Month: October 2007

Harlequin Romance For Nerds

by digby

I have a post over at CAF about the disaster capitalists who think they are John Galt. It’s a bodice-ripping yarn.

.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Do ya wanna be in my gang?

By Dennis Hartley

This week we’ll take a peek at two powerful new dramas set in merry old England, dealing with some not-so-merry themes.

First up, director David Cronenberg brings on the blood and the balalaikas in his crackerjack neo-noir, “Eastern Promises”. At once a brooding character study and a highly atmospheric thriller, this entry rates amongst the Canadian iconoclast’s best work.

Anna (Naomi Watts) is a London midwife obsessed with tracking down the relatives of a newborn infant, left behind by a 14 year-old unwed Russian who tragically dies on her delivery table. Intrigued by the Cyrillic scribbling in the dead girl’s diary, Anna turns to her Russian-speaking uncle, Stepan (Jerzy Skolimosky) for translation. Stepan staunchly refuses, citing his “old country” superstitions and soundly admonishing his niece for “stealing from the dead”. Undaunted, Anna follows her only solid lead, a business card for a Russian restaurant that she finds in the diary. Anna soon gleans that she probably would have been better off heeding her uncle’s intuitive warning, because the diary reveals itself to be a very hot potato to some extremely dangerous and scary individuals. Before she knows it, she is pulled into the brutal underworld of the local Russian Mob.

Viggo Mortensen delivers one of his most accomplished performances to date as Nikolai, the Siberian driver for a psychotic mob captain (Vincent Cassel) who is the son of a godfather (Armin Mueller-Stahl). It is amazing to watch how effortlessly Mortensen, Cassel and Mueller-Stahl disappear into character. These skilled actors make it easy to forget that they are in actuality American, French and German; you do not doubt for one second that you are watching native Russians, who live and die by the rules of “vory v zakone” (“thieves in law”, a strict code borne from the gang culture of Russian prisons).

Screenwriter Steven Knight revisits some of the themes he explored in “Dirty Pretty Things”; namely, how the various immigrant communities go about assimilating themselves (legally and otherwise) while still maintaining a sense of their native culture. (I think this is the aspect of the film that has some people drawing comparisons to “The Godfather”). The only quibble I had with Knight’s script was a “twist” toward the end involving one of the main characters that doesn’t quite gel with the rest of the narrative.

Cronenberg, who initially built his reputation on Grand Guginol excess, has slouched toward a lean, almost poetic style in recent films that he has nearly perfected in “Eastern Promises”. For the hardcore Cronenberg devotees, not to worry; the director’s propensity for viscerally “shocking” images and squib-happy bloodletting is still on display, but it doesn’t feel gratuitous here; these characters live in a violent and brutal world, and it’s par for the course. As per usual, Cronenberg slyly infuses some twisted black humor into the mix as well. One scene in particular, involving an attempted mob hit in a steam bath, featuring a fearlessly naked Mortensen and an unblinking camera, is an instant classic.

Oi! It’s time now to break out those old Sham 69 LPs for our next film, “This is England”, the latest work from British director Shane Meadows (“Twenty-Four Seven”, “Once Upon a Time in the Midlands”). This was one of the films screened at this year’s Seattle International Film Festival that I really wanted to see, but missed; I was delighted to discover that it is currently in rotation on the “IFC in Theaters” pay-per-view service (if you’re a cable customer, check your listings to see if it’s available in your area).

A hard-hitting, naturalistic “social drama” reminiscent of the work of Ken Loach and British “angry young man” films of the early 60s (with a slight whiff of “A Clockwork Orange”) “This is England” is set against the backdrop of the Thatcher era, circa 1983. The story (reported to be loosely auto-biographical, based on the director’s Midlands upbringing) centers around a glum, alienated 12 year-old named Shaun (first-time film actor Thomas Turgoose, in an extraordinary performance) who can’t seem to fit in with any of the cliques at his school. Shaun presents a real handful to his loving but somewhat exasperated mother (Jo Hartley), a working-class Falklands War widow who does her best to support herself and her son. After a particularly bad day of being bullied about by teachers and schoolmates, happenstance leads Shaun into the midst of a skinhead gang.

Shaun’s initial apprehension is quickly washed away when the sympathetic and good-natured gang leader Woody (Joe Gilgun) takes him under his wing and offers him an unconditional entrée into their little club. Shaun’s weary working mum is initially not so crazy about his new pals, but after sizing them up decides essentially to leave her son in their care. Some may feel that this development strains credibility, but I think it’s a pragmatic decision. Her son has no siblings, no close friends, and is suffering from the loss of his father; perhaps this surrogate family will give him what she cannot provide.

The idyll is soon shattered, however, when the gang’s original leader, Combo (Stephen Graham) is released from prison. Combo’s return causes a rift that divides the gang; his jailhouse conversion to racist National Front ideals doesn’t settle well with Woody and his supporters, and they break off on their own. Shaun decides to stay on after forming an instant bond with the thuggish Combo, who easily parlays the impressionable Shaun’s grief over his father into a blame-shifting hatred of immigrants, with tragic results.

