She is a hoot.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
A plug for progressive radio
You may have noticed I have a bizarre sense of humor, described by many as "not funny," but I have funny for you. In Chicago, Saturday mornings on AM 850 while going to the hardware store, or online, check out the Stephanie Miller show. She is hilarious (and the daughter of Goldwater's running mate????) and has a great voice guy with drop dead impressions.
She is a hoot.
She is a hoot.
A bad joke
I rarely do this, but:
After numerous rounds of "We don't even know if Osama is still alive," Osama himself decided to send George Bush a letter in his own handwriting to let him know he was still in the game. Bush opened the letter and it appeared to contain a single line of coded message:
370HSSV 0773H
Bush was baffled, so he e-mailed it to Condi Rice. Condi and her aides had no clue either, so they sent it to the FBI. No one could solve it at the FBI so it went to the CIA, then to the NSA. With no clue as to its meaning they eventually asked Britain's MI-6 for help. Within a minute MI-6 cabled the White House with this reply:
"Tell the President he's holding the message upside down."
After numerous rounds of "We don't even know if Osama is still alive," Osama himself decided to send George Bush a letter in his own handwriting to let him know he was still in the game. Bush opened the letter and it appeared to contain a single line of coded message:
370HSS
Bush was baffled, so he e-mailed it to Condi Rice. Condi and her aides had no clue either, so they sent it to the FBI. No one could solve it at the FBI so it went to the CIA, then to the NSA. With no clue as to its meaning they eventually asked Britain's MI-6 for help. Within a minute MI-6 cabled the White House with this reply:
"Tell the President he's holding the message upside down."
More from the "Pants on Fire" File
I borrowed this from a very entertaining blog I just discovered, Swerve Left:
`I keep thinking that Shrub is going to tell the truth about something at some point just to keep us off guard, but I may be mistaken. Think Progress had the following on one of those gaping holes in the latest propaganda blitz: Yesterday, President Bush claimed that Iraqi security forces “primarily led” the assault on the city of Tal Afar. Bush highlighted it as an “especially clear” sign of the progress Iraq security forces were making in Iraq.
The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year’s assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army — with six Iraqi battalions supporting them…This year in Tal Afar, it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces — 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support.
TIME Magazine reporter Michael Ware, who is embedded with the U.S. troops in Iraq who participated in the Tal Afar battle, appeared on Anderson Cooper yesterday. He said Bush’s description was completely untrue:
I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them.'
Here is a picture of the president during his speech:
`I keep thinking that Shrub is going to tell the truth about something at some point just to keep us off guard, but I may be mistaken. Think Progress had the following on one of those gaping holes in the latest propaganda blitz: Yesterday, President Bush claimed that Iraqi security forces “primarily led” the assault on the city of Tal Afar. Bush highlighted it as an “especially clear” sign of the progress Iraq security forces were making in Iraq.
The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year’s assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army — with six Iraqi battalions supporting them…This year in Tal Afar, it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces — 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support.
TIME Magazine reporter Michael Ware, who is embedded with the U.S. troops in Iraq who participated in the Tal Afar battle, appeared on Anderson Cooper yesterday. He said Bush’s description was completely untrue:
I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them.'
Here is a picture of the president during his speech:
Cognitive Dissonance
"Cognitive dissonance" is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them...... if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know, particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge, they are likely to resist the new learning.
See example below:
See example below:
Deja vu all over again
Excerpts From President Nixon's Speech on "Vietnamization," November 3, 1969.
I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.
In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace….For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would thus be a disaster of immense magnitude. A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends. Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of world conquest. This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere. Ultimately, this would cost more lives. It would not bring peace; it would bring more war.
The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength. As a result they have been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops. Let me now turn to our program for the future. We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces, and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.
I have not and do not intend to announce the timetable for our program. And there are obvious reasons for this decision which I am sure you will understand. In speaking of the consequences of a precipitate withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America. Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves.
Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people. We have faced other crises in our history and have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what had to be done when we knew our course was right.
I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved. In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading: "Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home."
Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.
Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.
I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.
In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace….For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would thus be a disaster of immense magnitude. A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends. Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of world conquest. This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere. Ultimately, this would cost more lives. It would not bring peace; it would bring more war.
The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength. As a result they have been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops. Let me now turn to our program for the future. We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces, and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.
