Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

A Liberal’s Handbook

by digby

Bill Sher of Liberal Oasis has a new book and it’s a great guide for those who are looking for common sense arguments to use as an activist and in your every day life.

Here’s an example:

Promote the Three R’s of Liberal Government

Don’t refer to “the government” and feed the image of a distant, oppressive entity. Always speak of “our government,” to accurately paint government as an extension of the people that we control and direct.

Don’t accept that the core debate between Democrats and Republicans is whether government should be big or small. Define liberal government as representative, responsive, and responsible and conservative government as elitist, callous and reckless.

In conversations about politics, cite examples from your community where our government makes a positivie difference in people’s lives, such as when veterans receive good medical care from a veterans Administration facility or children get access to the Internet at school or in a library thanks to federal funding. At the same time, point out instances where the lack of government involvement made a situation worse, such as when electricity deregulation increased rates and degraded service.

Don’t leave it to anti-government conservatives to criticize our government in places where it is not working well. The more we lead the charge for reforming ineffective government, the more credibnility we will have when proposing effective government solutions and the harder it will be for conservatives to exploit those examples and fan overall distrust of government.

The book is full of down-to-earth advice like this as well as a thorough analysis of our goals and prospects. And it’s written in the clear and entertaining prose you find on Liberal Oasis every day.

I’m sure you already know that Bill Sher is one of the sharpest bloggers around. His insights are always invaluable and this book very nicely distills his best stuff into one inspiring, but practical, guidebook.

Support your local blogger by buying this book.

Update: The Talking Dog interviews the man himself about the book and other matters.

.

Running With It

by digby

A lot of people have questioned why I think the Democrats have decided to let McCain run with the torture issue. It’s because that’s what the press was reporting last week.

Here’s one example:

So there you have the president’s, perhaps, chief foe on this issue, again, as dug in as he is. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats, Wolf, have been pretty much trying to sit back and let John McCain and his colleagues fight it out for them. The senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, who is in charge of getting Democrats elected and reelected this Fall, here is what he had to say. He said “when conservative military men like John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham and Colin Powell stand up to the president, it shows how wrong and isolated the White House is.”

So, Democrats are happy to have John McCain fight their political fight for them right now. As for Republicans, who are allies of the president here, and there are a lot of them on Capitol Hill, they have been meeting behind closed doors, trying to figure out the best strategy to echo the arguments that Mr. Bush is making in the Rose Garden today, because, as you noted, this legislation will be on the House floor next Wednesday and possibly on the Senate floor, which is where there will be a big fight as early as next week as well, Wolf.

Schumer’s statement doesn’t mean he’s going to vote for whatever McCain comes up with, but it sure sounds like it’s possible. In any case, the bill that was passed out of the armed services committee is terrible, so even if McCain “succeeds” Democrats still can’t, in good conscience, vote for it.

Here’s the Center For Constitutional Rights on this issue

President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Ratner said today: “The Warner-Graham-McCain bill denies habeas corpus to all aliens held outside the United States and currently in U.S. custody. And ‘outside’ includes Guantanamo.

“However in the case of those who have been found to be unlawful enemy combatants by Combatant Status Review Tribunal (combatant status review panels used at Guantanamo) it gives a meaningless court of appeals ‘review’ — a review that examines whether or not the U.S. complied with its own procedures — but not … a real court hearing with factual development as habeas corpus requires.

“For those aliens detained outside the U.S. that have not had CSRT hearings — the high majority — in facilities like Bagram in Afghanistan, the Warner bill simply abolished habeas or any other court review.

“The consequences are breathtaking. The U.S. can pick up any alien, even a legal permanent resident in the U.S., and take them to an off-shore prison and hold them forever without any kind of court hearing.

“While all the attention on this legislation has focused on Geneva conventions and military commissions, the Warner alternative, like the administration bill, authorizes lifelong detention without habeas or any genuine review whatsoever.”

They
have an action recommendation that’s worth doing:

The debate around these bills misses the point: both versions strip away the fundamental right to habeas corpus, the right to challenge your detention in a court of law, not to be locked up under the President’s say-so, guilty or innocent, never to be heard from again.

An amendment in play could take out this dangerous measure – please use our site to fax your senators and tell them to support the Specter-Levin Amendment on habeas corpus when it gets introduced. The bills are S.3901, The Military Commissions Act of 2006, sponsored by Senator Warner and S.3861, The Bringing Terrorists to Justice Act of 2006, sponsored by Senator Frist. Please call your Senators at (202) 224-3121 IMMEDIATELY, especially if they are among the 26 we’ve identified below as critical in this fight.