The film works successfully on several levels; as a cautionary tale, a history lesson and a riveting drama. As cautionary tale, it demonstrates how easily the neglected and disenfranchised can be recruited and indoctrinated into the politics of hate. As a history lesson, it’s a fascinating glimpse at a not-so-long ago era of complex politics and social upheaval in Great Britain. As a riveting drama, it features some very believable and astounding performances, particularly from the aforementioned young Turgoose and Graham, who positively owns the screen with his charismatic intensity. Not to be missed.

.

Dreaming Of Heaven Creates Hell

by tristero

The first-rate minds of so many liberal hawks, such as George Packer, were so moved by Iraqi exile Kanan Makiya’s plea to liberate Iraq from the grip of Saddam Hussein that they became fervent supporters of Bush/Iraq. In a new profile of Makiya, we are provided a taste of this extraordinary man’s thinking, overflowing with profound insights and aspirations for precisely the kind of better world the liberal hawks know is within America’s reach – and right – to create:

…even if the Iraqis were not ready, Makiya argued, the regime in Baghdad was so wrecked that destroying it was worth the gamble anyway. “I think there’s a less than 5 percent chance that what I’d like to see happen actually happens,” Makiya told The Boston Globe in the autumn of 2002. “But it seems to me an obligation, even if it’s a 5 percent chance, to try to make it happen. You could call it a triumph of hope over experience. But what else is politics if not that?”

…

…Makiya says, the question — would we be [right to invade Iraq today] if we had known? — isn’t valid, for the simple reason that we did not know how things were going to turn out. So, he said, there is no point in wishing that we could go back and change our minds: “Nothing was inevitable. People made choices. Everything was in flux. It could have gone so many different ways.

Two points.

First, let’s zero in on that 5%. That means there’s a 95% chance that Iraq would turn out like…well, like in fact it has. But what does that mean, 5%? Let’s put it this way, nice and personal:

Your doctor tells you that if you choose to undertake some expensive and dangerous elective surgery, there is a 5% chance things will go well. There is, however, a 95% chance you will end up so neurologically damaged that you will be in constant pain for the next fifty years, with a damaged immune system, hemorrhaging copious amounts of blood on a regular basis, and horribly deformed. Furthermore, your personality could become so transformed into something so sadistically loathsome that even your closest relatives want nothing more to do with you.

Here’s the kicker: The doctor says the odds are worth the risk. And here’s the punchline: You take his advice because other surgeons also think the operation is a good idea for reasons you’re not too clear about. And guess what? Incredibly, you don’t beat the odds and are left damaged in body and mind, beyond any hope of imminent relief.

That was Point One. Here’s Point Two:

Five percent was naively optimistic on Makiya’s part. The chance of “success” in Iraq – measured any responsible way you care to – was closer to .00000000000000000000005%.

In other words, the ghastly disaster of Bush/Iraq was inevitable. And the only choice that would have made a difference was never to have invaded in the first place and use other means, such as coerced inspections, to confront the Saddamist regime.

There is so much more of Makiya’s unique reality-based opinions for Iraq and the world, a preview of the book he is writing (I can’t wait!). Please read the entire article to learn how a truly first-rate mind thinks. Learn that Makiya really thought that Chalabi was Iraq’s Mandela. And learn that realists are always right, even when they’re morally wrong.

Holy Deepak Chopra, Batman! Now there’s first-rate thinking.

[Updated slightly after original posting.]

Funniest Thing I’ve Read In A Long Time

by tristero

And you thought Sarah Silverman in The Aristocrats was funny? Get a load of this from conservative Charles W. Dunn:

Conservatism’s strength has always rested in the realm of ideas

I truly wonder if Mr. Dunn understood what he was saying. Y’need to think about it for a minute or two to grok how truly self-damning that quote is. And in so many different ways.

By all means click on the link where you will encounter many more luscious nuggets of conservative thought. “Ideas” like this:

Daniel J. Mahoney argues that Bush’s and the neocons’ “misplaced one-sided emphasis on democracy” — their “democratic monomania” — “marks a break with an older conservative tradition which always insisted that Western liberty draws on intellectual and spiritual resources broader and deeper than that of modern democracy. … The best conservative thinkers of the last two centuries have been wary of unalloyed democracy.”

The reviewer describes this as part of a “dazzling” essay. And so it is, like the size of the pile a constipated dog produces when fed strong laxatives.

Here’s what Mr. Mahoney is saying: The problem with Bush and the neocons (note the distinction) is that they are far too concerned with democracy for their own good. Who knew? And that real conservatives don’t care a tinker’s damn for “unalloyed” democracy. Actually, that I knew.

And then there’s this:

Like the authors in Dunn’s anthology, Anderson, the author of “South Park Conservatives,” shows no interest in partisan gotcha or culture-war hype. He concerns himself with politics in the Aristotelian sense: the study of how people best govern their societies and their souls.

Please, just shoot me in the face. I can’t take any more.

One Sided Polarization

by digby

Kevin Drum deftly dispatches this Village nonsense about Clinton’s polarizing candidacy being particularly toxic especially if she goes up against Giuliani:

But there’s a huge difference here. A guy like Giuliani is polarizing because he actively chooses to be. It’s part of his persona. He wants people to hate him.

