Rumsfeld scribbled a note on Haynes’ memo that said, “However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours.”
Gosh, while he stands is he also being interrogated naked, shackled, subject to “mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger and light pushing” with a vicious German Shepard trying to take a bite out of his privates? I had no idea that the culture at the pentagon was so like a concentration camp.
On the other hand, a similar note by Doug Feith was found questioning why prisoners shouldn’t be required to wear women’s underwear on their heads since he and Wolfowitz both wear teddies and garter belts underneath their Brooks Brothers.
I urge all four of my readers to read this great article by Paul Glastris in The Washington Monthly:
It is a cliché to observe that the parties have drawn further apart, the center no longer holds, and partisans on both sides have withdrawn further into mutual loathing and ever more-homogenous and antagonistic groupings. Where the analysis goes wrong is in its assumption, either explicit or implicit, that both parties bear equal responsibility for this state of affairs. While partisanship may now be deeply entrenched among their voters and their elites, the truth is that the growing polarization of American politics results primarily from the growing radicalism of the Republican Party.
In what is mostly an admonition to the press to open its eyes to reality and report what is actually happening, he outlines the history of this new GOP political radicalism (which goes hand in hand with its ideological radicalism), shows how the Democratic Party has responded over the course of this long transition and proves that the polarization about which all the scribes wring their dainty little hands can be laid squarely at the feet of the Republicans.
Although I’m an unreconstructed liberal, I am by nature and temperament a believer in bipartisanship. I don’t like the boot to the throat concept of governance, either as a member of the majority or the minority. I have a rather old fashioned belief that if everyone has a stake in decisions they tend to follow through and not hobble the process. To me, incremental progress doesn’t seem like a bad idea if it means that a substantial majority are happy with it in the end and the minority isn’t marginalized from the process. Government by consensus would always be my first choice.
However, that is simply not in the cards with the modern Republican party. As Glastris says, they see politics as a zero sum game and when you find yourself in a game like that you have to find a way to win outright or you don’t survive.
I’ve been hearing a lot of rumbling from the activist grassroots, for more than a year, that after holding their noses in this election, any patience they may have had with compromise has worn completely thin. I think it’s pretty clear that if Kerry wins he is not going to be given much slack from his left flank.
Therefore, there is little chance that Democratic centrists (which Glastris points out are pretty much the only centrists left) will have any room to maneuver in a close congress, whoever holds the majority, nor will Kerry be able to cut any deals. And, I doubt it’s even worth trying with these radicals anyway. They just move the goalposts. But what this means, for the first time, is all out partisan war with no quarter given.
The question is, if that happens, can we win? I’m interested in hearing thoughts on this because I honestly don’t know.
Lord Saletan tries to explain why his mishmash of a series on Kerry’s so-called “caveats and curlicues” doesn’t make sense to anyone. (Frankly, his explanation doesn’t make any sense either, but whatever.)
What he fails to admit is that the series is an extremely lame attempt by Slate at being “fair and balanced.” As seems to be the case across all of American journalism Slate apparently believes it is necessary that if one notices a certain politician doing something unusual — George W. Bush speaking in Martian rather than English, for instance — then it follows that in order to be fair, one must criticize his rival for the same thing.
The truth is that the “caveats and curliques” that Saletan finds so remarkable are the result of a political environment in which Kerry is required to speak in extremely precise terms because if he doesn’t, Ed Gillespie and his coven of shrieking talk show harpies will blast their faxes directly up his ass. (Ask Al Gore about that.) Bush, on the other hand, whom everyone knows is a total idiot, is applauded if he is able to string more than 5 words together without drooling on his tie.
The Kerryism thing isn’t working because Kerry just sounds like a hundred other Democrats who have to parse every single statement in order to avoid people like Saletan calling him a slippery, lying piece of shit (which Saletan calls him anyway.) Conversely, the Bushism series does work because it shows that the most powerful man in the world literally doesn’t make sense about half the time and the press rarely even mentions it. Now, that is noteworthy.
Maybe Saletan could try a series on Kerry’s hair or his eyebrows or his choice of athletic equipment. Oh wait. Kaus has already blown the lid off those scandals. Oh well. I’m sure he’ll think of something. Wouldn’t want to be unbalanced.