This is what is happening to innocent people under our system today. It’s right out of Kafka and it won’t change because St John the Annointed and Huckelberry Graham stage a fake fight with the president. The whole scheme is untenable and the Democrats need to delay this legislation at the very least until after the election.

This rush to pass it before Novemeber should be everyone’s first clue that this thing is a sham. Unless somebody puts a poison pill in the McCain/Warner/Graham legislation that we haven’t seen, I have a feeling a bunch of Dems are going to roll on this piece of garbage and another step toward American becoming a rogue superpower will have been taken for political reasons. That’s how we got into Iraq, after all.

And, sadly, this whole thing will end up giving John McCain one more notch in his belt as the savior of the republic.

You can access a simple form and the addresses and phone numbers of senators at the link above if you want to let them know that you expect them to support the Specter-Levin amendment.

.

Torture Trap

by digby

Blow me over with a feather. It looks as if the White House may have “compromised” on the torture bill. Let’s just say I’m not shocked.

A couple of days ago I quoted this MSNBC article

McCain and the other GOP senators have indicated they would be willing to amend domestic U.S. law, especially the War Crimes Act, to permit at least some “enhanced” CIA techniques. They are also willing to pass legislation that would deny many rights to detainees at Guantánamo Bay and allow them to be held indefinitely.

and then commented:

Bush has always said that he wanted to “clarify” Article III and I predict that they will soon have a “breakthrough” that says they have found a way to do just that — by amending the War Crimes Act.

The NY Times reports:

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a Republican on the Armed Services Committee who has supported the president’s legislation, said Tuesday morning that the White House had agreed to work within the War Crimes Act to refine the obligations under Common Article 3.

“There’s agreement on the goal,” Mr. Cornyn said, “that is, that we continue to comply with our international treaty obligations and all of our domestic laws, but at the same time not tie the hands of our intelligence officials.”

[…]

The senators propose to provide clearer guidelines for interrogators by amending the War Crimes Act to enumerate several “grave breaches” that constitute violations of Common Article 3.

That’s the Kabuki. Here’s the rub:

Several issues appeared to remain in flux, among them whether the two sides could agree on language protecting C.I.A. officers from legal action for past interrogations and for any conducted in the future. Beyond the issue of interrogations, the two sides have also been at odds over the rights that should be granted to terrorism suspects during trials, in particular whether they should be able to see all evidence, including classified material, that a jury might use to convict them.

I predict that McCain and Graham are prepared to do the big el-foldo on all that and take the “victory” on amending the Geneva Convention which was never really in dispute in the first place. They will be heroes, the president will claim victory like he always does and everyone will get exactly what they need. (Man, I’ll bet Joe Lieberman is kicking himself that he didn’t get a piece of this. It’s his kind of bipartisan deal.)

But regardless of how this Geneva/torture Kabuki comes out, let’s not forget that the McCain, Warner, Huckelberry bill is already a very, very bad bill that no Democrat can in good conscience support.

From Jack Balkin:

It’s important to understand that although Senators McCain, Graham and Warner are getting a lot of great press on their disagreements with President Bush, and are being widely championed as brave defenders of human rights, the bill they have authored in the Senate is not a good bill; it is merely less terrible than the one the President is pushing. The press has either been hoodwinked on this score or has been complicit in downplaying this aspect of their handiwork. I choose to believe that it is the former: hence this post.

In particular, the McCain-Graham-Warner bill, like the President’s, would prevent anyone detained in Guantanamo Bay (or any other detention facility outside the U.S.) from challenging what has been done to them in court except as an appeal from the decision of a military commission.

That means that if the government decides never to try an individual before a commission, but just holds them in prison indefinitely, there is no way that they can ever get a hearing on whether they are being held illegally– because they are not in fact a terrorist; or a hearing on whether they are being treated illegally– because they have been abused or tortured or subjected to one of the Administration’s “alternative sets of procedures”– a.k.a. torture lite.(read on)

I think Bill Kristol’s partially right about how this plays politically in his essay called “The Trap:”

There is now a clear and live contrast between Bush and the Democrats on an important issue in the war on terror.

Wait a minute, you say–it’s not just Democrats who oppose Bush. Four Republicans joined the Democratic senators–John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham, and Susan Collins. Colin Powell is with them. So the Democrats have cover.

