Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Neocon Hash

NY Times

An Extreme Plan for Iraq

By JEFF MADRICK

IRAQ’S new finance minister, Kamel al-Gailani, announced a sweeping liberalization of his country’s economy at the annual meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Dubai early last week. Amid the controversy over President Bush’s request for $87 billion to finance the American presence in Iraq, the new laws hardly attracted attention in the United States.

But by almost any mainstream economist’s standard, the plan, already approved by L. Paul Bremer III, the American in charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, is extreme — in fact, stunning. It would immediately make Iraq’s economy one of the most open to trade and capital flows in the world, and put it among the lowest taxed in the world, rich or poor. Is this Middle Eastern nation, racked by war, ready for such severe experimentation? Moreover, the radical laws have been adopted without a democratic Iraqi government to discuss or approve them.

One would have thought that the failures of swift and sudden free market changes in Russia in the 1990’s would have made even extremist economists cautious. In Russia and other nations, spontaneously freeing markets from price controls, reducing taxes and suddenly privatizing business was supposed, almost overnight, to create a thriving economy.

In a recent book, “Income and Influence: Social Policy in Emerging Market Economies” (W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research; $14), two economists, Ethan B. Kapstein and Branko Milanovic, remind us how the assumptions behind such “shock therapy” were not borne out. To the contrary, the gross domestic product continued to fall for years in most of the “reformed” nations, and eventually unemployment rose rapidly. The failure to grow immediately after the transition became, in the words of the M.I.T. economist Olivier Blanchard, “the major theoretical challenge facing economists.”

And supply side economics, which argues that low taxes are the main ingredient in motivating people to save, invest and innovate, did not even work in the United States. The economist Arthur Laffer, a member of President Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board, claimed that reduced taxes in the 1980’s would actually raise tax revenue. President Bush’s current chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, wrote in his widely read textbook that “subsequent history failed to confirm Laffer’s conjecture.”

But never mind such historical lessons. The Iraqi planners, apparently including the Bush administration, seem to assume they can simply wipe the slate clean.

Those poor bastards.

C’mon. We aren’t going to do this, are we?

Waddya think, Tom Friedman? Is this what you had in mind when you pounded the war drum so we could empower the moderates in the mid-east by setting such a fine example of political freedom and democratic capitalism? Did you realize that what we were really doing was buying Ahmed and his little friends a brand new country to play with?

What a good idea. It just get’s better and better every single day.

Slime And Defend

The White House encouraged Republicans to portray the former diplomat at the center of the case, Joseph C. Wilson IV, as a partisan Democrat with an agenda and the Democratic Party as scandalmongering. At the same time, the administration and the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill worked to ensure that no Republicans in Congress break ranks and call for an independent inquiry outside the direct control of the Justice Department.

“It’s slime and defend,” said one Republican aide on Capitol Hill, describing the White House’s effort to raise questions about Mr. Wilson’s motivations and its simultaneous effort to shore up support in the Republican ranks.

“So far so good,” the aide said. “There’s nervousness on the part of the party leadership, but no defections in the sense of calling for an independent counsel.”

[…]

With initial polling suggesting that voters are concerned about the accusations and the Democratic presidential candidates trying to make the matter an issue, the White House and its allies worked to shape public perceptions. In particular, they raised questions about the motivations of Mr. Wilson.

In a memorandum distributed Wednesday to Republicans on Capitol Hill, the Republican National Committee suggested that the party strike back at Democrats.

“Lacking a positive issue agenda to offer the American people, the Democratic Party now returns to what they have long seen as their best opportunity to defeat President Bush and Republicans — scandalmongering,” the memo said.

House Republicans distributed white paper bags with the label “Leak hyperventilation bag,” saying they might come in handy for Democrats who were having trouble catching their breath over the subject.

Well, you can’t exactly say they are being devious or Machiavellian, can you? After all, they are openly telling the NY Times about their stonewall and smear strategy and they don’t seem to feel the slightest need to pay lip service to the old fashioned concepts of adhering to the rule of law or statesmanlike conduct. They used to at least pretend to give a damn about having an image of sobriety and responsibility. This stuff is something you’d expect from a College Republican Freshman strategy seminar.

It is actually quite a dizzying admission of the corruption and impending mass mental breakdown of the Republican Party.

This line of defense is so lame that it tells me that Rove must be involved in the scandal and has completely lost his touch because of it. And, it points out that Republicans don’t know how to play defense (which is not surprising since they haven’t had to in many years.)

They can’t put this genie back in the bottle by pretending that the Democrats have morphed into Newt Gingrich and they are now the beleagered and victimized Clinton administration. (What are these people smoking?) And Joe Wilson could be Teddy Kennedy’s long lost twin and it wouldn’t make it any more ethical or legal to blow his wife’s CIA cover. It’s absurd on it’s face.