Update: The spelling of Saletan’s name has been corrected.
I’d just like to second Atrios’s thoughts on the veepstakes. Almost nothing could be more inconsequential. Kerry will pick someone who can give him a couple of points in a battleground state, or someone who could benefit him slightly in terms of image. But, truthfully, it doesn’t matter a whole lot unless the choice (like Dan Quayle) is someone who people simply cannot imagine being president or, as in the case of our current resident, when nobody trusts the guy in the top slot to be able to handle the job.
Candidates choose their running mates for a variety of very prosaic reasons, the primary one being some kind of regional balance. Clinton picked Gore, against conventional wisdom, because his biggest draw was the generational shift from the greatest generation leaders to the baby boomers. He and Gore together, both being southern New Democrats, neatly put that together. But, with the exception of Gore’s family, nobody voted for that ticket because of Gore.
Gephardt is uninspiring, but he’s got strong union backing and that is a huge consideration since turn-out is going to be incredibly important. Not to mention that Missouri is the ultimate battleground state. If Kerry believes that Gep can bring that one home for him, then I can see the formula. He’s also more than qualified to be president if the worst should happen. Vilsack is from a state that Gore won narrowly last time and in which Bush is currently leading. It’s probably as simple as that.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Kerry to look at this almost purely in terms of the electoral map, considering the state of play. I realize that we Democrats are starting to have visions of landslides dancing in our heads, but it would be decidedly foolish to plan accordingly. The GOP has more money than God to spend on GOTV and they are planning to spend it. Nader consistently polls enough to bring Kerry within the margin of error and with his picking Camejo yesterday, he may very well get the Green endorsement. So, it would be foolish to count on Nader voters. They are going to vote for their man. So be it. We have to win without them which means that Kerry still runs very narrowly ahead. That may change but why assume it? It would be as foolish to count on anything but a close election as it was for Bush and his cronies to count on Iraq being a cakewalk. Smart people plan for the worst not the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is a photo finish. If that happens, one or two points in a battleground state is crucial.
Besides, VP is a bullshit job. Look at the Dems who are currently out of work and picture them in the new Kerry administration doing something Real. Edwards at Justice reversing Ashcrofts tragic legacy. Clark and Holbrooke at State or CIA reforming the intelligence and diplomatic communities. Dean as head of the DNC reforming the party. Gep as Secretary of Labor. Or any other combination thereof. In other words, there is actual work to be done by talented energetic people. The VP slot is terrific and all, because we’d get to watch our favorite candidate campaign again, but it’s only one of many jobs that are going to have to be filled in a Kerry administration.
I remember the disappointment I felt when Gore picked Lieberman. I wondered how I’d get through the campaign having to listen to his hectoring moan day in and day out. But, by the end he was just part of the scenery and even somewhat entertaining at times with his rather droll sense of humor. I loathed that guy but I adjusted. So will we all — even if Kerry picks someone without eyebrows or with a name that has the word “sack” in it.
The Howler today has a spectacular takedown of Wilgoren and Pickler’s latest Karl Rove “around the world” special: John Kerry’s wealthy. Ewwww.
Wilgoren runs behind Kerry on his Nantucket vacation tabulating the cost of sand dabs and wind-surfing equipment like she’s a contestant on the Price Is Right (which she is, only it’s a little different game, if you know what I mean.)
Mr. Kerry has been coming here regularly since at least 1995, when he married the ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz at the three-story, five-bedroom house she owns on Brant Point, where the clothing designer Tommy Hilfiger also has a home and H. Wayne Huizenga, the owner of the Miami Dolphins, recently sold one. Valued at $9 million in 1995, the house…has a large screened-in porch, decorative columns, and a green-and-white love-seat swing on its sandy front lawn.
Oh, the rich bastard. At least our up-by-his-bootstraps- president doesn’t spend his time in rich playgrounds. He works and sweats when he goes on vacation.