I have not and do not intend to announce the timetable for our program. And there are obvious reasons for this decision which I am sure you will understand. In speaking of the consequences of a precipitate withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America. Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves.
Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people. We have faced other crises in our history and have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what had to be done when we knew our course was right.
I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved. In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading: "Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home."
Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.
Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.
President Franklin Delano Bush-December 7th
Pearl Harbor Attacked!
President Franklin Delano Bush Declares War on Paraguay!!!
How to make a theocracy without really trying
How Bush Created a Theocracy in Iraq
By Juan Cole
The Bush administration naively believed that Iraq was a blank slate on which it could inscribe its vision for a remake of the Arab world. Iraq, however, was a witches’ brew of dynamic social and religious movements, a veritable pressure cooker. When George W. Bush invaded, he blew off the lid. Shiite religious leaders and parties, in particular, have crucially shaped the new Iraq in each of its three political phases. The first was during the period of direct American rule, largely by Paul Bremer. The second comprised the months of interim government, when Iyad Allawi was prime minister. The third stretches from the formation of an elected government, with Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister, to today.
PLEASE read the rest of this excellent discussion of how badly Bush botched Iraq here.
By Juan Cole
The Bush administration naively believed that Iraq was a blank slate on which it could inscribe its vision for a remake of the Arab world. Iraq, however, was a witches’ brew of dynamic social and religious movements, a veritable pressure cooker. When George W. Bush invaded, he blew off the lid. Shiite religious leaders and parties, in particular, have crucially shaped the new Iraq in each of its three political phases. The first was during the period of direct American rule, largely by Paul Bremer. The second comprised the months of interim government, when Iyad Allawi was prime minister. The third stretches from the formation of an elected government, with Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister, to today.
PLEASE read the rest of this excellent discussion of how badly Bush botched Iraq here.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Do you really want us to do that, Don?
Rummy said we should, besides noting "how many Americans have been killed," ask "what they died for."
Do you really want us to ask that, Don? Do you?
Do you really want us to ask that, Don? Do you?
Pet Peeves
I have two pet peeves to address. The first are reporters like this:
Our Chicago contributors and readers have discussed this ad nauseum, but please. We live in northern Illinois (or as above, in Pittsfield, MA). It gets cold. It snows. Cold and snow ARE NOT NEWS!
The second pet peeve is this guy:
Go away. Just go away.
Our Chicago contributors and readers have discussed this ad nauseum, but please. We live in northern Illinois (or as above, in Pittsfield, MA). It gets cold. It snows. Cold and snow ARE NOT NEWS!The second pet peeve is this guy:
Go away. Just go away.
The Ministry of Truth
CIA Ruse Is Said to Have Damaged Probe in Milan
Italy Allegedly Misled on Cleric's Abduction
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
MILAN -- In March 2003, the Italian national anti-terrorism police received an urgent message from the CIA about a radical Islamic cleric who had mysteriously vanished from Milan a few weeks before. The CIA reported that it had reliable information that the cleric, the target of an Italian criminal investigation, had fled to an unknown location in the Balkans.
In fact, according to Italian court documents and interviews with investigators, the CIA's tip was a deliberate lie, part of a ruse designed to stymie efforts by the Italian anti-terrorism police to track down the cleric, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, an Egyptian refugee known as Abu Omar. The strategy worked for more than a year until Italian investigators learned that Nasr had not gone to the Balkans after all. Instead, prosecutors here have charged, he was abducted off a street in Milan by a team of CIA operatives who took him to two U.S. military bases in succession and then flew him to Egypt, where he was interrogated and allegedly tortured by Egyptian security agents before being released to house arrest.
This is disgusting. You can read more here.
Italy Allegedly Misled on Cleric's Abduction
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
MILAN -- In March 2003, the Italian national anti-terrorism police received an urgent message from the CIA about a radical Islamic cleric who had mysteriously vanished from Milan a few weeks before. The CIA reported that it had reliable information that the cleric, the target of an Italian criminal investigation, had fled to an unknown location in the Balkans.
In fact, according to Italian court documents and interviews with investigators, the CIA's tip was a deliberate lie, part of a ruse designed to stymie efforts by the Italian anti-terrorism police to track down the cleric, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, an Egyptian refugee known as Abu Omar. The strategy worked for more than a year until Italian investigators learned that Nasr had not gone to the Balkans after all. Instead, prosecutors here have charged, he was abducted off a street in Milan by a team of CIA operatives who took him to two U.S. military bases in succession and then flew him to Egypt, where he was interrogated and allegedly tortured by Egyptian security agents before being released to house arrest.
