Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Gentlemen, start your livers!

I’d like to propose a toast to Mr. Joshua Green whose article in the Washington Monthly called “The Bookie of Virtue” led to a record 2 months of William Bennett-free media.

Cheers!

The Heart Of The Matter

Josh Marshall has a great post up today that shoots straight to the heart of the Iraq situation and finally asks the right question.

If it wasn’t the WMD and it wasn’t the al Qaeda connection (and we can be absolutely sure in light of the situation in Liberia — a country founded by Americans — that it really wasn’t about “liberating the Iraqi people”) then why in the hell did we do it?

The Grand Strategy

Marshall says that it was about putting American troops on the ground in large numbers in the mideast in order to “bring to a head the country’s simmering conflict with its enemies in the region, and kick off a democratic transformation of the region which would over time dissipate the root causes of anti-American terrorism and violence: autocracy, poverty and fanaticism.”

This tracks with the basic PNAC doctrine and, more explicitly, with the Thomas Friedman “drain the swamp and a thousand flowers will bloom” theory. And, to a large extent, I agree. But, it ignores a couple of things that I think are awfully relevant and change the picture to some degree.

Rumsfeld convened the Defense Policy Board for a series of meetings shortly after 9/11. That board, headed by Richard Perle, reports to Deputy Defense Secretary Douglas Feith (of the infamous 2nd guessers intelligence team) and it wasn’t long after that James Woolsey was dispatched to find evidence of connections between al Qaeda and Iraq.

This is important to bring into the picture because of the history of Perle and Feith (among others) and the document they wrote for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1995. This, according to Ambassador Joseph Wilson (as nicely reported by Uggabugga in this post) is the basis upon which the strategy was formed. It is hard to believe that it did not have some influence considering the fact that the people involved in writing it were intimately involved in the Bush administration planning — and that so much of it has been done or publicly contemplated by hardline neocons in the administration like John Bolton. *see note

The desire to provide for Israel’s security is certainly not a bad thing in and of itself. And, according to the “Clean Break” document, the long term goal is for Israel to eventually find itself in a position of such strength that it will no longer need the US to be so intimately involved in its security . (It must be noted, however, that the document does call into question whether Perle and Feith et al have the best interests of the US at heart by suggesting that Israel is being unfairly manipulated by US policy. One is tempted to call these fellows “blame America firsters” and call their patriotism into question, particularly since they hold such high positions in the US government and wield such influence over the intellectuals in the neocon movement. But, I’ll resist this temptation for the time being.)

But, what is most interesting about this document is the clear concept, which Marshall does not discuss but is quite obviously part of the Grand Mideast Strategy, is the idea that the Israeli Palestinian problem will be solved by the removal of unfriendly arab regimes, beginning with Iraq, rather than any “peace process” or “road map.” Acknowledging that the region will continue to simmer until this problem is resolved (and that instability and continued violence against Israelis is likely to continue) the Neocon claque has actually been quite open in their belief that the road to mid-east peace goes through Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, Tripoli and possibly others. And this belief, although separate, converges with those whom Marshall discusses as believing that radical Islamic terrorism will also continue until the region is stabilized by ridding it of “rogue” states and “failed” states.

I’m not sure how important this Israeli security question is, other than to say that it’s likely to cause a lot of misunderstanding of the type that compells me to set forth the disclaimer that I am a supporter of Israel, in the main, and have no anti-semitic ax to gind in bringing this up. The real question, it seems to me, is whether this strategy is realistic and whether it is likely to succeed.

I have serious doubts about the efficacy of American occupation in Iraq as a tool to bring stability to the region. I think the outcome of our current policy will make terrorism more, rather than less, likely considering the nature of asymetric warfare. (Jonathan Swift has some lessons about Giants and foreign entanglements, I believe.)

As for the fantasy of a reverse domino effect and democracy blooming throughout the desert once the arabs see the wonders of Iraqi democracy well…it simply doesn’t merit serious consideration. No responsible leader should ever be allowed to get away with such a pollyanna view of the future and put lives of his countrymen on the line in service of it.

