Month: April 2006

I was amazed at the level of deference and respect our President offered the President of the People’s Republic of China today. Aren’t we supposedly against authoritarian regimes. Isn’t the Chinese government, you know, Communist? Of course we ought to be polite, and of course China is a huge nation with a huge military and huge trade with us. I don’t mean to say that we should try to worsen relations at all. But a 21-gun salute? Come on.

Or, as the Washington Post puts it:

With annoying questions excluded, the focus today is likely to be just where Mr. Hu wants it, on his discussion of strategic issues with Mr. Bush; the visual will be his 21-gun salute. Never mind that according to Mr. Bush’s doctrine, respect for human rights is directly connected to the ability of states to be strategic partners of the United States. “Governments that brutalize their people,” says the president’s new national security strategy, “also threaten the peace and stability of other nations.” News conference question for Mr. Bush: Does that logic not apply to China?

China is a systematic abuser of human rights and civil liberties, for heaven’s sake. What does a 21-gun salute–from the United States!–say to imprisoned journalists in China? We are supposed to stand up and tell the communists, fascists, totalitiarians, and dictators of the world that their systems are evil, and that they must be changed. John F. Kennedy knew that, and so did Ronald Reagan, as Larry Johnson of TPMCafe points out:

Years ago we watched in amazement as a small Chinese man stood in the path of a tank in Tinamen Square to protest abuses by the Chinese Communist state. Today we saw our President apologize to the Chinese for allowing a protester to speak her mind. What next George? Will you help the Chinese run over demonstrators in a tank?

President Reagan spoke of a City on a Hill. That City was to be a beacon of hope and inspiration to the people of the world who yearned for freedom. George Bush has now torched that vision. Mr. President, I knew Ronald Reagan. I worked for Ronald Reagan. Mr. President, you are no Reagan.

Practically, we must retain good relations with China, because we’re deep, deep in the hole to them financially, our citizens can’t get enough of their cheap goods, and they have lots of big weapons. Fine. Let’s be nice to them. Let’s be civil. But let’s not give them all this deference and congratulation until they’ve done something to earn it. Not torturing prisoners would be a good start, as would releasing imprisoned journalists.

This opinion piece in the Washington Post really caught my attention. The writer asserts that soldiers currently serving in Iraq have high morale, but that their optimism and commitment to success are rarely reported by the media. For example, writing about Congressman John Murtha:

In view of his distinguished military career, John Murtha has been the subject of much attention from the media and is a sought-after spokesman for opponents of the Iraq war. He has earned the right to speak. But his comments supposedly expressing the negative views of those who have and are now serving in the Middle East run counter to what I and others know and hear from our own colleagues — from junior officers to the enlisted backbone of our fighting force.

On the surface this is a convincing point: who knows better what is going on in Iraq than the soldiers who are there? This is really the wrong question. The author claims that he and others know things from their own colleagues, while Murtha’s point comes from people he has spoken with. It is impossible to know which person, if either, has spoken with more soldiers, or knows better how things are going.

The next paragraph contains a statement that makes it clear why it may not be a good idea to rely heavily on soldier’s opinions in a decision like this:

Murtha undoubtedly knows full well that the greatest single thing that drags on morale in war is the loss of a buddy. But second to that is politicians questioning, in amplified tones, the validity of that loss to our families, colleagues, the nation and the world.

The claim here is that politicians drag on morale when they question the validity of the loss of a buddy. What in the world is the “validity” of a loss? It seems clear that this is a strain of the standard right wing talking point, that questioning the wisdom of any military action is basically treason, because it demoralizes the troops, because it implies that what they are doing is wrong, and that this demoralization helps the enemy. Unfortunately for the simpletons who use this argument, it is true that sometimes, some military actions really are a bad idea.

The writer of this article clearly feels that the War in Iraq is going great, and he is entitled to that opinion. Elected officials must use a more demanding system when deciding what is a good use of our military forces. If they see young Americans dying for a cause that is unworthy of their sacrifice, then they ought to say so. Of course soldiers on the ground believe they are doing a good thing–who would ever tell themselves what they are doing is bad? It is the abuse of these soldiers’ bravery, by decision makers who, in his opinion, do not respect their courage enough, that Murtha seeks to end.

Via Matt Yglesias of TPM Cafe, we find this short but sweet article in The Atlantic, by James Fallows. It describes a War Game session The Atlantic held two years ago to explore the possible outcomes of an escalating conflict between Iran and the United States.

The article is worth a full read, and it is brief. The group concluded back then that a military strike on Iran was the worst option. As Fallows describes, all the factors that make this so have increased over the intervening years.

How did we get to this point? Fallows tells it like it is:

The inconvenient truth of American foreign policy is that the last five years have left us with a series of choices, and all of them are bad. The United States can’t keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, for obvious reasons. It can’t withdraw them, because of the chaos that would ensue. The United States can’t keep prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (and other overseas facilities) indefinitely, because of international and domestic challenges. But it can’t hastily release them, since many were and more have become terrorists. And it can’t even bring them to trial, because of procedural abuses that have already occurred. Similarly, the United States can’t accept Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power, but it cannot prevent this through military means, unless it is willing to commit itself to all-out war.