Hillary, by contrast, is polarizing not because she wants to be, but because the right-wing attack machine made her that way. She’s “polarizing” only because a certain deranged slice of conservative nutjobs detest her.

And guess what? By this standard, Jimmy Carter is polarizing. Bill Clinton is polarizing. Al Gore is polarizing. John Kerry is polarizing. Do you see the trend here?

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton. But anyone who opposes her because she’s polarizing is allowing the bottom feeders of modern movement conservativism to dictate who gets to run for president and who doesn’t. If we want less polarizing politics, the answer isn’t to oppose Hillary Clinton, who, outside the cartoon universe invented by the Wall Street Journal editorial page, holds almost relentlessly orthodox center-left opinions and expresses them in relentlessly garden-variety politician-speak. The answer is to send the right-wing rage machine back under the rock it crawled out from. Anything else is just caving in to bullies.

I would just add that allowing the Village stenographers to pick our presidents lets them off the hook too. They happily join with the neanderthals in carrying these little prophesies into the mainstream. We should not let gossipy junior high backstabbers dictate who our candidates should be either. I don’t give a damn if they think Al Gore is a stiff or think that Hillary is bitch or whatever. Nobody elected them to anything. They don’t represent anyone but themselves as this poll shows.

Giuliani could theoretically be a transcendent politican in 2008. He’s a rare northeastern blue state Republican with all kinds of signifiers that should appeal to independents and Democrats. He was mayor of New York City, for crying out loud. But the Republican base forces every candidate to become polarizing because that’s what they like in a candidate. Indeed, that’s why Giuliani is doing so well — he’s a nasty piece of work and they can sense it. Their movement is based upon rabid partisan hatred of liberals/Democrats/blacks/”immigrants” and whatever other “other” they’ve targeted today. It’s their fundamental organizing principle.

I have no doubt that Hillary will be polarizing, but it will come from the abject hatred any Democrat inspires on the right (although the fact that she’s a woman probably add a little frisson to their loathing.) Look at what they did the John Kerry. Hell, they impeached her husband, a centrist good old boy who advanced a fair portion of their agenda in the name of bipartisan comity. They will loathe and despise Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd or any of the rest with just as much fervor. It’s what they do.

(And, by the way, it doesn’t matter whether any Dem moves so far to the right that they could give Inhofe a run for his money, the media and the right wing press will portray them as an “ultra-liberal” in thrall to the MoveOn communists. They do that too. There’s no sense in changing positions on the issues to try to thread that needle. It’s impossible.)

There a many good reasons to be wary of Clinton’s candidacy and worry about whether she’s the right person for the job in 2008. This isn’t one of them and it shows a tremendous weakness of will on our side to even think about it in those terms. As Kevin said, “The answer is to send the right-wing rage machine back under the rock it crawled out from. Anything else is just caving in to bullies.”

I’m so sick of caving in to bullies.

.

“And I Used To Walk On The Moon”

by digby

I don’t know if you’ve heard the latest on Rush’s scramble to dig himself out from under his nasty comments about phony soldiers and suicide bombers, but it’s pathetic. (Via Media Matters, of course.)

LIMBAUGH: All right, anybody care what I actually said about this? Would you like to hear what I actually said? This was Tuesday on the program, and I was talking about the ad that they are running.

[begin audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They’re not hurting me, they’re betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he’s saying, in which case it’s just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned.

[end audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: I called him a hero. I called him a hero. The other reference is to where the drive-by media runs in, blows things up, creates all these messes, and then heads on down the road to create another one. I called him a suicide bomber — you see how this works. I didn’t call anybody who legitimately serves a “phony soldier.” I didn’t call this guy a suicide bomber. That’s out there — I called him a suicide bomber. [laughter] Here’s McGough. He was on MSNBC last night talking about the fact that I called him a suicide bomber.

McGOUGH : My reaction is disgust, how someone can sit in that chair and say that I am a car bomber, or excuse me, a suicide bomber, is disgusting. I’ve seen the aftereffects of a suicide bomb. I’ve had friends that were hurt in suicide bombs. It makes me mad down to a place where I can’t even think to describe. It’s just repugnant.

I suppose Limbaugh’s mouth breathing fans will buy that. They’ll buy anything, obviously, since they listen to Rush and vote for George W. Bush. But it’s quite clear that he was using the metaphor of a suicide bomber to describe this soldier. Even George W. Bush could see that.

But I think the smear is even more insidious than that. He was describing someone who didn’t know his own mind, couldn’t think for himself, had these “lies” strapped on him and was “sent out” to “walk into as many people as he can walk into.” The image is of a brain damaged person — or a child — who was sent out with explosives strapped to him, not knowing what they were asking him to do. Why, even if the poor deluded fellow actually “believes” what he’s saying, it’s sad and unfortunate.