And, as much as I think that the think-tank ivory tower elite of the GOP are completely out of touch with reality, I find it hard to believe that even the most starry-eyed of them actually believe it. Thomas Friedman is the only one who seems to have truly bought into the Romantic Crusade version of mid-east strategy. It is obvious to me that the Neocon intellectuals believe that force and violence are the only way to bring about a stable middle east and if it takes US troops marching into every single capital in the region, so be it.

They also believed, by the way, that the only way to end the cold war was through force and violence. Before this country buys into their simplitically satisfying worldview of bloodlust and power, it would do for people to research these guys’ track records. Their predictions and assessments of the past will not exactly inspire confidence in their prescience or their analytical abilities. And it simply cannot be stated too often, apparently, that the plans that are currently being put into action were formulated long before global terrorism was seen as a threat and until 9/11 there was virtually no connection between the PNAC/AEI cabal’s insistence on remaking the middle east and any kind of threat from terrorists. It is fundamentally dishonest to attach the arguments outlined in the Bush Doctrine (Defense Policy review) with terrorism, since it was cribbed almost verbatic from the PNAC statement of 1997 and Wolfowitz’s draft DPR from 1992.

When Rumsfeld said that everything was viewed differently through the prism of 9/11, he fails to explain how anything changed except to accelerate plans to invade Iraq. If what we are told is correct, it seems certain that the Bush administration did not even take one day to look through that prism and consider whether the old plans might actually exacerbate the problem of terrorism.

This is a serious criticism of the Grand Strategy that was addressed by the CIA in the recently released NIE and completely ignored by the administration. It is fundamental to understanding why these people felt the need to lie about the urgency to overthrow Saddam.

If the argument centered upon whether “remaking the middle east” through military action and bellicose threats would work, there is a cogent case to be made that it would not. And, that case begins with our own intelligence analysis of the probably effects of invasion and tests the theoretical pie-in-the-sky naivete of the “I think I can” intellectuals at the Pentagon.

Oil

In addition, Marshall dismisses the idea that this is about oil, and he is right in the picayune sense that it’s only about providing Dick Cheney’s owners with more money or about boosting Chevron and BP’s profits. It is a much larger strategic issue than that.

The US uses at least 25% of the world’s oil. Even if we substantially reduced our consumption with an intelligent approach to automobile milegage standards and alternative fuels, it is likely that we will continue to be the world’s largest consumer for some time and, more importantly, our economy requires that we have access to cheap oil far into the future. There are, of course, other ways of dealing with this problem than putting American troops in the region from whence it comes, but it appears that this administration has opted for control of one of the largest oil reserves in the world as a way of balancing OPEC (and Russia’s potential) hold on the world oil supply. This is the new Great Game and explains the desire for Empire better than anything else. It’s about resources, just as it’s always been.

I read that this may be the main reason for Bush’s photo-op trip to Africa — aside from the obvious political ones. There is a desire to put American bases on the continent, ostensibly to combat terrorism, but more likely to protect certain abundant oil fields. This may explain why he was, strangely, accompanied by a large group of oil executives on this trip. I would expect to see action in Latin America and Indonesia in the near term, although it is likely that it will be dealt with with “private contractor” military.

The War On Terrorism is now inextricably connected to America’s gluttonous thirst for oil. When historians in the next century review the era, I have little doubt that the global strategy of a Pax Americana will be seen as largely a desire to protect and defend the United States’ access to cheap oil.

The question is whether or not the world has changed to the extent that such old fashioned concepts as Empire or even a post modern concept of “virtual” colonialism are workable.

I have very serious doubts.

* It is interesting that Netanyahu has been apppointed to an economic post in the cabinet and apparently is rapidly bringing to fruition many of the “economic reforms” urged in the Clean Break document. As John Kerry said about Iraq before the war, “If you want regime change in Iraq, send in the Bush economic team. They’ll bring the country to its knees.” Gawd help the Israelis.

Uhm, Special Prosecutor anybody?

