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

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Can't we just let bygones be bygones?

Update: transcript now available, some additional material.

Toward the beginning of the SOTU, when Bush discussed the war, he obliquely referenced his critics, then dismissed them as useless. To paraphrase: "We've got a war to win. How on earth can you waste our precious time and energy talking about how we got here? Support the troops!"

Here's the bit that rattled my cage:

In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice. Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure.

(APPLAUSE)

Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.

A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison, would put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country and show that a pledge from America means little.

(APPLAUSE)

With so much in the balance, those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candor.

Members of Congress, however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies and stand behind the American military in its vital mission.

First of all, note the rhetorical sleight-of-sledgehammer: any criticism = call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. No, no, no. Not true. Stop saying that. Some people are actually capable of believing both that the administration should be held accountable for its actions and that we need to work out the best possible plan for our involvement in Iraq, all while maintaining the utmost reverence for the men and women who daily risk our lives on our behalf.

Bush has a lot to answer for. A majority of Americans "believe [Bush's] administration deliberately misled the public about Iraq's purported weapons program before the U.S. invasion in 2003" according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released last week. The stark, willful illegality of the NSA wiretaps grows more obvious by the day. We are holding prisoners with neither due process nor the protections of prisoner of war status. We torture many of them, and cause many others to be tortured. We've bombed and shot an untold number of civilians. We don't have proper equipment for our troops, many of whom are in harm's way long beyond the term of service to which they agreed. I could go on.

The assertion that even so much as a Congressional investigation into whether we were misled into war would meaningfully detract from our efforts in Iraq is absurd. It is more absurd coming from the head of an administration that insists that our armed forces and intelligence services are more than equal to the challenge in Iraq. It is still more absurd coming from the head of an administration that insists that the war does not meaningfully impair our ability to respond to serious security threats elsewhere in the world. It is especially absurd coming from a man who promised to bring accountability back to the executive branch on the back of the movement that impeached his predecessor over a blowjob.

I've got news for the administration: If we frog-marched the lot of you out of office and into Leavenworth for life, we'd still be able to finish the job in Iraq. Hell, we'd probably do a better job without you.

Imagine if the man who caused a huge toxic chemical spill through arrogant negligence said something like, "Look, we can go round and round about why this happened, but the fact is, we've got a lot of bodies to bury, and a lot of repairs to make. Don't you understand how serious this is?"

That's about as dumbfounded as I feel right now.

posted by David at 1/31/2006 10:31:00 PM ::

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Deserving of Wider Recognition

Left Coast Breakdown is a terrific blog. Go and read and laugh and snark and gnash.

posted by David at 1/17/2006 09:45:00 PM ::

Monday, January 16, 2006

Why Feinstein Caved

Athenae is pissed. Senator Diane Feinstein, arguably one of the biggest liberals in national politics, seems to have dropped any meaningful opposition to Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court.

Athenae writes:

ACTUALLY THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS, YOU USELESS PLASTIC HOOD ORNAMENT. You're a member of Congress. You're confirming him. If you disagree with the way he'd do his job, that's ground for denying it to him. Will somebody please get this woman a copy of that musty old document that begins "We the people ..." I think the salient points have slipped her mind.

Jesus tits. Is there anybody out there who can even IMAGINE a Republican saying this? Who can even imagine Republicans having to hunt around for REASON not to confirm a Democratic nominee? Who can even imagine President Kerry's nominee getting this far with a Republican Congress? They beat 'er bloody and leave her behind the Capitol dumpster, that's what they'd do to a Kerry nominee. Yet here we sit, saying we need a really good reason to oppose Alito.

Given the Democrats' spinelessness on the big issues of late, it is actually not all that surprising to hear them express such mushy, directionless acquiescence to the will of the right wing. In Feinstein's case, however, it marks a sea change. Last Monday, she was interviewed on Fox News:

HUME: Right, but would you consider someone who thought that Roe v. Wade was improperly decided by the court? Does that place that person outside the mainstream, in your view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, it depends. In my view, it does, and I'll tell you why. And that is because Roe could have been overturned 38 times. Precedent has been established. Women all over America have come to depend on it. An overwhelming majority of people support it.

Therefore, because of the lapse of time, more than 30 years, because of the precedential values attached to it, I think it would be for many of us a very difficult thing to see somebody who you knew was going to overthrow Roe at this point in time. And I'm old enough to know what it was like back when abortion was illegal. I know what it's like to see young women commit suicide. I know what it's like to see them go to Tijuana. And I don't want to go back to those days.

So this is a very powerful question for me. And I represent those women out there. And this is a huge, huge population, and I...

HUME: So is that filibuster material for you?

FEINSTEIN: If I believed he was going to go in there and overthrow Roe, the question is most likely yes.

Feinstein clearly knows what the stakes are. I think she also knows that rank-and-file Democrats would form a solid wall behind anyone who would take dramatic, decisive action to protect women's right to abortion. I think she might even be aware that a fight specifically over this issue could be hugely beneficial to the Democrats, by galvanizing the base and splitting moderate Republicans from the right wing.

So what happened? On one hand, I don't believe the Republican leadership has any real intention of actually overturning Roe v. Wade, the issue that provides them with an army of fanatical footsoldiers, year in and year out. Perhaps someone has made the rounds and communicated this to the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, something along the lines of "Alito can't be seen as soft on Roe, or he'll get the Miers treatment. But he doesn't want to overturn it any more than you do." Having removed the big, electrifying issue from the equation, perhaps Feinstein didn't think the other issues were worth going to the wall over.

On the other hand, none of that should matter. What matters is what is happening where democracy takes place, in the public arena. Alito has said precisely nothing about any of the big issues. Even if every Democrat knows for a fact that Roe is in no jeopardy whatsoever, his refusal to meaningfully address the issue constitutes a political gimme, which everyone, left and right, expected them to exploit.

Don't our elected representatives have even one principle left? If not, don't they at least want to win?

posted by David at 1/16/2006 12:23:00 PM ::

Friday, January 13, 2006

Food For Thought

This imagined conversation between George W. Bush and William Kristol over at Gotham Image takes on Bush from an interesting and unexpected angle, and carries it off beautifully. It's on the long side, but definitely worth a read.

posted by David at 1/13/2006 10:49:00 AM ::

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Closet Bigot

A heads-up to Lindsay Graham. If you're a closet bigot, the idea is that nobody knows you're a bigot. You hide the fact that you're a bigot. People who know you are unaware of the fact. When you are asked if you're a bigot, you deny it. If you were a member of a bigoted organization, you don't advertise the fact. Asking the question of an actual closeted bigot will get you a "no" by definition.

Just trying to help out.

posted by David at 1/11/2006 11:23:00 PM ::

HOME

Links