You’ve seen the ad by now I’m sure. (If not, watch it here at C&L.) Brian McGough was wounded in Iraq and suffered a traumatic brain injury. It did not affect his ability to think or speak, as is obvious from the video and his subsequent appearance on Keith Olbermann. But the subtext of Rush’s suicide bomber statement is that he is some sort of automaton whose brain isn’t functioning properly or he would never have made that video. It’s extremely insulting.

We know Rush thinks this way. He’s done it before. You’ll all recall that he disgustingly went after Michael J. Fox last November, saying that Fox was “acting” or that he was too addled to know what he was doing and was “being used.” He knows exactly what he’s saying and what his audience hears when he says it.

As I wrote about the Fox insult:

[Rush said:]

This is a script that they have written for years. Senate Democrats used to parade victims of various diseases or social concerns or poverty up before congressional committees and let them testify, and they were infallible. You couldn’t criticize them. Same thing with the Jersey Girls after the 9-11 — and in the period of time when the 9-11 Commission was meeting publicly. Victims — infallible, whatever they say cannot be challenged. I don’t follow the script anymore.

That’s absurd, of course. The right holds up all kinds of people as being unassailable, particularly (Republican) [soldiers and]veterans and religious figures. But that’s not even the point. Nobody says you can’t criticize a “victim’s” point of view or disagree with their take on the issue. Rush could have made a straightforward argument that stem cell research is wrong. But the right wing almost never does this on any issue anymore. Virtually every time, they attack the person’s character.

They do this for a number of reasons. The first is to give their followers some reason to reject a compelling argument like that set forth by Fox. They send this idea into the ether that Fox is faking it and create a controversy that suddenly makes what seems to be self-evident — Michael J. Fox is suffering horribly from a dread disease that might be cured with stem cell research — into a matter of interpretation. It furthers their meme that Democrats are phonies and flip-floppers who don’t stand for anything. It helps their base come to terms with their own internal contradictions. They have turned spin into a worldview.

But they also want to advance the idea that the message always depends upon who is delivering it and you can accept or reject it purely on the basis of tribal identification. (“Don’t think, meat.”) And to do that they’ve introduced a form of congitive relativism in which there is no such thing as reality. The press’s lazy “he said/she said” form of journalism reinforces it.

He went after soldiers this time and it’s caused him some grief because it came on the heels of their magnificent Man Called Petraeus pageant, where they trotted out a powerful, political general as being “infallible, whatever they say cannot be challenged.” Rush was obviously criticizing veterans who don’t agree with him.

Indeed, just prior to the phony soldier comment was this:

LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 1: Hi Rush, how you doing today?

LIMBAUGH: I’m fine sir, thank you.

CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war?

LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don’t want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can’t think of — who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement?

CALLER 1: I’m just — I’m not talking about the senators. I’m talking about the general public — like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but —

LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can’t handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I’m not also hitting Republicans? I don’t know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

[…]

LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can’t possibly be a Republican.

CALLER 1: I am.

LIMBAUGH: You are — you are —

CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You can’t be a Republican. You are —

CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, ’cause you sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER 1: No, but —

LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question —

CALLER 1: — seriously, how long do we have to stay there —

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes!

CALLER 1: — to win it? How long?

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious.

CALLER 1: And that is what?

LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long — just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever —

LIMBAUGH: I — it won’t —

CALLER 1: — because that’s what it’ll take.

LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike — I’m sorry. I’m confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER 1: See, I — I’ve used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.

CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but —

LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.

CALLER 1: — you know, really — I want you to be saying how long it’s gonna take.

LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!

CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there?

LIMBAUGH: You’re not listening to what I say. You can’t possibly be a Republican. I’m answering every question. That’s not what you want to hear, so it’s not even penetrating your little wall of armor you’ve got built up.

Rush believes that anyone who disagrees with him must be a Democrat in sheep’s clothing and that Democrats all want to “wave the white flag.” And he doesn’t believe that anyone who holds the views that this caller holds could possibly have been in the military. (“And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.”)

When confronted with undisputed veterans who disagree with him he implies they have been brainwashed or brain damaged and are being used by others. He simply refuses to acknowledge that the military is not an adjunct of the Republican Party and that there are many people in it who disagree with what he’s saying. (He can’t even admit that there are civilian Republicans who disagree with what he’s saying.)

The Republicans have so fetishized the troops that it causes severe cognitive dissonance (and a potential fracture with their base) for Rush to come right out and say what he wants to say, which is that veterans and soldiers who disagree with the president on the war are traitors. But it slips out in little ways: “staff puke” and “phony soldier” and his insistence that you can’t be a good “Republican” (soldier) and be critical of the war. This time he got caught in the middle of a political firestorm about criticizing the military and so had to defend his comments. But it’s not unusual. It’s what he thinks. It’s what a lot of Republicans think.

It’s all wrapped in the warped worldview I described above, in which the Democratic party is not just wrong, it’s fundamentally illegitimate. And anyone who disagrees is a traitor, including, apparently, the vast majority of Americans who do not support this war.

