Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Imperialist Stunt

I saw this the other night and I almost couldn’t believe it. If it were anyone but Sy Hersh making the claim I would have to say it was tin-foil time.

When the war began, even though this is– again, you know, this is complicated. Musharraf asked, as a favor, to protect his position. If we suddenly seized, in in the field, a few dozen military soldiers, including generals, and put them in jail, and punished them, he would be under tremendous pressure from the fundamentalists at home.

So, to protect him, we perceive that it’s important to protect him, he asked us– this is why when I tell you it comes at the level of Don Rumsfeld, it has to. I mean, it does. He asked– he said, “You’ve got to protect me. You’ve got to get my people out.”

The initial plan was to take out the Pakistani military. What happened is that they took out al Qaeda with them. And we had no way of stopping it. We lost control. Once there planes began to go, the Pakistanis began– thousands of al Qaeda got out. And so– we weren’t able to stop it and screen it. The intent wasn’t to let al Qaeda out. It was to protect the Pakistani military.

But, when you think about it, it actually makes sense in Bush terms. In order to preserve Musharref’s tenuous hold on a nuclear nation that could easily be overwhelmed by Islamic fundamentalists like the Taliban, the US had to agree to evacuate the Pakistani military who were helping to train the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. In the process, we evacuated al Qaeda and Taliban to Pakistan. From the war we were waging in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The more we hear of things like this the more plausible it really is that the Bush administration doesn’t find the terrorist threat to be very serious and the war with Iraq is being waged as an easy, splashy “pageant” meant to put the world on notice that they should simply give up in the face of our awesome Death Star technology. To do this, it must be an easy win. Whatever the consequences, they’ll wing it.

Neal Gabler makes this case in his “A splendid little war”

The Spanish-America War, like the imminent war in Iraq, had its origins not in any direct threat to American security or in treaty obligations to allies or even in some affront to American honor, but in a desire to project a new sense of the country’s power and responsibility — in historian Frank Friedel’s words, “to see the United States function like a great nation.” Though the world of the late 19th century was not, like ours, dominated by a single superpower, America possessed an abiding faith in her own moral superiority to every other regnant nation, just as it does today. This was (and is) not entirely without justification. At the time, America was certainly more idealistic than Germany, France, England, Japan or Spain. She believed in the values of democracy and equality even if she didn’t always believe in their actual exercise — Third World nations would need a lot of help — and she increasingly saw her role as international cop, enforcing what other nations were too craven to enforce.

It’s probably only a coincidence, but Karl Rove calls himself a “student” of the McKinley presidency. (This is mostly because McKinley was really a creature of his political handler Mark Hanna, I suspect; they were almost always pictured together, as partners, in political cartoons like the one below.)

There are many other parallels between the two Presidents, not the least of which is that the war was fully supported, if not created, by the press. War — but most especially victory — is very good for the media business.

It would be a good idea, considering all this, to keep in mind that the rallying cry of “Remember The Maine,” referring to the incident that precipitated our declaration of war, was very likely an engine explosion, not a Spanish bomb, as we contemplate the impending and inevitable “material breach.”

Gabler concludes with:

In the end, as much as doves may hate to say it, Bush may be right. Why not go to war? The Cuban portion of the Spanish-American War did last less than 90 days, and it resulted not only in Spain leaving Cuba but in America taking Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines and thus asserting her power. But if Spain was quickly vanquished, the Philippine portion of the war dragged on for years as America tried to pacify insurgents there, resulting in 4,000 American dead and hundreds of thousands of Philippine civilian casualties. (Anyone looking for the analogy to Vietnam will find it here.) As the saying goes, watch what you wish for …

Of course the assumption, in 2003 as in 1898, is that war will be quick and bloodless — that it won’t be hell but a piece of cake. At least, that is what the Bush administration is telling us and that is what many of us want to believe. We are going to war no matter what and no matter why. If that sounds vaguely familiar, it is. We have been here before. It is 1898 all over again.

But, there were no Pakistans with nukes or bin Laden’s with al Jazeera. The world is much smaller now and the stakes are much bigger. This kind of adventure is beyond risky in the nuclear age. It’s reckless.

