The Great Litmus Test

The Washington Post is calling several Democratic presidential candidates to task for siding with Bush on policies they now eschew (see this article). I am less critical than the Washington Post and my fellow bloggers because Congressional representatives must be keenly aware of public tides and they pay dearly for fighting the tide. As I see it, the blame rests more on the public's visceral reaction to contemporary events than on Congress's responsibility to heed its constituents' viewpoints.

I agree with Dean's statement (although made in reference to the Patriot Act and not the war) that members of Congress should not be attacked for what happened during an "atmosphere of enormous emotion." At the same time, I admire those who vote their conscience in spite of potential backlash (e.g., Feingold on the Patriot Act).

I do not mean to suggest that a Congressperson should not account for their votes. Rather, I simply disagree that the Democrats displayed a "dereliction of duty." If we are to hold anyone's feet to the fire for poor decisionmaking, it should be the American people, not its representatives.

Defining Democracy

Would you suggest this as the next Boys Weekend book? We are due up for a new book...

Defining Democracy

Asia Times is running a book review of The Future of Freedom, by Fareed Zakaria. It's a study on the implementation of democracy and how it impacts on freedom and civil liberties. Based on the review it looks fascinating. I think our most bedevilling topic of conversation to date has been how to refine the democratic process. I'm not sure that this book will engage the behavioral aspects that we tend to get into, but it at least hits many peripheral and equally important points, and can help refine the discussion of what exactly it takes to make democracy work. This book will sit high on my unmanageably long "stuff to read" list..

Where's the Beef?

Daniel Schorr has a nice editorial on CSM regarding his experiences with market deregulation. It doesn't go into great depth or have a whole lot of evidence, but it highlights many cases where deregulation failed to live up to its promises. It's a topic we seem to discuss regularly, and perhaps one that would be interesting to study. What are the market conditions that determine whether an industry is best controlled by the public vs the private sector? What methods of deregulation are most likely to result in an improvement in value for consumers?

Iraqi Opinion Poll

Karl Zinsmeister (of the American Enterprise Institute) wrote an article on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal yesterday that is worth reading. The article has been posted on the AEI website. He describes the first "scientific" opinion poll of the Iraqi people regarding their current situation and views toward the US. Contrary to many media depictions of Iraq, the poll suggests that Iraqis look favorablly on the American presence (at least in the short term), are secular, and are looking to model their government after either the US or Saudi Arabia (of the choices of countries given). My only concern in this poll is that they did not include Baghdad, which just happens to be the largest population center in Iraq. Why would Baghdad be left out of such a poll? In any event, they deserve credit for trying to get real evidence of Iraqi opinions instead of mere speculation by the press and politicians.

Weapons of... Look! Over there! The Iraqis are free!

In yet another example of the paucity of real evidence for Saddam Hussein posing a threat to the United States, the Wall Street Journal carried a report yesterday about the danger posed by Iraqs unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's). Both George Bush and Colin Powell (before the UN) made the case that Iraq was capable of using these UAV's to launch biological and chemical attacks against other nations and perhaps even the US. These statements derived from an intelligence report from last October. Attached to this report was a dissent from the Airforce stating they believed it unlikely that Hussein had drones capable of carrying out such attacks. Of course, this dissent was kept secret, even though the Airforce was most capable of making the threat assessment in this area. Now we find that their drones were indeed primitive and incapable of carrying WMD payloads (if indeed Iraq had WMD's).

This is now one of several examples of poor to false evidence regarding an Iraqi threat. I simply can't comprehend why George Bush is not under the same pressure as Tony Blaire. Apparently the American people don't care that they were lied to. Perhaps they will mind paying $87 billion dollars.

Howard Dean Marches On

There are a couple of interesting bits of news regarding Howard Dean floating around. First, as has been remarked on here, Dean has previously taken a very hawkish, pro-Israel stance on the middle-east. Well apparently he's had a change of heart. He recently got himself into trouble by stating at a campaign rally that he felt the US needed to be even-handed in the conflict, and that an "enormous number" of Iraeli settlements would have to go. Apparently most of the political establishment has gone into shock at the thought that someone could advocate treating the two sides fairly, and so now Dean is already trying to backpedal a bit.