The weekend was Mr. Kerry’s first real holiday since the week he spent at his wife’s Sun Valley, Idaho, home in March, where he was widely photographed snowboarding. It was reminiscent of President Bill Clinton’s vacations in borrowed houses on nearby Martha’s Vineyard, and a sharp contrast to President Bush’s frequent brush-clearing forays on his sweltering ranch in Crawford, Tex.
Pickler as all right thinking Americans do, agrees:
Like Kerry, President Bush is a Yale graduate who has benefited from his wealth and family connections. But Bush spends his down time trying to be more of an everyman, preferring to spend vacations at his Texas ranch clearing brush.
Well, except for the time he spends at the fucking family compound “Walkers Point” (as in “W”) in Kennebunkport, Maine:
President Bush opened a long weekend of golf and fishing Friday by hooking his first drive into a riverbank. He found his stroke on his second try, cheered by his father, who proclaimed it a “good ball!”
President Bush and former President George Bush ride their golf cart to the first hole at the Cape Arundel Golf Course [“said to be” $150,000 initially and $8500.00 per year] in Kennebunkport, Maine.
Father and son left their family’s coastal compound [valued at 8 million] just after dawn, taking a mini-motorcade to nearby Cape Arundel Golf Club, where they have been golfing for years. The first President Bush drove their golf cart up to the first tee, the current president riding shotgun with his feet up on the dash. “Good morning, everybody!” he said to a group of reporters.
[…]
Three generations of Bushes were spending Father’s Day weekend at Walker’s Point, the family’s estate here along Atlantic coastline.
The president and his father climbed into the Fidelity II power boat [$135,000] later and fished the coastline, stopping to cast for about 10 minutes before moving on to another spot. Wearing fashionable, blue-tinted shades [$480.00], the son caught what appeared to be a foot-long striper, and gently placed it back in the water.
[…]
Arriving at the family’s oceanside estate the younger Bush quickly shed the suit and tie for casual wear, grabbed a tennis racket [$700.00] and whacked an orange ball for dog Spot to fetch. The president was still clutching the racket when he boarded a Segway[$5,500], a standup, motorized scooter that resembles a push lawnmower.
The Segway went down [priceless] on Bush’s first attempt, but he stayed on his feet with a flying leap over the machine. Undeterred, he got on again. His father climbed on a second Segway [another $5,500] and they cruised around the driveway at the estate at Walker’s Point.
The president’s twins, Jenna and Barbara, and former first lady Barbara Bush all took turns on the Segways. Earlier Thursday, first lady Laura Bush, the twins and the former president took a cruise in a white powerboat[$90,000.00].
The stay in Kennebunkport was only the most recent long weekend of relaxation Bush has taken since the Iraq war. He has had three long weekends at his Crawford, Texas, ranch [acquired in 1999 and valued at $3 million] since mid-April.
I believe that the family ate dinner later that evening at the Cape Arundale Inn where the Maine Lobster Stew with Truffle Oil drizzle runs about $42.00 a plate. It was, by all accounts delicious, at a mere $776.00.
Afterwards, the president went out and cleared some brush behind the golf course and pissed on the side of of the clubhouse. Cuz’ he’s just a reglar Murican like you ‘n me.
I think that it’s important for rank and file Democrats to begin to develop a positive, everyman water-cooler argument for Kerry’s candidacy. Frankly, I think that ABB is going to propel us into the White House, but it’s important, nonetheless, to develop some real support and belief in the man we are sending in. It is going to be very difficult to govern, the problems are enormous and I’m hopeful that the Democrats will have sharp enough memories of the horrors of the alternative that we’ll at least give Kerry a chance before we set upon him like sharks for failing to be all things to all people — as we always do.
