The Center for American Progress has done some searching and its preliminary findings only raise more questions--but they are certainly questions for which the public (and Congress) should demand an explanation.
Apparently the money must have come either from the immediate post-9/11 funds (made available by HR 2888, passed 18 September 2001 and archived here) or from the emergency funds that Congress passed on 2 August 2002 (H.R. 4775, passed 2 August 2002). I have excerpted the relevant portion (the part dicussing military funding) from HR 4775 because the whole Act is quite long.
Scenario 1:
If Bush got the $700M from the emergency funds that Congress made immediately available after 9/11 (HR 2888), (1) the President was required to "consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer of these funds," and (2) the Office of Management and Budget was required to submit quarterly reports on the use of those funds.
As for the first requirement, Senator Robert Byrd--the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee at the time--recently stated:
To the best of my knowledge, and I was Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee at that time, the Bush White House provided no consultations as required by law about its use of funds for preparation for a war in Iraq in advance of those funds being spent. There is nothing contained in the Administration's quarterly reports indicating that projects were being funded to prepare for war with Iraq.
As far as those quarterly reports to Congress (requirement #2), the full reports covering the relevant timeframe can be found here (9 August 2002) and here (17 October 2002) [Whitehouse]. But rather than making you go through the whole document I have excerpted the pertinent page from each document (the one discussing military spending), which you can view here and here.
As the reports demonstrate, Bush didn't offer any specifics whatsoever. Instead, he grouped the military spending into broad categories like "Increased Situational Awareness" and "Improved Command and Control." Nowhere do the reports mention Iraq. Remember what the Constitution (Article I, Sec. 9, cl.7) requires: that "a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." I don't know what these reports typically look like, but it hardly seems that the reports the OMB provided pass constitutional muster.
Scenario 2:
If Bush spent the money from the second appropriation of funds, well, an immediate problem presents itself--Woodward claims that the $700M was authorized to be spent in preparing for the Iraq invasion in July 2002, but that money was not even available until August of that year.
But even more problematic, the Act specifically provides:
That during the current fiscal year, upon a determination by the Secretary of Defense that funds previously made available to the ??Defense Emergency Response Fund?? are required to meet other essential operational or readiness requirements of the military services, the Secretary may transfer up to $275,000,000 of funds so required to the appropriate funds or appropriations of the Department of Defense, 15 days after notification to the congressional defense committees.
In other words, the amount available to the Department of Defense was limited to $275M (not $700M) and that money could only be transfered 15 days after some members of Congress were notified. Senator Byrd serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and never heard a thing about military spending for Iraq at that time.
So far, the news coverage on this issue has been sparse. The LA Times quotes a few Congressional representatives in this article--and they are obviously not too happy about the development. Professor Cass Sunstein, who I respect a great deal, gave his two cents on the matter here [Salon.com]. He states:
With the words 'promoting national security,'[the language from HR 2888] Congress cannot plausibly have meant to give the president a blank check to prepare for hostilities wherever he chooses.
What does the Bush administration have to say about all this? According to this Fox News story, General Tommy Franks sent the Pentagon a $700M "request for improvements" (whatever that means), but the Pentagon reviewed the request and funded only $178M, which went to "fuel and rations, improvements to military communications networks and improvements to Franks' headquarters in Florida." The DOD's full statement to the press can be found here. I don't understand why General Franks would be submitting budget requests to the Pentagon instead of Congress, like it's supposed to work, and it certainly doesn't fit the Pentagon's M.O. to turn down an opportunity to spend more money.
The official response, from Scott McClellan on Tuesday:
I think the Department of Defense briefed on that yesterday, and pointed out that that simply was not the case. Congress was kept informed and the funding, the emergency funding from the -- the emergency funding gave the Pentagon broad discretion in how funds were used. And they also pointed out that the funding specifically for Iraq came after the resolution that Congress passed. And Congress was kept fully informed of the funding.
It is a possibility that Woodward simply got bad information. But even if that were so, we are certainly entitled to a better explanation than what has been provided so far.
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Another Take on the Outsourcing Debate
Robert Kuttner, the editor of The American Prospect, has this to say about outsourcing [Boston Globe].
Honduras
The Detroit Free Press yesterday wrote that Honduras announced it plans to withdraw all its troops (370) "in the shortest time possible." Reuters reports here that both the Dominican Republic and Honduras are leaving in response to the spiraling violence and pressure from Spain. Said Honduras's Defense Minister Federico Breve: "I do not see any reason why relations between Honduras and the United States should deteriorate."