But it’s also completely misreading what’s driving the story. Don’t they get that the media itself is one of the stars of this little narrative and therefore they have an unusually clear view of the facts in this case? Obviously, they are all dying to know not just who leaked, but who got leaked to.

This is one time the media starlets are not going to be baby birds and sit in their nests waiting for the masticated RNC faxfacts to be dropped into their willing little beaks. In their minds this one is about something very, very important.

It’s about them.

Fasten Your Seatbelts, Folks

Here we go….

Via (future radio star) Atrios:

“They may try and recover deleted email files for certain dates…”

“The White house asked for and got permission earlier this week to wait a day before issuing a directive to preserve all documents and logs which led one seasoned federal prosecutor to wonder why they wanted to wait a day, and who at the justice department told them they could do that, and why?”

Nina Totenberg, on NPR this evening.

One would have thought that the Commander in Chief would have personally ordered his staff to preserve all e-mails and documents relating to a possible felony and breach of national security during wartime on the morning after the leak was revealed in Robert Novak’s column.

That’s what a leader does. He doesn’t depend upon legal technicalities and partisan firestorms to make him do the right thing. He takes the bull by the horns and demands that anyone under his watch who commits such an act, or knows who committed such an act, comes forward or he’ll know the reason why. He would make it crystal clear that there will be zero tolerance for political games with national security. He would immediately put in place safeguards to ensure that it never happens again. He would fire the perpetrator and send all evidence to the proper authorities.

Of course, strutting around in a fighter pilot costume is good, too.

Lights! Camera! Action!

Via The Road To Surfdom, I find that Newsmax has blown the lid off the Plame affair.

This is all a plot to get Joe and Val a movie deal!

I see Richard Gere as the hot headed but ethical Joe Wilson and Julia Roberts as the mysterious but plucky Valerie Plame. With Danny DeVito as Dick Cheney and Adam Sandler as the President.

And introducing Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Governor of California.

jayzuz…

Supporters of the administration simply cannot wrap their arms around the idea that there is no reasonable excuse for what has clearly happened here.

How hard is it for someone to simply say, “I don’t know all the facts, but if these allegations are true, the person who did it should be fired and prosecuted.” It’s really that simple.

One thing people have to remember about all this is that the issue didn’t arise from little Democratic birds whipering in anybody’s ears. It sprang from a request for an FBI investigation from the CIA. Certainly, the Democrats are pushing the issue — that’s the nature of politics — but this is not the usual partisan whitehouse – travel – office – firing – haircut – on – the – tarmac – crapola.

If people really care about this administration, much less the country, they should be encouraging the President to cut loose whoever the assholes are who leaked the name. They are either out of control partisans or they are much too stupid to have access to classified information. In either case, they should go.

Democratic talking point of the day:

If President Bush refuses to personally and forcefully pursue a national security risk on his own staff, how can we trust him to keep this country safe?

I Am Ashamed Of My Party And My State

By 56 percent to 42 percent, likely voters support ousting the Democratic incumbent, a sign that Davis has lost ground in the closing phase of his battle for political survival. Support for Davis has slipped among key parts of his political base — Democrats, women, moderates and liberals among them — since the last Times Poll in early September found 50 percent for the recall and 47 percent against it.

Summing up the view of many voters was poll respondent Gladys Taub, a Democrat exasperated by the state’s giant budget shortfalls

Gov. Davis has been doing a terrible job, and I just want to get rid of him,” the 62-year-old paralegal, who plans to vote for Schwarzenegger, said in a follow-up interview. “Look at the state our state is in. If I ran my home that way, spending a whole lot more money than I was taking in, I’d wind up bankrupt. I’d wind up on the streets.”

[…]

Overall, the poll found the central theme of Schwarzenegger’s candidacy has struck a chord with likely voters: Rather than finding the actor frightening, they see him as the candidate most apt to curb the influence of special interests in Sacramento.

“I look at him as maybe like a Kennedy, where he really wants to do something good, because he’s not in it for the money,” said Jim Rego, 58, a Castro Valley independent who owns a gas station near Oakland.

Rego faults Davis for the state budget mess and sees Schwarzenegger as “a guy who can run a business, balance the books.” He typically votes for Democrats; Schwarzenegger will be the first exception since Rego went for Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential race.

[…]

Many likely voters do harbor reservations about the former champion bodybuilder. Only 8 percent think Schwarzenegger has the best experience for the job of governor, well behind Davis, McClintock and Bustamante. Also, only 8 percent believe Schwarzenegger seemed more knowledgeable than his opponents in last week’s televised debate in Sacramento.

But that appeared to matter less than other qualities. A broad swath of voters see in Schwarzenegger an aptitude they have found lacking in Davis since California was struck by the energy crisis of 2001: leadership skills.