No, they don’t. The fact that McCain has badly damaged his 2008 presidential chances doesn’t mean the Democrats can’t be hurt in 2006. True, there could be a dozen GOP votes for the Democratic alternative on the floor of the Senate next week. There were a dozen Democratic votes for Bush’s tax cuts in 2001. It didn’t prevent Republicans from distinguishing themselves from Demo crats on taxes. A few defections won’t prevent Republicans from saying–truthfully–that there is a real difference between the two parties on the war on terror, and that they stand with Bush and against Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Democratic candidates will respond that McCain also stands with them. It won’t help. The American people don’t agree with McCain on this. And they’re not going to be persuaded by some of the arguments made by Bush’s critics. Let Democratic candidates try to argue that, unless we go even further than required by the 2005 legislation sponsored by McCain (which Bush’s proposal embraces), al Qaeda might react by not treating Americans decently. Let Democratic candidates try to defend the notion that we’ll get lots of credit in Europe by going the extra mile–as if the 2005 detainees legislation generated any good will there. Let Democratic candidates align themselves with world opinion (as interpreted by Colin Powell), and join in expressing doubt about “the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”

I don’t think it’s quite the electoral smash for Republicans he thinks it is nor has Mccain “badly damaged” his chances in 2008. Bush is going to give him a big sloppy kiss when this is all done and everything will be forgiven. But it’s still a trap. I think the Dems are thinking that McCain et al are going to get this bill delayed until after the election. Maybe they will. Or maybe they can stall it in conference and they have their fingers crossed that they will win in November and can derail the thing.

But what in the hell are the Dems going to do if McCain makes a deal and this thing gets to the floor? Are they actually going to vote for a bill that eliminates habeas corpus for terrorist suspects? Because if they don’t, you know what the Republicans are going to be saying, don’t you? After all, the saviors of the republic and guardian kinghts of the constitution say this bill is ok. The only reason the Dems can possibly have for opposing it now is that they are terrorist loving cowards.

I have to assume the Dems have good reasons for letting McCain run with this. But they are certainly placing a lot of trust in a man who is running for president from the opposing party. If Democrats in 2006 end up voting for this McCain/Warner/Graham monstrosity based on nothing but McCain’s word they have learned nothing. Unless they are willing to filibuster a month before the election, which I seriously doubt, the Republicans will have backed them into exactly the same corner they did with the Iraq war resolution and the Homeland security bills in 2002. I’m not going to believe it until I see it with my own eyes, but I’m worried.

Update: The Senate Majority project has started a McCain Weasel Watch on Detainees. Probably a good idea…
.

Boffo

by digby

My piece from earlier about why liberal hawks shouldn’t have supported the invasion of Iraq on the merits, unfortunately comes to mind as I read Sam Gardiner’s paper (pdf) at the Century Foundation that everyone’s talking about. He’s been convinced that the US has been preparing the ground in Iran for military action since last spring.

He writes this:

The real U.S. policy objective is not merely to eliminate the nuclear program, but to overthrow the regime. It is hard to believe, after the misguided talk prior to Iraq of how American troops would be greeted with flowers and welcomed as liberators, but those inside and close to the administration who are arguing for an air strike against Iran actually sound as if they believe the regime in Tehran can be eliminated by air attacks….[But] no serious expert on Iran believes the argument about enabling a regime change. On the contrary, whereas the presumed goal is to weaken or disable the leadership and then replace it with others who would improve relations between Iran and the United States, it is far more likely that such strikes would strengthen the clerical leadership and turn the United States into Iran’s permanent enemy.

….At the end of the path that the administration seems to have chosen, will the issues with Iran be resolved? No….Will the United States force a regime change in Iran? In all probability it will not….Will the United States have weakened its position in the Middle East? Yes….After all the effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers. “You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. You have to make diplomacy work.”

That sounds, once again, as if the administration is rushing headlong into something that is a very bad idea. But then, it’s not surprising, is it?

Here we are, a few weeks before another important election in which the Republican hold on power is threatened and suddenly the shit is coming down. The terrorists are all going to be running in the streets if we don’t hurry, hurry, hurry and pass the president’s torture bill. Iran is on the verge of getting nukes and sending them to kill you in your beds any day now. The world is a horrible, frightening place and if you don’t know it you are a fool. All that’s standing between us and chaos is a man and his codpiece.

Richard Holbrook was on Blitzer today and was terribly confused by all this. It made me laugh:

Holbrook: And today’s events — and Jack Cafferty really got it right — President Bush’s speech was pretty good as speeches go, but the theater here is remarkable. A hunk president, the world’s leading anti-Semite, has been elevated to a mano a mano on the world stage today by circumstances which I don’t understand. I don’t understand why President Bush would have allowed himself to be scheduled on the same day as Ahmadinejad.

BLITZER: Could he change that, or is that something that is up to the United Nations?