The other news is that he has been meeting with Gen. Wesley Clark, presumably regarding Clark joining him as his vice-president. Were that to happen it would certainly help to cement Dean's lead in the primary race. It's hard to say what impact it would make in the general election without having had much exposure to Clark as a politician.

The Great Litmus Test

I have to fully agree with the commentary on the failure of Democrats to vote against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. This was an abdication of responsibility by many members of Congress... an easy way out of a difficult decision. In fact, I would consider it a dereliction of duty. I use this phrase intentionally. The same phrase is a title of the book Dereliction of Duty by H.R. McMaster. He is a major who extensively researched the leadup to the Vietnam War, with particular focus on the workings of the Johnson administration. The portrait of Johnson in that book is one of the most egregious examples of a politician worried more about "re"-election than he was about consequences of his actions on the American people and the world. He kept Vietnam operations secret from Congress and secret from the American people, all the while leading us further and further into the quagmire. He sacrificed policy for politics, and such individuals need to be banished from our government. Of course, it is incumbent on the American people to carry this out. Unfortunately, they are unlikely to do it.

Site Update - Some New Features

As one of the impacts of their purchase by google, blogger has decided to offer more features to their free service. You'll notice we have a real title bar now, a spell checker, and the option to save a post as a draft if you need to quit before you're ready to post.

Also, check out their BlogThis! feature, available from the front page. Save that as one of the shortcuts on your browser, then from any page you're browsing you can hit that shortcut to open up a window to post on our blog with a link in it to the page you're viewing. It's pretty slick. Thanks blogger!

The Other Costs of War

This lengthy and well-written Sept 11th story in the New York Times doesn't say anything that hasn't been said before, but its prominence on this day and in that paper took me a bit by surprise. I think it is important to recall, while the human and financial costs of our adventure in Iraq occupy the headlines, that the diplomatic costs were equally severe, and may end up hurting us the most in the long run.

Oxfam Attacks Subsidies

At the WTO meeting in Mexico, Oxfam is leading a coalition of 21 countries against farm subsidies. During the summer the US and EU held their own bilateral talks to decide how to address the issue of subsidies in preparation for this meeting. It doesn't seem like they're in a rush to make major changes, but at least they're coming to understand that this is the critical next step in reaching any further free trade agreements. It creates an awkward political situation for Republicans, who are generally the strongest proponents of free trade, but who also count on support from agricultural states for almost all of their national political power. It will be interesting to see how that unfolds. It's very encouraging to me to see that the developing nations have been able to come together and rally behind this issue. Hopefully it will pave the way for other alliances in dealing with trade issues.

The Great Litmus Test

So, in the news, Abbas is out and new attacks on Israel are in. I figured it would happen, but not this fast. I think the administration is still trying to pretend the road map isn't dead, but it would take a miracle to rescue it at this point. Now we've got another Arafat crony running the show there. I really don't see Arafat's crowd settling this thing. His crew is infamously corrupt, and I fear, growing further out of touch with Palestinian popular sentiment every day. Not to mention the fact that the US and Israel hate him with a passion and don't want to deal with him. In fact, I rather suspect he'd have lost power by now except for how strongly the US and Israel fight against him and the sympathy that this engenders in the Palestinian populace. And the way things stand now he has a death grip on the armed wing of the Palestinian Authority. As long as the US and Israel insist on dealing with the PA alone (not involving Hamas) and they maintain a level of pressure that leaves the PA unable to thouroughly reform itself this conflict will go nowhere.

Also in the news, Bush asks for a boatload of money for Iraq. I think this is a very good idea, but agree with various Democratic congress-people (including our friend Russ) that he needs to be made to suffer for it. If he is not willing to admit to any mistakes, if he is not willing to compromise on his tax cuts to fund it, if he is not willing to let Congress have more say on how it is spent, they need to reject this request. There is a column on tompaine.com of moderate value that contains a quote that I think captures the brilliance of Rove's media strategy: "The genius of the new Bush Speak is to fudge all substantive distinctions, on the assumption that the American people won't notice what you are saying as long as you get the photo op right." It's the ultimate statement of style over substance, and it has worked beautifully so far. Congress has an opportunity to force the administration to deal in substance or to see their plans suffer. If indeed they choose to pass up the funding to avoid substantive discussion of the issues, it would truly be a tragedy for Iraq. However, I don't think they can afford to do that, and I don't think they will. Congress, press them hard while you have the chance.