This is disgusting. You can read more here.
Condoleeza Shits on Habeas Corpus (what a shock)
Apparently our intrepid Secretary of State received permission from Darth Cheney to cop to the existence of a system of secret prisons to hold terrorist suspects in Europe, conveniently out of the view (and reach) of the federal courts, pesky do-gooder agencies, and the mainstream media. While the story itself is not earth-shaking (the silence from the WHIG contingent in the wake of the allegations was both deafening and damning evidence), it contains some genuine nuggets of disingenuous neoconicity:
First, here is her quote as to the REASON for having the secret prisons in third countries: "We must bring terrorists to justice wherever possible, but there have been many cases where the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extradition is not a good option. In those cases, the local government can make the sovereign choice to cooperate in rendition. Sometimes these efforts are misunderstood."
Let me translate that for you....
"Often, CIA operatives find people outside the U.S. we THINK are terrorists, or who are the FAMILY MEMBERS of people we THINK are terrorists. Local authorities can't arrest them, because there is no EVIDENCE of actual wrongdoing, nor hold them for any period of time because of DUE PROCESS laws. So in these cases we either pressure the government to allow them to disappear or we simply abduct them and bring them to secret prisons where NO ONE knows where they are. Sometimes we get caught doing this and we have to spend a couple of weeks thinking up really lame and transparently disingenuous excuses."
When asked directly if the interrogators used torture, Rice said: "The United States does not transport and has not transported detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture" (emphasis added).
Translation: "If we can manage it, we contract out the transporation to a private firm, preferably one with ties to Darth Cheney, so technically, no official personnel have done anything wrong. While I can't confirm the use of torture, as it would get lots of people indicted and impeached, I can tell you that we cetainly do torture these people, that's why we move them outside U.S. jurisdiction. I mean after all, the activist judges keep on insisting that detainees have rights - even those being held at Gitmo - so we needed to establish these facilities in countries outside their reach."
Once again, the neocons show us that the only use they see for the writ of habeas corpus is to use it to wipe their collective asses. Meanwhile, they've managed to pretty much trash our standing as a paragon of human rights.
First, here is her quote as to the REASON for having the secret prisons in third countries: "We must bring terrorists to justice wherever possible, but there have been many cases where the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extradition is not a good option. In those cases, the local government can make the sovereign choice to cooperate in rendition. Sometimes these efforts are misunderstood."
Let me translate that for you....
"Often, CIA operatives find people outside the U.S. we THINK are terrorists, or who are the FAMILY MEMBERS of people we THINK are terrorists. Local authorities can't arrest them, because there is no EVIDENCE of actual wrongdoing, nor hold them for any period of time because of DUE PROCESS laws. So in these cases we either pressure the government to allow them to disappear or we simply abduct them and bring them to secret prisons where NO ONE knows where they are. Sometimes we get caught doing this and we have to spend a couple of weeks thinking up really lame and transparently disingenuous excuses."
When asked directly if the interrogators used torture, Rice said: "The United States does not transport and has not transported detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture" (emphasis added).
Translation: "If we can manage it, we contract out the transporation to a private firm, preferably one with ties to Darth Cheney, so technically, no official personnel have done anything wrong. While I can't confirm the use of torture, as it would get lots of people indicted and impeached, I can tell you that we cetainly do torture these people, that's why we move them outside U.S. jurisdiction. I mean after all, the activist judges keep on insisting that detainees have rights - even those being held at Gitmo - so we needed to establish these facilities in countries outside their reach."
Once again, the neocons show us that the only use they see for the writ of habeas corpus is to use it to wipe their collective asses. Meanwhile, they've managed to pretty much trash our standing as a paragon of human rights.
Update
Since we originally posted this feature, our esteemed friend Schmidlap suggested: Shrub should be allocated a maximum of 5 bozos, and then after his presidency mercifully ends, we retire that rating and make the subsequent maximum a 4. Kind of like MacArthur being the last 5 star general. Because no one can ever be this bad again. Right?
Peter: I wholeheartedly agree, and have added a bozo.
I applaud Dr. Magoo's weekly update idea, a valuable public service. I think we should expand on it, like Homeland Security, and use a rating system. So every Monday, we will update the National PBS (presidential bozo scale.) Currently the nation is at the highest PBS level of FIVE bozos.
We will keep you advised of any changes.