HOLBROOKE: That’s a technological issue. I’d leave it to the current ambassador, but let me just put it this way: Had I been in that job, I would have done everything I could to prevent them talking on the same day so that — to prevent the kind of conversations you and Jack Cafferty correctly were just having.

This is just theater today, but a tiny pipsqueak leader and an anti-Semite of the worst order, the worst since Hitler in some ways, is being given this co-equal status. That’s what we’re talking about.

Really, Dick. You aren’t that stupid are you? They desperately need to make that pip-squeek leader equal to Bush so that Bush can be seen “standing up to him” and smiting him. The theater at the UN today was boffo and it was the whole point. There’s an election to win.

And meanwhile, playing on screen #2, we had the macho, resolute president demanding that the congress approve his “tough” interrogation techniques while the Senators proved that Republicans are independent mavericks who follow their own equally resolute moral code. God bless the Republican Party, it has it all. Only they can save us from the Islamofascists and keep America clean and pure and good at the same time. Vote GOP or die.

I don’t know if it will work again. This trillion dollar franchise is getting a little bit stale. But damn, the production values are awesome. They not only know how to put lipstick on this pig, they give it botox and liposuction.

Update: I don’t mean to suggest that this is only about electoral politics. That dictates the timing but it doesn’t mean they aren’t serious about confronting Iran or legalizing torture. It’s all part of the same game. I think they’ve proven they like exercizing power in all the ways that that implies.

.

Cry Wolf

by digby

Here’s our favorite pychotic diplomat talking about Iran today:

BLITZER: … the International Atomic Energy Agency stops short of flatly saying they are building a bomb.

BOLTON: They have stopped short, but they’ve also refused to say that Iran’s program is purely peaceful. It may just take one piece of information that the IAEA published. Iran has documents from AQCON[A.Q Kahn], the great nuclear proliferator from Pakistan about how to fabricate uranium metal into hemispheres. There’s only one use of uranium metal formed in the hemisphere, and that’s to form a nuclear weapon. But nothing to do with peaceful uses of nuclear power.

BLITZER: But you understand why some people are skeptical of the Bush administration’s stance given the failures on the weapons of mass destruction intelligence leading up to the Iraq war?

BOLTON: Quite honestly, I think it’s few and far between, people who are skeptical of what direction Iran is taking. Where there have been disagreements with our European friends and even with Russia and China have been over how to handle it. But I will say, it’s not — this is not a dispute over intelligence. Obviously, intelligence can be wrong in several different directions. This is fundamentally a dispute I think within the security council about when to impose sanctions.

BLITZER: Because I raise the question because going into the war with Iraq, all of the intelligence communities in Europe and the Middle East and United States, they seem to be convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We now know he did not, so maybe all of the intelligence communities as far as Iran are wrong right now for whatever reason.

And I say that only because the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, a member of the intelligence committee, Carl Levin of Michigan, they told me recently that U.S. intelligence on Iran — they don’t believe is very good.

BOLTON: Well I think our intelligence could get much better, let’s put it that way. But don’t forget, intelligence was wrong about Saddam Hussein in 1990, ’91 too when they didn’t think they were close to developing a nuclear weapon, where the IAEA had no proof, but where after that war, we learned a lot about what Saddam Hussein was up to.

So as they say, intelligence can be wrong in a lot of directions. There is no doubt that the strategic decision that Iran has been following for close to 20 years has been to get not only a nuclear weapons capability, but to enhance the range and accuracy of their ballistic missile forces as well and that combination is extraordinarily dangerous.

BLITZER: How close, based on the information you have, is Iran to building a nuclear bomb?

BOLTON: Well, this is where the intelligence estimates vary and they vary all over the lot. I think precisely because of our uncertainty about the exact state of Iran’s nuclear program, we have to treat their clear effort to get a nuclear weapon capability as very serious and not to assume that the intelligence estimates that put it off for many years are necessarily going to be right.

When you see a regime seeking the capability and you see a president like Ahmadinejad denying the existence of the Holocaust, calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, sponsoring conferences with names like the World Without the United States, this is something that it’s not only capabilities, it’s intentions that you have to take seriously.

BLITZER: So you think it’s realistic to assume if they had a bomb, they would actually use it?

BOLTON: I think it’s realistic in a regime that is the central banker of international terrorism that is seeking a ballistic missile capability far beyond any legitimate defensive needs they might have, but which also puts arms and weapons in the hands of terrorists today. We’ve got a threat if they had the weapon, they could not make it with a ballistic missile, they could give it to a terrorist group like Hamas or Hezbollah as well.

BLITZER: Well that sounds very ominous, even much more dangerous than what the United States feared going into the war with Iraq. I assume the military option is being dusted off if it’s not more advanced?