But all of that is not what I want to write about tonight. I wanted to clearly delineate why I will not vote for any Democratic candidate who voted for the resolution allowing George Bush to go to war with Iraq. It's late already, so I'm going to keep this short and to the point. When this vote came up in October of 2002 it had been known for a year that the Bush administration was angling to go to war with Iraq. Rumsfeld had set up a planning committee to prepare for this war within weeks of the 9/11 and had been working to position the US for this war despite a complete lack of evidence tying Saddam to the attack or demonstrating any substantive risk posed by Iraq to the US. When this vote came up the doctrine of preemtive warfare had been circulated to the public and the administration's support for it was known. When this vote came up it was known that our allies were reluctant at best and that the administration planned to use this resolution in an effort to blackmail the UN into agreeing to the war. When this vote came up it was known that only the most sketchy of evidence existed to justify a war on Iraq. When this vote came up it was known that the administration was refusing to disclose any plans for dealing with the aftermath of the conflict and offered only the most vague details on the costs of it.

So why did the Democratic party decide to support the resolution? Because they thought getting it off table would help them in the mid-term elections. Here we are discussion the most important of political issues, whether or not to go to war, and the Democratic party was busy playing politics. Many of those who voted for the resolution expressed strong doubts and concerns about where the adminstration was headed and how they would make use of the resolution. But they voted for it anyway. This is a level of disconnect that I simply cannot fathom. Why do you bother to try to attain a position of power if not to have some say on an issue of this critical importance? I cannot but conclude that the Democratic party and those members of it who supported the resolution are so lost in their pursuit of power that they have forgotten the noble pursuits that led them into politics in the first place. This was an act of the most extreme cynicism and disdain for their appointed duties.

I understand the importance of politics and compromise and playing the game to achieve your goals. But this goes far beyond that. This was a matter of the most vital moral and political importance. That is not a time for playing games. It was unconscienable for the Democrats to view going to war as a matter of political expediency.

And to top it off, it didn't even work. The Democrats lost out on the mid-term elections because people were rallying behind Bush's war. Even having voted for the war they could not rightfully claim they were stronger proponents of it than the Republicans, many of whom voted for the war, not as a matter of politics, but because they actually believed in it. It was a stupid idea, and I believe I said so from the beginning. Signing on to the President's anti-terror agenda cannot help the Democrats. It simply gives these policies their endorsement and strengthens the position on this critical issue of the Republicans, from whom these policies originated in the first place.

And so I cannot in good conscience ever again support any Democratic politician who supported or voted for that resolution, and will not, even should the cost be a Republican victory. This goes beyond a matter of disagreeing on policy, as I disagree with the Republicans. It is a betrayal of everything our political system should be about. I will not stand for it.

Article: Busy News Day

Lots of interesting stuff today. This whole episode of going back to the UN for military and financial support is really fueling my Bush administration split conspiracy theory. According to stories floating around, Powell finally decided to make a move, and according to a story in the Milwaukee Journal last week he's got Karl Rove on his side, and this story shows the Joint Chiefs and Condi Rice lining up with him as well. That's a coalition that could take on the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz axis head-to-head. Interesting stuff... Of course Wolfowitz says (paraphrasing, I heard this on the radio) this is not a case of the US changing our position on UN involvement, it's that the UN has decided thaFt backing up the US is the right thing to do. Huh? It was clearly the US who initiated this proposal, and the UN still ain't buyin unless the US makes substantive concessions to the UN.

Elsewhere, Abbas continues to play his one-note symphony ("do what I tell you or I'll take my ball and go home") for the Palestinian Authority. There is incentive enough for both sides to give it a shot, but I don't think Arafat intends to yield any real power, and Abbas has little room to negotiate without losing his US and Israeli endorsement (and with it his entire reason for holding office). They'll try to work things out for a while, it will collapse, and the roadmap will be officially over.