Peter: I wholeheartedly agree, and have added a bozo.
I applaud Dr. Magoo's weekly update idea, a valuable public service. I think we should expand on it, like Homeland Security, and use a rating system. So every Monday, we will update the National PBS (presidential bozo scale.) Currently the nation is at the highest PBS level of FIVE bozos.
We will keep you advised of any changes.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Fred Barnes, who are you crappin'??????????
If there was a traveling trophy for such things, I think we could retire it. Fred Barnes, cartoonish buffoon from Bill Kristol's rag, the Weekly Standard, earns a lifetime achievement award with the following:
WE NOW KNOW WHAT WAS behind President Bush's mysterious refusal for so many months to respond to Democratic attacks on his Iraq policy--a refusal that came at great political cost to himself and to the American effort in Iraq. It wasn't that Bush was too focused on Social Security reform to bother. Nor did he believe Iraq was a drag on his presidency and should be downplayed. Rather, Bush had made a conscious decision after his reelection to be "nonpolitical" on the subject of Iraq. It is a decision he now regrets. And has reversed.
Here's how a senior White House aide explains the decision not to answer criticism of the administration's course in Iraq: "The strategic decision was to be forward-looking. The public was more interested in the future and not the past, since it was just hashed over during the election." The president didn't ignore the subject of Iraq entirely. He delivered a half-dozen speeches on Iraq and the war on terror, including an evening, prime-time address, in the first 10 months of 2005. He just didn't rebut partisan attacks.
Harm was done. "Obviously the bombardment of misleading ads and the earned media by MoveOn et al. had an impact," the Bush aide says, "and culminated during the Libby indictment and the [Democratic] stunt of the closed session of the Senate" on prewar intelligence. "That's when we pivoted."
By then--and we're talking about early November--Bush's job approval had plummeted. So had public support for the Iraq war. And there's a direct correlation between the two. The president stood at 51 percent job approval in the Gallup poll when he was inaugurated to a second term last January and 52 percent in the Fox News survey. Now he's at 37 percent in Gallup, 42 percent in Fox.
Support for his Iraq policy did not fall as precipitously, but it was in gradual decline, and that accelerated. Gallup asks interviewees if the Iraq intervention was worth it. Forty-six percent said yes last January, 38 percent in November. When only a little more than one third of the country believes the most important national security policy of the era is worth pursuing, the president has a huge political problem. Even Republican members of Congress were getting queasy. Bush, with less sway in Washington today than 10 months ago, has been hard-put to reassure them.
Though the White House hasn't said so, there was more to the president's no-response decision than aides have let on. In Bush's defense, he's never routinely responded to attacks. And the successful election in Iraq on January 30 was followed by several months of euphoria about Iraq. There was hope the insurgency would collapse. It didn't.
I think the president, after a contentious first term, wanted to soften the partisan edge of his image and be more statesmanlike (HAH!!!!). His speeches on Iraq, tough-minded as they were, reflected that. And so did his willingness to reject cues from his conservative base of supporters and to offer, in public concessions, to compromise with his opponents.
In short, it was a purple detour, a blend of Republican red and Democratic blue. A White House official insists there was no specific decision to be less hard-nosed on domestic issues in the president's second term and drift to the center. But that happened, just as his approach to Democrats on Iraq was easing up. A mere coincidence? No way.
Next to Iraq, the most controversial item on Bush's agenda, especially among Democrats, is tax cuts. At the outset of 2005, he decided to put off a drive in Congress to make his deep tax cuts permanent, a move that upset conservatives. Later, the Bush administration steered the presidential tax commission away from radical tax reform. He also put aside the proposed amendment banning gay marriage, another red flag to Democrats and liberals but a favorite issue of conservatives.
On Social Security reform, he broke with his own strategy for winning congressional approval. The plan was to agree, but only as a last resort, to raise the ceiling on the amount of personal income subject to payroll taxes. Instead, Bush announced early on that he'd agree to lift the ceiling. He also backed progressive benefits reduction--the well-off would be hit the hardest--which is opposed by conservatives.
In filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, the president chose conservative nominees who wouldn't ignite instant opposition by Democrats. He took responsibility for the slow response (????????) to Hurricane Katrina, though the mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana were more to blame (pants on fire!). And so on. Overall, while Bush is a conservative, he often didn't act like one.