Thanks to Testify for the NPR link

The Norwegians—who gave us the term “quisling”—awarded former President Jimmy Carter the Peace Prize

Ann Coulter

Kevin proposes that Jimmy Carter be appointed as civilian leader of Iraq.

Sure, conservatives hate him, but consider: he was president of the United States for four years and knows a bit about running a country. He’s a prominent dove and would be trusted by lots of people who otherwise wouldn’t give Bush the time of day. He’s rather famously sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, which means he’d be trusted by the Arabs. And he’s a humanitarian, which means he’d be genuinely motivated to help Iraq and the Iraqi people.

If Bush did this he would cut the Democrats off at the knees. It would be brilliant. It would be right.

It is, therefore, impossible.

Huh???

Bush Cited Report That Doesn’t Exist

Bush and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer went out of their way Thursday to cite a new survey by “Blue-Chip economists” that the economy would grow 3.3 percent this year if the president’s tax cut proposal becomes law.

That was news to the editor who assembles the economic forecast. “I don’t know what he was citing,” said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation’s top economists each month.

“I was a little upset,” said Moore, who said he complained to the White House. “It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president’s plan. That’s simply not the case.”

Deputy White House Press Secretary Claire Buchan insisted Friday that the survey, which mentioned “the likelihood that some version of the Bush administration’s latest stimulus package will be enacted,” justified the president’s claim. Moore said that a survey taken in January before the president announced his plan forecast 3.3 percent annual growth between the last quarter of 2002 and the last quarter of 2003. A survey taken in February reached the same consensus.

Sure. That makes sense. And, it’s not like it’s about sex or anything.

You kin keep yer 1945 Mouton Rothschild, Frenchy. It ain’t no different than a 1998 Damianitza Melnik innyhow

BULGARIA is turning into a competitive threat to French wine exports to the US market after members of the US Congress said they were considering a boycott of all French goods, especially wines.

At the end of 2002, Bulgaria occupied sixteenth place in the list of wine exporters to the US with only about 209 000 litres, while France was the second leading exporter of wine to the US with more than 74 million litres, behind Italy, which is the top importer.

US lawmakers, angry over France’s opposition to the White House administration’s Iraq policies, are considering retaliatory gestures such as trade sanctions against the French, the Washington Post said last Wednesday. The 17 senators that are behind the move have reportedly initiated a subscription list as well.

Bulgarian-language media reports this week said that the US Embassy in Sofia, as well as trade attaches, have been instructed to co-operate in increasing Bulgarian wines’ market share in the US.

“France and Germany are losing credibility by the day, and they are losing, I think, status in the world,” House of Representatives Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay said, quoted by the Post.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, angered by France’s policies on agriculture as well as on Iraq, has told associates he would like to target two of that nation’s most sacred drinks: water and wine. Hastert talked to House members about slapping restrictions on French imports of bottled water and fine wine.

Thanks to Stoutdem

Rule ‘o Law

Nathan Newman points out that Godwin’s Law has already been repealed by…Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice.

But, he forgot my favorite:

“How could any German say such a thing after all the United States had done to liberate Germany from Hitler?”

Our President’s national security advisor actually said that, yes she did.

American As Apple Pie

Dwight Meredith To Enter Baseball’s Hall of Fame

Congratulations, Dwight! I’d love to attend the ceremony, but I’ll be in Las Vegas where I hear the average winner at the Million Dollar Spin gets a million dollars. I could use the money.

I’ve Got A Secret

Don’t tell anybody, but there is a liberal media. It just isn’t explicitly political very often. It’s called Popular Culture.

Tomorrow night, some of the more outspoken popular icons will be appearing on the Grammy’s. According to the LA Times at the Brit Awards last night:

Coldplay’s Chris Martin broke away from the usual thank you speech Thursday at the Brit Awards, the local equivalent of the U.S. Grammys, to declare, “Awards are essentially nonsense, but we’re all going to die when George Bush has his way — it’s good to go out with a bang.”

Now, according the the esteemed fair and balanced Drudge, CBS has admonished the awards recipients and presenters:

“It, of course, is a final option [to cut the microphone.] But it’s a very real option,” said the top source, who demanded anonymity. “There is a time for political commentary, this is not one of them!”

