--is overwhelmingly powerful. It not only highlights McCain's service to his country and incredible life story, but also features excerpts from his address to the 2004 Republican National Convention, the best speech delivered at the RNC that year and one of McCain's best speeches ever, which is saying something. Now if only "One Man" were playing in Iowa. . . .
|
| Required Reading 09/27/2007 |
|
From the Campaign Standard: Cautious Pessimism, by Fred Barnes. From the New York Times: Myanmar Forces Fire on Protesters, by Seth Mydans. From the Danger Room: Soldier of the Future Gets His Gear On, by Noah Shachtman. From the Wall Street Journal: Bush and Iran, by the editors. From National Review: School of the Absurd, by Victor Davis Hanson.
|
| Your 2008 Primary Calendar? |
|
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reports on an emerging compromise caucus and primary schedule here. Nothing is set in stone yet, but if the calendar turns out to resemble Ambinder's prediction, then Iowa's importance probably will be magnified more than we expect.
|
| Daily Blog Buzz: Dems Changing Their Tune on Iraq? |
|
Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters says it best: "Petraeus Moved the Debate." Democratic presidential candidates changed their rhetoric ever so slightly in last night's debate: Obama, Clinton, and Edwards won't commit to pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013, the end of their first presidential term if elected. Democrats can no longer ignore the fact that progress is being made in Iraq, and bloggers attribute this change directly to General Petraeus's testimony. According to Morrissey, Petraeus’s “testimony on the surge, and the effects of the surge itself, has made it much more difficult for Democrats to argue for withdrawal and defeat,” simply because “Americans don't like to lose wars, and given the successes that Petraeus has generated, more Americans see an opportunity to persevere in Iraq.” Ace of Spades outlines the Democrats’ comments, and it is clear that they are in no hurry to withdraw. Michelle Malkin agrees, and asks these Democrats, “Maybe that White Flag wasn’t such a terrific prop after all, eh?” Bryan at Hot Air correctly states that the “Netroots ain’t gonna like this.” Of course not. DailyKos, MoveOn.org, and the rest of the antiwar crowd have been calling for immediate withdrawal. Who is “betraying” them now? Confederate Yankee notes, "What we may--and I caution, may--be witnessing here is a bursting of the progressive blogosphere's image of its influence over the rest of the Democratic Party." Hopefully! The Oxford Medievalist wryly says, “it looks like not only Hillary, but the other major Democratic candidates as well, have 'willingly suspended disbelief.'" But more importantly, “The fact is the surge is working - we are making enough progress in Iraq for most sensible people to justify continuing and, not only are Democrats powerless to force a surrender, even the Democratic presidential front-runners realize the new reality.”
|
| Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets |
|
The Washington Post reports on a story leaked to Spain's El Pais about a meeting between President Bush and the former Spanish president Jose Maria Aznar weeks ahead of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It's interesting to note how Bush discusses Saddam's signals that he might accept exile from Iraq. El Pais provides the Spanish language transcript here. And here's Bush on the chances that Saddam Hussein might choose exile instead of war [translation mine]:
This begs the question: why would Saddam attach so much importance to information on Iraq's WMD program? The mainstream media, the Democratic party, and many others have accepted that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, and that there is no reason to think that Iraq's program posed a threat to anyone at the time of the US invasion. Small caches of WMD and evidence that Saddam intended to reconstitute the program at some point in the future have been downplayed in light of the failure to find the stockpiles of weapons that most intelligence agencies believed to exist. Yet if the dominant narrative is correct--that Iraq posed no WMD threat--then why did Saddam stake his life on concealing information about the program? After all, he had to think that if he did not leave Iraq, there was every chance that he would be killed during or after the invasion. Why would it have been so important to hide evidence that merely confirmed the lack of any threat? The only logical reason for making this a condition of his agreement to exile was that he believed the program was more advanced than it really was, or that he intended to augment it. In either case, it further bolsters the case that Saddam remained a threat to the region (at least), and that it was wise to depose him. Read more at Barcepundit and Fausta.
|
| McCain's TV Ads are Up in the Wrong State |
|
CNN.com reports that John McCain's campaign is about to start running TV ads in New Hampshire. Right move, wrong state. The path to winning New Hampshire starts in Iowa. McCain should bet his scarce TV resources in Iowa with a large TV buy. TV ads move numbers in Iowa and a new Hawkeye poll showing McCain moving up would electrify the national media and supercharge McCain's "comeback." There will be three hot tickets out of Iowa. Former Gov. Mitt Romney will probably have one and former Gov. Mike Huckabee has a good shot at the other if he can consolidate the Christian vote. If McCain can double his existing Iowa support and crawl his way to about 16,000 to 18,000 votes on caucus night, he'll probably capture third place and roar into New Hampshire with real strength. It's a long-shot, but possible. Instead it looks like Team McCain 2.0 is trying to build a fortress in New Hampshire, clearly taking their strategic inspiration from John Connally's South Carolina brainstorm of 1980. It won't work this time either. The Iowa bounce is too strong. Nostalgia is not a strategy.
|
| More McCain on ROTC |
|
In a speech this morning at Hudson Institute, McCain once again pointed out the disgrace of America's elite universities having banned ROTC from their campuses:
|
| The Big Test |
|
It seems that there are two camps regarding last night's Democratic debate in New Hampshire. One camp says Hillary Clinton emerged more or less unscathed. The other camp thinks Clinton's rivals, John Edwards in particular, did a serviceable job exposing Clinton's weaknesses. David Yepsen, the Des Moines Register's legendary political reporter, sides with the latter camp in this post. Yepsen writes:
I agree! It's worth noting, however, that what Democrats perceive to be Clinton's weaknesses in a primary context--her October 2002 vote to authorize war against Saddam, her vote this week on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment regarding Iranian intervention in Iraq--actually may turn out to be strengths in a general-election context. Question is, when will her fellow Democrats test Clinton on her liabilities in a general election? Things like her husband's counterterrorism record and her own unpopularity among Republicans and some independents? They haven't yet.
|
| Winners and Losers |
|
Byron York's well-reported take on last night's Democratic debate can be found here. Key quote: "After all the odd and sometimes perplexing answers, there weren't any winners, either." That sounds about right to me, though with the proviso that a night when no one wins is, for the moment, a good night for Hillary Clinton. York also noticed this telling moment:
According to this Belief Net interview, Kucinich is Roman Catholic and went to parochial school. The interview shows that he is well-informed on religious matters. Who knew? Of course, it would take a miracle to make him president, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
|
| Shuster Should Apologize for that Apology |
|
Here's the original video of MSNBC's David Shuster subbing in for Tucker Carlson the other night and putting this question to Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn: "What was the name of the last soldier from your district who was killed in Iraq?" Blackburn couldn't answer the question. She should have been able to, but I have little doubt that before this interview aired, a good portion of her colleagues likewise would have failed this test. Shuster's gotcha interview backfired though when he tried to show-up Blackburn by providing the name himself: "His name was Jeremy Bohannon. He was killed August the ninth, 2007. How come you didn't know the name?" Except it wasn't. An enterprising blogger, did some research and discovered that Bohannon hailed from a neighboring district. Shuster appeared on air tonight to apologize for his sloppy attack. Newsbusters has the video, which they describe as having "all the spontaneity of a hostage video." And here's the text:
That's a pretty pathetic apology. If you're going to take a big gamble like that and try to humiliate an elected official on national television (it's usually easier to let them humiliate themselves, right?), you have to have your own facts in order. The stunt backfired, Shuster looks like a big-time jerk, and, for a prepared statement, this apology reads an awful lot like he's sorry the kid didn't come from Blackburn's district.
|
| Paging Fox Butterfield |
|
Or his heirs. . . . It should only be a matter of time before we see headlines like: "Crime rises despite leveling off in prison population."
|
| The Campaign Standard |
|
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has just launched a new blog, The Campaign Standard, with an eye on the 2008 elections. It will be edited by Matthew Continetti, and it will feature a number of other contributors, with posts already up from Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Richard Starr...and the mysterious, pseudonymous Richelieu. Go check it out, bookmark it, and subscribe to the RSS feed (just as soon as we set one up). If you like the WWS, you're going to get a kick out The Campaign Standard. And even if you don't like the WWS, give Continetti a try--he's got a sharper eye than I do. Still, compare the caricatures and you'll notice that I'm much better looking. ![]()
|
| A Good Night for the Republican Nominee |
|
Last night, for the first time this election cycle, I watched a Democratic presidential debate. It was appalling. But it was also, in a way, encouraging. Before last night, I thought it was 50-50 that the Republican nominee would win in November 2008. Now I think it's 2 to 1. And if the Democrat is anyone but Hillary, it's 4 to 1. Here, judging from the debate, is what the 2008 Democratic nominee is likely to be for. Abroad: ensuring defeat in Iraq and permitting a nuclear Iran. At home: more illegal immigration, higher taxes, more government control of health care, and more aggressive prosecution of the war on smoking than of the war on terror. And this is only a bit of an exaggeration. Going into last night, I had no great expectations of the Democratic field. But the level of routine irresponsibility demonstrated throughout the debate was jaw-dropping. Bush may remain unpopular, and the Republican "brand" unattractive. But I believe the toughness of Giuliani, the sobriety of Thompson, the gravitas of McCain--any of these would be very difficult for the Democratic nominee to overcome. Hillary Clinton is the only possible president among the Democrats. She did occasionally (though only occasionally) try to interject elements of seriousness into the evening. To someone like me, she's the only plausible nomineee. But that makes me wonder whether she's likely to be the nominee. She's out of sync with her party. That means if she stumbles once, and the magic cloak of inevitability is torn, she could be finished. Obama and Edwards will pour everything they have into winning Iowa. The Iowa Democrats are dovish. What Obama and Edwards will say, over and over--when they go up with serious paid advertising--is that Hillary voted with Bush in October 2002 on Iraq (and has never apologized) and that on September 26, 2007, Hillary voted for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment that (allegedly) lays the predicate for military action against Iran. Hillary could well lose in Iowa. Then Hillary could well lose the nomination. And a Republican would then win the presidency. He probably will anyway.