The nonpolitical strategy was a failure. Democrats picked up on none of his overtures. Once they began a campaign of accusing Bush of lying to the country about prewar intelligence to justify invading Iraq--an impeachable offense--Bush abandoned the strategy. The pivotal moment came after nine months of unanswered charges by Democrats concerning prewar intelligence. The president was a slow learner (OK, we agree!).
On Veteran's Day, November 11, Bush fired back. And he and Vice President Cheney have continued to do so quite effectively. His poll numbers, measured by Fox News after the president's speech last week laying out his "plan for victory" in Iraq, showed strong improvement. Sure, it's only one poll, but his approval rating jumped six points in the Fox News survey, from 36 percent to 42 percent.
Is this the start of a Bush comeback? Could be. And there's even stronger evidence of a turnaround. Until Democrats began rallying to the call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the debate was between Bush and the facts on the ground. Now it's between the president, who wants to withdraw troops when conditions in Iraq allow, and Democrats, who want to set a fast timetable for pullout and stick to it, no matter what. This debate Bush should win. (amazing!)
WE NOW KNOW WHAT WAS behind President Bush's mysterious refusal for so many months to respond to Democratic attacks on his Iraq policy--a refusal that came at great political cost to himself and to the American effort in Iraq. It wasn't that Bush was too focused on Social Security reform to bother. Nor did he believe Iraq was a drag on his presidency and should be downplayed. Rather, Bush had made a conscious decision after his reelection to be "nonpolitical" on the subject of Iraq. It is a decision he now regrets. And has reversed.
Here's how a senior White House aide explains the decision not to answer criticism of the administration's course in Iraq: "The strategic decision was to be forward-looking. The public was more interested in the future and not the past, since it was just hashed over during the election." The president didn't ignore the subject of Iraq entirely. He delivered a half-dozen speeches on Iraq and the war on terror, including an evening, prime-time address, in the first 10 months of 2005. He just didn't rebut partisan attacks.
Harm was done. "Obviously the bombardment of misleading ads and the earned media by MoveOn et al. had an impact," the Bush aide says, "and culminated during the Libby indictment and the [Democratic] stunt of the closed session of the Senate" on prewar intelligence. "That's when we pivoted."
By then--and we're talking about early November--Bush's job approval had plummeted. So had public support for the Iraq war. And there's a direct correlation between the two. The president stood at 51 percent job approval in the Gallup poll when he was inaugurated to a second term last January and 52 percent in the Fox News survey. Now he's at 37 percent in Gallup, 42 percent in Fox.
Support for his Iraq policy did not fall as precipitously, but it was in gradual decline, and that accelerated. Gallup asks interviewees if the Iraq intervention was worth it. Forty-six percent said yes last January, 38 percent in November. When only a little more than one third of the country believes the most important national security policy of the era is worth pursuing, the president has a huge political problem. Even Republican members of Congress were getting queasy. Bush, with less sway in Washington today than 10 months ago, has been hard-put to reassure them.
Though the White House hasn't said so, there was more to the president's no-response decision than aides have let on. In Bush's defense, he's never routinely responded to attacks. And the successful election in Iraq on January 30 was followed by several months of euphoria about Iraq. There was hope the insurgency would collapse. It didn't.
I think the president, after a contentious first term, wanted to soften the partisan edge of his image and be more statesmanlike (HAH!!!!). His speeches on Iraq, tough-minded as they were, reflected that. And so did his willingness to reject cues from his conservative base of supporters and to offer, in public concessions, to compromise with his opponents.
In short, it was a purple detour, a blend of Republican red and Democratic blue. A White House official insists there was no specific decision to be less hard-nosed on domestic issues in the president's second term and drift to the center. But that happened, just as his approach to Democrats on Iraq was easing up. A mere coincidence? No way.
Next to Iraq, the most controversial item on Bush's agenda, especially among Democrats, is tax cuts. At the outset of 2005, he decided to put off a drive in Congress to make his deep tax cuts permanent, a move that upset conservatives. Later, the Bush administration steered the presidential tax commission away from radical tax reform. He also put aside the proposed amendment banning gay marriage, another red flag to Democrats and liberals but a favorite issue of conservatives.
On Social Security reform, he broke with his own strategy for winning congressional approval. The plan was to agree, but only as a last resort, to raise the ceiling on the amount of personal income subject to payroll taxes. Instead, Bush announced early on that he'd agree to lift the ceiling. He also backed progressive benefits reduction--the well-off would be hit the hardest--which is opposed by conservatives.
In filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, the president chose conservative nominees who wouldn't ignite instant opposition by Democrats. He took responsibility for the slow response (????????) to Hurricane Katrina, though the mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana were more to blame (pants on fire!). And so on. Overall, while Bush is a conservative, he often didn't act like one.
The nonpolitical strategy was a failure. Democrats picked up on none of his overtures. Once they began a campaign of accusing Bush of lying to the country about prewar intelligence to justify invading Iraq--an impeachable offense--Bush abandoned the strategy. The pivotal moment came after nine months of unanswered charges by Democrats concerning prewar intelligence. The president was a slow learner (OK, we agree!).
On Veteran's Day, November 11, Bush fired back. And he and Vice President Cheney have continued to do so quite effectively. His poll numbers, measured by Fox News after the president's speech last week laying out his "plan for victory" in Iraq, showed strong improvement. Sure, it's only one poll, but his approval rating jumped six points in the Fox News survey, from 36 percent to 42 percent.
Is this the start of a Bush comeback? Could be. And there's even stronger evidence of a turnaround. Until Democrats began rallying to the call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the debate was between Bush and the facts on the ground. Now it's between the president, who wants to withdraw troops when conditions in Iraq allow, and Democrats, who want to set a fast timetable for pullout and stick to it, no matter what. This debate Bush should win. (amazing!)
Lean to the left, lean to the right
Stand up, sit down, fight fight fight...and die.
I don't have confirmation of this yet, but I heard a story that the Iraqi vice-president disputed Washington's assessment of the troop training process. Not surprisingly, the "troops" are being used for retribution by the Shi'a for past abuses at Sunni hands. Great.
This fits in with a statement by the U.S. commander overseeing the building of Iraq's security forces, as he said that "the training of Iraqi police was complicated by the armed militias still claiming the loyalties of many officers."
Ah, the key question of nation-building. In an influential essay written many years ago (1970) and set in a world far far away (medieval Europe), Joseph Strayer emphasized the importance of the transfer of a population’s loyalty away from family, local community or religious organization to the new state and its institutions. I'm sure that's happening, aren't you?
I don't have confirmation of this yet, but I heard a story that the Iraqi vice-president disputed Washington's assessment of the troop training process. Not surprisingly, the "troops" are being used for retribution by the Shi'a for past abuses at Sunni hands. Great.
This fits in with a statement by the U.S. commander overseeing the building of Iraq's security forces, as he said that "the training of Iraqi police was complicated by the armed militias still claiming the loyalties of many officers."
Ah, the key question of nation-building. In an influential essay written many years ago (1970) and set in a world far far away (medieval Europe), Joseph Strayer emphasized the importance of the transfer of a population’s loyalty away from family, local community or religious organization to the new state and its institutions. I'm sure that's happening, aren't you?
Update - December 2005
We here at Thinking or Sitting want to make sure that you keep up with the latest news, so we're instituting a new Update feature for the first Monday of every month.
12:50 pm, Central Standard Time, December 5, 2005 - President George W. Bush is still an idiot.
Should the situation change dramatically, we will be on top of things here and let you know how to react. Thank you.
12:50 pm, Central Standard Time, December 5, 2005 - President George W. Bush is still an idiot.
Should the situation change dramatically, we will be on top of things here and let you know how to react. Thank you.
But wait...I thought we were fighting "turr."
It looks like, surprise, surprise, that we are fighting, ahem, Iraq in Iraq--not "turr." Damn those rejectionists!
US Army admits Iraqis outnumber foreign fighters as its main enemy
by Toby Harnden in Ramadi
Iraqis, rather than foreign fighters, now form the vast majority of the insurgents who are waging a ferocious guerrilla war against United States forces in Sunni western Iraq, American commanders have revealed. Their conclusion, disclosed to the Sunday Telegraph in interviews over 10 days in battle-torn Anbar province, contradicts the White House message that outsiders are the principal enemy in Iraq.
More here.
US Army admits Iraqis outnumber foreign fighters as its main enemy
by Toby Harnden in Ramadi
Iraqis, rather than foreign fighters, now form the vast majority of the insurgents who are waging a ferocious guerrilla war against United States forces in Sunni western Iraq, American commanders have revealed. Their conclusion, disclosed to the Sunday Telegraph in interviews over 10 days in battle-torn Anbar province, contradicts the White House message that outsiders are the principal enemy in Iraq.
More here.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