Well now, isn’t that special. Fred Barnes and Tucker Carlson may think that the entire country believes that loudmouthed, bowtied dough boys are sex symbols, but in the world that real people inhabit Springsteen, Eminem and Sheryl Crow are just a little bit more uh…familiar. The fact is that if more and more people start saying this stuff out loud, it may reach critical mass and result in curbing the radical excesses of this administration.

I think it’s time for the real liberal media to start flexing it’s muscle.

Via Jesse

(Oh, and for those who think that celebrities speaking out on politics is silly, think again. It certainly isn’t any more inappropriate than bloggers like us spouting our political opinons all over the blogosphere. We’re a bunch of citizens sufficiently engaged and informed that we feel the need to express our opinions and join the debate. The difference is that celebrities have audiences of millions and I guarantee that the only people who’ll really criticize them for speaking out about politics are those who disagree with them. Frankly, from the level of political discourse I hear on cable news these days, the professional pundits sound so tired and programmed that even I can’t listen to it anymore it’s so boring. Time to change the channel.)

UPDATE:

SHOCKER!!! Drudge lied. Hard to believe.

Bell, Book and Crossburning

Ok, so I can’t resist jumping into this debate about race and intelligence with an observation. Kevin Drum says: In particular, liberals are forced to make the following argument[s]: Intelligence isn’t really a meaningful trait.

If this is so, then I would have to say that liberals have won this argument hands down. How else can one explain the dizzying popularity of George W. Bush in conservative circles? Ba-dum-pum.

ahem.

I argued earlier on Atrios’s blog (and he quotes me today) about the obvious racist implications and conclusions of The Bell Curve. It is irrefutable that the science underlying these conclusions and the statistical analysis they used have been thoroughly rebutted. But, that doesn’t really address the main thrust of Kevin’s post.

First, I agree with Kevin that “intelligence” in the sense of somebody being ”a smart cookie” is the common sense kind of assessment we make every day. But, many people who test very well do not appear to be “smart cookies” and the opposite is also often true. The common sense assessment is made through a thicket of personal prejudices and experiences. And history as well as current examples show that cultural influence has a huge effect on how one interprets intelligence. I’m reminded of a work colleague who when faced with hiring one of either a black or a white candidate said to me, “I don’t know, I just lean toward hiring (the white guy). He seems to be more on the ball.” I asked him why he thought that and he replied, “He reminds me of myself when I was his age.”

Kieren Healy ascribes to Kevin a desire to be “reasonable” as the reason he waffles from what appears to be a defense of the idea that IQ tests show that African-Americans are less intelligent to an acknowledgement that socio-economic and other factors properly mitigate the disparities between African- Americans and others.

I think we are talking about two different things there and they get to the main thrust of Kevin’s argument, which is that because liberals are so afraid of the information about intelligence being used to promote eugenics or eugenics based policy that we are “forced to make the following arguments: Intelligence isn’t really a meaningful trait. And even if it is meaningful, IQ tests don’t measure it well. They are culturally and racially biased. And even if intelligence is measurable, it doesn’t have a significant genetic component. It’s mostly based on environment and upbringing.”

Atrios argues that liberals merely resist using the word “intelligence” when discussing disparities in test score results because it implies immutability — something that can lead inexorably to racism in a culture that Kevin and many others would agree finds “intelligence” to be a valuable asset to society as a whole. In his mind the argument is one of semantics and I think that is correct. It is important to understand how the meaning of words is twisted to advantage in areas like race and be cautious about falling into a trap laid by those who are very aware that what they say has multiple layers of meaning to people who care to look.

In many ways, the crux of the entire discussion we’ve been having lately about the Southern Strategy, racism and political correctness is one of semantics. One side argues that “it is what it is” and the other argues that there is more to it. We are arguing the meaning of words and phrases and it doesn’t seem useful, to me, to pretend that these semantic differences aren’t tremendously significant. So, in the interests of maintaining credibility, those who study the differences between the races in standardized test scores should be very specific and resist the urge to use terms like intelligence, or at the very least they should be very careful to state (as Murray and Herrnstein did not — and in fact did the opposite) that IQ and g are very definitely NOT immutable characteristics.