In completely unrelated news, Reuters noted here that President Bush appointed John Negroponte as future embassador to Iraq after the Coalition Provisional Authority hands off the baton on June 30 of this year. Wikipedia provides this biography and notes that from 1981 to 1985, he served as embassador to--of all places--Honduras. Some of Negroponte's critics (the Human Rights Watch, for instance) have accused him of ignoring human rights atrocities that were being committed by US-trained military (the Baltimore Sun ran this article back in 1995). Strangely enough, those allegations aren't contained in Negroponte's bio at the U.N. And I'm sure it is entirely coincidental that Honduras decided to withdraw its troops the day after Negroponte was appointed embassador.
Update: Here is what American Prospect's Matthew Yglesias has to say about Mr. Negroponte.
In completely unrelated news, Reuters noted here that President Bush appointed John Negroponte as future embassador to Iraq after the Coalition Provisional Authority hands off the baton on June 30 of this year. Wikipedia provides this biography and notes that from 1981 to 1985, he served as embassador to--of all places--Honduras. Some of Negroponte's critics (the Human Rights Watch, for instance) have accused him of ignoring human rights atrocities that were being committed by US-trained military (the Baltimore Sun ran this article back in 1995). Strangely enough, those allegations aren't contained in Negroponte's bio at the U.N. And I'm sure it is entirely coincidental that Honduras decided to withdraw its troops the day after Negroponte was appointed embassador.
Update: Here is what American Prospect's Matthew Yglesias has to say about Mr. Negroponte.
Pentagon Censors Woodward-Rumsfeld Transcript
Mike Allen from the WP writes that the Pentagon Deleted Rumsfeld's Comment to Woodward that Saudi Ambassador Bandar could "take it to the bank" that we were going to go to war. Specifically, Woodward's transcript reads:
[Rumsfeld:]I remember meeting with the vice president and I think Dick Myers and I met with a foreign dignitary at one point and looked him in the eye and said you can count on this. In other words, at some point we had had enough of a signal from the president that we were able to look a foreign dignitary in the eye and say you can take that to the bank this is going to happen.
You can read the entire deleted portion--complements of Woodward--here [WP]. What I can't figure out is why Bush is endorsing Woodward's book--does he (or Karl Rove) really think that people and the media will ignore what the book really says and accept instead however Bush characterizes it? People aren't THAT gullible are they?
[Rumsfeld:]I remember meeting with the vice president and I think Dick Myers and I met with a foreign dignitary at one point and looked him in the eye and said you can count on this. In other words, at some point we had had enough of a signal from the president that we were able to look a foreign dignitary in the eye and say you can take that to the bank this is going to happen.
You can read the entire deleted portion--complements of Woodward--here [WP]. What I can't figure out is why Bush is endorsing Woodward's book--does he (or Karl Rove) really think that people and the media will ignore what the book really says and accept instead however Bush characterizes it? People aren't THAT gullible are they?
Political Hot Potato
It has been known for some time that another major spending bill will be needed in Iraq and that the Bush administration is hoping to wait until after the election to deal with it. The Washington Post is reporting that US forces in Iraq may not be able to wait that long. They quote Republican vice-chair of the House Armed Services Committee Curt Weldon: "There needs to be a supplemental, whether it's a presidential election year or not. The support of our troops has to be the number one priority of this country... Somebody's got to get serious about this." Three ring political circus certain to ensue...
The Republican National Committee Takes Over the IRS & Treasury
John Marshall, the author of Talking Points Memo blog, cues his readers onto a gross abuse of taxpayer funds by the IRS.
Read the following paragraph that appears at the bottom of a US Treasury and IRS press release (dated April 9, 2004):
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.
Now read this one, from a RNC factsheet (dated April 2, 2004):
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's polices are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.
NYT reports that the tax policy statement was included on four separate press releases that were issued that day. The Times also quotes Rob Nichols, a spokesperson for the Treasury department as saying:
Stating our position is appropriate ... . The administration's views on fiscal policy are that lower taxes have helped strengthen the economy and led to an environment of increased job creation.
Fox News reports that the Treasury Department's Inspector General is investigating the matter, along with the IRS's recent analysis of Kerry's tax proposals (you gotta read this IRS press release--it's unbelievable.)
Read the following paragraph that appears at the bottom of a US Treasury and IRS press release (dated April 9, 2004):
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.
Now read this one, from a RNC factsheet (dated April 2, 2004):
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's polices are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.
NYT reports that the tax policy statement was included on four separate press releases that were issued that day. The Times also quotes Rob Nichols, a spokesperson for the Treasury department as saying:
Stating our position is appropriate ... . The administration's views on fiscal policy are that lower taxes have helped strengthen the economy and led to an environment of increased job creation.
Fox News reports that the Treasury Department's Inspector General is investigating the matter, along with the IRS's recent analysis of Kerry's tax proposals (you gotta read this IRS press release--it's unbelievable.)
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Re: Fair at Work?