And that is why I truly resent my tax dollars being spent to help this man spread extremist, ultra partisan lies about Democrats and liberals all day, every day, to American troops overseas on Armed Forces Radio. He can do it all he wants in the free market here in the states. And if Clear Channel wants to start a radio network in Iraq and feature him 24 hours a day, they can have at it. But this man’s only purpose is to spread lies about me and lies about soldiers like Brian McGough and spew rank partisan propaganda on behalf of the Republican Party on my dime.

I’m with Wes Clark on this. Rush can say what he wants on the air, and if he thinks I’m a traitor he has the right. He can operate as an arm of the Republican party, take his orders from the white house and spread GOP propaganda far and wide. We have free speech in America. But there’s nothing in the constitution that says I have to pay for it to be piped to troops on the battlefield.

Update: Joe Conason has more. (H/T to BB)

Anonymous Liberal too.

.

Seven Long Years

by digby

…of being led by a man with the intellect of a doorknob:

I really appreciate the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce for giving me an opportunity to explain why I have made some of the decisions I have made. My job is a decision-making job. And as a result, I make a lot of decisions.

Comfort:

Right before I walked in here, I had a chance to talk to some state troopers and thank them for their service to the community. These folks were first on the scene at the West Nickel Mines Amish School tragedy. I am constantly amazed that our country produces people — decent, honorable people who are willing to serve. These folks had the ultimate challenge, which is to bring comfort to a hurting community.

Poor kids first:

And so what you’re going to see me making decisions this year is when they spend — they try to increase taxes on you, I’ll use the prerogative given to me under the Constitution, and I’m going to veto the tax bills. I’m going to — (applause.)

I just vetoed a bill today, and I want to explain to you why. It’s called S-CHIP — Children’s Health Insurance Policy. First of all, the intent of the S-CHIP legislation passed previous to my administration is to help poor children’s families buy the children health care, or get them on health care. That’s what it is intended to do. Poor children in America are covered by what’s called Medicaid. We spend about — this year — about $35.5 billion on poor children’s health insurance. So the first point I want to make to you is, a lot of your money is being spent to make sure poor children get help, medical help.

In other words, when they say, well, poor children aren’t being covered in America, if that’s what you’re hearing on your TV screens, I’m telling you there’s $35.5 billion worth of reasons not to believe that. And by the way, that Medicaid expenditures only accounts for children of the poor, it doesn’t account for the mothers and fathers. So a lot of your money does go to help poor families with health insurance.

[…]

So I want to share with you why I vetoed the bill this morning. Poor kids, first. Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system. I do want Republicans and Democrats to come together to support a bill that focuses on the poor children. I’m more than willing to work with members of both parties from both Houses, and if they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children, I’m more than willing to sit down with the leaders and find a way to do so.

So thanks for giving me a chance to discuss one of the many decisions I make as your President. Decision making requires a couple of things — and then I’ll answer some questions — one: having a vision, having a set of beliefs, set of principles by which one makes decisions. You know, if you’re constantly trying to make decisions based upon the latest poll or focus group, your decision making will be erratic. You got to have a core set of beliefs. I believe you spend your money better than the government spends. I believe that the system works better when there’s more money in your hands.

Freedom:

And foreign policy, I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe that a gift — (applause) — I believe there’s an Almighty and I believe a gift of the Almighty to each man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth is freedom. That’s what I believe. And I believe it’s in the interest of the United States of America to help people become free. That’s how you yield the peace we all want. We want people to live in free societies.

And if you believe in the universality of freedom, it’s in the interest of this country to act. That doesn’t mean military operations. But it does mean, for example, relieving suffering. I also believe in the admonition, “To whom much is given, much is required.” A lot has been given to the United States. I believe it’s in our interests to help relieve needless deaths when it comes to mosquito bites around the world.I believe it’s in our interests to help relieve the suffering of HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa. It’s in our interests to do so. It’s part of the belief system that says, you know, that we have obligations and duties to ourself.

Decider deciding:

Secondly, it’s important to delegate. There’s a lot of action in Washington, D.C., believe me, and I’ve got a lot of decisions to make. And so I delegate to good people. I always tell Condi Rice, I want to remind you, Madam Secretary, who has the Ph.D. and who was the C student. (Laughter.) And I want to remind you who the advisor is and who the President is. (Laughter.) I got a lot of Ph.D.-types and smart people around me who come into the Oval Office and say, Mr. President, here’s what’s on my mind. And I listen carefully to their advice. But having gathered the device [sic], I decide, you know, I say, this is what we’re going to do. And it’s “yes, sir, Mr. President.” And then we get after it, implement policy.

And anyway, in the long run we’ll all be dead…

All of these democracy movements and freedom movements are related to the larger issues that you’re reading about in your newspapers; the Iranian issue, the Iraqi issue — they’re all interrelated. And that’s why it’s really important for the United States to stay engaged and to promote democracy for the sake of peace.

See, 50 years — the time between when my dad fought and Koizumi came into the office, 50 years is really — or, 60 years — is not all that long — unless, of course, you’re 59. (Laughter.) But anyway, it’s just not all that long. And I’ve told people this is the first chapter of freedom’s march in the 21st century against these radical ideologues. It’s the first chapter. We’re in for an ideological struggle that’s going to take a while.