And finally, CSM mentions a new reality TV show coming out, as if we haven't had enough of them. But wait, this one, called "K-Street" is about political lobbyists. It's a bizarre, but intriguing idea, particularly considering it is produced by the brilliant writer/producer/director Steven Soderbergh. The bad news? It's an HBO exclusive.

Background: The Neoconservatives

The Christian Science Monitor has an extremely nice summary of the history, ideals, and key players of the neocon movement. I found it very informative as I see and hear this term thrown around a lot but with little explanation of what it means. I was fascinated to learn that the neocon movement started with a bunch of Jewish liberals in the 60's and 70's who were born again into the right.

Article: Sizing up Bush for 2004

The Economist has this article in its most recent edition evaluating some of the successes and failures of the Bush adminsistration, which makes reelection anything but a foregone conclusion. The article does note that Bush certainly has one thing going for him (a lot of one thing, actually): money.

On the Horizon: Even Safer Tobacco?

Star Scientific appears to be a company committed to producing low-carcinogenic tobacco products. They were recently in the news because the FDA has refused to regulate their upcoming product Avira tobacco lozenge. The company claims that this lozenge, as well as their moist and dry snuff, will have nitrosamine 'levels that are extremely low, even when measured in “parts per billion”'. My understanding is that Snus has levels around 3 parts per million. Perhaps we will end up having even safer alternatives to Snus if the price is right. I also commend them for trying to make low carcinogen cigarettes. These types of products have been too long in coming and are likely to save our health care system significant amounts of money if they come into general use.

Article: The Educated Terrorists

In a very interesting article in CSM (can you tell we like this paper?), it appears that terrorists and suicide bombers may not be the poor, uneducated wretches that many make them out to be. According to the article, only 13% of Palestinian suicide bombers came from poor families, whereas some 32% of the Palestinian population in a similar age group were considered poor. Furthermore, virtually all of these bombers had at least finished primary school. This reminds me of some of our previous discussions regarding the origins of revolt (see Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold beginning 5-30-03). I believe we came to the conclusion that the poor and uneducated were unlikely to revolt against the status quo. On the other hand, the middle class or elites would have the time, money, and knowledge to be the key players in leading a revolt to change the economic and social circumstances. Perhaps this is reflected in the background of the suicide bombers. The more they know, the more they detest the occupation of Palestine. I can't say I blame them for their feelings, although I find it impossible to condone their actions against civilians (no more than I would condone Israel's extrajudicial executions of both suspected militants and innocent bystanders).

Article: Speak For Yourself

CSM has another great editorial today. Jonathan Rowe discusses the inability or unwillingness of politicians to write their own speeches. This is an important point for me. It has become increasingly difficult to get a decent read on politicians as it has become easier to avoid ever speaking without a script, and moreover, a script they did not personally write. The Bush administration in particular has demonstrated how effectively this can be done. When you're never able to actually hear a person speak their own words or read a person's writing it is very difficult to really know what you're voting for. This was raised in an offhand way during the campaign with the accusations that W was not very intellectual. The way this manifests itself is that since everything he says comes from someone else's writing he is very vulnerable to being redirected, as he has been by the neo-con clique. This bothered me about Gore as well. I know Gore has, or at least used to have, things to say; he had some thoughtful and intelligent positions prior to serving as VP. But during the campaign it seemed he turned over the keys to the campaign bus to his political consultants. In my opinion the primary objective of debates and interviews should be to get the candidates speaking on issues of substance for which they don't have a prepared script. If I want to know their official positions I can read their websites, what I want is a chance to get a read on the raw, unfiltered person who is asking for my vote.

In rather more significant news, Britney Spears says she would not kiss any woman but Madonna. Also mentions she does not have orgies during her spare time and that she believes "we should just trust our President in every decision he makes and we should just support that." God Bless America.

Today's Sign of the Apocalypse: George Bush, Action Hero

I don't know what's more wrong, that someone made this thing, or that people can't get enough of them..

Discussion: But there's more

You have got to be kidding me:
"America is a nation that understands its responsibilities and keeps its word. And we will honor our word to the people of Iraq and those in the Middle East who yearn for freedom."

It's sad that Americans are really that ignorant of recent history that President Bush can get away with that line. But most Iraqis still remember this one: "Sure, go ahead and revolt against Saddam. We support you 100%. Our troops will be right behind you..."