Via TAPPED, I find that Newsday has confirmed that White House officials blew the CIA cover of Joe Wilson’s wife, and not only did they do it, they also lied about their supposed reason for doing so. She did not, evidently, suggest that her husband be the one to make the fact finding trip (and even if she had it is a meaningless charge anyway.) It is clear that they did this to punish Wilson and “send a message” to CIA people who are tempted to speak to the press.

It would be very wrong of me to speculate wildly that the infamous smear operation of the South Carolina primary that is now working right in the White House “communications shop” could possibly be behind this (or more trivially but just as telling, behind the Drudge Report expose of the “Gay Canadian” reporter.)

But, just for the sake of conversation, it is interesting to remember what has happened in the past when the Bushies found themselves on the defensive. In this Salon article Jake Tapper notes the slimeball activities of certain Bush staffers and quotes a senior McCain advisor as saying about the Florida strategy, “When the going gets tough for Governor Bush, he turns to the darker side of our party. We saw that in South Carolina, and we see that today.”

I’m certain that these same people who now work extremely closely with George W. Bush and his advisors would never resort to such dishonorable and undignified behavior in the sacred office of the President of the United States. It’s merely a coincidence that the tactics are so very similar.

No Thanks

Lloyd Grove reports today that liberal Hollywood is just as supine as the Washington press corps when the Bushies demand their presence:

When Laura Bush calls, even staunch Democrats Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg, along with stars Tobey Maguire and Bill Macy, answer. The Hollywoodites screened the DreamWorks movie “Seabiscuit” last night at the White House for President Bush and his wife, an admirer of the movie-inspiring bestseller by Washington writer (and dinner guest) Laura Hillenbrand. “There’s no truth to the rumor that sugar cubes and carrots were on the menu,” a White House wag told us yesterday.

I have it on excellent authority that Jeff Bridges and Chris Cooper both declined the invitation — and not because they had other plans.

Not everyone in Hollywood is a ho.

Have We Been Overlooking The Obvious?

There have been so many developments in the last couple of weeks that I haven’t commented upon that it’s almost useless to go back and try to catch up. But, there are a couple of things that I simply have to say something about before moving on to the important matters of Kobe’s penchant for rough sex and the burning question of whether they actually had the poor taste to airbrush J-Lo’s ample bottom on the Gigli poster.

I haven’t seen any mention of Wesley Clark’s obscure little comment on Meet the Press that Bob Sommerby mentioned a couple of weeks ago. Clark said something that I haven’t heard other commentators even suggest, but in light of the recent revelations by Rumsfeld that we had no new intelligence whatsoever since 1998, this seems to me to be a very interesting possibility.

Here’s what Clark said:

RUSSERT: Was there an intelligence failure? Was the intelligence hyped, as Senator Joe Biden said? Was the president misled, or did he mislead the American people?

CLARK: Well, several things. First of all, all of us in the community who read intelligence believe that Saddam wanted these capabilities and he had some. We struck very hard in December of ’98, did everything we knew, all of his facilities. I think it was an effective set of strikes. Tony Zinni commanded that, called Operation Desert Fox, and I think that set them back a long ways.

I think I remember that. I believe it had something to do with Bill Clinton smoking a cigar in a blue dress while his wag was dogging. Or something.

I refreshed my memory:

Operation Desert Fox.

MISSION: To strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq’s ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

MISSION GOALS: To degrade Saddam Hussein’s ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction. To diminish Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war against his neighbors. To demonstrate to Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international obligations.

PRIMARY MISSION ASSETS: The operation employs U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps aircraft flying from the decks of the USS ENTERPRISE; U.S. Air Force and Royal Air Force aircraft operating from land bases in the region; and Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from U.S. Navy ships at sea and United States Air Force B-52s.

You can read the British report on the operation here. (PDF file.)

After the operation, General Zinni briefed the press:

I think I mentioned before, you can look at this in whole numbers. I mean I can tell you we had 100 targets, and I can tell you, take the WMD, the command and control, the most significant targets. We struck and damaged significantly 85 percent of those. But what does that mean?