|
| Who Is Richelieu? |
|
Those with eagle-eyes will note the appearance of "Richelieu" in the post below. Those with eagle-eyes and access to the WEEKLY STANDARD's masthead will notice that "Richelieu" is not among our number. So who is Richelieu? He's a smart insider who's been involved with more campaigns than I would like to count. He's plugged into politics like no other. So sit back and enjoy.
|
|
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
|
| A Long Hard Slog |
|
A long slog of a debate on MSNBC tonight. One hackneyed cliche after another. Meanwhile the state of the Democratic race stays the same. Hillary kept her hawk's eye on the general election by speaking a lot and saying as little as possible. She was adroit, practiced, and tremendously uncompelling. Never has a debate line been thrown away with less sincerity than Hillary saying that in the past she has made mistakes. She doesn't believe one word of that. Hillary's most truthful moment was obvious: Her steel-eyed "He's not standing here right now" retort to moderator Russert's crafty old (Bill) Clinton quote on the torture question. Hillary's waited a lifetime to say that and has never meant any words any more than those.
|
| Reuters vs. Reality |
|
Reuters's insta-analysis of the Democratic debate in New Hampshire can be found here. But there's no reason to read it, because as best I can tell the analysis bears absolutely no relation to reality. The headline reads "In Democratic Debate, Rivals Assail Clinton." One of the examples for this cited by the Reuters writer is . . . a Mike Gravel rant. Does even Mike Gravel take what he says seriously? I think it's highly doubtful. The Reuters dispatch also includes this sentence:
You gotta love that "despite." If only it were that simple! If Reuters is right, then politicians shouldn't actually spend any time campaigning--they just need to make sure they lead in fundraising.
|
| "He's Not Standing Here Right Now" |
|
That was Hillary Clinton's response when Tim Russert noted a disagreement between her and Bill Clinton. There's little doubt that, should Hillary become the Democratic nominee, Republicans will bring up the Clinton legacy and ask voters whether they really want Bill Clinton in the White House for another four years. If a Democrat were to ask that question now, it might increase his chances of becoming the party nominee. Presumably there are more than a few Democrats--most on the left--who remain disappointed with the forty-second president. Presumably they'd like to vote for someone who isn't Dennis Kucinich. And not a single serious Democratic candidate seems willing to give them the opportunity.
|
| The Other New Hampshire Primary |
|
As Democrats prepared to debate in New Hampshire tonight, local TV station WMUR, partnering with CNN, released a poll showing Giuliani pulling within a statistically insignificant one point behind Mitt Romney. The WMUR/CNN poll echoes a general trend in which Romney's New Hampshire lead is narrowing as Giuliani and McCain rise. Meanwhile Romney maintains his double-digit lead in Iowa. But how stable is that? It's notoriously difficult to poll in Iowa, since it's a caucus state. But let's say Romney pulls out a win in Iowa next January. The race will immediately shift to New Hampshire, where Romney's lead appears tenuous (for now). Romney would receive a boost, but so would whoever came in second in Iowa . . . Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Huckabee, etc. That man, too, would receive a boost, and, if these poll numbers hold--which they probably won't!--that man, too, would have an equal chance to capitalize on his Iowa finish. Which is to say: Even if the early states matter more than any others in this front-loaded primary--something the Giuliani campaign disputes--the GOP race is wide open.
|
| Slick Mitt |
|
Mitt Romney has enjoyed a week of good press for his "Change Begins with Us" ad, earning laudatory headlines such as "Romney Tells Republicans to Reform", "Romney Issues Challenge to GOP", and "Romney, in Ad, Criticizes His Party and Calls for Change". But listen closely to the ad:
Or save some bandwidth and just read the text: "If we're going to change Washington, Republicans have to put our own house in order. We can't be like Democrats, a party of big spending; we can't pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration; we can't have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno. When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses. It's time for Republicans to start acting like Republicans. It's time for a change, and change begins with us." What's striking is that Romney isn't really distancing himself even a millimeter from the party. Instead, he's embracing every tenet of orthodox Republican self-criticism. If you were to poll Republicans on these four points ("Do you think we Republicans should put our own house in order? Should we be big spenders like Democrats? Should we pretend our borders are secure? Should we raise our ethical standards?") majorities of between 95 and 100 percent would agree with the positions Romney stakes out here. Some critique! This is the political equivalent of the high school student who boldly confesses to hating "fake people." Don't we all?
|
| Wehner on Couric |
|
Fred Barnes mourned the end of Pete Wehner's emails when the 'one-man think tank' left the White House for a job at the Ethics and Public Policy Center last month, but the administration's loss is the blogosphere's gain. Now from his perch at contentions, the blog run by Commentary, Wehner is still free to sound off as he does today on "The World According to Katie":
Indeed. Go read the whole thing. And just for fun, here's a link to Couric's early blogging as the new CBS anchor--it's an interesting contrast to Wehner.
|
| The Saffron Revolution |
![]() From Rule of Lords, a scene from the Saffron Revolution. Andrew Sullivan has the best round-up of the news from Burma, including a link to this list of eyewitness accounts. It sounds as though the government's attempt to crackdown on the protesters fell short, and that tomorrow is likely to see more violence. One of the stories Sullivan links includes this description of the day's events:
There are likely to be a lot of comparisons to Tianamen, and with good reason. Burma's primary patron is China, and as the New York Times reported today, China's primary interest is stability--to keep the supply of raw materials flowing out of the country:
The 2008 Olympics are a wild card here. There seems to be a consensus that China will not take any extreme measure to prop up its Burmese client, but might the Olympics be used as leverage to pry the Chinese further away from the junta? FP Passport has this skeptical response:
But wasn't there the same disconnect with Sudan? Giving credit where credit is due, the Hollywood crowd seems to have made a dent on that issue. By threatening to label the spectacle the "Genocide Games," Mia Farrow in particular has helped to link the two. It certainly doesn't seem like the idea should be dismissed out of hand. Equally worrisome is the role Russia may play. Reuters reported today that the Russian foreign ministry had released a statement with a rather menacing undertone:
If Burma's spectacularly nasty regime is preparing to slaughter its opponents, that looks an awful lot like a green light from Moscow.
|
| Gary Hart Plays Good Cop |
|
Gary Hart has just posted what looks to be an open letter to the government of Iran over at the Huffington Post:
That is awfully presumptuous. It seems entirely possible that the mullahs in Tehran are ignorant, irrational, or some combination of the two. And Hart conveniently lists the evidence pointing in that direction. But leaving aside Hart's creepy characterization of the vice president, this is a simple defense of the logic behind a hawkish, hardline policy: Unless you like bombs falling on your head, stop shipping arms to Iraq and stay on your side of the border. Of course, it's easy to play the Good Cop, as Hart does here--framing this as some friendly, "unsolicited advice"--when Dick Cheney's Bad Cop is a tour de force.
|
| Cautious Pessimism |
![]() Republicans are demoralized about the 2008 election and they ought to be. By a significant margin, more voters now identify themselves as Democrats. And not only are Democrats raising more money, the party's presidential candidates are generating considerably more enthusiasm than Republican candidates are. Then there's the Senate, where Democrats may pick up 3 to 6 seats, and the House, where it's highly unlikely Republicans will net the 16 seats necessary to recapture control. They'll be fortunate to pick up a half-dozen seats. I hate to be so gloomy, but there's no value in pretending that the 2006 election was an aberration and happy days for Republicans are on the horizon. They probably aren't. I hedge by saying "probably" because my one rule of thumb in politics is that the future is never a straight-line projection of the present. Prospects may be brighter for Republicans a year from now. But for the moment, they stink.
|
| The Race Has Not Yet Begun |
|
Jay Cost has a smart post on "what makes a frontrunner." Here's the key graf:
It's always important to remember that, in the real world, politics doesn't matter much right now. Voters have other concerns. The question is what happens once voters turn their attention to politics--indeed, what happens when politics becomes inescapable, at least for voters in early primary and caucus states. Earlier this year, political consultants Mike Murphy and Mark Mellman made a similar point in the Los Angeles Times:
Who will the cycle nearly bury in 2008?
|
| Required Reading 09/26/2007 |
|
From the Politico: We Need Colombia More Than It Needs Us, by Roy Blunt. From the Christian Science Monitor: A Bipartisan Way Out of Iraq, by Joe Sestak. From the Wall Street Journal ($): Why the 'Law of the Sea' is a Good Deal, by James Baker and George Schultz. From the State: A Plan for a Stable Iraq, by Joe Biden. From Investor's Business Daily: The Soros Threat To Democracy.
|
| Obama Missing |
|
On 26 September the Senate voted 76 to 22 to pass Kyl-Lieberman, an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization bill that expresses the "sense of the Senate" with regard to Iran. You can find more on the amendment here. It's worth noting that Hillary Clinton voted for the amendment, which expresses concern over Iranian activities in Iraq and calls on the White House to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama, did not vote. (Sens. Biden and Dodd both voted against it.) Last week, when the Senate voted to condemn MoveOn.org's attacks on General David Petraeus, Obama was also missing. He said that that vote was an example of "empty politics." There's a Democratic debate on MSNBC tonight. How will Obama justify his absence from today's vote? Will he be asked how he would have voted on Kyl-Lieberman if he had decided to vote? And doesn't "empty politics" occur when you decide against taking a position at all?