Today,Tristero posts a very interesting e-mail from novelist Amy Tan in which she admits to being less passionately for John Kerry than passionately against George W. Bush. So, she asked her friend, lawyer and novelist Scott Turow, what the affirmative reasons for voting for Kerry are:
I could say the following without blushing: He is running against a man who was not fit for duty in 1968 and is not fit for duty today, a man who lacked the qualifications for the office when he was elected and has demonstrated it. We have been through a skein of national disasters, for which he accepts no blame, because he literally doesn’t understand enough about the job to realize how a better President would have responded. John Kerry has been in public life for 35 years. He was a prosecutor when GWB was running an oil company into the ground. And he was already a seasoned United States Senator when GWB decided it was time to give up abusing substances. JK has a sharper grasp of foreign policy, and more experience with it, than any candidate for President in the last 50 years, with the possible exception of GHWB (see today’s NYT). His dedication to the cause of our military and veterans is long established. And his commitment to economic and social justice for all Americans cannot be doubted. A man can’t be the committed liberal Bush sometimes maintains Kerry is, and also the unprincipled waffler. Life and public service are complicated, as GWB doesn’t understand. JK does. He has a sense of nuance, and the experience and values to improve the life of the country.
For another affirmative argument for Kerry, I [im]modestly submit this.
There are many to be made and I hope that we bloggers, at least, will continue to try to make them. He’s out there making the speeches, developing the policies, taking the punches. The least we can do is try to make a citizens argument in his favor.
For the full FUBAR take on the Gitmo disaster, read this article in the NY Times today.
I am beginning to think that the throwaway line in David Rose’s Gitmo article in Vanity Fair last December may actually be correct:
Guantanamo may even be “a bit of a front,” designed to distract al-Qaeda, he says. “It takes everybody’s attention away from locations where big fish are being held. The secrecy surrounding it makes everybody think that very serious stuff is going on there.”
On the other hand, that is making an assumption that the Bush administration had a plan, which in no other instance in this war has been the case. So, it’s probably just the usual FUBAR.
This alone will make your hair stand on end:
American and foreign officials have also grown increasingly concerned about the prospect that detainees who arrived at Guantánamo representing little threat to the United States may have since been radicalized by the conditions of their imprisonment and others held with them.
”Guantánamo is a huge problem for Americans,” a senior Arab intelligence official familiar with its operations said. ”Even those who were not hard-core extremists have now been indoctrinated by the true believers. Like any other prison, they have been taught to hate. If they let these people go, these people will make trouble.”
How could such a thing happen?
In late summer 2002, a senior C.I.A. analyst with extensive experience in the Middle East spent about a week at the prison camp observing and interviewing dozens of detainees, said officials who read his detailed memorandum.
While the survey was anecdotal, those officials said the document, which contained about 15 pages, concluded that a substantial number of the detainees appeared to be low-level militants, aspiring holy warriors who had rushed to Afghanistan to defend the Taliban, or simply innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Senior military officials now readily acknowledge that many members of the intelligence team initially sent to Guantánamo were poorly prepared to sort through the captives. During the first half of 2002, they said, almost none of the Army interrogators had any substantial background in terrorism, Al Qaeda or other relevant subjects.
Meanwhile:
In interviews, the officials said at least five prisoners released from Guantánamo since early 2003 had rejoined the Taliban and resumed attacks on American and Afghan government forces. Although two American officials said only one of the former detainees had turned out to be an important figure, Afghan officials said all five men were in fact commanders with close contacts to the Taliban leadership.
The most notorious of the former Guántanamo detainees, Mullah Shahzada, had been a lieutenant to a senior commander when he was first captured in the war, an American military intelligence official said. After his return to Afghanistan in March 2003, he emerged as a frontline Taliban commander, Afghan officials said, leading a series of attacks in which at least 13 people were killed, including 2 aid workers.
Senior Pentagon officials refused to explain how Mr. Shahzada had talked his way out of Guantánamo. But two other military officials with knowledge of the case said he had given a false name and portrayed himself as having been captured by mistake.
”He stuck to his story and was fairly calm about the whole thing,” a military intelligence official said. ”He maintained over a period time that he was nothing but an innocent rug merchant who just got snatched up.”
[…]
Afghan officials blamed the United States for the return of the five men to the Taliban’s ranks, saying neither American military officials nor the Kabul police, who briefly process the detainees when they are sent home, consult them about the detainees they free.
”There are lots of people who were innocent, and they are capturing them, just on anyone’s information,” said Dr. Laghmani, the chief of the National Security Directorate in Kandahar. ”And then they are releasing guilty people.”
Do you suppose there is another country to whom we can sub-contract the War on Terror? Because ours is obviously too incompetent to do the job right. At every single step of the way we are making things worse rather than better.