Within those target sets there were what we call target elements that are critical. You went after this building for a special reason. Maybe there was a test facility within the building. Maybe there was a wind tunnel. Maybe there was a special piece of machinery or equipment. To get that critical piece of equipment then made the effect greater in our mind. It was not only the damage to the building and the infrastructure and how long it would take to replace that. But now you’ve got a one and only one unique piece of equipment necessary for missile development. As we’re beginning to see those effects come in, we’ve upped our estimate because of the success we’re getting and the confirmation of those kinds of results.

Obviously, I have no idea whether Operation Desert Fox more or less eliminated Saddam’s WMD capabilities. But, Rummy and the Neocons now admit that they didn’t have any new information beyond what we knew at the time, either. General Clark suggested that it may have been decisive in eliminating the remaining programs at the time.

Is it possible that there are no WMD in Iraq today because Bill Clinton led a coalition of the willing and disarmed Saddam Hussein 5 years ago?

nah…impossible…he had oral sex…

Just as a little reminder, this is what Trent Lott said when Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox:

“While I have been assured by administration officials that there is no connection with the impeachment process in the House of Representatives, I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.”

“Psychological Coup”

Hi folks. I’m back. Busy time, lots going on, blah, blah, blah. But, I’m cleared for take-off and don’t expect to be off-line for the forseeable future.

I just heard the big news about the Hussein boys. They sure were dumb, though for hiding out in their cousins villa in the Saddam stronghold of Mosul. And, just when people were getting antsy about the fact that Saddam seemed to be running a guerilla campaign against the Americans while simultaneously scaring the hell out of the Iraqi population by threatening to resume power. Is this a lucky day for America, or what?

I do hope the people who fingered them weren’t the same people who fingered Saddam in the first night of the war, though. Because, I don’t know how many people are aware of this, but according to the Washington Post:

Moseley blamed poor information from Iraqi sources for the strike on the first night of the war against a compound at Dora Farm on the outskirts of Baghdad suspected of sheltering Hussein and his two sons. Despite getting a precise description of a bunker there, Moseley said, no bunker has been found in a postwar investigation.

Nonetheless, the general defended the attack, saying he remains convinced some Iraqi leaders members were present when U.S. bombs and cruise missiles blasted the compound. He said that strike, as well as another against a residential Baghdad building also suspected — apparently falsely — of housing Hussein, demonstrated U.S. resolve and capabilities.

This is one of the big problems when an administration loses all credibility. You just don’t believe a word they say until all facts have been completely confirmed every which way. At this point, they have to put the sons’ heads on a pike and parade them all over the country before anyone will believe them. And, that’t here in the US. I don’t know what it will take to convince the Iraqis.

UPDATE: Apparently, they are absolutely sure. Good riddance. It is unfortunate, however, that they couldn’t take them alive. They were probably the best sources for where Saddam himself is and what happened to those pesky WMD. Oh well.

“I Gotcher Baathist Resistence For Ya, Right Here”

“There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “My answer is bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation.”



Oooh. Time to hose down all those panting Bush fans again. You know how they get when Commander Codpiece gets all manly ‘n shit. Especially when he’s inviting attacks on American soldiers. That is so cool. I bet it skeers all those cowardly lil’ Arabs half to death to hear a big tuff Murikan prezdunt call ’em out like that.

It reminds me of when he drunkenly drove up on the front lawn of the family home and challenged his father to fight him “mano a mano.” That’s what real men — cowboys — do.

Makes you proud to be an American.

Oh Ricky You’re So Fine

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

[…]

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: ‘The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.’

And the minute the horny homophobes left the room, they ran right out and engaged in some heavy man-on-dog action (and I’m not talking about the missuz.)

Gay sex is one of those “gateway” things, dontcha know.

Via Buzzflash

Democratic Majority Will

“Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means…every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best … But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else.“

That is a beautiful thing, yes? Justice Scalia does not believe in imposing one’s views in the absence of democratic majority will. If you can’t persuade one’s fellow citizens of something then you just shouldn’t impose your will on them. That’s what it’s all about.