BOLTON: Well I think we’ve said repeatedly we never take the military option off the table, but President Bush has been emphatic for several years now our preferred way of dealing with the Iranian program is through peaceful and diplomatic means and he emphasized that again this morning at the U.N.

BLITZER: If those peaceful diplomatic means don’t work, sanctions don’t get off the ground, if there’s no change in the Iranian position, what happens then?

BOLTON: Well that’s why we say we don’t take any option off the table about, but our effort at the moment, our concentration, our focus is on getting it resolved through diplomatic means. Through sanctions, if need be.

BLITZER: Is it credible to think that the U.S. could destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program, assuming they have one?

BOLTON: I think they should believe that.

BLITZER: Do you think the U.S. could that with air strikes, with cruise missiles, with — presumably they spread out their facilities around the country and they’re deep underground. They learned the lessons of the Iraqis back in 1981 when the Israelis destroyed their reactor.

BOLTON: Well I’m not sure what the Iranians have really learned and I don’t want to get into a hypothetical how it might happen. But I do think that the president has been very clear over a number of months that it’s unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. I think when he says it’s unacceptable, I think what he means by that, it’s not acceptable.

BLITZER: Is Senator Voinovich of Ohio right when he compares Ahmadinejad to Hitler?

BOLTON: I think any man who denies the existence of the Holocaust and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map hasn’t learned the lessons of history and I don’t know what kind of comparison you can draw other than that.

BLITZER: Would you make a similar comparison?

BOLTON: That’s not my function. I mean, what I do is follow the policies set by the president and the secretary. We all have our personal opinions. I think it’s unacceptable for the head of a member government of the United Nations that says — the charter of which says we are to resolve our differences by peaceful means to have somebody like that calling for another U.N. member state to be wiped off the map.

BLITZER: Is that why you don’t think the president or other top officials should be meeting with Iranian leaders right now?

BOLTON: Well, we have made an incredibly generous offer to Iran on the nuclear question, even though they are a principal state sponsor of terrorism. We’ve even been willing to put that aside to say we would be prepared with the Europeans and the Russians and the Chinese to sit down with Iran if they do one thing, they suspend their uranium enrichment activity. And that’s not the U.S.’ condition, that’s the European’s condition, it’s the Security Council’s condition, it’s the IAEA’s condition.

I don’t know why all that sounds so familiar, but it does. I feel like I was sitting right here at my desk some time in the not too distant past, reading speeches about an evil man who wanted to kill Americans and gassing people like in the holocaust and centrifuges and aluminum tubes and security council resolutions and mushroom clouds…

It was fall, too … just after labor day. Must be deja vu.

They couldn’t possibly try this again before another mid-term election, could they?

And the country isn’t going to fall for it again, are they?

.

Bad Idea

by digby

The ongoing back and forth about why liberal hawks shouldn’t have supported the invasion of Iraq because they should have known that the Bush administration was incompetent or known it was impossible to succeed continues. And all those things are correct. But I never hear anyone discuss why invading Iraq was a bad decision on the merits.

For reasons I’ve never been able to fathom, a whole bunch of liberal hawks accepted the premise of the Bush Doctrine without considering the ramifications of such a doctrine and whether it was wise to adopt it. Right after 9/11 the Doctrine was a simple formulation that if a government harbored terrorist enemies of the United States, they too were considered an enemy of the United States. That made some sense, particularly as it was applied to Afghanistan. After all, the Taliban didn’t just have terrorists in its midst, it was actively working with them and supporting them. Deposing them was an obvious reaction to the terrorist attacks and very few but the purely pacifist (a thoroughly respectable but extremely rare principle in our culture) objected to it. Indeed, most Americans, hawk and dove alike, agreed after 9/11 that any government that would actively help such criminals as bin Laden had to be stopped.

But soon the Bush Doctrine took on a new character altogether which came almost verbatim from an infamous Defense Department document written by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992 (and rejected by Bush’s father.) I won’t go into the details of that (if you’re unfamiliar with that you can read up on it here) except to point out that the concept of preventive war was folded into the Bush Doctrine and accepted as if it had always been there and that the nation had embraced it just as they’d embraced the much simpler, earlier doctrine. They had also very cleverly hijacked the term “pre-emptive” (which had long been an accepted form of self-defense) to mean the more sinister and illegal term “preventive” which had been rejected by all civilized nations for decades. And lo and behold, Iraq was immediately seen as the first nation in need of such “pre-emption.”