|
| Hillary's Margins |
|
A few weeks ago Newsweek featured a cover story on Hillary Clinton. The cover line asked, "What sort of decider will she be?" It's still hard to answer that question, but Jonathan Darman's piece does feature this hilarious pseudo-scoop:
Newsflash: Hillary Clinton marks up the margins of staff reports. She knows how to tell someone else to make a PDF! Now that's leadership.
|
| House Condemns MoveOn |
|
The House passed a motion today by a margin of 341-79 condemning MoveOn's attack on General Petraeus. In the key provision, the House
And on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (you can read the full text here, as there were some last minute changes) in the Senate, Hilary voted for it, and so did Harry Reid. Obama didn't vote at all, and the only other member who didn't vote was John McCain, though we can safely assume he supports the measure. The amendment is a pretty forceful response by the United States Senate to the visit of Ahmadinejad. And it is also further evidence of the deep divisions withing the Democratic party, specifically between the netroots and the party leaders. Add to that the overwhelming support in the House for a measure condemning MoveOn, and things are looking pretty good for Republicans on the Hill.
|
| Will Obama Unleash Clarke? |
|
Newsweek's recent issue on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign contained this interesting article by Michael Hirsh on the make-up of Clinton and Obama's foreign policy advisory teams. Basically, Clinton's top advisers were top advisers to her husband when he was president--people like Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, and Sandy Berger. There are a few high-profile Clintonites who are currently advising Obama, however. Among them are Tony Lake, Susan Rice, Dennis Ross, Bruce Reidel, and . . . Richard Clarke. Clarke, you will recall, made a splash in 2004 when he praised Bill Clinton's counterterrorism policies in public hearings of the 9/11 Commission after complaining about them in private sessions. Since those policies will undoubtedly be an issue should Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination, who better than Clarke to bring up this issue now so as to stop Hillary and help Clarke's choice Obama win the presidency? The attack ads write themselves. Of course, this assumes that Obama and the rest actually want to beat Clinton.
|
| Bad Review |
|
The 24 September New York Review of Books contains this revealing exchange between contributor Thomas Powers and letter-writer Bob Guldin. What's revealing about it is that neither Guldin nor Powers can accept the idea that the president of the United States actually chooses policies that he believes will better the condition of the United States. Guldin writes:
Powers's reply goes on for more than 1,100 words. He says that no ulterior motive for war "entirely captures the central idea in the minds of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld." But Powers also admits he has no idea what that "central idea" may have been. And he concludes:
Here's a suggestion: You could take the elected leaders of a constitutional republic at their word when they say that fundamental American national security interests are at stake in Iraq.
|
| Shadow Play |
|
Christopher Jencks had a fascinating, learned take on the immigration debate in a recent New York Review of Books. Jencks articulates the contradictions involved in our Catch-22 immigration debate:
And then he suggests why the political obstacles to reform are, in the current climate, insurmountable:
Read the whole thing.
|
| Kyl-Lieberman Passes |
|
Here's the press release:
There's been some predictable paranoia about this amendment from the left, but the fact that it passed by such a wide margin--much like the measure to condemn MoveOn--indicates that there is really nothing controversial about declaring the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, or explicitly stating a commitment to contain and roll back Iran's influence inside Iraq.
|
| Mike Gundy Is Making Sense |
|
"This was brought to me by a mother . . . of children . . ."
|
| Bipartisan Push to End the War over the Iraq War |
|
Twenty-eight members of the House of Representatives have come together to sign a statement of principles to govern future action on Iraq. Led by Congressmen John Tanner (D-TN) and Mike Castle (R-DE), the group seeks to end the fighting over Iraq policy inside the walls of Congress, and establish the framework of a bipartisan Iraq policy going forward. The Swamp prints the text of the agreement:
These bipartisan agreements often break down over interpreting the principles, and that will be a challenge here. What constitutes a 'defined and measurable mission?' How quickly must we transition to a mission of counterterrorism and supporting the Iraqi forces? It's always possible that these 28 Members will grow impatient with progress in Iraq, and push the Bush administration to move more quickly than it would like. But in a broader sense, it seems that this may have the effect of imposing a formal, bipartisan imprimatur on the Iraq policy that Congress has de facto hashed out. By choosing to fund the Iraq mission even if it means dropping the demand for a timetable, Congress is essentially allowing the Iraq war to continue under the direction of the generals (and of course, the president). If we continue to 'make progress' (whatever that means), this policy will likely continue. If sectarian violence increases, the government collapses, or the mission otherwise takes a step backward, Congress may reconsider. The Tanner/Castle bipartisan agreement seems to enshrine that state of affairs as the favored policy of the signers. And in the near term, it effectively takes off the table 28 moderate votes that Democratic leaders might have targeted for legislation to tie the president's hands. If Iraq continues to make sufficient progress, this agreement might be one more sign that the bitter confrontations in Congress about cutting off funding for Iraq are coming to an end--and on the president's terms.
|
| NYTimes Official Report on MoveOn: No Comment |
|
When questions were first raised as to whether MoveOn.org had received a steep discount for placing its 'General Betray Us' ad in the Times, the newspaper quickly cleared itself, reporting that everything was on the up and up.
The next time we heard from Ms. Mathis was on Sunday when the Times's public editor, Clark Hoyt, reported that MoveOn "got a price break it was not entitled to." Here's the explanation from Mathis:
Today the paper does a follow-up:
That statement is absurd on its face, as Tom Maguire sarcastically exclaims: "Because the sales rep had no idea at all which side of the issue MoveOn was taking!" Right. But what I'd like to know is whether Mathis lied to one of the paper's own reporters when first questioned about the discount. The conflict of interest here is obvious, as is the fact that the paper is no longer capable of fairly reporting this story--if it ever was.
|
| Mercy Me |
|
The New Yorker's editorialist Hendrik Hertzberg writes this week on the health-care debate:
It seems to me that the claim that Medicare and the Veterans Administration are the "most efficient" components of the American health care system is, at the least, entirely debatable. And there's little doubt that both Medicare and the VA are, in fact, politically "challengeable," as Medicare is subject to reforms from both the right and the left and the VA features elements (restrictions on drug choices, for example) that somebody, somewhere, probably would like to change. What makes me laugh, though, is the claim that Medicare and the Veterans Administration are the most "merciful" components of American health care. How does one quantify mercy? Are in-patient clinics run by charities or churches less mericiful than Medicare? How about American doctors who join Doctors Without Borders? The logic here seems to be that federal programs supported by liberals are de facto more merciful than private, charitable or market-based alternatives. Still, if Hertzberg has discovered the mathematical formula for mercy, I wish he'd share it with the rest of us.
|
| The Plot Thickens |
|
Via Kay Steiger, apparently Aung San Suu Kyi is not the only pin-up in Desmond Tutu's office:
Is this something the archbishop tells every woman he meets? Why, exactly, does he think it's flattering? As the saying goes: "We've always liked Desmond Tutu's face. Both of them."
|
| Canon Law |
|
This list of "The 86 Greatest Travel Books of All Time" makes for interesting reading, but is Tom Bissell's Chasing the Sea really on the same plane as
|
| Quote of the Day (So Far!) |
|
Via the inimitable Blake Hounshell, here is Archbishop Desmond Tutu on Burmese dissident Aung San Suu Kyi:
Notice the archbishop specifies she is the only pinup in his office. It's enough to make you wonder whether he has any others . . . Actually, maybe it's best not to ask that question.
|
| The Laugh Test |
|
NBC's excellent First Read blog previews tonight's Democratic debate in New Hampshire:
We saw an example of this during Clinton's interview with Chris Wallace. Clinton broke into hysterics when Wallace asked her why she and her husband have a "hyper-partisan" view of politics. In this sense, Hillary's laughter is an acknowledgment of vulnerability. Still, the senator from New York hasn't missed an opportunity to address her vulnerabilities in a substantive fashion, as when she told Wallace: Well, Chris, if you had walked even a day in our shoes over the last 15 years, I'm sure you'd understand. But you know, the real goal for our country right now is to get beyond partisanship, and I'm sure trying to do my part, because we've got a lot of serious problems that we're trying to deal with. The Clinton campaign is on autopilot. If current trends persist--and there's no reason to think they will!--she will be laughing all the way to the White House.
|
| You Say Tomato |
|
The American Prospect's Ezra Klein refers to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "Iran's leading civil servant." I guess that's one way of looking at it. However, a more accurate description might be "Iran's leading radical Islamist and tool of the dictator Ayatollah Khamenei."
|
| Daily Blog Buzz: San Fran Hates the Troops |
|
Who wouldn’t want the Marines on their streets? San Francisco Film Commission executive director Stefanie Coyote barred the Marines’ Silent Drill Platoon from filming a scene for their new recruitment commercial, “America’s Marines,” on California Street in downtown San Francisco on September 11. Coyote claimed it would cause a traffic problem, and permitted the crew to only film the empty street. Sure, San Francisco is a busy city, but the Marines were allowed to film a scene in Times Square during rush hour, so blocking off one lane on a San Fran street shouldn’t have been much more difficult. Defense Tech notes that this is nothing new for San Francisco, the city that got rid of high school ROTC (check out Michelle Malkin’s coverage) and banned the Blue Angels, and asks: “Yet another slap in the face of the US Military by a shrill anti-military area or a prudent exercising of civil traffic control by sage city elders? You decide.” A.J. at PoliPundit is equally outraged and remarks: “Traffic control? That’s funny, that never seemed to stop them from authorizing pro-homosexual, pro-illegal immigrant and anti-war protests before.” Good point. Allahpundit at Hot Air agrees, noting: “Thank goodness we have vigilant civil servants like Stefanie Coyote working to keep our roads free for automobiles. And also for any sort of demonstration whatsoever that doesn’t involve people in American uniforms.” Allahpundit also dug up some interesting info: Stefanie Coyote is married to actor Peter Coyote, who donated to MoveOn.org ("General Betray Us")... Riehl World View calls the incident “The Ahmadinejad Factor in America: No Marines in San Fran,” and says, “Too bad some San Fran pols can't appreciate the very people who so valiantly stand between them and a tyrant like Ahmadinejad.” Ace of Spades asks the important question, “I wonder if their anti-military sentiments will be as strong if a future natural disaster makes sending in the National Guard necessary?” Of course, San Francisco blog SFist isn’t outraged by the ban. We wouldn’t expect anything less from Nancy Pelosi’s district.