If we do find a country willing to take on such a complex challenge perhaps we could just write one little clause into the contract that could make a huge difference: they must be required to listen to people other than half-wit neocon Republicans, their sycophants and minions. That’s all. If they do that alone, we will at least be in a position to make a damage assessment and try to figure out what the hell to do to get us out of this mess.
Seeing as nobody sane would touch this quagmire with a ten foot pole, let’s just make sure that John Kerry wins and that he immediately embarks on a fact finding mission to root out every single wrong decision and action and put absolutely everything on the table. We are going to have to start from scratch. And, sadly, because they’ve screwed this up so royally, the United States may never be able to recover our credibility, no matter how hard we try.
When they make the real movie about 9/11, (years from now, I hope) at which point many somnambulent Americans will find out what happened on that day for the first time, I hope that they make it very clear that our supposedly strong, resolute leader-who-knows-how-to-lead-cuz’-he’s-led, sat in a second grade classroom waiting for instructions from his chief of staff while the secretary of defense — next in line in the chain of command — stood at his office podium at the pentagon, completely out of the loop. I hope the movie makes clear that the vice president, without the proper authority to do so, completely ran the (keystone kops) show, even ordering the military to shoot down commerical aircraft. And then he (and his little dog too) lied about it, under oath. Because, that is what happened:
The question of whether Vice President Dick Cheney followed proper procedures in ordering the shoot-down of U.S. airliners on September 11 is one of many new issues raised in the remarkably detailed, chilling account laid out in dramatic presentations last week by the 9-11 commission. Newsweek has learned that some on the commission staff were, in fact, highly skeptical of the vice president’s account and made their views clearer in an earlier draft of their staff report, Washington Bureau Chief Daniel Klaidman and Senior Editor Michael Hirsh report in the June 28 issue of Newsweek.
The commission’s detailed report notes that after two planes had crashed into the World Trade Center and combat patrols were in the air, a military aide asked for shoot-down authority, telling Cheney that a fourth plane was “80 miles out” from Washington. Cheney didn’t flinch, the report said. “In about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing,” he gave the order to shoot it down, telling others the president had “signed off on that concept” during a brief phone chat. When the plane was 60 miles out, Cheney was again informed and again he ordered: take it out.
But according to one knowledgeable source, some staffers “flat out didn’t believe the call ever took place.” Both Cheney and the president testified to the commission that the phone call took place. When the early draft conveying that skepticism was circulated to the administration, it provoked an angry reaction. In a letter from White House lawyers last Tuesday and a series of phone calls, the White House vigorously lobbied the commission to change the language in its report. “We didn’t think it was written in a way that clearly reflected the accounting the president and vice president had given to the commission,” White House spokesman Dan Bartlett tells Newsweek. Ultimately the chairman and vice chair of the commission, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean and former Rep. Lee Hamilton — both of whom have sought mightily to appear nonpartisan — agreed to remove some of the offending language. The report “was watered down,” groused one staffer.
It was always fairly obvious that Cheney installed himself as “Vice” President on the orders of the oil companies who created George W. Bush to be their spokesmodel. This latest revelation — that, unauthorized, he ran the response on 9/11 — (and predictably executed badly, I might add) seals it.
[Ari’s brother Michael] Fleischer said he wanted to serve in Iraq because he believes Bush had embarked on ‘a noble path’ in freeing and democratizing the country and he believed he had skills that would be helpful.
He said that from his Foreign Service stint [of 4 years in the 70’s], he was already acquainted with Paul Bremer, the presidential envoy who heads the CPA.
With an assist from his brother, Ari, who ‘got my resume to Bremer,’ Fleischer landed interviews that led to his appointment.
Among Fleischer’s key tasks was training more Iraqi businessmen in the ways of U.S.-style procurement so they can land part of the $18.4 billion in reconstruction aid the U.S. has earmarked for Iraq.
Competitive bidding “is a new world for the Iraqis,” Fleischer said. Under Saddam Hussein, “it was all done by cronies. The only paradigm they know is cronyism. We are teaching them that there is an alternative system with built-in checks and built-in review.”