We all knew that certain members of the Bush administration had been obsessed with Iraq for a decade for reasons that had nothing to do with terrorism. And while their obsession did not automatically delegitimize their argument to go into Iraq after 9/11, it certainly should have given liberal hawks some pause. Here was, after all, a group of people who robotically insisted “9/11 changed everything” and yet it had not, evidently, changed their view on Iraq at all, nor had they even taken a moment to reassess. You could smell the opportunism in the air and that should have made smart people skeptical. Nobody knew for sure what the state of Iraq’s WMD arsenal or programs were, of course (although the shaky nature of the “evidence” certainly made my tin-foil hat chirp and squawk like crazy.) But we did know that he had successfully been contained for twelve years and after 9/11 there were good reasons not to rush into anything without a full reassessment of everything. And my God, were they ever rushing into it.

Virtually none of the foreign policy establishment were concerned that invading Iraq was a bad strategy in light of the threat of terrorism. It was obvious that we would inflame the Islamic radicals and create more of them — an American occupying army in the mideast at a time of rising extremism and anti-American fervor was about as provocative an act as could have been imagined. This argument was glossed over as some sort of appeasement when, in fact, it was extremely salient. Why on earth would you go out of your way to aid the recruitment of your enemy unless it was absolutely necessary? The administration may need to play to its base with useless strongman preening but there was no excuse for liberal hawks not to care about this argument.

But the greatest strategic error was dismissing the possibility that by occupying Iraq it would empower Iran in the process. This was indoubtedly seen as pessimism or immoral realpolitik by the neocons and liberal hawks, but it was a very serious consideration that we are now seeing played out before our very eyes. It’s quite clear that the most successful beneficiary of our Iraq policy has been Iraq’s longtime rival, Iran. Had Iraq really presented the existential threat the administration claimed, it might have made sense. But nobody but the most deluded of neocons believed that Saddam was planning to launch drone planes filled with nukes and chemical weapons at the US. There should have been more attention paid to the ramifications of empowering Iran before we invaded Iraq by people who should know better. (The great irony is that the administration is now recycling the same fearmongering to use against Iran — instead of “gassed his own people” it’s “denies the holocaust.” SOS)

So, in the months before we went into Iraq the situation was this:

• The Bush Doctrine was morphing before our eyes into a permission slip for unilateral aggression based on nothing more than guesswork about a possible future threat, degrading our moral authority before the war even started.
• Many of our allies were balking which meant that we would potentially lose valuable cooperation on terrorism and would have a much harder time coalition building in the future.
• Saddam had been successfully contained for more than a decade and could have stayed contained for some time, even if the hyped up threat assessment had turned out to be correct.
• The evidence for terrorist ties between Iraq and al Qaeda was virtually non-existent and there was no reason to believe that they would ever have the same goals. Conversely, invading iraq was likely to empower islamic extremism in Iraq and elsewhere.
• We rushed into it as if it were an emergency when Saddam had done nothing for years. This meant that planning (which never happened anyway) would have had to be done on a crisis basis, increasing the chance of mistakes and missteps.
• We were commmitting our military to a non-urgent long term operation at a time when we needed them to be flexible for the emerging threats of the new era of Islamic extremism.
• We knew that upending the structure of the middle east before we had a chance to fully assess the situation could result in empowering the actors we wanted to marginalize, both state and non-state.

For all those reasons one could see not just that it was an impossible task or that the Bush administration would mess it up but that it was simply a bad idea when the circumstances after 9/11 dictated that we be smart about national security. 9/11 didn’t change everything but you’d think the threat of terrorism and assymetrical warfare would have changed the neocon and liberal hawk’s longtime assumptions about the efficacy of traditional military power. If there was ever a time for realism — in the pure sense of the word — it was then. Instead, we had the right lashing out incoherently at their ancient demons and the liberal hawks naively believing that it was a good idea to express our goodness and greatness through a military action that was quite obviously unnecessary at that moment and for which the risk far outweighed the benfit.

We all know that the result was even worse that we feared. We couldn’t know they did no planning at all for the occupation. It didn’t occur to us that they would literally bring in 20 something college Republicans to run the reconstruction. I couldn’t imagine they would botch it so thoroughly on every level that we have now exposed ourselves as something of a paper tiger when it comes to such unilateral actions. It’s weakened us considerably. (And it’s also brought us to a very frightening point…) The abandonment of moral authority with aggressive war and torture, the lost opportunities in Afghanistan, the empowering of Iran are all fall-out from this terrible decision and while we couldn’t necessarily know exactly what would happen, there was NO DOUBT that the outcome was unpredictable. Great powers can’t afford to run dangerous military experiments with unpredictable results unless it’s absolutely necessary. Blowback tends to be rather extreme.