|
| The Ramadan Offensive |
|
The New York Times's Alissa J. Rubin reports today on the "Ramadan Offensive" launched by Sunni insurgents in Iraq. Sandwiched between reports of assassinations and bombings, Rubin paints a pretty favorable picture of the Baghdad Security Plan:
Indeed. This was the goal of the Baghdad security plan, and Rubin seems to concede that the plan is having the desired effect. So far this month there have been 58 American servicemen killed in Iraq--with a little luck, this should be the lowest tally in more than a year. Rubin also adds at the end of the piece that "Eight bodies were found in Baghdad on Tuesday." This isn't a good thing, but put in perspective, in October of last year 1,782 unidentified bodies were found in Baghdad. Those numbers declined in the spring to a minimum of 182 in April before jumping back up in June and July, but still it's hard not to take away from this piece that, at least in Baghdad, there is real progress being made. Also of note, Rubin gives this confusing explanation of the Islamic State of Iraq:
So the Islamic State of Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia whose leadership has foreign ties. Rubin mentions the Islamic State of Iraq in previous reports, referring to it as "another name for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia," and more frequently as an "insurgent umbrella group." One gets the sense that Rubin doesn't quite know what to make of this group, but Bill Roggio does. Go read his report from this summer, "Islamic State of Iraq – an al Qaeda front."
|
| The "Electability" Card |
|
Rudy Giuliani reiterates his claim that he is the most "electable" and competitive Republican general-election candidate in this AP interview:
Giuliani made a similar argument last Friday before the NRA and the Michigan Republican leadership conference. Giuliani presumably bases his argument on general election polling showing him competitive with Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. But Giuliani never specifies what makes him competitive in "virtually every state." Is it his social liberalism? His 9/11 celebrity? His forceful personality? His ethnicity? He never says. We saw in 2004 that "electability" can play a role in voters' decisions. In order to win the GOP nomination, however, Giuliani will probably have to add more meat to the bones of his "electability" argument.
|
|
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
|
| True Crime |
|
The AP reports that crime is on the rise:
Now let's see: Which 2008 presidential candidate ought to be eager to seize the issue of rising crime rates? Just asking.
|
| Net Effect |
|
David Brooks writes that the Democratic left is losing its war for control of the party:
If that's the case, then why do the Netroots garner so much attention? It must have something to do with the Netroots's ability to influence the media. Journalists, like bloggers, spend a lot of time in front of a computer, and political journalists spend a lot of time in front of a computer . . . reading about politics. They read about politics on political blogs like Daily Kos or wherever. They write about what they read on these blogs. And thus the importance of what these blogs say is magnified. Thanks to the political media, the Netroots's megaphone is significantly larger than that possessed by the high-school-educated women who, as Brooks suggests, are most likely to determine the winner of the 2008 Democratic primary.
|
| Want to Make $125,000? |
|
JunkScience.com is sponsoring a competition: The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge. If you can prove that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, you canl win $125,000. When the contest was announced on August 7, the prize was only $100,000. But apparently the team at JunkScience is getting cocky--perhaps due to the fact that they haven't received a single entry to date. Steve Milloy--the founder of JunkScience--isn't above a little trash talking, either:
It is ON.
|
| Lee Bollinger's Case for War Against Iran |
|
Samantha Sault has an excellent round up of the reaction to Mahmoud Ahmadinehad's appearance at Columbia, and Lee Bollinger's introduction of him. But watching Bollinger's comments make me wonder how the Columbia president can be anything other than a strong proponent of forceful and aggressive action against the Iranian regime. Heck--he makes the case for war with Iran more forcefully than Norman Podhoretz: Funding terrorism
Waging a proxy war against U.S. forces in Iraq
Iran's nuclear program and international sanctions
In the interest of brevity, I refrained from lifting Bollinger's comments about human rights violations, persecution of women and homosexuals, promises to destroy Israel, and others. Some people would argue that those would be reasons to go to war against Iran, but the financing of terrorists, attacks on Americans, and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction are more clear cut. The question is: does Lee Bollinger really believe all this? If he does, it's hard to imagine how he could head a university that doesn't even allow the ROTC to operate on campus. Indeed, this sounds like the rhetoric of a 'neocon warmonger.' Surely any institution headed by someone who holds these views would be a bastion for conservatives and militarists. How has Bollinger managed to hide his outrage for so long? We'll know more about Bollinger's views in the days and months ahead. Perhaps he'll become a crusader for regime change in Iran, and allow his students and faculty to see this side of him more often. We can only hope. It would be a welcome change to have an ally in the war on terror heading up an Ivy League School.
|
| Rank |
|
National Journal ranks the Republicans running for the GOP nomination. There are some surprises. Mike Huckabee is ranked Number 4, while John McCain is ranked Number 5. Giuliani remains in first place--that is, National Journal believes that, for now, he is most likely to win the nomination. Is he? I certainly think there's a chance--in fact, a strong chance--that Giuliani eventually wins the 2008 GOP presidential race, but there's an equally strong chance that he doesn't. Which speaks to how, months before any actual voting occurs, this sort of ranking is irrelevant. The rankings are based "on a number of factors," says the National Journal, including "organization, money, buzz, and polling." Uh, huh. And how exactly does one quantify "buzz"? If "organization" and "money" are important, then why is Fred Thompson ranked Number Two and Romney Number Three? Thompson has little money and hardly any organization. A more direct accounting of the criteria involved in the rankings would say: "These rankings are ordered by likelihood of winning the Republican primary and are based on our gut feeling of how things stand at the moment."
|
| Romney's Indictment |
|
Mitt Romney's call to indict Ahmadinejad under the Geneva Conventions seems a little vague--who would prepare the indictment? what specific crimes does Romney have in mind?--but apparently there is legal recourse, and considerable evidentiary support, to eject Iran from the United Nations. Under Chapter Two, Article Six of the U.N. Charter, a
It's pretty much established beyond a reasonble doubt--which is not, in any case, the standard mentioned in the Charter--that Iran has violated, and is currently violating, U.N. principles. Of course, if the United Nations was made to live up to its principles on even a semi-regular basis, we'd live in a different world.
|
| Hoekstra: 'Purge the Party; Purge the Institution' |
|
Today I had the opportunity to participate in a discussion with Congressman Pete Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. The event was sponsored by the Heritage Foundation's Rob Bluey. Hoekstra's comments ran the gamut--touching on everything from SCHIP, to Iraq, to FISA, to No Child Left Behind and other domestic issues. In that latter vein, Hoekstra was asked how he views the 2008 election--in particular, the possibility that ethics questions will hound Republicans as they did in 2006. Last year, Republican incumbents found themselves answering questions about Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, and other members (or former members) tainted by scandal. While Republicans expected that those ethics questions would eventually resolve themselves, there remain several Republican Senators and Representatives who are either under investigation by law enforcement, or who are otherwise accused of improprieties. The Associated Press is one of many outlets to report on this--as well as to note that Congressional Democrats don't really have their own house in order, either. Hoekstra was clear about members who are accused of breaking the law. He said that while all those accused of wrongdoing have the presumption of innocence, that Republican leaders must approach them directly to determine whether they've 'broken the trust.' He said that Republicans must "purge the party, and purge the institution." He stated that they cannot have people who break the law in leadership positions. This probably sounds easier than it really is. It's been reported that John Boehner approached Bob Ney--his home state colleague--about the investigation into Ney's relationship with Jack Abramoff. Ney reportedly assured Boehner that there was nothing to it. Eventually, Ney pled guilty to charges of conspiracy to defraud, and the filing of dishonest disclosures. That's no surprise, of course. It's not likely that elected officials who are hiding something will be any more honest with Republican leaders than with the public. But if Republicans go before the voters in November, 2008, with some of their members under investigation or indictment, they're not likely to do much better than they did in 2006.
|
| Facebook Lover |
|
From Reihan's "Facebook Commandments":
|
| Klein's Politics |
|
Joe Klein's latest column serves as a good introduction to Hillary Clinton's most recent health plan, and what separates that plan from those of Clinton's Democratic and Republican rivals. My favorite part of this piece, though, was this:
Funny, but doesn't politics intrude as soon as Hillary Clinton proposes that Congress pass a law requiring insurers to "cover all comers"? Politics doesn't begin when someone rallies to oppose an intervention that affects them. It begins when someone proposes an intervention that will affect someone else.
|
| Required Reading 09/25/2007 |
|
From the New York Sun: ...Meanwhile, in Iran, by Eli Lake. From the Wall Street Journal ($): Syria Joins the Axis of Evil, by John Bolton. From the Christian Science Monitor: Why I Want to Keep Fighting in Iraq, by Chris Brady. From the New York Times: The Center Holds, by David Brooks. From National Review: A Defining Moment, by Mitt Romney. Japanese Coast Guard vs. North Korean Spy Trawler
|
| The Iron Lady |
![]() Rudy Giuliani's recent trip to London to receive an award from Margaret Thatcher was a publicity coup, but it was also meant to establish Hizzoner as Reagan's rightful heir. The word "Reagan" is never far from any Republican's lips, but Giuliani goes out of his way to emulate our fortieth president. On the stump, he continually refers to Reagan as one of his heroes and mentions his service in the Reagan Justice Department. And in interviews like this one with the New York Times's Matt Bai, Giuliani implicitly likens himself to Reagan:
Presumably Giuliani believes that he, more than any of his rivals, has the ability to deliver a "Ronald Reagan-like real clear" message to Iran. And what better way to communicate this to Republican--and independent--voters than to stand side by side with Reagan's favorite head of state?