President Bush and the failure of both his vision and his execution have brought us to a point where we have no good options. I hope people will remember that in November.

We learn from the Washington Post that President Bush is miffed. Miffed that news sources would print articles about his administration’s plans for dealing with Iran. From the article (quoting the President):

“I know here in Washington prevention means force,” he said in response to an audience question after a speech at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. “It doesn’t mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy. And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you’re reading is wild speculation, which . . . happens quite frequently here in the nation’s capital.”

Why would he say this? The fact is, his military planners are indeed constructing plans should an invasion of Iran become “necessary.” He has already invaded one nation, Iraq, which he said belonged to the “axis of evil,” because he was convinced they might have weapons of mass destruction. I don’t think the news articles could properly be called “wild speculation” given these facts. The President has so far failed to explain why it was so urgent to invade Iraq, who were complying with weapons inspectors, and who had no nuclear technology, and yet it is not so urgent to invade Iran, who have stated clearly that they believe they have a right to nuclear weapons, and are within at most years of developing them.

At the same event, the President demonstrated that he doesn’t understand how a Democracy works:

With some students inside the small hall wearing red signs protesting his policies, Bush said he welcomes dissent. “I get protested all the time,” Bush said to laughter, then called it a “great thing” in a democracy. “The protests really don’t bother me. I hope that’s not viewed as cavalier, but it’s just the way I feel.”

Those students are his constituents. This President is using his citizens’ heartfelt attempts to tell him their disagreements as window dressing. The arrogance.

It is a good feeling. Oh, and remember that “War on Christians” conference I blogged a few days ago? Well, The Nation’s Robert Scheer heard about it too, and his take is spot on:

Let’s leave aside for a moment the absurdity of right-wing Christians’ persecution complex at a time when their adherents effectively control all three branches of the federal government. What’s even more confusing is how so many enemies of virtue seem to have had a field day operating under poor DeLay’s auspices, including the latest member of his staff to plead guilty to a felony. That would be Tony Rudy, DeLay’s former deputy chief of staff, who has now pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge for accepting payments from fellow criminal Jack Abramoff while serving in DeLay’s office, and later working to corrupt public officials and defraud clients.

Exactly. It’s getting to the point where, if a high level Republican operative says something, it is generally the case that the opposite is true.

What to say about Tom DeLay? His zeal, arrogance, determination, and power reached incredible heights in his time. It seemed he would do anything to further the creation of a Republican majority in Congress. His success lives on, though he will not be a part of it any longer. It is tempting to bask in the DeLay-free political future, but now is not the time to relax.

DeLay’s exit, in a strange way, could help Republicans. Democrats have focussed on DeLay’s crimes, because he was the House Majority leader, and because they were so numerous, but now we risk having wasted all of that effort because he will not be there to vote against. This would be a shame, because DeLay, though he is not running, remains emblematic of the current GOP approach to campaigning and governance. We must remind the voters that this is so.

John Nichols at The Nation concludes that, strategy be damned, it’s just good to know that DeLay is not going to have any power any more:

While it is surely the case that the Texas Congressman’s career was in steep decline following his indictment on campaign-corruption charges and his forced resignation from the majority leader position, for so long as Tom DeLay remained within grasping reach of the levers of power in Washington, the prospect of a further dismantling of democracy remained all too real.

While I agree wholeheartedly, at the same time we must not let the GOP get away with claiming, like they did with their sham lobbying reform package, that everything is fine now. Everything is not fine now. Republicans still control both houses of Congress with the total discipline DeLay imposed. Debate is limitied, and bills are massaged behind closed doors. The culture of corruption remains, though its Dear Leader may be gone.

From the Washington Post:

DeLay’s decision to resign from the chamber he once ruled with a clenched fist gave some Republicans hope that the party can move beyond a burgeoning corruption scandal as the congressional election season heats up. That scandal so far has led to guilty pleas to corruption charges by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, once a close ally of DeLay’s, and former DeLay aides Michael Scanlon and Tony C. Rudy, who worked with Abramoff after leaving their Capitol Hill jobs.

It is vital that we not allow this debate to become personal. DeLay may or may not be guilty of the offences with which he is charged, but he is certainly guilty of changing the atmosphere in Washington for the worse, and all the voters in the nation must remember that we have the power to change that in November.

The Washington Post’s Jeffrey Birnbaum has written a column titled, “Looks Like It Will Be A Lost Year In Legislation.” While I agree with his main premise, that Congress ought to be working harder to enact laws that will serve the nation, his explanation for the status quo is instructive:

One word characterizes the situation: gridlock.