The administration dazzled the nation with a big show and the media was chomping at the bit to have a “real” war that they could cover. But when you stripped away all the hysterical rhetoric it was clear then that even if the Bush administration had been capable of preventing Iraq from descending into chaos and achieving all its goals, liberal hawks should have known that rushing into war in the spring of 2003 was a bad idea anyway.

.

Remember: Bush Don’t Bluff

by tristero

In pondering a post by Digby from last Sunday, I couldn’t help but notice this strange quote courtesy of Fred Barnes. I have boldified the stuff that isn’t cheap partisan boilerplate:

In the midterm election on November 7, Bush predicted Democrats won’t win either the House or the Senate. “I believe these elections will come down to two things: one, firm belief that in order to win the war on terror there must be a comprehensive strategy that recognizes this war is being fought on more than one front, and, two, the economy.” Bush said the price of gasoline, which has been falling rapidly, is one of the “interesting indicators” that the press should watch carefully. “Just giving you a heads up,” he added.

Now, Digby observed that Bush must have told Them – the Oil “Them” – to open the spigot. And indeed, gas prices have fallen. But in truth, it’s a leap of faith to suggest that the lower oil prices this election seas…sorry, I meant, this fall, had anything to do with the fact that there are 2 oilmen running the United States and their political ass is on the line. I wouldn’t presume to suggest, say, that Bush, Cheney, and Rice begged the cartels and companies to temporarily ease off on the pricegoug… sorry, the utterly fair profit margin they’re taking.

No, what interests me is Bush’s confidence that the election is in the bag. And him giving his rightwing press pals a “heads up.” A heads up. For what? The world anxiously awaits. And I’m not kidding.

I remind you: Bush don’t bluff. Bush do whatever the hell he wants to do. If I were Betting Bill Bennett, I’d lay even odds that the Mayberry Machiavelllis got a little treat in store for the rest of us this fall. And no, I’m bettin’ it ain’t jes’ gamey voting machines, which goes without saying.

As it happens, I’ve kept a short list of October surprises I’ve been working on and I was gonna wait until, you guessed it, October, but given that the “heads up” comment seems to have slipped under the radar a little, I thought I’d release it now to draw a little attention to the very probable threat behind Bush’s remark.

Potential October Surprises

1. Osama bin Laden is captured or killed. That would explain why Osama’s name’s been cropping up in Bush’s speech after so long an absence. Somewhat possible.

2. Another attack on the continental US. This seems unlikely to me, not only because Bush/Rove would never plan such a thing -they didn’t in the past and they won’t in the future, people. Nor will they let bin Laden or any of the zillion of new enemies Bush and Cheney have created do 9/11 part deux from their neglect. Why? The country simply won’t unite behind Bush if he neglects to protect us a third (or fourth) time during his regime. He got a free pass on September 11, ditto for anthrax. But after Katrina, a spectacular attack on the “homeland” ain’t gonna play too well.

3. A nuclear strike, either on Iran or somewhere else like NoKo, unilateral, pre-emptive, and announced as a fait accompli. Bush has, after all, started military ops against Iran, according to Sam Gardiner. Not that likely, but I was getting jumpy one night, and the paranoia overruled my desire to sleep.

4. The exquisitely-timed revelation of a major financial or sexual scandal involving major Democrats. I think this is very likely.

5. Rumsfeld will resign for “health reasons.” Very likely, imo. Everyone loathes him. His replacement? Well, the kind of mentality that would replace a bozo like Ashcroft with a worse bozo like Gonzales…who’s to say? Jerry Boykin? Nah, not even Bush is that stu…as I was saying…who knows who will replace Rumsfeld? But I think Rumsfeld is about to pursue a career for which he has genuine talent: Comic poetry.

6. Bush got bupkus and the “heads up” really is a bluff, which means he psyched us out and so we waste tons of time and bucks trying to figure out what’s he holding and come up empty. I think that’s highly unlikely. He’s a liar but he’s no bluffer, if you can get your heads around that. (And if you do, you can ‘splain it to me sometime ’cause I can’t.)

7. Gas prices will fall. Oh, right, that happened already, but it’s not enough to tip the election his way.

Feel free to imagine other surprises Bush may be concocting. Maybe his ever creative lawyers have found a legal means to strip Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont, and so on of their statehood and annex them as single counties in New Alabama, New Mississippi, or New Texas. The ultimate gerrymander. Maybe, lawyers are standing by ready to contest each and every Democratic victory that slips past Diebold.

Go for it, boys and girls. Emulate Karl Rove. Let your imagination, eh… rove free. What’s Bush planning?