|
| Fukuyama's Blindside |
|
I just finished the Francis Fukuyama edited Blindside: How to Anticipate Forcing Events and Wild Cards in Global Politics. I couldn't recommend it more highly. Contributors include David Landes, Richard Posner, James Kurth, Gregg Easterbrook, Walter Russell Mead, and others. It's an easy read about an important topic: the fundamentally unpredictable nature of politics and history. Of course, Fukuyama and friends argue, some things are predictable, especially in retrospect. The key is to plan for low-probability events that may happen, in order to foster one's ability to deal with all the low-probability events that do happen. Two contributors, Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, actually attempt to gauge the predictability of unpredictable events for a living. It seems like a fun way to make a lot of money. Though the predictions they include in their chapter "Ahead of the Curve: Anticipating Strategic Surprises" aren't that, well, surprising. They predict, for example, an "anti-American world." Um, isn't that arguably what we have now? I suppose one has to assume that Schwartz and Randall save the really good stuff for their paying customers.
|
| Iran's New Fighter |
![]() The new Iranian-designed and produced fighter aircraft, the Sa'eqeh. Beijing The latest in a series of "messages" being sent to the West is the news reported this past week of Ahmadinejad presiding over a military parade that featured a cornucopia of weapon systems now in the hands of the Iranian armed forces. Among these was a new Iranian-designed and produced fighter aircraft, the Sa'eqeh (Lightning), which had just begun series-production in August according to Iran's official state news outlets. Amadinejad told the crowd, which was assembled to commemorate the 27th anniversary of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, that "those (countries) who assume that decaying methods such as psychological war, political propaganda and the so-called economic sanctions would work and prevent Iran's fast drive toward progress are mistaken." His statements were in reference to the embargo on Teheran for all sales of arms, spare parts, or any other military technology--sanctions that have existed since the overthrow of the Shah's government by the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Since that time Iran's armed forces have struggled to keep an ever-aging arsenal of U.S. weaponry functioning, almost all of which was purchased under the Shah more than three decades ago. Being cut off from any legal means of supporting this military hardware put Iran in a difficult spot when Iraq decided to wage war on the new Islamic Republic, and forced its defence industry to become as self-sufficient as possible. The Sa'eqeh is the culmination of almost 30 years of effort to achieve that self-sufficiency. The Iranian president boasted that "those who prevented Iran, at the height of the war [with Iraq] from getting even barbed wire must see now that all the equipment on display today has been built by the mighty hands and brains of experts at Iran's armed forces." However, do not rush to write your congressional representatives to suggest that Washington respond to this new threat by doubling the U.S. Air Force's buy of Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor fighter jets. A closer look at the aircraft shows that its primary significance is symbolic--the first military aircraft to ever be designed and produced in Iran--and that it is not a modern-age weapon system. The Sa'eqeh is based almost entirely on the old Northrop F-5 fighter aircraft, the chief U.S. export fighter of the 1960s and 70s, 166 of which were sold to Iran before the revolution. After the embargo was initiated the Iranian armed forces were able to purchase spares through illegal channels and on the arms black market since the F-5 had been widely exported to numerous nations friendly to the United States and there were any number of parts depots around the world. In one case Iran was able to purchase F-5s and a large stock of spare parts from Ethiopia. The African nation had initially purchased the aircraft from Vietnam. The communist government in Hanoi had captured these aircraft from the South Vietnamese air force when they took Saigon, but had no use for them since the new, re-united Vietnam's arsenal was almost all of Soviet make and design. However, Ethiopia could not sustain the aircraft's operation and sold 18 of them--along with several spare parts sets--to Iran through a British front company, which camouflaged the sale by making it a transaction not to the Islamic Republic's MoD but instead to the National Iranian Oil Company.
|
| Who's Cherry Picking Now? |
|
Over the weekend, David Ignatius wrote a love letter to the CIA praising the agency for its prescient analysis of the problems this country would face in Iraq. Ignatius writes:
Gary Schmitt dissected these estimates in THE WEEKLY STANDARD this summer. How about that backsliding?
And Iraq's deeply divided society...
There's a lot more in Schmitt's piece, but the bottom line is that the two NIEs that prompt Ignatius to gush about the CIA's foresight are, in fact, almost entirely worthless. On the upside, Ignatius's sources at the CIA must have been very pleased with his effort to rehabilitate the agency's reputation.
|
| Daily Blog Buzz: Mahmoud in Manhattan |
|
The blogosphere is buzzing about Ahmadinejad’s speech to the Columbia University community. Despite the widespread outrage at Columbia’s invitation--and despite New York City’s refusal to allow Ahmadinejad to visit Ground Zero--the Iranian president was given a massive forum to broadcast his horrifying views. Not only did he insinuate that the U.S. government is a terrorist organization, but he also said that more “research” is needed on the Holocaust. Oh, and homosexuals don’t exist in Iran (perhaps because the Iranian government has openly executed them) and Iranian women are some of the most free women in the world. While we must give Columbia president Lee Bollinger a tiny bit of credit for calling Ahmadinejad “a petty and cruel dictator,” Ahmadinejad should not have been given this platform--and countless bloggers agree. The writers at contentions have been outraged from the start. Gabriel Schoenfeld discusses Columbia Dean Coatsworth’s admission that he would have invited Hitler to the university, and states: “The university’s invitation to the genocidal aspirant Ahmadinejad is repugnant on many grounds. The outrage committed by Dean Coatsworth upon the dead of World War II…staggers the imagination.” And Max Boot brings to light the fact that “Iran is now escalating its war against the U.S. and our democratic allies”--and we can see the smirk on his face as he writes: “But perhaps Columbia University’s students and faculty can convince Ahmadinejad of the error of his ways when he shows up to speak at their campus.” Yeah, right. Michelle Malkin chronicles “Mahmoudapalooza” from NYC, noting: “Don’t let the warm embrace of some of the Columbia University students fool you. We saw plenty of disgusted Columbia alumni and families who were not impressed.” Malkin and fellow Hot Air blogger Bryan also vent about not being allowed inside Columbia to hear the speech. Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters is baffled by Bollinger’s introduction to Ahmadinejad: “What purpose does it serve to supply a 'petty and cruel dictator' with a megaphone? Rational people would advise the exact opposite--to shun and isolate petty and cruel dictators, who certainly have plenty of other outlets for their rantings.” According to Deebow at Black Five, “The funniest part of his speech, at least for me, is that Ahmawhackjob says he does not have any 'gay people' in Iran. This elicited quite a guffaw from the crowd, but obviously no real outrage. They sure have a lot of outrage saved up for the US Military and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and the banning of ROTC from their campus.” And Meryl Yourish makes the interesting point that “Ahmadinejad did not respond fully to a single question asked by either the National Press Club, or anyone at Columbia…he lies, denies, and redirects the question.” Hugh Hewitt is equally disgusted with Columbia. He remarks, “Columbia...played a role of accessory to many lies today, delivered by a killer of our troops.” Not to mention, Columbia got punked! But luckily, as a Columbia student told Little Green Footballs, only 20-30 of the 600 present applauded Ahmadinejad’s response to Bollinger (see the speech at Hot Air). For day-after coverage, check out 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America's coverage of New York City newspaper headlines. Just for laughs:
|
| Paulson Pushes Entitlement Reform |
![]() President Bush's legacy may be defined by Iraq and the war on terror, but his presidency may also be remembered for failure to act on the looming insolvency of major entitlement programs. In the waning days of the Bush administration, Treasury Secretary Paulson is trying to set the stage for action--presumably under the next president--through a series of papers designed to promote understanding of the problem. The first such paper was released yesterday, with this statement from Paulson:
The first paper is a good primer on the history of Social Security, and it makes clear that the program's fiscal imbalance becomes a real problem far earlier than is generally realized:
Put plainly, Social Security will soon cease to be a federal 'cash cow.' Pundits have complained that the true size of the federal deficit is not generally recognized because Social Security revenues effectively pay a portion of general government spending. In 2017--more or less--that will no longer be the case. Rather, income taxes and other general government revenues must be used to pay down a portion of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus--in order to cover the cost of Social Security benefits. According to this report, that transfer will climb to about $300 billion annually by 2025.
|
| The Iraqi Big House |
|
An interesting story from Military.com about "a novel plan to undercut the insurgency by drying up its base of hardened fighters." The operation is run by Marine General Doug Stone, and there is also an audio interview that accompanies the piece.
