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

Saturday, October 30, 2004

Cui bono?

Not to sound too much like a conspiracy nut or anything, but, regardless of the direct effect that bin Laden's sudden appearance may have had on the electorate, the tape does give the Bush campaign some desperately-needed breathing room from the explosives story.

I'm just sayin', is all.

posted by David at 10/30/2004 01:25:00 AM ::

Friday, October 29, 2004

Why Did the IAEA Bother?

I know there's an election coming up, and a lot of important things going on, but this post doesn't really address any of it. It's just a dumb question that I can't help asking:

Having been worried in the face of the Republican counterspin that the explosives story might lose its legs, I posted below that the connection between the explosives and nuclear proliferation was the best angle to keep the story moving forward. But this morning, I read, from no less than weapons inspections Numero Uno David Kay, that the RDX and HMX are not considered WMDs, and their loss is not a nuclear proliferation issue.

Why did the IAEA even bother with the stuff? Why did they single it out of all the other weapons at Al Qaqaa for inspections and seals? It doesn't add up.

posted by David at 10/29/2004 10:04:00 AM ::

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

It's the Nukes, Stupid!

While I applaud Josh Marshall's tireless exegesis of the timing and shifting explanations of the looted explosives story, I believe the effort misfires on the administration's greatest culpability: this stuff can be used to make nuclear weapons.

Anchoring the credibility and relevance of all the administration's talk about WMDs was always the specter of Saddam's bomb. That's why they had Condi and Colin shred their reputations over easily-disproven nuclear connections with aluminum tubes and yellowcake. The uncertainty surrounding Iraqi WMDs became a solid thing in the public mind from which America had to defend itself only when nukes were added to the equation.

By our unilateralist approach to the invasion of Iraq, we arrogated to ourselves responsibility for Iraq, and especially for the WMDs or components thereof which (we are told) prompted us to act in the first place. These explosives were a known quantity, in a known location, having been quarantined by the International Atomic Energy Agency back in 1991, and confirmed to persist there not long before the invasion.

Administration officials have attempted to obscure the supreme importance of the loss of the explosives by listing all the other munitions the coalition forces have found and destroyed. They have attempted to elide responsibility for oversight of the explosives by claiming they had already been looted by the time we arrived on the scene. Even if that is the case, it is inexcusable.

It is an admission that those in charge of the invasion failed in their oversight of a known nuclear component at a time when we had unquestioned air superiority and at least enough intelligence capability to detect the 40 or so trucks that would be required to move the stuff. Any activity going to or from Al Qaqaa should have prompted immediate U.S. air strikes, if the administration was at all doing the job it had told us it needed to do.

The fact that the HMX and RDX also happen to be ideally suited for use in guerilla attacks against our soldiers widens the catastrophe of the loss, but it also works to equate the explosives with the more conventional weapons and ordinance which we never had a prayer of entirely neutralizing. But that is not the point.

The point is that this stuff was special because it could be used to make nuclear bombs. It was specifically tracked by weapons inspectors because it was special. It was checked on by the invading force because it was special. And, because it was special, there is no excuse why, before, during, or after the invasion, this stuff was left unsupervised for even a minute.

If they had time and resources to guard oil installations, that only makes things worse for the administration. The world can survive a minor spike in oil prices and pipelines can be rebuilt. Nuclear explosions are forever, and they're more likely now because of this collossal fuck-up.

Once this crucial fact is firmly established in the media, and only then, should we say, "and, by the way, this stuff is probably being used right now to blow the arms, legs, and heads off of the good men and women of the United States armed forces."

posted by David at 10/26/2004 11:26:00 AM ::

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Iran Endorses Bush

The head of the security council of Iran, a member of the "Axis of Evil," a massively repressive Islamic fundamentalist state that is widely believed to be pursuing nuclear weapons, a proven sponsor of terrorism, and a nation which several of Bush's most influential neoconservative advisors have advocated invading for the purpose of regime change, has endorsed the candidacy of incumbent Republican George W. Bush for president.

Why? Is it because Bush's adventure in Iraq has left us with insufficient forces to pose a realistic threat to the Khameni government? Is it because Bush's mismanagement of Iraq has virtually ensured Iran a much wider sphere of influence in the region without costing the latter so much as the price of a bullet? Is it because Bush's energy policies will ensure that American oil consumption will remain high and contribute to strong worldwide demand for oil? Is it because Bush's hardheaded unilateralism has alienated those countries that might otherwise commit resources to forcing the Iranians to improve their human rights situation?

Only the mullahs know for sure.

via Pandagon

posted by David at 10/20/2004 10:41:00 AM ::

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Bush: Fundamentalist Iraq Government OK

Bush was asked during an interview with the The Associated Press how he would react if Iraqis someday freely voted into power an Islamic fundamentalist government. Bush replied, "I will be disappointed, but democracy is democracy."

