I was watching Fox News for a second tonight, Bill O'Reilly. I really don't know exactly his take on Clinton, but there was a very conservative woman who was talking about him "losing control like her 2 year old" in his interview with Chris Wallace.
Wow. Talk about how two people can look at the same thing and have two very different reactions. Here he's just come off of a very successful fund raising tour that raised a billion I think for a good cause, but that's not really what the interview turns out to be on. Second, it's at the same time that a very important intelligence report--the highest level intelligence report--has concluded that the War in Iraq, which the Bush administration has sold as important to help with the war on terror, has actually hurt the war on terror.
Now everyone who knows anything about anything has been saying this forever. Certainly these were the kinds of things that the State department was in tension with the Pentagon over. These are the things that the UN has been telling us forever but we wouldn't listen because we are smarter than everyone else. It would not be hard to absolutely castrate the credibility of Fox News by playing back arrogant and dismissive clips from 2003, 2004, 2005 before the evidence was so compelling. Show all the snide remarks they made about those who questioned the war and who argued that it would simply make more terrorists.
I saw an intelligent man refusing to take inane accusations lying down. And "out of control"? This woman must have a 2 year old that is a leader in the making. I saw a man with righteous indignation standing up for the truth. A man who was willing to admit that he tried and failed at something. Not an administration that is trying to blame something that happened 8 months into their presidency on the presidency before.
In Clinton's words, "I got closer than anyone has ever since." And "at least I tried. This administration had 8 months to try and didn't." And "If I had been president I'd have put 20,000 troops into Afghanistan looking for bin Laden." And "I wouldn't put 1/7 of my interest in Afghanistan."
I'm sorry, if things look at all fuzzy now, our grandchildren will smile if we dare say bin Laden was Clinton's fault or that Bush was a great president. They'll smile like I did when my grandmother protested because the history books were saying that it is not at all likely historically that Washington chopped down any cherry tree.
Smile and wave, boys, just smile and wave...
Monday, September 25, 2006
Sunday, September 24, 2006
NIA Confirms my claims
The National Intelligence Agency has lent credence to what I've been saying all along while undermining once again the bizarre claims of the Bush administration that the war with Iraq is "taking the war to them so we don't have to fight them here."
The NIA has concluded that the Iraq War, far from decreasing jihadism around the world, has intensified it and actually helped with recruiting.
Believe it or not, I was watching Fox News tonight when they were reporting it. In keeping with their particular leanings (not denying the leanings in opposite directions elsewhere), they did their best to mollify the impact of this deeply undermining claim. Their best shots were 1) an administration official who repeated the ludicrous, "It's keeping them from coming here" thing (surely Al Qaeda can spare 4 or 5 for New York City?) and 2) that's why we need to win this war.
I'd be glad for us to "win this war." But let's admit that the Bush doctrine, with Iraq as its primary example, has proved to be a failure. Let's not try that again.
The NIA has concluded that the Iraq War, far from decreasing jihadism around the world, has intensified it and actually helped with recruiting.
Believe it or not, I was watching Fox News tonight when they were reporting it. In keeping with their particular leanings (not denying the leanings in opposite directions elsewhere), they did their best to mollify the impact of this deeply undermining claim. Their best shots were 1) an administration official who repeated the ludicrous, "It's keeping them from coming here" thing (surely Al Qaeda can spare 4 or 5 for New York City?) and 2) that's why we need to win this war.
I'd be glad for us to "win this war." But let's admit that the Bush doctrine, with Iraq as its primary example, has proved to be a failure. Let's not try that again.
Friday, September 22, 2006
The Pope Vs. The Middle East
This is for you, Craig.
Is the bulk of the Middle East Muslim world mad? The Pope quotes someone who takes parts of the Quran to advocate violence. Then in protest to what he said, they burn churches and Al Qaeda targets him!
If it weren't so serious, it would be funny! Actually, from where I sit in northern South Dakota, it is pretty darn funny. But I noticed Leno didn't go for the juggler--probably for fear of death threats and such. You can make fun of Christians all you want... but be careful about making fun of Muslims!
What were they thinking? We'll show the Pope is wrong about some Muslims being violent by burning churches? We'll show the Pope is wrong by killing him?
Clearly it's not about being right or wrong. It's about daring to critique them. Of course these protesters do not represent all Muslims.