Stone adds, "I have not approached it from the perspective that it is warehousing . . . have approached it as a battlespace . . . that needs to be in sync with the greater strategy that Gen. Petraeus has laid out."
|
|
Monday, September 24, 2007
|
| Re: The Asian Century? |
|
WWS pal Stuart Koehl emailed his two cents regarding the discussion here last Friday of Robert Kaplan's "Lost at Sea." Because Koehl is wicked smart, here is his response:
|
| Lieberman on Kyl-Lieberman |
|
We posted the text of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment here last week, and here's an excerpt of the speech Lieberman gave on the floor of the Senate today offering that amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill:
|
| Required Reading 09/24/2007 |
|
From the Space Review: The case for withdrawing from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, by John Hickman. From the Middle East Journal: "Al Qaeda Lost", by Michael J. Totten. From the American: Howard’s End? by Duncan Currie. From Contentions: Bad Ad, by Peter Wehner. From National Review: Antiwar Falling, by David Kahane. Bonus Audio: Noah Shachtman Talks IEDs on NPR. ![]() Via FP Passport: "Russian developers revealed plans for Federation Island, an artificial island in the shape of the Russian continent to be built off the coast of the planned Olympic complex."
|
| McCain: If you're so committed to free speech, bring back ROTC |
|
Here's the statement from John McCain:
Isn't this one of the biggest questions to come out of this? If Columbia can invite Ahmadinejad to the campus to say that homosexuality doesn't exist in Iran--essentially that homosexuality is a Western disease, a symptom of cultural decadence and moral decay--how can the university at the same time refuse to allow the United States military to operate an ROTC unit on campus?
|
| Rep. Woolsey: I'm Sorry if you Don't Agree With Me on Iraq |
|
The inability of Congressional Democrats to force a change of course on Iraq has led to strained relations with the Netroots--a subject we've covered here. While Democrats in Washington try to figure out how to appeal to both moderates and their anti-war base, that base is debating whether to support primary challenges to sitting Members of Congress. Recently, Representative Lynn Woolsey inadvertently moved this debate inside the walls of the Capitol, when she encouraged grassroots activists to 'go after' Democrats to build support for ending the war, even if it cost the party the majority. The most pointed exchange in the call was this one:
Roll Call reports that she has 'apologized' to her Democratic colleagues, and tried to clarify her meaning:
Conservative freshman Democrats--the so-called 'majority makers'--might want to hold onto this letter for the day that MoveOn and DailyKos start making donations to their dyed-in-the-wool liberal primary opponents. It's bound to make them feel better.
|
| Misunderstanding Free Speech |
|
National Review posted an excellent piece over the weekend by David J. Feith and Jordan C. Hirsch, two undergraduates at Columbia University, on the school's invitation to Ahmadinejad:
Having watched the speech, I'm convinced that's exactly what has happened. Ahmadinejad will benefit from this far more than any student that was their to witness it. As John Bolton said on Fox after the event was over, the United States will pay a long-term price for this as moderates inside Iran see Ahmadinejad treated as a respected world leader by what used to be a respected university.
|
| House Republicans Criticize Columbia |
|
I'm watching Ahmadinejad's lecture right now. It is a disgrace. Ahmadinejad just said they don't have homosexuals in Iran: "we do not have this phenomenon." And yet Bollinger keeps trying to turn it into a debate, as if one can debate the existence of homosexuals, the facts of the Holocaust, or any of the other absurd ideas Ahmadinejad has about the world...if this is a debate, Bollinger is losing badly. I just saw these statements from the Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee:
|
| Hillary Endorses Bush's Iraq Policy |
|
Sonny Bunch picked apart some of the silliness Senator Clinton offered during her full Ginsburg on yesterday's round of Sunday shows. It's interesting to take note of her comments on Iraq, as well. She told CNN's Wolf Blitzer:
She had this to say to Tim Russert:
"Gosh darn it! If President Bush won't get us out of Iraq, then I'm going to ask for a status report -- and make sure someone drafted a withdrawal plan!" When asked by George Stephanpolous on This Week whether she would commit to withdrawing all troops before the end of her first term, Clinton refused:
So Senator Clinton favors beginning the withdrawal of U.S. troops, but refuses to commit to a full drawdown before January, 2013. She is therefore leaving the door open to keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for approximately 10 years--depending on the strategic realities, the threat posed by Iran, the interests of our Iraqi partners, etc. How exactly is this position different from that of President Bush?
|
| Columbia's Deans Respond |
|
A couple of interesting statements over the weekend in response to Columbia University president Lee Bollinger's decision to host Ahmadinejad. The first is from David M. Schizer, dean of Columbia's Law School:
The other is from Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia's Business School:
From the Corner (via Instapundit):
|
| China, Japan Race to the Moon |
![]() From NASA, an artist's rendering of China's Chang'e 1 lunar orbiter. China and Japan have both nicknamed their lunar missions after the moon goddesses in their respective mythologies. In China, the lady in the moon is called Chang’e; in Japan, Kaguya. With the tension befitting a rivalry between such legendary beauties, the race to the moon kicked into high gear with the September 14 launch of Japan’s first lunar probe satellite, officially known as the Selenological and Engineering Explorer (SELENE). Chinese media have provided extensive coverage of the Kaguya expedition, including field reports from Tanegashima, the remote island location of Japan’s largest space center. Feature stories have examined Kaguya’s scientific objectives and detailed how the world’s largest lunar mission since the U.S. Apollo flights had fallen four years behind schedule. The precise timing of the launch is seen, invariably, as a challenge by Japan to her Chinese rival. Two days after Kaguya blasted into space, Sun Laiyan, vice minister of China’s Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND), announced that China’s lunar orbiter, the Chang’e-1, had been positioned at the launch site and was slated to go into space by the end of the year. Sun’s statement contained little new information. Beijing had indicated as early as 2005 that China’s first unmanned satellite to the moon was set for a launch in 2007, and Chinese media had reported this past March that the launch of Chang’e-1, originally scheduled for April, was to be postponed to the second half of this year. Also in March, Xinhua reported that the launch might take place in September. That remains to be seen, although there are indications that the launch may be imminent. China Central Television announced on September 18 that production was nearing completion on a seven-part extravaganza titled "Optimum Challenge: Rushing towards Chang’e" that is scheduled to begin airing on October 1, China’s National Day. On September 19, Jiang Mianheng, eldest son of former president Jiang Zemin and the normally low-profile vice president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, announced at a "mobilization meeting" for Chang’e-1 team members that the satellite’s VLBI orbit tracking system had entered its final phase of development. This was followed by reports that the general public, including Hong Kong residents, would soon be able to purchase tickets, through a travel agency, to view the launch of Chang’e-1 from a hillside facing the Xichang Satellite Launch Center, located in the southwestern province of Sichuan. Tickets for the event, projected to last 16 seconds, are going for $800 yuan (US$106.67) apiece. To say that the Chang’e-1 is a prestige project for Beijing is something of an understatement. During an August 16 on-line discussion with the Chinese public, COSTIND officials declared proudly that Chang’e-1 "is a scientific and engineering objective independently proposed by our scientists and engineers… and all scientific instruments are independently developed by ourselves." The mission also boasts many "firsts," including plans to obtain 3D images of every inch of the moon’s surface and measure the thickness of the lunar soil. During that same on-line discussion, Hao Xifan, deputy director of the Lunar Exploration Center of COSTIND, reiterated that China’s lunar program has no military purposes and does not aim to compete with any other country. A week later, however, Xinhua carried a lengthy piece on space warfare, predicting that outer space will be a major battleground in the future. The report attributes the prospect of a "war in the heavens" to the scramble for cosmic supremacy between Russia and the United States. Subsequently, on September 11, PLA Daily began a three-part series on space warfare. The editor’s introduction to the series begins:
|
| Sunday Show Wrap-Up |
|
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton made the rounds this weekend, appearing on several of the Sunday morning talk shows from her home in Chappaqua, New York. Sporting a brown blazer on top of a green shirt, Senator Clinton was bubbly and boisterous, and at times confusing. Clinton made one puzzling statement on This Week, telling George Stephanopoulos “When my husband wanted to go and do what was necessary to end ethnic cleansing and to stop the spread of violence in Europe, he tried to get congressional approval and under the Republican Congress was unable to do so. He thought it important to put together a coalition for Bosnia and Kosovo, which he did.” I’m unclear as to which ethnic cleansing in Europe Clinton was itching to stop but the Republican Congress prevented. Surely it wasn’t the air war in Kosovo, which had wide, bipartisan support. Consider this headline from a CNN.com story back in 1999: “Clinton: Serbs must be stopped now; U.S. on verge of attack; divided Senate to unify on Kosovo mission.” Perhaps she’s referring to the Croatian ethnic cleansing of Serbs in 1995? I kind of doubt it; then-President Clinton was less than impressive in dealing with that situation. Here’s what Charles Krauthammer had to say about Clinton’s foreign policy dealings in a column summing up his administration’s standing in the humanitarian realm:
Anyway, it’s unclear to me exactly what Clinton was referring to. It would have been nice if Stephanopoulos would have pushed her on that statement. Over at Meet the Press, Clinton again refused to condemn MoveOn.org’s attack on General Petraeus when given the chance, instead demanding that all “attacks” on public officials’ patriotism be condemned.
