A Level Gaze

A Level Gaze

"What effect must it have on a nation if it learns no foreign languages? Probably much the same as that which a total withdrawal from society has upon an individual."
--G.C. Lichtenberg

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Bush Pulling a Gore?

I'm watching C-SPAN's replay of the split-screen debate. I just heard Bush give a biig sigh before responding to a very effective Kerry point. Did anyone Tivo the debate? Were there more sighs? Could we stuff this down their throats?

posted by David at 9/30/2004 11:58:00 PM ::

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Incomplete Elections Fine, Says Brooks

Just look what happened in El Salvador:

Conditions were scarcely better in 1984, when Salvadorans got to vote again. Nearly a fifth of the municipalities were not able to participate in the elections because they were under guerrilla control. The insurgents mined the roads to cut off bus service to 40 percent of the country. Twenty bombs were planted around the town of San Miguel. Once again, people voted with the sound of howitzers in the background.

Yet these elections proved how resilient democracy is, how even in the most chaotic circumstances, meaningful elections can be held. They produced a National Assembly, and a president, José Napoleón Duarte. They gave the decent majority a chance to display their own courage and dignity. War, tyranny and occupation sap dignity, but voting restores it.

The elections achieved something else: They undermined the insurgency. El Salvador wasn't transformed overnight. But with each succeeding election into the early 90's, the rebels on the left and the death squads on the right grew weaker, and finally peace was achieved, and the entire hemisphere felt the effects.

I mention this case study because we are approaching election day in Afghanistan on Oct. 9. Six days later, voter registration begins in Iraq. Conditions in both places will be tense and chaotic. And in Washington, a mood of bogus tough-mindedness has swept the political class. As William Raspberry wrote yesterday in The Washington Post, "the new consensus seems to be that bringing American-style democracy to Iraq is no longer an achievable goal." We should just settle for what John Kerry calls "stability." We should be satisfied if some strongman comes in who can restore order.

The people who make this argument pat themselves on the back for being hard-headed, but the fact is they are naïve.

They've got things exactly backward. The reason we should work for full democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is not just because it's noble, but because it's practical. It is easier to defeat an insurgency and restore order with elections than without.

Brooks seems to think the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq would be well served if things turn out as well as they did in El Salvador following their incomplete elections. Would they?

By Brooks' own reckoning, 75,000 people died in El Salvador's civil war, most of them after the elections to which he refers. El Salvador's population in 1984 was 4.7 million. If things go as well for Iraq, only 413,718 more people will have to die. If Afghanistan is lucky enough to repeat El Salvador's success, only 464,897 more will die.

Of course, El Salvador's fledgling democracy had a little help from its American friends. In the interest of democracy and stability, I'm sure we'd be willing to be as gracious with Afghanistan and Iraq.

US officials say that President Bush senior's policies set the stage for peace, turning El Salvador into a democratic success story.

However, it took more than 70,000 deaths and mass human rights violations, before peace was reached.

Archbishop Romero's murder is a good example.

It was, according to declassified US documents and other witnesses, carried out by Salvadorean police intelligence agents on the orders of Major Roberto D'Aubuisson.

He was at the time running the army's intelligence war and went on to found the right-wing Arena party which is in power in El Salvador today.

No-one was brought to justice and for the next decade, when President Bush's father was heavily involved in Salvador policy, the same police agents would be at the centre of US funded efforts to wipe out left-wing guerrillas.

To defeat the rebels, the US equipped and trained an army which kidnapped and disappeared more than 30,000 people, and carried out large-scale massacres of thousands of old people women and children.

And if history continues to repeat itself, each country can look forward to a future government headed by a party founded by the murderous thug responsible for most of the killing in the first place. See? Incomplete elections work just fine.

posted by David at 9/28/2004 11:11:00 AM ::

Friday, September 10, 2004

Bush's Service - The Big Picture

The paperwork released by CBS on Wednesday have generated a lot of controversy. Are they real or forged? If they're real, then what do they mean? What new information is contained in them?

However, the bit that's getting the most attention, and which is potentially most damaging to Bush, is something that was already undisputed public knowledge: He failed to report for his physical examination, and, in doing so, disobeyed the order of a superior officer.

When you're required to get a flight certification physical in the Texas National Guard, your superior officer doesn't ask you politely to go see the nice doctor, if you've got time. No, as in all things military, they order you to do what they want you to do. You do it at the time and in the manner specified, or it's your ass.