But, beyond that is Kevin’s assertion that liberals believe that IQ tests don’t measure intelligence well. I think is a fair characterization of one liberal position on the topic. They point to data that suggests that these tests in themselves aren’t very predictive of success in life (which somewhat refutes the point of Kevin’s argument — that we need to raise the test scores so African-Americans can be more successful.) “Intelligence” as measured by IQ tests does not take into account the huge number of variables that go into potential individual success, for which the IQ often serves as a proxy. It is worth noting again, that when the tests are properly adjusted for SES, the disparities disappear. Therefore, when many people say that IQ tests don’t measure intelligence well, this is the kind of thing they are talking about. In and of themselves, they only present a part of the picture and yet there are those who persist in believing that testable cognitive ability alone is a meaningful measure. It is not a liberal rejection of the science, it is a liberal requirement that the science be careful and complete.

I don’t know whether intelligence has a significant genetic component. I don’t think anybody does yet. I don’t doubt that g is heritable to some degree, but I have seen nothing to indicate that the heritability of g is related to the heritability of superficial racial characteristics, which can be dominant or recessive from generation to generation, like any other genetic trait. From a genetic standpoint, the differences between the races are extremely small and our measurement of g is very crude, so I think the jury is still out. But, I do know that race in this country is an interpretive art, a social construct, more than anything else. When the science is able to do it, it’s going to be very interesting to find out where we all fall in the racial spectrum because it’s been defined up to now by everything from what color your great grandfather was to what you chose to call yourself on the official form you just filled out.

Atrios published an additional comment of mine regarding the scientific vs the political aspect of this debate. Science is under attack from the Right in this country far more than from the Left. I adamantly believe that it is important to fight this in every way at our disposal and that means with scientific as well as political arguments. In the case of racism, it sometimes requires a bit of both to make the point.

But, there is no margin in allowing Murray and Herrnstein even a moment of credibility on any level and it is exceedingly important to recognize that these old and tired eugenic arguments can easily be dressed up in the modern language of science for a lay reader who is looking for something “scholarly” to back up his gut feeling that “those people” just aren’t as smart as they are.. We can argue about logistic regression and the immutability of g until the cows come home, but those people who bought that stupid book (and the media that shamelessly plugged it because it was “sexy”) need to be put on notice that it is nothing more than a racist screed pretending to be science. It’s exhausting, and people get tired of hearing it, but as Kevin points out, we must face the truth squarely. And the truth is that The Bell Curve is a racist book and was written to serve a racist agenda.

Edited 2/22 6 pm for hilarious mistake — see comments.

“I believe what I believe and I believe what I believe is right.”

Chris at Interesting Times finds a very interesting article that will go into the “What Make’s These Crazies Tick” folder immediately.

The two psychologists think that inept people are often self-assured because they lack self-monitoring skills, which are the same skills required for competence. Subjects who scored in the lowest quartile in tests of logic, English grammar, and humor were also the mostly likely to “grossly overestimate” how well they performed.

One Size Doesn’t Fit All

Seth Michaels comments on the article everybody’s talking about.

Here’s a well-done, if depressing, article on how the concentration of Democratic campaigns in the hands of a few firms is hurting them in elections. I can think of a few good object lessons (the article has a lot of blind quotes and so tends to avoid mention of specific campaigns): 2002 candidates like Jeanne Shaheen and Erskine Bowles and Chellie Pingree got beaten in part because of the bland, prefab feel of their campaigns – especially the August-to-November unblinking drone of social security and prescription drug commercials. On the other hand, the most successful campaigns of 2002, the pleasant surprises, were Tim Johnson and Mary Landrieu, who each found a very specific, very local issue on which to draw contrasts between themselves and Team Bush (drought relief for Johnson, sugar for Landrieu). And I don’t think anyone doubts that Paul Wellstone, had he lived, might have won not in spite of his opposition to an

Iraq war but because of the principled contrast it created. Will the D’s learn their lesson in time for 2004?

By the way, Seth culls all the blogs and has some sharp commentary and interesting insights into the sausage making and strategic workings of party politics. He is a good place to start when you’re pressed for time and you want to get a snapshot of the inside political dope of the day.