Some are upset that the Pope has not withdrawn his comments, only apologized for offending them. But if the Pope believes that what he said is true, he can't withdraw his comments. He has to speak the truth. You or me, we might say, "You know what, I must have misunderstood." But the Pope can't deny what he believes is the truth... he's the Pope.
Sometimes it's good to be Galileo. Sure, sure, the sun goes around the earth...
Is the bulk of the Middle East Muslim world mad? The Pope quotes someone who takes parts of the Quran to advocate violence. Then in protest to what he said, they burn churches and Al Qaeda targets him!
If it weren't so serious, it would be funny! Actually, from where I sit in northern South Dakota, it is pretty darn funny. But I noticed Leno didn't go for the juggler--probably for fear of death threats and such. You can make fun of Christians all you want... but be careful about making fun of Muslims!
What were they thinking? We'll show the Pope is wrong about some Muslims being violent by burning churches? We'll show the Pope is wrong by killing him?
Clearly it's not about being right or wrong. It's about daring to critique them. Of course these protesters do not represent all Muslims.
Some are upset that the Pope has not withdrawn his comments, only apologized for offending them. But if the Pope believes that what he said is true, he can't withdraw his comments. He has to speak the truth. You or me, we might say, "You know what, I must have misunderstood." But the Pope can't deny what he believes is the truth... he's the Pope.
Sometimes it's good to be Galileo. Sure, sure, the sun goes around the earth...
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Early Days in Iraq
I was reading a piece on msnbc.com this morning:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14868608/from/ET/
I cannot know to what extent this is accurate or not. It would have been perfectly appropriate for the Bush administration to appoint some people who were loyal to his ideas and administration. But this article suggests that the practice was so dominating that it became a touchstone over expertise.
Again, just because it's in an article doesn't mean it's true. But of course it plays into my own impressions of the Bush administration. That his venture in Iraq was a test of neo-conservative ideology and of the conservative think tanks in Washington. Let's forget for a moment that the actual lives of thousands upon thousands of people were involved for a moment, including over two thousand dead American soldiers. Instead, let's take the Iraq war as an experiment in neo-conservative foreign policy.
Okay, the experiment isn't quite done yet, but we have enough data in to draw firm conclusions.
IT FAILED. Waiter, we'll have several plates of humble pie for the Bush administration and also for the fundamentalists and neo-cons who supported this "experiment." And for dessert, could you elect people next time who actually know how the world works rather than operating from some simplistic enculturated paradigm with superficial religious sprinkles.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14868608/from/ET/
I cannot know to what extent this is accurate or not. It would have been perfectly appropriate for the Bush administration to appoint some people who were loyal to his ideas and administration. But this article suggests that the practice was so dominating that it became a touchstone over expertise.
Again, just because it's in an article doesn't mean it's true. But of course it plays into my own impressions of the Bush administration. That his venture in Iraq was a test of neo-conservative ideology and of the conservative think tanks in Washington. Let's forget for a moment that the actual lives of thousands upon thousands of people were involved for a moment, including over two thousand dead American soldiers. Instead, let's take the Iraq war as an experiment in neo-conservative foreign policy.
Okay, the experiment isn't quite done yet, but we have enough data in to draw firm conclusions.
IT FAILED. Waiter, we'll have several plates of humble pie for the Bush administration and also for the fundamentalists and neo-cons who supported this "experiment." And for dessert, could you elect people next time who actually know how the world works rather than operating from some simplistic enculturated paradigm with superficial religious sprinkles.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Bush's push for secret prison legislation
Bush has recently come out with acknowledgement not only that secret CIA prisons exist but he has implied that they sometimes used techniques that "cross the line" of what is currently officially allowed. He has urged Congress to pass legislation that will allow for interrogation that does not fall within the generally accepted understanding of the Geneva convention.
First, I doubt many of us are sympathetic to the kinds of persons that are likely taken to such camps. We've been raised on Dirty Harry and action films where the good guy (or gal) has to break a few eggs to make the omelet of justice. But in these missions impossible, the good guy always is told that "if you are caught, the secretary will disavow knowledge of your existence." The purpose of plausible deniability and unknown knowledge was to hold two or three apparently irreconcilable necessities in tension.
The Geneva convention, I believe, is ultimately not a matter of human decency or morality. Don't fool yourself. It's about tit for tat. It's an agreement that we won't torture yours if you don't torture ours. I think Bush has questioned in the past whether the Geneva convention applies to terrorists, since they do not represent a sovereign nation and are not part of any such agreement. Frankly, we can question whether nations who have no intention of abiding by such rules are a part of the deal. But it remains an important symbol, a statement that a nation is morally upstanding. If America were blatantly to disregard the Geneva convention, we can kiss any trace of pretense to moral status in the world goodbye.