The debate over the documents' authenticity could keep up until well past the election, but the fact remains that Bush committed the military equivalent of a felony, and, if standard procedure had been followed, would have been court-martialled and punished. This would be no less true if John Kerry had forged the CBS documents himself.

Instead of the whole smokescreen of speculation about the documents' provenance, it'd be nice to see the press going after the big issue: did Bush commit a crime, and, if so, why wasn't he punished for it? The answer to the first question, at least, seems easy enough to find.

posted by David at 9/10/2004 09:32:00 AM ::

Thursday, September 09, 2004

White House Prefers Reaction to Preemption

Over at First Draft, Holden's gaggle obsession brings to light a little exchange, in which Scott McClellan explains why the president supports the renewal of the assault weapons ban without actually, uh, supporting it.

Q The assault weapons ban expires in just a few days. Can you list for us the many things the President might be doing to encourage Congress to send him the bill that he said he would sign?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President's views have been made very clear, and the best way we can reduce crimes committed with guns is to strictly enforce our laws. And prosecutions under this administration are up. I think it's -- well, it's more than 60 percent -- I think 68 percent over the previous administration. That's the best way to crack down on crimes committed with guns. That's an important issue here in terms of the assault weapons ban. He's made his views very well-known.

***

Q What is he doing to actively make sure -- is he doing anything to make sure he --

MR. McCLELLAN: The President doesn't set the congressional timetable.

Q No, but he can lobby for it.

MR. McCLELLAN: Congress sets the timetable. And the President's views are very clear.

Q Has he made any calls or anything to encourage this to happen?

MR. McCLELLAN: What we've continued to do -- because this issue does go to the issue of crimes committed with guns, as well -- and what we've continued to do is step up our efforts to prosecute crimes committed with guns and strictly enforce our laws. And that's the best way we can deter violence committed with guns.

(Emphasis added)

In addition to saying that, although the assault weapons ban is irrelevant to the president's strategy to reduce gun violence, he supports it anyway, McClellan also announced a huge shift in White House philosophy: preemption is not the best way to deal with potential violence; punishing those who commit violent acts after the fact is.

Maybe the administration learned something from the disaster in Iraq, in which WMD program-related activities were held up as sufficient justification for our full-scale invasion of the country. If so, the change would go a long way toward explaining our actions with regard to WMDs in North Korea and Iran.

On the other hand, it could just be a cynincal abandonment of principle for the benefit of the gun lobby.

posted by David at 9/09/2004 09:51:00 AM ::

Friday, September 03, 2004

Bush By the Numbers

Here's a great numerical rundown of the Bush administration by Graydon Carter. Some tidbits:

14 Number of Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) agents assigned to track down 1,200 known illegal immigrants in the United States from countries where al-Qa'ida is active.

$3m Amount the White House was willing to grant the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 11 September attacks.

$0 Amount approved by George Bush to hire more INS special agents.

$10m Amount Bush cut from the INS's existing terrorism budget.

$50m Amount granted to the commission that looked into the Columbia space shuttle crash.

***

$2bn Estimated monthly cost of US military presence in Iraq projected by the White House in April 2003.

$4bn Actual monthly cost of the US military presence in Iraq according to Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld in 2004.

$15m Amount of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq.

$80,000 Amount an Iraqi firm spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from starting it.

***

$3.29 Average amount allocated per person Nationwide in the first round of homeland security grants.

$94.40 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in American Samoa.

$36 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in Wyoming, Vice-President Cheney's home state.

$17 Amount allocated per person in New York state.

$5.87 Amount allocated per person in New York City.

***

95 Percentage of foreign goods that arrive in the United States by sea.

2 Percentage of those goods subjected to thorough inspection.

$5.5bn Estimated cost to secure fully US ports over the Next decade.

$0 Amount Bush allocated for port security in 2003.

$46m Amount the Bush administration has budgeted for port security in 2005.

***

50 Percentage of screened workers at Ground Zero who now suffer from long-term health problems, almost half of whom don't have health insurance.

78 Percentage of workers at Ground Zero who now suffer from lung ailments.

88 Percentage of workers at Ground Zero who Now suffer from ear, nose, or throat problems.

22 Asbestos levels at Ground Zero were 22 times higher than the levels in Libby, Montana, where the W R Grace mine produced one of the worst Superfund disasters in US history.