Wingnut Bipartisanship

by digby

I just saw John Fund on Hardball saying over and over again that the president and John McCain would find a reasonable compromise on the torture issue that will satisfy everyone. I find that amusing. It was as if government was working as it should with the president debating the opposing party and coming to a nice bipartisan outcome.

The only problem, of course, is that is isn’t really “bipartisan” at all, is it? It’s a stragely public debate between a nutball Republican president and a nutball Republican senator. Can there be any question that “bipartisanship” and “compromise” between these two, six weeks before an election, would not result in John Fund being satisfied? I thought not.

I hear Joe Lieberman is running on his bipartisan credentials these days too and it’s not surprising either. His definition of bipartisanship is also to take sides with John McCain in a Rovian kabuki with George Bush, follow the script, get rolled and then call it a compromise.

George W. Bush doesn’t actually compromise with Democrats and Republicans in congress have consciously governed without Democratic input for six years. There has not been any birpartisanship as it is commonly understood since Bill Clinton was president. (And when Bill Clinton was president, Lieberman sided with the same Republicans he sides with today and called that bipartisanship too.)

This new definition of bipartisanship means Republicans like Joe Lieberman, John McCain and Lindsay Graham are considered the loyal opposition to a Republican president.

I don’t think that’s very good for America, do you?

Update: Click through to the link above to see some actions you might take to get the man who says he should be re-elected because he can work with Republicans to get things done, to answer the burning question: Whatjah Get Joe?

.

Yoo Said It

by tristero

If facts mattered, and they haven’t for a very long time, this would be among the very stupidest things printed in a major newspaper in the last five years. And that is saying a lot, believe you me.

A reinvigorated presidency enrages President Bush’s critics, who seem to believe that the Constitution created a system of judicial or congressional supremacy. Perhaps this is to be expected of the generation of legislators that views the presidency through the lens of Vietnam and Watergate. But the founders intended that wrongheaded or obsolete legislation and judicial decisions would be checked by presidential action, just as executive overreaching is to be checked by the courts and Congress.

The changes of the 1970’s occurred largely because we had no serious national security threats to United States soil, but plenty of paranoia in the wake of Richard Nixon’s use of national security agencies to spy on political opponents.

Both Eschaton and Josh have weighed in on the unspeakable historical illiteracy of this remark. I would like to add a few things to what they said.

I remember the ’70’s very well thank you very much, and while the USSR was a threat, and so was the Middle East – I well remember the gas lines – the most serious threat of all to the security of the United States was the imperial presidency of Richard M. Nixon. Many of us who do recall how dangerous he was, including Krugman himself, now agree that Nixon was a piker compared to Bush.

But there’s something more important here than proving Yoo wrong, which any highschool kid with access to a stack of history books, or the Internets could do in five minutes.

Yoo knows he’s lying here and he doesn’t give a damn what you or I think. Why? Because he knows the New York Times has anointed him worthy of space on their editorial page and all that matters is that they print what he writes. It’s the same con as “Intelligent Design” creationism: you gain mainstream cred merely by being included in the debate. And Yoo’s little stunt is all of a piece with the far-right contempt for normal American citizens, not to mention reality. The kind of mentality that would assert there were no serious national security threats during the ’70’s is the same mentality that plants a male hooker among the Whiite House press corps to fluff the press secretary (and at least once, Bush) when the questions get too tough.

The extent of sheer contempt for the people of America these people show never fails to take my breath away. They truly hate Americans, and American values. And these monarchy-loving assholes, these total losers who are literally smirking at the presumed ignorance of the people they dare to lead, these are populists?

King Of Pain

by tristero

Paul Krugman at the top of his form:

So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?

To show that it can.

The central drive of the Bush administration — more fundamental than any particular policy — has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president’s power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president precisely because it’s a violation of both law and tradition. By making an illegal and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they’re asserting their right to do whatever they claim is necessary.

[snip]

Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he wants us to sacrifice. And those things turn out to be our principles and our self-respect.

Read the whole thing.

[From the Department of Patting Oneself On One’s Back: I can’t resist linking to this post from a few days back:

Bush was not bluffing, he was actually going to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 because…well, because he could. It is still the only reason that makes sense. Because he could.

BTW, the first time I wrote that that was the reason Bush was invading Iraq was back on February 28, 2003.

Note: I’m not suggesting Krugman steals from bloggers like yours truly – he’s a brilliant man and this isn’t the hardest conclusion to come to, after all. No, I’m simply boasting shamelessly that I said it first. Boasting shamelessly about priority – and proving it with a link – is one of the great pleasures of blogging, made even more so because said priority is, as it is in this case, utterly trivial and meaningless.]