Then there is the "break the eggs" truth. Can we stop terrorists, find terrorists, etc... without someone breaking eggs somewhere? Many would say that we can. Yet I am sympathetic to those who believe that our justice system inappropriately favors the guilty in the face of their victims. Our fears that evil men would sue and otherwise make a mockery of our system make it all too easy to sympathize with those who secretly would work for good by questionable means. These are difficult issues for which I have no real solutions.
The problem with Bush is that he is disavowing nothing--likely because he can't. He is trying to unify the irreconcilable. And of course one suspects that there are two other real reasons to explain what's really going on here:
1. It's going to come out anyway. Bush is headed for a big crisis because the people from these secret interrogation prisons are now visible and they will be heard. They are detestable, but they will be heard. The attempt to pass legislation is an attempt to cover his buttocks in the ensuing thunderstorm that could even lead to impeachment.
2. Second, it is an attempt to polarize Congress into two camps: Republicans as those strong on defense and Democrats as soft on terrorism. Clever to try to leave Congress in this state just before mid-term elections. When the Democrats control Congress, the possibility of impeachment or at the very least an even lamer duck looms large.
Bush's problem is of course that the old shtick just isn't working as well as it used to and even more significant, his own party isn't going along with him completely. He will not be able to paint the Republican/Democrat divide as he had hoped.
So I'm going to be the first to use the word impeachment, at least I haven't heard anyone else use the word. I say this not because I hope Bush is impeached. I don't actually hope for that. But I am suggesting that there is a real possibility that Congress, led by a new Democrat majority, will attempt to impeach President Bush in the last two years of his administration. I've said it before and will say it again. The history books will evaluate President Bush as one of the worst presidents in American history.
First, I doubt many of us are sympathetic to the kinds of persons that are likely taken to such camps. We've been raised on Dirty Harry and action films where the good guy (or gal) has to break a few eggs to make the omelet of justice. But in these missions impossible, the good guy always is told that "if you are caught, the secretary will disavow knowledge of your existence." The purpose of plausible deniability and unknown knowledge was to hold two or three apparently irreconcilable necessities in tension.
The Geneva convention, I believe, is ultimately not a matter of human decency or morality. Don't fool yourself. It's about tit for tat. It's an agreement that we won't torture yours if you don't torture ours. I think Bush has questioned in the past whether the Geneva convention applies to terrorists, since they do not represent a sovereign nation and are not part of any such agreement. Frankly, we can question whether nations who have no intention of abiding by such rules are a part of the deal. But it remains an important symbol, a statement that a nation is morally upstanding. If America were blatantly to disregard the Geneva convention, we can kiss any trace of pretense to moral status in the world goodbye.
Then there is the "break the eggs" truth. Can we stop terrorists, find terrorists, etc... without someone breaking eggs somewhere? Many would say that we can. Yet I am sympathetic to those who believe that our justice system inappropriately favors the guilty in the face of their victims. Our fears that evil men would sue and otherwise make a mockery of our system make it all too easy to sympathize with those who secretly would work for good by questionable means. These are difficult issues for which I have no real solutions.
The problem with Bush is that he is disavowing nothing--likely because he can't. He is trying to unify the irreconcilable. And of course one suspects that there are two other real reasons to explain what's really going on here:
1. It's going to come out anyway. Bush is headed for a big crisis because the people from these secret interrogation prisons are now visible and they will be heard. They are detestable, but they will be heard. The attempt to pass legislation is an attempt to cover his buttocks in the ensuing thunderstorm that could even lead to impeachment.
2. Second, it is an attempt to polarize Congress into two camps: Republicans as those strong on defense and Democrats as soft on terrorism. Clever to try to leave Congress in this state just before mid-term elections. When the Democrats control Congress, the possibility of impeachment or at the very least an even lamer duck looms large.
Bush's problem is of course that the old shtick just isn't working as well as it used to and even more significant, his own party isn't going along with him completely. He will not be able to paint the Republican/Democrat divide as he had hoped.