Sigh. At least he's facing the reality that he doesn't have much choice in the matter. By having presided so long and exerted so much control over Iraq, what happens next is entirely our responsibility. At the same time, Bush cannot afford to be seen by imperialism-wary Arabs appointing a puppet government. And he's desperate to get US troops out of the country as soon as possible, so he isn't going to invest the time or diplomacy required to lay the groundwork for an effective government. Iraqis have essentially a free pass to do anything they like, and Bush can't say a damn thing about it. And whatever they wind up doing, we'll own it.

All of the above has got to be obvious to everyone even slightly paying attention to Iraq, even Bush. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why he's saying so out loud. There are an awful lot of things that are already going very wrong in Iraq, but the administration isn't exactly emphasizing them. Instead, our attention is being diverted to Iraq's future, which will be democratic and wonderful.

An Islamic fundamentalist government, once "elected," will be nothing remotely approaching a democracy. Inherent in the defenition of such a government is an elevation of some points of view and a delegitimization of others. Pluralism is incompatible with fundamentalism; such a government in Iraq will represent only one of the country's three main subgroups, almost certainly the Shi'a. In the eyes of the government, at least 40% of the population will be seen as heretics at best, infidels at worst. Given such divisions, the only way to maintain order and prevent the country from splitting would be the imposition of brutal repression.

Aside from all that, countries whose governments are founded on received truth aren't very good at educating their people, or retaining the educated people they've already got. Islamic fundamentalists have awful records when it comes to the treatment of women. They're not good at economic policy. And such a government in Iraq will inevitably be anti-American.

Bush has to know better than to shoot his mouth off on the subject of Iraq's future, and even less can I believe that Bush's handlers picked now as a good time to manage expectations in Iraq downwards. The only remotely plausible explanation I can think of is that this is a ploy to get more international boots on the ground, as France, Germany, Russia, etc. don't want to see another nutjob government in the Middle East, and we can't be counted on to manage anything right anymore. The only problem with that strategy is that any move to commit forces in Iraq would be political suicide for just about every government in the world. What is he up to, then?

via The Agonist

posted by David at 10/19/2004 02:48:00 PM ::

Friday, October 01, 2004

Googlebomb Opportunity

George W. Bush = Elmer Fudd

He'll get those wascawy weapons of mass destwuction, too. Or maybe the gun blows up in his face repeatedly, I forget how it ends.

Inspiration here.

via catch.com by way of Atrios

posted by David at 10/01/2004 03:05:00 PM ::

I've Seen His Soul, But I Can't Pronounce His Name

I did a double-take last night when I first heard Bush refer to Russian president Putin as "Vladimer" (rhymes with 'Lattimer'). Afterwards, I replayed that portion of the debate, and there it was, unmistakably wrong, twice in a row.

Many have put forth the argument that Bush's famous battles with his native tongue amount to simple misstatements, not failures of intellect or evidence of igorance, but that explanation just doesn't work on this one. Maybe that theory explains Bush's announcement that he was trying to "love [Iraq widow Missy Johnson] as best as I can," but not here.

Bush is supposedly good friends with the guy--he has to have heard it properly pronounced hundreds of times--and he can't even get his name right.

This tells us a couple of things. First off, Karen Hughes miscalculated when she assumed Bush knew how to pronounce the name, and so didn't bother to write it out phonetically for him. Second, maybe they're not such great friends, after all. Third, maybe he's even dumber than commonly believed; everyone knows how to pronounce 'Vladimir.' It's common knowledge. Does Bush know anything not specifically drilled into him by his handlers?

More generally, Kerry kicked Bush's butt. His performance put the lie to all the negatives Rove & Co. have been trying to stick him with. Flip-flopper? Weak? Irresolute? Not leadership material? He was as steady as an oak. He hammered Bush and his record again and again with substantive criticisms for which the latter had nothing resembling answers, much less excuses.

If there were a war, and you had to pick one of these two to lead it, the choice would be easy. Kerry went on the offensive, and stayed there. Bush couldn't figure out what direction to take with his answers. He hesitated and seemed to lose his train of thought. He seemed to strike out blindly, giving answers to questions that weren't asked. He looked irresolute and anxious and perturbed.

Imagine Bush giving orders to a platoon, talking like he did during the debate. It would be a wonder if half of them didn't desert. Kerry was at the other end of the spectrum. He positively oozed leadership. He was forceful without looking fanatical. He knew what he wanted to accomplish and how to go about doing it. And then he did it, not with platitudes and gimmicks, but with substance and force.

It's telling that Kerry convincingly won on the only topic where voters had consistently favored Bush. This is by no means a reason to be complacent, only to know that this race is very, very winnable.

posted by David at 10/01/2004 10:29:00 AM ::

HOME

Links