On Fox News Sunday, Clinton tried to reemphasize her leftward swing on the war by pointing out that she’d cut off funding for the troops, regardless of how much danger it put them in, in order to end the conflict a little sooner.
|
|
Friday, September 21, 2007
|
| The Asian Century? |
|
Gordon Chang has posted an interesting rebuttal to Robert D. Kaplan's must-read in today's New York Times. Chang is dubious of Kaplan's contention that this century will be "the Asian Century":
My own two cents: Kaplan worries that China's increased military spending may result in "a quantitative advantage in naval technology that could erode our qualitative one." This seems unlikely as the U.S. Navy still maintains an enormous quantitative advantage over its competitors, including China. The United States Navy has more ships than the next 17 navies combined. During Pax Britannica, the British Navy understood supremacy to mean a fleet larger than the next two navies combined. And our qualitative advantage is similarly impressive--despite cutting the number of ships from 592 at the end of the Cold War to less than 300 now, the current Navy is a far more lethal force than it was before. There's no doubt that China's ever-growing submarine fleet represents a real challenge, but that is in the littorals. So I'm deeply skeptical that in just "a few years" we will see "the loss of the Pacific Ocean as an American lake after 60 years of near-total dominance." But Kaplan's a smart guy.
|
| Democrats' Iraq Offensive Turned Back |
|
In the week just concluded, the Senate has debated a variety of measures related to the war in Iraq. The only measure which passed was one to denounce MoveOn for for its attack on General David Petraeus. By that measure, it was the most productive week the Senate has had on Iraq in months. But if Democrats failed to hamper the Iraq mission, it was not for lack of trying. They offered three amendments to change the conduct of the war--all of them amendments that had been offered and defeated before. How did they fare this time around? Senator Levin offered an amendment to require the administration to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. On July 18, the Senate voted against cloture by a vote of 52-47 (where 60 votes are required). On September 21, a similar amendment by Senator Levin also failed to win cloture (47-47)--a loss of five votes (even with Senator Tim Johnson having returned). Senator Feingold offered an amendment to cut off all funding for the Iraq war. On May 16, the Senate voted against cloture by a margin of 29-67. On September 20, a similar amendment failed by a margin of 28-70. Senator Webb offered an amendment to specify terms of troop deployments. On July 11, the Senate failed to invoke cloture by a margin of 56-41. On September 19, a similar amendment failed by a margin of 56-44. Senate Democrats lost ground on all 3 of their major proposals to 'change course' in Iraq. The Politico reports that Senator Reid's 'no compromise' attitude (one apparently dictated by MoveOn) is responsible for this backsliding:
Undoubtedly this is at least partially true. Reid has avoided a more bipartisan approach that might have fared better. There's some talk that Democrats who are disappointed to see that they have taken a step backward may push for a bipartisan approach next week. But this whole episode points up a glaring miscalculation by Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi. They decided months ago that the best course for Democrats--politically--was to oppose everything the president proposed on Iraq. They staked everything on a September showdown with the president--gambling that the pressure of anti-war groups would lead Republicans to sue for an end to the war. They even took some slings and arrows from the Netroots when they allowed legislation to pass to fund the war--figuring that they could get Republican dissidents to end the war, so there would be no Democratic fingerprints. But where do the Democrats stand today? The president's hand is stronger. The surge will run its course and phase down on the administration's timetable. Moderates in both parties are complaining that they have been lied to. And the moderate Democrats are facing potential primary challengers--challenges encouraged by their liberal colleagues. How are leaders like Reid and Pelosi viewed by their troops now?
|
| Required Reading 09/21/2007 |
|
From the New York Times: Lost at Sea, by Robert D. Kaplan. From Congressional Quarterly: Blackwater Draws Senate Attention, by Josh Rogin. From Pajamas Media: Dam Bursts at Al Dura Trial, by Nidra Poller. From Captain's Quarters: The Bully Boys of the Internet, by Ed Morrissey. From Contentions: Why Try?, by Max Boot.
|
| Boycott Ahmadinejad |
|
A Columbia student asked how he could effectively protest his university's invitation to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak Monday. My first response was to suggest petitions, e-mails to President Bollinger and the university trustees, letters to the student paper, peaceful protest, and the like. All these are fine. But then I had a second thought. There might be one form of protest that would be effective both in showing appropriate disgust for the Iranian regime, and in shaming the Columbia administration: A total student boycott of Ahmadinejad's speech. Let the Iranian president (and the Columbia president) look out on, and speak to, a sea of empty seats on Monday. The rationale for a student boycott is simple: The Iranian government is directly involved in killing and wounding American soldiers in Iraq. As a gesture of elementary solidarity with those serving our nation in the military--young men and women, many of them their exact contemporaries--Columbia students should refuse to dignify Ahmadinejad's talk by attending it. Needless to say, Columbia faculty and administrators shouldn't attend either. Some of them will. But this is a chance for the 9/11 generation to show a decency and a sense of honor that some of their elders lack. After all, this is not primarily about Ahmadinejad. Dealing with his regime is mostly a task for our government. This is about us. Columbia students have a chance to shame their elders, redeem the good name of their institution, and make many Americans proud. I urge them to take it.
|
| Congress Far Behind on Regular Business |
|
Congressional Quarterly looks at the agenda ahead in the House and Senate -- including legislation to prevent a government shutdown:
Democrats roundly criticized Republicans for failing to pass appropriations bills and other must-pass legislation when they ran the House. Last year at this time, current House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer noted that the Congress would likely work just 93 days, and had not enacted any of the appropriations bills required to fund the government. By my count, the House has worked 111 days so far this year. But it turns out that working more days hasn't enabled them to get more done. With an overriding focus on investigations and Iraq, this Congress has passed none of the 12 appropriations bills required to run the government. It has also failed to pass energy legislation, the FAA reauthorization, the FDA reauthorization, four queued-up trade agreements, and other important measures. (I won't even get into the tax increases, refusal to extend FISA for the long-term, or other bills that the Democratic leadership opposes flat out.) When House Republicans had to resort to a Continuing Resolution to keep the government open in 2004. Hoyer's reaction was brutal:
Now that Hoyer is the Majority Leader--where his chief responsibility is making the trains run on time--will he acknowledge the priorities that haven't been addressed simply because the Democratic majority has let the trains run off the tracks?
|
| The Art of Lefty Innuendo |
|
Charles Krauthammer lays out Ahmadinejad's "radically aggressive campaign to assemble, deploy, flaunt and partially activate Iran's proxies in the Arab Middle East":
Glenn Greenwald responds:
First off, there's nothing "dubious" about the claim that Iran is arming the Taliban. We know that Greenwald & Co. think that Petraeus is a liar, but what about Admiral Fallon, who told the AP today:
Greenwald also says that Iranian 'interference'--a very nice euphemism for killing American troops--is hardly evidence of that regime's "Evil." This is the guy who wrote 5,000 words yesterday on "the art of neoconservative innuendo." Call a spade a spade, Glenn. If you think that Iranian attacks on U.S. forces are justified--just come right out and say it.
|
| McCain Kills at NRA Speech |
|
From the Swamp:
|
| Reid Needs to Review the Constitution |
|
Via Instapundit, I see CNN's report on Majority Leader Reid's 'frustration' at finding himself powerless to end the war in Iraq. Professor Reynolds seems to suggest that Senator Reid is not speaking in earnest:
It's not fair to impute bad faith to the Majority Leader, however, without at least considering the possibility that Senator Reid has forgotten that Congress has it in its power to end the conflict. Shockingly, that power is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 9 of that document specifies:
It's clear that Senator Reid has the power to end the war, but he brought legislation to fund it to the floor of the Senate last May. When the Senate passed HR 2206 on May 17, it funded a military venture that Senator Reid now asserts he intended to stop--or at least frustrate.
|
| German Government Divided Over Anti-Terrorism Strategy |
|
The recently foiled terror attack in Germany--involving several Turkish extremists and, very disturbingly, two German converts--has triggered another acrimonious political debate about how far the government can go to fight terrorism and protect the homeland. For example, does the (conservative) German defense minister have the authority to order the downing of a hijacked civil airliner even if it means the killing of innocent passengers on board? (Back in March 2006, when this issue first erupted following a Constitutional Court ruling prohibiting such shoot-downs, I wrote a DAILY STANDARD piece about the dangers of "Flying Blind in the Post-9/11 World.") And what of those who spend their summers at terrorist training camps in Pakistan learning Bomb Making 101 (like several of the recently detained terrorists did): should German laws be changed so that anyone who attends these training camps can be charged with membership in a terrorist organization? Is it necessary to prove that these folks had the premeditated intention to use their new skills to commit terrorist attacks in the future? Also, should German security agencies have the authority to install spyware on the computers of suspected terrorists to track their online movements? Finally, at a more abstract level, how real is the threat of nuclear terrorism and the use of a "dirty bomb"? Much of the current controversy centers on the long-standing left/right divide over the appropriate balance between security and civil liberties, a battle that is also being waged here in the United States. In the German context, however, calibrating the government’s response is made particularly difficult by the country’s long shadow of history. Since the end of the Nazi dictatorship, successive generations of German political leaders, as well as large segments of the general population, have consistently put a premium on the far-reaching protection of civil liberties by agreeing to strictly limit the state’s domestic security and surveillance competencies. For sure, during the Red Army Faction’s left-wing terrorist campaign against top-level government and business officials back in the 1970s, West Germany passed expansive anti-terrorism legislation, most of which still remains in force today. Yet while these new police and security measures helped defeat the RAF group’s old-style terrorist tactics, they are hardly a match for today’s breed of doomsday Islamists willing to use any weapon--including nuclear, biological, and chemical devices--to cause wanton mass destruction. Yesterday, at a special homeland security debate convened in the German Bundestag, the profound political and ideological divisions over the appropriate approach to fight terrorism were on full display. While formally part of Chancellor Merkel’s Grand-Coalition government, several senior politicians from the ruling left-wing SPD party used the parliamentary session to launch harsh attacks on conservative CDU interior minister Wolfgang Schaeuble (who will discuss his anti-terrorism approach here in DC next week) and Franz-Josef Jung, his colleague in charge of the defense ministry. The two were accused of deliberately spreading panic and fear of terrorism among the population for political gain. Deputy SPD Bundestag leader Fritz Rudolf Koerper (until 2005 deputy German interior minister in the previous Red-Green Schroeder government) even ridiculed Schaeuble as "the Nostradamus of our times." It was Schaeuble who, just a few days earlier, had caused an uproar in Germany when he said that an attack using "nuclear material" was no longer a question of "if" but "when." In response to these unprecedented and public intra-coalition attacks, CDU/CSU Bundestag majority leader Volker Kauder decided to leave the chamber in protest; an indication of how sour relations between the Grand Coalition partners have turned.