That’s right, Birnbaum blames . . . everyone. Equally. He somehow failed to mention such relevant details as which political party controlled both houses of Congress. He listed some legislation that he thought was frivolous, but did not say who had proposed it. This vagueness, I assume for the purpose of appearing balanced, makes it possible for the author to criticize Congress generally for not getting things done, but it does not offer any insight into why things are this way, or how to fix them. Take this example:

The urge to play it safe would explain the rush of largely rhetorical issues that are about to clog the Senate’s legislative docket: Constitutional amendments that would ban flag-burning and same-sex marriages, and a resolution that would censure President Bush for warrantless wiretapping.

Not that these things don’t matter. They are likely to rile up voters, perhaps enough to compel them to go to the polls in November. That is their greatest value — at least for the pols who plan to shout about them.

Anyone who takes these issues seriously should be either amazed or offended at the silliness of Birnbaum’s argument. If legislation energizes voters, isn’t that what it is supposed to do? Isn’t that why we vote for representatives in the first place? To make laws we like? Not to mention the short shrift given to issues some people take quite seriously. I don’t see how censuring the President for violating a clear law is a “rhetorical issue,” and I’m sure there are some out there who feel the same about his other examples.

This is strange enough, but later on in the piece there occurs such a strange omission that I can’t figure it out:

What lawmakers crave more than a lobbying bill with teeth is a lobbying bill, period. They want the ability to say they voted for “reform” if and when indictments are brought against members of Congress. That, they hope, will be enough to insulate them from voter outrage.

Not lawmakers, Jeffrey: Republicans. Say it with me now, Republicans. Republicans have the lobbying scandal problem. To refuse to say it plainly, for the sake of balance, is to reduce your column to insanity. Are there any Democrats currently facing indictment? You know the answer. (No.)

I have trouble understanding what the column is supposed to be about in the first place. Maybe the conclusion will help:

This situation is not helped by the president’s dismal job-approval ratings, which are making the Republican majority nervous and the Democratic minority eager to capitalize on anything that might give them political advantage.

“The two political parties are in what seems to be a perpetual war for political power, making it even harder to forge a compromise,” Josten said.

Which is a formula for a lost legislative year.

Hmm. Well, that certainly is too bad. Those parties should stop being so power hungry and monolithic so there can be real compromise. How can they both be equally blind?

Oh, wait. That’s not how it is. The Republican, Rovian machine, has made things this way. Birnbaum’s refusal to tell it like it is has made his column empty and unconvincing.

It seems like the conventional wisdom has coalesced around two metrics that determine electability: authenticity and certainty. Certainly, that’s one idea I get from this Washington Post article, which analyzes the President’s recent use of less-scripted, more off-the-cuff public appearances to improve his poll numbers. Apparently, Bush makes little jokes, and “plays the rube,” and people come away impressed because he seems so authentic.

The President’s certainty is well known. For example, he was unable to think of a single mistake he had made during a press appearance a few years ago. One of the things that he has said is that, even if you don’t agree with him, you know where he stands.

Taken together, the authenticity and certainty metrics represent a new way for candidates to campaign. Values and issues are becoming less important, I contend because they are becoming confusing and complex. Global climate change is complicated, foreign relations are complicated, and so are all the other jobs the President is supposed to do. Thus, for someone to establish that they know what to do and that they really believe in it makes all the difference. If their opponents have some nuanced vision of things, all the better for the President.

The problem is, as Kerry said in the first debate, you can be certain and wrong. The internal emotional state of one man is a terrible foundation for complex decisions. The solution here is to focus on results, with concrete, vivid examples, rather than personality contests. Republican candidates will always have the upper hand among confused people, because they seem so sure. We have to fight that with clear, precise examples of their failures. Don’t worry–there are lots to choose from.

David Broder’s column today in the Washington Post opens tellingly:

Jim Nussle took a little time off from his campaign last week to handle a small chore in Washington: writing a budget for the U.S. government.

In the piece, Broder examines the offhandedness of the GOP’s handling of this huge task. I recommend the whole column, because it describes how this Congress is on track to meet the fewest hours since the Congress of 1948, and because it spears GOP hypocrites like this:

Democrats were trying to reimpose the budget rule known as “pay-go.” That requirement simply says any spending increase or tax cut is to be offset by a comparable saving. . .

Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, led the effort to defeat it, arguing that it would inevitably force a tax increase . . .

Four years ago, Gregg said: “If we do not do this, if we do not put back in place caps and pay-go mechanisms, we will have no budget discipline in this Congress, and, as a result, we will dramatically aggravate the deficit . . .”

When [Sen. Kent] Conrad quoted those words, Gregg replied: “I was right then, and I am right now. Times change, and the dynamics of what is happening around here change substantively.”

Oh, GOP Congress, I am sad for you. It must have been so easy when Democrats were in charge, and they kept running the finances responsibly, so that it was easy to argue in favor of crazy things, like simultaneously increasing spending and decreasing revenue. Not so fun trying to keep all your campaign promises when there’s no adult around to make sure things work out.

What was that old campaign item you guys used to have? Fiscal responsibility? It looks nice. I think we’ll take it.