And my commitment is, let’s make sure that first chapter that’s written is one that’ll yield the peace we want. Let’s make certain when we look back at this generation that they say, they didn’t shirk their duty; they did the hard work so future children can live in peace. And it’s difficult. It’s a difficult work. It’s hard to do the hard things now. And so — and the American people are — you know, they don’t like war. He’s got to know I don’t like it either. But I also understand the challenges.

And anyway, there’s a part of an answer for a strategy that I believe is going to work. I really do.

Rich arrogant jackass:

Q — (inaudible) —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you raised your hand. (Laughter.) You didn’t mean it? You want — you want a little chance to collect the thoughts, you know? I mean we’re talking national TV here, you know? (Laughter and applause.)

Q I actually wrote it down so I wouldn’t get flustered.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes — it didn’t work. (Laughter.) It’s just the President.

Q Exactly. Thank you for picking me. I work for — (inaudible) — and in the last two of your budgets you have attempted to eliminate the commodity — (inaudible) — program. — (inaudible) —

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.) I did? Anyway — (laughter.)

Q Yes, sir, you did.

THE PRESIDENT: I’m going to call the man responsible right when I get home. Anyway, go ahead.

Q Your Secretary of Agriculture came to visit us and we asked him about it, too.

THE PRESIDENT: And what did he say?

Q Not a lot.

THE PRESIDENT: Why did you ask that question? (Laughter.) Anyway.

Q With a half-a-million seniors who rely on this food, and the food stamp benefit for seniors who live in poverty, it comes nowhere near this benefit that they receive — how do we make sure that our seniors have the food that they need?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q And what I would say is, you know, I mean, I just want to make this program — (inaudible) —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, where do you get most of your food from in the food bank? Private donations, right?

Q Well, we’re fortunate, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. That’s the way it ought to be. Food banks ought to be supported through the generosity of individuals. And — anyway, keep going. So that program —

Q The supplemental commodity food program — there’s nothing to replace it with. Food stamps aren’t going to work and we’re talking about folks who live in poverty —

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q They already made all the mistakes which they can’t fix —

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, look, if somebody is poor, we want to help them. And the fundamental question is what’s the proper balance between federal help and private help. And when it comes to food banks, look, I don’t know the program. Maybe I shouldn’t make this admission, maybe I should try to bull my way through. I don’t know the program; I’m sorry. I’ll be glad to look into it. But just from a philosophical perspective, one of the wonderful things about the country is when there’s a need, the average citizen steps up and helps fill the need through private charity. And your program, I suspect, really functions well because the food bank is a dear cause for people. People say, how can I love my neighbor? Well, one way to love your neighbor is the food bank.

And the truth of the matter is I suspect that if seniors are suffering here in Lancaster County and you put out the call, people are going to help. And so I would — I’ll get your budget — yes, leave your name, I’ll get your budget question answered, because you’ll be maybe surprised, not surprised — I don’t know all the budget lines. I tend to try to have the big picture. But it’s big picture for you and I understand it. Thank you for your question. I will seriously find out for you.

Complete gibberish from a total jerk. Still. Seven years in and the man is as ignorant and full of rubbish as the day he took office. In fact he’s as ignorant and full of rubbish as he was the day he entered Exeter or whatever the hell prep school his parents wasted their inheritances on.

Of the current crop of candidates, only Rudy Giuliani is as addled and arrogant as this idiot (although Fred Thompson is giving him a run for his money in the brains department.) Naturally he’s the Republican front runner.

Lord help us if they manage to foist another sadistic fool like this on the world. I don’t think we’ll survive.

.

Scared

by tristero

A strange thought occured to me as I was reading this description of the early coverage of the Bush administration by Jay Rosen:

…journalists and their methods were overwhelmed by what the Bush White House did — by its radicalism. There is simply nothing in the Beltway journalist’s rule book about what to do, how to act, when a group of people comes to power willing to go as far as this group has in expanding executive power, eluding oversight, steamrolling critics (even when they are allies) politicizing the government, re-working the Constitution, rolling back the press, making secrecy and opacity standard operating procedure, and repealing the very principle of empiricism in matters of state.

The press tends to behave because it does not know how to act, in the sense of striking out in a new direction when confronted with a new fact pattern.

Many of us noticed this a long time ago and it is exactly right. In responding to this passage, Glenn Greenwald essentially says, yes, that was true but now we all now exactly what Bushism is, and still nothing gets done.

Good point. And not only is it infuriating, it’s deeply puzzling. We bloggers and commenters have hashed over numerous reasons for this – they’re cowards, their secret Bushites, they’re part of a hermetically sealed Village cut off from anyone’s opinions but their own, the agenda of the corporate press, even they’re worried about precipitating a constitutional crisis with an administration that will never do what Nixon did and resign. And I think there is much truth to all of this. I’d like to suggest one more possible reason. It’s bizarre, I admit, but even so, I can’t entirely dismiss it.

I suspect that many in the media are not so much cowards but scared, really scared. And I don’t mean scared for their careers, although they all saw what happened to Dan Rather and they’re scared about that too. No, what I mean is they’re physically scared.