There's tons more, go check it out.

via Metafilter

posted by David at 9/03/2004 10:54:00 AM ::

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Dick.

(live)

He looks good. Moves well, good color, fwiw.

Here comes the edwards blow. Matthew got it. Big Media Insider Matt.

Roosevelt twice in two speeches. Hmm.

I totally fricking rock.

Public schools. they are a key to see that every child yadda yadda. Nothing on the charters, the vouchers, religious schools (the one area in which faith-based enterprises has done some considerable good), nothing.

The Bush tax cuts are working. Nothing on the defecit.

Health care, George is working on it. Right. And tort reform is going to get it all solved. How much money are we talking about, here? Hasn't anyone added up the numbers and said even complete tort reform wouldn't make a meaningful dent in medical expenses?

Did I mention I had a new granddaughter?

9/11 -

"We are in a war we did not start." You're talking about Iraq? You can't be serious.

The terrorists never had the slightest inkling that we'd lose the will to defend ourselves, Dick. They were hoping we'd tear ourselves apart in the process. That's the whole point. I figured you'd know that.

"Gathering threat," one that merited full-scale war but had no capabilities.

One wonders what Libya was paid for its cooperation.

Yes, he shut down the network that supplied nuclear stuffs to Iran and Libya. But he didn't know it was there in the first place. And he should have.

Oh, yes, the <$1billion that somehow got spent (out of $18 b allocated), on rebuilding the schools and the roads. Somehow, everyone over there says it's worse off than before we got there.

Why would the repubs consider this the most important election in our history? Projection again?

V. polite applause re: Kerry's service.

Ok, here we go:

Kerry made the wrong calls on national security. Would support military action only via UN sanction. In the 1980s he opposed Reagan's defense initiatives. In 1991, he opposed Gulf War I. Post 9/11, he talked about leading a more sensitive war on terror (like he didn't say the same thing).

Kerry declared he'd forcefully defend America after it had been attacked. Wasn't that exactly what GWB did? He even went overboard about it. Nobody's got anything good to say about either Afghanistan or Iraq these days. Sheesh.

The $87B again. LOL, they're chanting "flip-flop." Joy. Maybe it really is all they've got.

He's calling out Kerry for neglecting American troops and their families? That's pretty rich.

A senator can be wrong for 20 years without consequence to the nation. But a president always casts the deciding vote. Hmm... So, when things are wrong, it's the president's fault, then?

That's right, keep beating on the flip-flop. You all look childish.

A man with a heart for the weak, vulnerable, and afflicted, who apparently likes them so much he wants to increase their numbers.

W's a man who calls evil by its name. It's Lester.

Uh, no. You're not going to win Massachusetts, even if they do have some very dumb cops in the Boston area.

Also, Bush wakes up early because he's a saint.

Thank you. Goodnight.

posted by David at 9/01/2004 10:19:00 PM ::

On Flip-Flopping

I'm watching Romney speak, and he's really hammering the flip-flop thing, even though it is not a very effective attack. Each of their successive attack narratives is being shot down right after it leaves the gate. This is the only thing they've got, and it doesn't really move people.

Bush has a delectable smorgasbord of policy reversals in his record, and on some very important issues. The Kerry campaign just can't be too stupid to take advantage of this. They just can't.

The republicans are not where they want to be at this stage of the campaign. Sure, they're probably holding onto a couple of bullets for the end, but they must have been hoping to be convincingly saddling Kerry with three or four negatives by this point. If the only one they can come up with doesn't move the polls, they're having trouble.

posted by David at 9/01/2004 08:07:00 PM ::

Counterspin Central: Like a Chiropractor for Your Brain

Hesiod's back (for now, at least), and has posted a helpful translation of the Gropinator's 'you know you're a republican when' schtick.

He also dropped this tiny little bomb about where Hastert's latest Soros slur came from.

posted by David at 9/01/2004 03:20:00 PM ::

Who's an Economic Girly Man?

Someone who doesn't believe in our invincible economy, that's who.

Aired March 20, 2001 - 7:30 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Tonight, charges that President Bush is talking down the economy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You know better than me that our economy is slowing down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: And talking up an energy crisis.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: We got a problem with energy in America.

***

BUSH: Americans are hearing, and some feeling, the economic slowdown.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: We got a issue with our economy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Our economy is beginning to sputter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

posted by David at 9/01/2004 09:00:00 AM ::

HOME

Links