[…]

For Davis, a key challenge in the final days of the race is to bolster support among Democrats. Despite his aggressive efforts to woo union members, Hispanics and other traditional blocs of the party, the poll found 27 percent of Democrats support the recall, up from 19 percent in the last poll.

Among liberal Democrats, support for the recall grew from 1-in-10 to 2-in-10. Among moderate Democrats, support for the recall rose from 30 percent to 35 percent. Union members, a key to Davis’ success in previous elections, also tilted further in favor the recall, 54 percent-43 percent.

[…]

For Bustamante, the poll results are bleak. Only 41 percent have a favorable impression of him, while 58 percent view Schwarzenegger favorably, and 62 percent view McClintock in a positive light.

Bustamante’s millions of dollars in campaign donations from casino-owning Indian tribes — the subject of an unfavorable court ruling and a host of Schwarzenegger ads — appear to have damaged his public image. More than four in 10 voters say those contributions make them less likely to vote for Bustamante.

Schwarzenegger has relentlessly barraged this state over the last month with ads, the media has been following him around like they’re practicing to be Leni Reifenstahl, and he has said nothing substantive ever. His debate performance proves that the patented “stupid is as stupid does” smartass fratboy Bush approach is, once again, a winner with the public.

He is winning because he seems to be filling the role of “leader,” a complete misaprehension because movie stars are pampered little princes who are kept away from any of the ugly necessities of leadership on a movie set. They are leaders only to the extent that they usually lead everyone around them to have a nervous breakdown, and Arnold is reputed to be as difficult as any in that respect. I am unaware of any “leadership” he has shown in the various failed investments he tries to pass off as business experience. His restaurant, Schatzi, sucks.

He is a “leader” because he plays a leading man in the movies, period.

Now please give me the lecture again about how off-base I am to argue that the Democrats must find a way to compete in the brand obsessed media environment. And don’t forget to harrangue me about the great hoardes of Democrats who have been holding back their votes because the candidates haven’t been liberal enough.

Read those numbers above. Democrats in the most Democratic state in the union are saying that they will vote in large numbers for a vapid GOP Hollywood celebrity asshole — one who will undoubtedly be taking his marching orders from Karl Rove because he is incapable of doing the job on his own — rather than keep the Democrat they voted for less than a year ago or the perfectly acceptable Democratic Lieutenant Governor they voted in the same election to be the person best to replace him.

We are our own worst enemy. If I could stomach their policies, I’d be tempted to become a Republican myself. At least they vote their own self interest.

Objective Career Prosecutors

Josh Marshall posts the new Gonzales letter telling White House staffers more specifically what they have to stop shredding. He notes that the two Newsday reporters who did the best early work on the story are part of the mix now:

Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps of Newsday have done some of the best reporting of anyone in town on the whole issue of Iraq, politicized intelligence and the Joe Wilson matter. They’ve clearly got some awfully good and pretty generous sources. What are their names doing in this memo?

If I were a cynical person I might just think that ole Johinnie Ashcroft and the boys are trying to help Uncle Karl find out who’s been naughty and nice. But, that would be if I were cynical.

The last time we saw anything like that was when Nixon was in office….

Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?

The Note says:

If you care even a whit about America having a civil national public discourse (during this time and forever), read every word of David Brooks’ brilliant New York Times column, and thank Arthur for hiring him.

Well, I do care about America having a civil national public discourse, but I’m certainly not frigging dumb enough to believe that this is best done by continuing year after year to kowtow to Republicans and allowing them to constantly change the rules to their own advantage.

This hectoring about the Democrats’ “bad manners” is getting ridiculous. They are basically saying:

The Republicans played the lowest form of dirty politics in order to gain complete institutional power in Washington. Democrats are very angry about these tactics and they are fighting back.

This is a terrible way to conduct our politics and the Democrats should stop it right now.

… while the Republicans consolidate the power they attained by continuing to use dirty tactics.

Everything will be allright if the Democrats do the right thing and let the Republicans do whatever they want.

It’s too bad nobody said much about this when the Republicans were systematically trying to destroy the Clintons and anybody who ever crossed their path, but that’s spilled milk and everybody should get over it.

Surely, if Democrats just set a good example now, they won’t ever do it again.

While I am so very impressed with the logic of this argument, I can’t endorse it right now because I’m afraid that “setting a good example” isn’t really going to get the job done, you know what I mean?

I just have the niggling feeling that certain types of bullying pricks on this earth aren’t really open to the finer ideas of “civil discourse.” Particularly those who pay and listen to people who spend upwards of, say, 40 hours a week working themselves into a complete frenzy of loathing against the “enemy” (who, by the way, is me.)