Not necessarily of the Bush administration – but after all, they do arrest people without showing legal cause and they do torture people, and a few have died from their torture – but of the enormous amount of hatred the extreme right propaganda has stirred up.

Being scared for your life would certainly explain a lot of the reasons why reporters and their bosses seem so astoundingly incapable at connecting the dots the rest of us see. Just a weird thought.

Special Note to the right-wing and other cognitively-impaired individuals: I am not suggesting that it is rational for any media figure to believe that the Bush administration would whisk them away to Bulgaria for waterboarding. I am suggesting that they may be scared – somewhat rationally – of crazies who have been stirred to violence by elimationist rightwing propaganda. And they may be scared – quite rationally – of what the administration could do to their careers. Finally, they may be scared – quite irrationally – of physical harm at the hands of the Bush administration. All of us are quite capable of irrational fears. NoPod is scared of Negroes and Arabs, which is why he insists on bombing Iran. Woody Allen is afraid of dying and being stuffed with crabmeat. No reason to assume that media figures don’t have irrational fears too.

Playing A Different Game Altogether

by digby

From the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee:

Friends, One failure after another, Washington Democrats have built a record of legislative failure; one disappointment after another, Washington Democrats have failed to deliver results to the people who got them there. This must be why, just nine months into their tenure, the Democrat-led Congress hit an 11% approval rating – that is the lowest in recorded history. Facing their record of failure, Washington Democrats decided to try and distract – and so they took a man’s words out of context, then they went on the attack. That’s why I’m encouraging you to click here to “Stand With Rush” and sign this petition. It is at moments like these when we need to band together as conservatives and fight back. This issue is bigger than you or me, it is bigger than Rush Limbaugh. With the recent liberal effort to resurrect the “fairness doctrine,” we have to recognize that free speech — conservative free speech is under direct attack. These are issues that speak directly to the core of the modern conservative movement – are we going to allow ourselves to be pushed around by liberal extremists, or are we going to fight back? I want to send Washington Democrats a message that their attempts to distract aren’t working – I stand with Rush Limbaugh against liberal attacks.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R – VA)
Chief Deputy Republican Whip

Recall that the House recently voted 371 to 79 to condemn the MoveOn ad. We aren’t just playing a different game. We aren’t even in the same ballpark.

.

General Faust

by digby

Andrew Bacevich is someone tristero’s liberal hawk pal Roger Cohen would undoubtedly call a “MoveOn.org Petraeus-insulting, never-set-foot-in-a-war-zone” leftist. (That’s an amusing thought, to say the least.) Bacevich has been a fierce critic of this war, to be sure. But he’s hardly a pacifist. He was a career military man who is now one of the nation’s foremost military intellectuals. Sort of like David Petraeus. Except David Petraeus, like so many intellectuals who threw in their lot with the Bush/Cheney cabal, threw away his integrity as both an intellectual and a general to become a political hack.

Bacevich explains in this article in the American Conservative called “Sycophant Savior” there are two kinds of political generals: the good kind and the bad kind. And he lays out the case for why Petraeus is the bad kind in sharp, clear and damning language:

A political general in the mold of Washington or Grant would have taken a different course, using his moment in the spotlight not to minimize consternation but to stir it up to the maximum extent. He would have capitalized on his status as man of the hour to oblige civilian leaders, both in Congress and in the executive branch, to do what they have not done since the Iraq War began—namely, their jobs. He would have insisted upon the president and the Congress making decisions that wartime summons them—and not military commanders—to make. Instead, Petraeus issued everyone a pass. * * * In testifying before House and Senate committees about the current situation in Iraq, Petraeus told no outright lies. He made no blustery promises about “victory,” a word notably absent from his testimony. The tone of the presentation was sober and measured. It contained the requisite references to complexity and challenge. Petraeus acknowledged miscalculation and disappointment. In contrast to his commander in chief, he did not claim that U.S. troops were “kicking ass.” Yet the essence of his message was this: after four years of futile blundering, the United States has identified the makings of a successful strategy in Iraq. The new doctrine that Petraeus had devised and implemented—the concept of securing the population and thereby fostering conditions conducive to reconstruction and reconciliation—has produced limited but real progress. This gives Petraeus cause for hope that further efforts along these lines may yet enable the United States to create an Iraq that is stable, unified, and not a haven for terrorists. In so many words, Petraeus told Congress that senior U.S. commanders in Iraq had finally found the right roadmap. The way ahead may be long and difficult—indeed, it will be. But Petraeus and his key subordinates know where they are. They know where they need to go. And above all, at long last, they know how to get there. Critics have questioned the data that Petraeus offered to substantiate his case. They charge him with relying on dubious statistics, with ignoring facts that he finds inconvenient, and with discovering trends where none exist. They question whether to credit the much-touted progress in Anbar province to American shrewdness or to the vagaries of Iraqi sectarian and tribal politics. They cite the pathetic performance of the corrupt and dysfunctional Iraqi government. They note the disparity between the Petraeus assessment and those offered by the intelligence community, by the Government Accountability Office, and by congressionally appointed blue-ribbon commissions. They point out that other highly qualified and well-informed senior military officers—notably, Gen. George Casey, the army chief of staff, and Adm. William Fallon, commander of United States Central Command—have publicly expressed views notably at odds with those of General Petraeus. The critics make a good case. Yet let us ignore them. Let us assume instead that Petraeus genuinely believes that he has broken the code in Iraq and that things are improving. Let’s assume further that he is correct in that assessment. What then should he have recommended to the Congress and the president? That is, if the commitment of a modest increment of additional forces —the 30,000 troops comprising the surge, now employed in accordance with sound counterinsurgency doctrine —has begun to turn things around, then what should the senior field commander be asking for next? A single word suffices to answer that question: more. More time. More money. And above all, more troops. It is one of the oldest principles of generalship: when you find an opportunity, exploit it. Where you gain success, reinforce it. When you have your opponent at a disadvantage, pile on. In a letter to the soldiers serving under his command, released just prior to the congressional hearings, Petraeus asserted that coalition forces had “achieved tactical momentum and wrestled the initiative from our enemies.” Does that reflect his actual view of the situation? If so, then surely the imperative of the moment is to redouble the current level of effort so as to preserve that initiative and to deny the enemy the slightest chance to adjust, adapt, or reconstitute. Yet Petraeus has chosen to do just the opposite. Based on two or three months of (ostensibly) positive indicators, he has advised the president to ease the pressure, withdrawing the increment of troops that had (purportedly) enabled the coalition to seize the initiative in the first place. This defies logic. It’s as if two weeks into the Wilderness Campaign, Grant had counseled Lincoln to reduce the size of the Army of the Potomac. Or as if once Allied forces had established the beachhead at Normandy, Eisenhower had started rotating divisions back stateside to ease the strain on the U.S. Army. Petraeus likes to portray himself as a thinking soldier. Having devoted his Ph.D. dissertation to the lessons of Vietnam, he qualifies as a serious student of counterinsurgencies. He knows that they require lots of troops—many more than the United States has in Iraq relative to the size of the population there. He knows, too, that they require lots of time—on average, nine or ten years by his own publicly expressed estimation. The counter-insurgency manual that Petraeus helped draft prior to taking up command in Baghdad makes these points explicitly. If Petraeus actually believes that he can salvage something akin to success in Iraq and if he agrees with President Bush about the consequences of failure —genocidal violence, Iraq becoming a launching pad for terrorist attacks directed against the United States, the Middle East descending into chaos that consumes Israel, the oil-dependent global economy shattered beyond repair, all of this culminating in the emergence of a new Caliphate bent on destroying the West—then surely this moment of (supposed) promise is not a time for scrimping. Rather, now is the time to go all out—to insist upon a maximum effort. * * * There is only one plausible explanation for Petraeus’s terminating a surge that has (he says) enabled coalition forces, however tentatively, to gain the upper hand. That explanation is politics—of the wrong kind. Given the current situation as Petraeus describes it, an incremental reduction in U.S. troop strength makes sense only in one regard: it serves to placate each of the various Washington constituencies that Petraeus has a political interest in pleasing. A modest drawdown responds to the concerns of Petraeus’s fellow four stars, especially the Joint Chiefs, who view the stress being imposed on U.S. forces as intolerable. Ending the surge provides the Army and the Marine Corps with a modicum of relief. A modest drawdown also comes as welcome news for moderate Republicans in Congress. Nervously eyeing the forthcoming elections, they have wanted to go before the electorate with something to offer other than being identified with Bush’s disastrous war. Now they can point to signs of change—indeed, Petraeus’s proposed withdrawal of one brigade before Christmas coincides precisely with a suggestion made just weeks ago by Sen. John Warner, the influential Republican from Virginia. Although they won’t say so openly, a modest drawdown comes as good news to Democrats as well. Accused with considerable justification of having done nothing to end the war since taking control of the Congress in January, they can now point to the drawdown as evidence that they are making headway. As Newsweek’s Michael Hirsch observed, Petraeus “delivered an early Christmas present” to congressional Democrats. Above all, a modest drawdown pleases President Bush. It gives him breathing room to continue the conflict in which he has so much invested. It all but guarantees that Iraq will be the principal gift that Bush bestows upon his successor when he leaves office in January 2009. Bush’s war will outlive Bush: for reasons difficult to fathom, this has become an important goal for the president and his dwindling band of loyalists.

I realize it’s treasonous to use the word “betray” in the same breath as The Man Called Petraeus. So I’ll frame it another way. He sold his soul to the devil. Before the testimony, I heard journalist after journalist say that he had to answer to his men or that he would never put anything before the welfare of the troops and the mission.

He did put politics before the welfare of his troops and the mission. He didn’t ask for more troops and more money even though everyone knows that is exactly what any General with integrity who believed in his mission would have done in that moment. Bush had put him out front. He said he would defer to his judgment. Petraeus could have made the case for what he needed to fulfill the president’s strategy and there would have been nothing Bush could do about it. Instead, he genuflected like a freshman congressman from North Carolina, endorsing the administration’s failed strategy of war on the cheap. Sycophantic savior indeed.

He’ll make an excellent Village Elder.

Read the whole article.