But, I sure wish that Nino would have given us a little clue as to how we ought to determine that all-important “will of the majority,” because his decisions and the actions of his political allies make it a bit difficult to know how it’s supposed to be done these days.

We know that gaining a half a million vote plurality in a national election is completely irrelevant to any determination of a winner on a logical, legal or moral basis. One should never let something simple like that get in the way of anachronistic rules of centuries gone by as a way of informing themselves as to the democratic majority will.

We also know that even the traditional way of determining the democratic majority will — counting all the votes — is not acceptable because it could irreparably harm one of the party’s claim to have won. It’s going to be tough from now on to win a disputed election because that irreparable harm thing is pretty much inevitable in any contest where a winner and loser are determined.

And if Bush vs. Gore taught us one thing it’s that arbitrary rules and conflicting deadlines are sacrosanct when determining the will of the democratic majority prior to the votes being completely counted.

However, if a party does not like the democratic majority will after the election has been determined, it is perfectly acceptable to remove elected officials through partisan impeachments, recalls and ad hoc gerrymandering.

Nino and his allies believe that democratic majority will should be respected above all other things.

Except when it comes to elections.

The Company He Keeps

I can’t help but feel just a little bit sorry for Justice Clarence Thomas. Clearly, he feels ashamed that his appointment to the Supreme Court is seen in the same light that many see other forms of affirmative action policies. Indeed, one can assume that certain people see his appointment as being the fulfillment of an African American quota, which can only be deeply embarrassing to an extreme conservative such as he.

However, he needs to ask himself whether the problem is the policy or the company he keeps.

In the liberal circles I inhabit, I can’t say that anyone assumes that African Americans or hispanics or women are somehow less qualified for the jobs they do. That stigma certainly doesn’t apply in politics or the professions. If I even made note of the fact that say, an airline pilot was black, I would probably assume that he had been trained by the military as are most commercial pilots. I wouldn’t assume that he was less qualified than others.

My doctor is an African American woman. It never occurred to me to think that she got into medical school, and managed to graduate cum laude, complete a residency at Johns Hopkins and teach at a major medical center without somebody, somewhere, flunking her out if she started killing patients. But, I guess that’s just me.

Liberals, being the standardless relativists that we are, don’t judge people on the basis of whether they are a different color or gender. That’s one of our things, you know? Our assumption is that if you might need help in getting into college, you surely aren’t going to be able to graduate and succeed in the world beyond that if you can’t deliver. In fact, I would argue that most liberals believe that women and racial minorities have to be better than others in order to achieve the same things — they are cut much less slack, overall.

We don’t hate Thomas because he’s black or because he was a recipient of affirmative action. We hate him because he’s an extreme right wing radical who nonetheless claims the mantle of racial victimhood and uses it dishonestly in the service of bigotry. Instead of recognizing that the same old racists are using the epithet “affirmative action admission” as a way of saying that racial minorities are inferior, he blames those who are trying to mitigate that bigotry by developing systems like affirmative action.

If Clarence finds himself feeling ashamed of being the beneficiary of affirmative action then Clarence needs to take up the issue with those who really do see racial minorities as being less qualified because of it. He, of all people, is in a unique position to have a long chat with those in his social circle who mutter “typical affirmative action type” under their breaths and fret to their friends down at the club about the new hispanic lawyer their law firm was “forced” to hire. Because I can guarantee that it isn’t the liberals who are saying these things. It’s Thomas’ best friends and closest colleagues.

I can understand why he might get the impression that everybody thinks that racial minorities are “given” sinecures and special treatment because that’s the way itit’s perceived in the insular right wing world in which he lives. He needs to take it up with Nino, Rush, Bill and Newt at the next bar-b-que.

They’re the ones with the problem, Clarence, not us.

Update: He probably should start by taking a little walk down the hall to Big Bill’s office. Via Atrios, we see how old Bill felt about that wonderful highlight of American jurisprudence “Plessy vs. Ferguson.” Clarence needs to give his good friend a piece of his mind, if he’s truly concerned about how African Americans are “perceived” in our society.

Atrios’ link is bloggered. Scroll down to Rhenquist 1952 from Sunday.