Something tells me that it would be a tiny bit naive of me to believe that these modern Republicans, who have shown they will go to any lengths to smear and destroy their political oppposition, are going to be chastened by my fine example of turning the other cheek to their merciless onslaught of invective toward me and everything I believe. In fact, it’s been my experince that they find that attitude is an invitation to laugh uproariously while they rhetorically deliver a gratuitous kick in the teeth. Ask Max Cleland about that.

It just seems like common sense that if you’ve been hit over the head for 15 solid years by the same people that you are fucking fool if you don’t put up your dukes and hit back at some point. Contrary to the lies and myths of the GOP, Democrats are not actually pacifists. We may be slow to boil, but we are perfectly capable of fighting when we are pushed too hard. And we have been pushed way beyond any civilized limits.

This isn’t really about Bush hatred. The man is just a figurehead, unworthy of much more than amused derision for his obvious lack of command and intellect. Democratic anger is about an arrogant and merciless political movement that simply does not respond to ordinary notions of civility or compromise. They have misrepresented themselves to the American public. Their tactics are ruthless and immoral and they are governing in a radical and undemocratic fashion.

Our passion and our anger is directed at a machine that is not observing traditional standards of decency and through long and difficult experience we have learned that they cannot be stopped simply by “setting a good example.” Anybody who hasn’t yet grasped that is either willfully blind or intellectually stunted.

Oh yes. And thank you Arthur for giving another column to a Republican shill. How very Fair and Balanced of you. But, take my word for it. You can’t buy their love and you can’t appease them no matter how whorish you become. Until you completely turn the Gray Lady into the Washington Times you are the enemy. Just a little word to the wise.

Loose Lips

Alterman points to this little gem from last April. It’s a real goodie:

Later, after the terrorist attacks, Woodward and another reporter interviewed Mr. Bush in the Oval Office.

The reporters had an hour to ask their questions. But Woodward said the president gave them 90 minutes, often speaking candidly about classified information and explaining the reasons behind some of his actions.

Apparently, even the president spills classified information pretty much willy

He one went on to say:

Certainly Richard Nixon would not have allowed reporters to question him like that. Bush’s father [former President George Bush] wouldn’t allow it. Clinton wouldn’t allow it.

“As a journalist I like somebody who is straight and direct,” Woodward said.

Yeah. He likes him. He really likes him.

Perhaps it might be useful to ask the president about this next time the White House press whores get a chance to pull his string and turn on his pre-programmed Chatty-Cathy response of the day. It’s always so entertaining to watch him get that far away look in his eye as he answers different questions exactly the same way over and over and over again.

Angry Spooks

Just a couple of observations on the events of the last few days.

—-First, when reading the transcript of the gaggle yesterday, I find nobody asking Scott McClellan why he thinks Bob Novak is lying. He says over and over again, after all, that they “have no evidence” that the leaks emanated from the administration. He says they cannot be expected to investigate every leak that is printed in the press, (lamely neglecting the fact that this particular one is clearly a felony and breach of national security in wartime) as if such stories are routinely made up.

But, it wasn’t just any journalist who wrote this story. It was staunch conservative Bob Novak. Unless they think he made it all up, they have the evidence they need to investigate this particular leak. Bob Novak’s word.

— One item in the Post story of the 29th caught my eye and I haven’t seen much interest in it. It says:

Three weeks ago, intelligence officials said, the CIA returned to the Justice Department a standard 11-question form detailing the potential damage done by the release of the information. Officials said it may have been the first such report ever filed on the unauthorized disclosure of an operative’s name.

It would seem that despite claims that CIA referrals to the FBI are as routine as spring rain, this particular type of referral appears to be highly unusual if not unprecedented.

The bigger issue, it seems to me, is the ongoing war between the CIA and the administration. It is clear that the administration “sexed-up” the intelligence and is now trying to shift the blame to the CIA for it. When the administration stupidly attempted to make Tenet take the fall for the Niger flap the battle was drawn. The CIA is fighting back.

They were used and brow beaten into making assessments that fit the agenda of a bunch of neocon radicals. The assessments have been proven spectacularly wrong, and the CIA is left holding the bag. The congress is issuing reports that they provided lousy intelligence which means that they are going to have to defend themselves against charges of incompetence.

This is a very dangerous situation for the administration; the CIA is not the institution you want to make your enemy. The Plame affair is really only the first shot across the bow.

Nonsense Defense

The standard defense today seems to be that no crime was committed because Plame wasn’t actually an undercover operative. Novak said:

“….According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives’…

The strange shill who they had on Crossfire to defend the Bush administration on this (who also claimed that because Plame was still alive, there wasn’t any credence to the story!) said something about Plame being a “glorified secretary.”

Can someone explain logically why the CIA would refer the matter to the Justice Department if Plame wasn’t undercover? Is it up to the Justice Department to determine the definition of “undercover?”