So I'm going to be the first to use the word impeachment, at least I haven't heard anyone else use the word. I say this not because I hope Bush is impeached. I don't actually hope for that. But I am suggesting that there is a real possibility that Congress, led by a new Democrat majority, will attempt to impeach President Bush in the last two years of his administration. I've said it before and will say it again. The history books will evaluate President Bush as one of the worst presidents in American history.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
IAEA and the House Intelligence Committee
There was something strangely familiar today when the IAEA strongly disagreed with the report of the House Intelligence committee on the state of Iran's nuclear program. Basically the IAEA says Iran isn't nearly as far along as the House committee thinks it is.
I remember this one. Remember when we were "poo poo-ing" Germany for saying things like "I just don't see the evidence for WMD in Iraq." I remember what I thought at the time: "Of course there are WMD in Iraq." We made fun of the Germans and especially the French. Now, mind you, maybe the French did have personal interests in Iraq that made them less than objective. But what no one seems to remember--and what you will never hear on Fox News--is that the French, Germans, and Russians were right!
Sure the Russians and French may have had ulterior motives, but their arguments against us that we had not made the case for WMD turned out to be right!!!! We should really be sheepishly embarrassed for not having listened to them. But we've conveniently forgotten how this all came down.
Bush barrelled ahead--he was like the child that ignores the parent's advice thinking it will all turn out okay. And then it doesn't. It messes up just like the parent told the child it might. That's what happened in Iraq and we're too forgetful to remember that all their predictions came true!!!
But this post was meant to be about Iran. Once again, I am asked to make a choice on who I will trust. I trusted Bush last time over Europe and the UN, and it turned out that I made the wrong decision. So I am not going to trust the House intelligence committee this time on Iran. Could the IAEA be lying to try to keep the US from doing something rash again? Sure. But fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. You're going to have to over prove something like this to me this time. You've blown the trust factor.
This is a big problem for the Bush administration with people like me. All along they have asked us to trust them. Take the spying on us and the secret prisons and Guantanamo. They ask us to trust them to do the right thing. If we tell you everything we're doing, it will compromise American security. Maybe. But you've long since lost my trust.
I remember this one. Remember when we were "poo poo-ing" Germany for saying things like "I just don't see the evidence for WMD in Iraq." I remember what I thought at the time: "Of course there are WMD in Iraq." We made fun of the Germans and especially the French. Now, mind you, maybe the French did have personal interests in Iraq that made them less than objective. But what no one seems to remember--and what you will never hear on Fox News--is that the French, Germans, and Russians were right!
Sure the Russians and French may have had ulterior motives, but their arguments against us that we had not made the case for WMD turned out to be right!!!! We should really be sheepishly embarrassed for not having listened to them. But we've conveniently forgotten how this all came down.
Bush barrelled ahead--he was like the child that ignores the parent's advice thinking it will all turn out okay. And then it doesn't. It messes up just like the parent told the child it might. That's what happened in Iraq and we're too forgetful to remember that all their predictions came true!!!
But this post was meant to be about Iran. Once again, I am asked to make a choice on who I will trust. I trusted Bush last time over Europe and the UN, and it turned out that I made the wrong decision. So I am not going to trust the House intelligence committee this time on Iran. Could the IAEA be lying to try to keep the US from doing something rash again? Sure. But fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. You're going to have to over prove something like this to me this time. You've blown the trust factor.
This is a big problem for the Bush administration with people like me. All along they have asked us to trust them. Take the spying on us and the secret prisons and Guantanamo. They ask us to trust them to do the right thing. If we tell you everything we're doing, it will compromise American security. Maybe. But you've long since lost my trust.
Monday, September 11, 2006
The Blog Beginneth
My political views are distracting enough to so many who look at my primary blog, Schenck Thoughts that I've decided to create this blog for more "real world" issues such as world events and politics. Not that I won't sometimes post these kinds of things on my other blog. But this way I can let posts with greater gravitas simmer longer over there and posts here can vent my frustrations with things like President Bush's speech tonight.
I heard very little of it, but the 10 minute swatch I heard was trash. As if we have brought freedom to Iraq. What a disgrace, with top CIA operatives reporting to the Pentagon that we have lost Anbar Province to Al-Qaeda in Iraq. My impression of the classified report that I haven't read obviously is that in that province, we have already reached "Vietnam status."
I heard very little of it, but the 10 minute swatch I heard was trash. As if we have brought freedom to Iraq. What a disgrace, with top CIA operatives reporting to the Pentagon that we have lost Anbar Province to Al-Qaeda in Iraq. My impression of the classified report that I haven't read obviously is that in that province, we have already reached "Vietnam status."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)