|
|
Thursday, September 20, 2007
|
| Coalition Forces Kill AQI Bigwig |
|
From CENTCOM:
Analysis from John at Op-For:
|
| McCain: Restrain Ahmadinejad If Necessary |
|
Via Hot Air, McCain--half-jokingly--says we ought to restrain Ahmadinejad if necessary in order to prevent him from getting to Ground Zero. Allah also has some deep analysis of the options available to Bloomberg, the Port Authority, the NYPD, etc., as far as preventing this stunt. In other news, Coalition forces announced the capture of "a member of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force" in Sulaimaniya.
|
| Senate Condemns MoveOn Ad, Netroots in Disbelief |
|
The Senate voted overwhelmingly to condemn the recent 'General Betray Us' ad by MoveOn.org, passing by a margin of 72-25. A large number of Democrats supported the measure, but Hillary Clinton did not--which isn't at all surprising given that she's declined to condemn the ad on numerous occasions leading up to this vote. What is surprising is that John Kerry did not support the measure; he was, I believe, the first Democrat to break ranks on this. Also joining the 'nays' was Senator Daniel Inouye--perhaps that isn't surprising, but if there's one name on that list that disappoints the most, it's Inouye. Here's the text of the resolution:
It doesn't even name MoveOn--how can anyone be opposed to condemning "personal attacks on the honor and integrity" of Petraeus or any other member of the military? The reaction from the netroots to the resolution's passage is sort of interesting. Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent writes:
Doesn't it follow then that he voted for the resolution because he shares the apparently widespread opinion that the ad was in bad taste? The response from MyDD is even more telling:
Indeed. DailyKos adds:
The extent to which these bloggers believe they "own" the Democratic party is striking--and I'm not sure they're entirely wrong, either. But as Brian Faughnan has repeatedly pointed out, "if the anti-war Democratic base flexes its muscles, Republicans will likely be the beneficiaries." HT LGF Update: Mitt Romney's response:
|
| "Redeeming Columbia" |
|
An excellent editorial in today's New York Sun:
|
| Required Reading 09/20/2007 |
|
From the New York Post: Lose the Mercenaries, by Ralph Peters. From Reason: The Next Iranian Revolution, by Michael J. Totten. From Asia Times: U.S., China Vie for Philippine Military Influence, by Noel Tarrazona. From the Wall Street Journal: Chill Pill, Pete Du Pont. From the Danger Room: The Stink of Tarmiyah, by Noah Shachtman.
|
| Al Qaeda vs. Musharraf |
|
As part of its ongoing propaganda war, al Qaeda’s leaders are once again flooding the airwaves. Both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri reportedly cover a lot of ground in their two new recently released tapes. Importantly, they have once again declared war on President Musharraf and his government. Al Qaeda’s threats towards Musharraf are not, of course, entirely new. But these most recent threats appear to be explicitly timed to coincide with the announcement of the date for upcoming elections, which will determine Musharraf’s political fate. One tape, entitled “Come to Jihad,” reportedly features the voice of Osama bin Laden. Laura Mansfield, whose translations of al Qaeda’s missives are indispensable, provided the Associated Press with some of the highlights from the tape. Bin Laden says the conflict at the Red Mosque in July “demonstrated Musharraf's insistence on continuing his loyalty, submissiveness and aid to America against the Muslims . . . and makes armed rebellion against him and removing him obligatory.” Bin Laden called on Pakistanis to rebel against Musharraf: “So when the capability is there, it is obligatory to rebel against the apostate ruler, as is the case now.” Another tape features Ayman al-Zawahiri. According to the Associated Press, Zawahiri also referenced the siege of the Red Mosque, saying it “revealed the extent of the despicableness, lowliness and treason of Musharraf and his forces, who don't deserve the honor of defending Pakistan, because Pakistan is a Muslim land, whereas the forces of Musharraf are hunting dogs under [President] Bush's crucifix.” These open threats raise the specter of a fresh round of attacks in Pakistan. But Musharraf’s life has been threatened before--al Qaeda has already made several attempts on Musharraf's life. The real question, then, is: will these most recent threats convince Pakistan, and her American ally, to do more about al Qaeda’s safe haven in the northern tribal regions? It is no secret that al Qaeda’s two most senior leaders are, most likely, hiding in the tribal areas of Pakistan, including Northern and Southern Waziristan. In fact, in his most recent tape, bin Laden reportedly refers to fallen al Qaeda leaders who were slain in these areas as additional justification for attacking Musharraf’s government. But Musharraf’s response to the terror emanating from these uncontrolled areas of Pakistan has been uneven. At some points in the past he has been willing to make a show of force in confronting the thousands of terrorists holed up there, but at other times he has effectively ceded large swaths of Pakistani territory to al Qaeda’s tribal allies. The latter happened last year when Musharraf agreed to the disastrous tribal accords, which limited Pakistan’s engagement in the region and allowed al Qaeda and its allies time to further entrench themselves in their new safe haven.
|
| Hillary's Reverse Coattails |
|
Jim Geraghty has posted an excellent column about the potential effect of Hillary Clinton as nominee on Democratic hopes of holding onto seats in southern and swing states. It's well worth a read. Geraghty finds that if you're a Red State Democrat, you're probably backing someone else for the Democratic nomination:
After the 2006 elections, Charlie Cook prepared a list of Members of the House he regarded as potentially vulnerable in 2008. That list includes 25 Democrats who are heavily exposed--they represent districts that generally favor Republicans by a wide margin. Many of those seats are in states where the Democratic nominee is likely to do poorly in 2008. For comparison, there are just 2 Republicans in strong Democratic seats--a byproduct of their stunning losses last year. There seems to be a widespread opinion among election analysts that the GOP will do poorly next year. But next year is far away, and while Democrats appear likely to have the financial advantage, they have relatively few targets. In a favorable political environment, Republicans could wind up doing much better than is currently expected.
|
| Obama Girl Crushes on the U.S. Military |
|
I wasn't going to put this up--regular readers will know I have a deep aversion to posting images of scantily clad women--but a Marine friend of the WWS emails this morning to insist that this is "a great video" that we "must watch." He adds: "The Marines' girlfriends are the most attractive."
|
| Democrats Warming for Civil War |
|
It's been clear for a while that the Democratic party is seriously divided over what to do about Iraq. There are essentially no Democrats who support the war in Iraq, and very few who truly support the broader war on terror. But while there's strong opposition to the current anti-terror agenda, there are deep divisions about whether to act on them. The Netroots and a minority in Washington think that acting on their convictions is the right way to go, but the leadership in Washington views it as political suicide. With that backdrop, it's no surprise that the Netroots are eager to challenge sitting Democrats in primaries. CQ Today reports:
In discussing primary challenges to sitting Members of Congress, some on the left have said that they will focus their fire on Democrats in safe seats -- seats where a more liberal candidate would have no problem keeping the seat in the Democratic column. With that in mind, it's worth looking at the list of potential primary targets. Respected election analyst Charlie Cook rates seats based on their 'Partisan Vote Index' (PVI). It reflects the average performance of a Democratic and a Republican candidate in the district. Joe Donnelly's seat has a PVI of +4 Republican. Jerry McNerney's is +3 Republican. Brian Baird's seat is rated '0' -- a pure tossup. The seats of Tauscher, Johnson, and Wynn are considerably safer. But if the anti-war Democratic base flexes its muscles, Republicans will likely be the beneficiaries.
|
| The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment |
|
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which calls on the United States to combat, contain, and roll back Iranian violence inside Iraq, will be offered for debate in the Senate today. The amendment also expresses the "Sense of the Senate," that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The key provisions:
|
| McCain on Columbia |
|
Senator McCain, who gave the commencement address at Columbia in 2006, just sent out this statement:
|
| Kristol on Columbia |
|
Just posted at THE DAILY STANDARD, the boss on Lee Bollinger's choice:
Go read the whole thing.
|
| Columbia to Host Ahmadinejad |
|
Powerline picks up reports that Columbia University will play host to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on September 24 for what the university describes as "a question and answer session with university faculty and students." Well, not really. University president Lee Bollinger elaborates: "In order to have such a University-wide forum, we have insisted that a number of conditions be met, first and foremost that President Ahmadinejad agree to divide his time evenly between delivering remarks and responding to audience questions." Bollinger then goes on to list Ahmadinejad's crimes against "innocent civilians and American troops...journalists and scholars, including one of Columbia's own alumni, Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh," and "his government's widely documented suppression of civil society and particularly of women's rights," before declaring that "vigorous debate," "America at its best," etc., etc. Johnson's analysis:
|
|
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
|
| "The Day America Fought Back" |
![]()
|
| (Updated) McCain on the Webb Amendment: "Unprecedented" |
|
Remarks just delivered on the floor of the Senate by Senator John McCain:
Update: And the Webb Amendment fails.
|
| Connecting the Dots |
|
Pete Wehner puts the puzzle together over at Contentions and comes to this conclusion:
HT Instapundit
|
| The Self-Righteous Editors of the NYTimes |
|
The wise and mighty deciders at the New York Times editorialize on the plight of pro-American Iraqis:
Washington has a profound moral obligation...to take a few thousand Iraqis back to the United States and abandon the rest to al Qaeda? How do the editors fail to make the obvious connection? Do they care nothing of what comes of all the other Iraqis they would have America abandon? Will it not mean more suffering and more shame for the United States if we leave them at the mercy of our enemies? The editors at the Times have lost all sense of decency if they believe their pleas on behalf of a few thousand insulate them from responsibility for pushing the abandonment of an entire country to the worst brutality imaginable.
|
| Required Reading 09/18/2007 |
|
From THE DAILY STANDARD: Bashar's Bad Judgment, by David Schenker. From the Wall Street Journal ($): The Real Bush Record, by Dick Cheney. From the Washington Times: Al Qaeda's Third Defeat, by Claude Salhani. From Michael Yon Online: Hunting Al Qaeda, by Michael Yon. From Foreign Policy: John Bolton Explains the World. |

