There is one point that I want to get out there before getting to the meat of your question: If individuals were afforded special consideration for family life, then it must apply equally to dads as it would to moms. I see no reason to favor women in that regard over men in similar circumstances. Indeed, providing unequal treatment in that regard would most likely be judged to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As to whether the government should afford some special protection to parents in the workplace, I have two problems. First, the free market is generally a good thing and unless there is a demonstrated market failure, if workers provide valuable skills and demand greater flexibility in the workplace so that they can better balance a family, one could argue that the market would provide such opportunities. Second, there is the potential that government regulation along the lines that you propose would end up hurting those people who decide not to have kids and instead focus on work. I do not see any good reason why government should weigh in and favor parents over non-parents in the workplace.
That being said, I do think there is a market failure. Often, "non-traditional" workers are discriminated against in the workplace. And every workplace I have observed firsthand comes in the "one-size-fits-all" variety, although that size does not in fact fit all. Workers who propose nontraditional working arrangements are generally not well received, even though they may offer value to that employer and be tremendously happier as a result. So there is room for the government to step in and encourage innovation (tax incentives might be one way to approach the problem).
One difficulty that exists in encouraging flexibility is that it is really hard to measure the value of any given employee. Because workers cannot easily weed out the lazy workers from the really valuable employees, it is hard to create different working conditions to suit different workers. Another problem is that workers just do not have a lot of market power to demand changes. Realistically, a job applicant cannot sit down with a prospective employer and propose his or her own hours and workplace conditions. If the government were to step in, I suggest they do so in a way that gives workers more power to demand flexibility--but only to the extent that those changes would be a positive for the worker and offer greater profitability for the employer.
As to whether the government should afford some special protection to parents in the workplace, I have two problems. First, the free market is generally a good thing and unless there is a demonstrated market failure, if workers provide valuable skills and demand greater flexibility in the workplace so that they can better balance a family, one could argue that the market would provide such opportunities. Second, there is the potential that government regulation along the lines that you propose would end up hurting those people who decide not to have kids and instead focus on work. I do not see any good reason why government should weigh in and favor parents over non-parents in the workplace.
That being said, I do think there is a market failure. Often, "non-traditional" workers are discriminated against in the workplace. And every workplace I have observed firsthand comes in the "one-size-fits-all" variety, although that size does not in fact fit all. Workers who propose nontraditional working arrangements are generally not well received, even though they may offer value to that employer and be tremendously happier as a result. So there is room for the government to step in and encourage innovation (tax incentives might be one way to approach the problem).
One difficulty that exists in encouraging flexibility is that it is really hard to measure the value of any given employee. Because workers cannot easily weed out the lazy workers from the really valuable employees, it is hard to create different working conditions to suit different workers. Another problem is that workers just do not have a lot of market power to demand changes. Realistically, a job applicant cannot sit down with a prospective employer and propose his or her own hours and workplace conditions. If the government were to step in, I suggest they do so in a way that gives workers more power to demand flexibility--but only to the extent that those changes would be a positive for the worker and offer greater profitability for the employer.
Re: Law Enforcement and Illegal Aliens (Part II)
I agree with Joe's contention that turning cops into INS agents will discourage the "invisible" illegal immigrants from seeking police protection, and that is a bad thing. But I place greater emphasis on the point that Joe only glosses over--how we should address illegal immigration in the first place. Enforcing immigration laws would not be so hard if we were serious about doing it. If the Government imposed strict penalties on anyone employing an illegal alien, then those seeking a better life in America simply would not find the better life they were looking for, and go home. But several industries are dependent on the low-wage labor that illegal immigrants provide, so the Government looks the other way.
Joe approaches the question from the perspective that illegal immigrants are here, and argues that we must find a way to deal with them until better immigration enforcement is put in place. From that standpoint, I agree that all individuals within our borders deserve certain rights and police protection is certainly a basic right. But what about education? And health care? I see those as tougher issues because people might cross into our country just to receive the basic entitlements afforded to everyone within our borders, even if they could not secure employment. So long as the grass is greener, people will come. So we would need to monitor our borders in conjunction with imposing strict penalties on employers of illegal immigrants if we are really serious about keeping those people out that we don't want here.
What I find missing in most discussions of illegal immigration is the point that our nation is made up of immigrants (mostly). We have wrongly turned our back on those seeking a better life, instead of trying to find ways to give them that better life. How do we accomplish that goal while maintaining a high quality of life for those of us already here? That to me is the real challenge.
Joe approaches the question from the perspective that illegal immigrants are here, and argues that we must find a way to deal with them until better immigration enforcement is put in place. From that standpoint, I agree that all individuals within our borders deserve certain rights and police protection is certainly a basic right. But what about education? And health care? I see those as tougher issues because people might cross into our country just to receive the basic entitlements afforded to everyone within our borders, even if they could not secure employment. So long as the grass is greener, people will come. So we would need to monitor our borders in conjunction with imposing strict penalties on employers of illegal immigrants if we are really serious about keeping those people out that we don't want here.
What I find missing in most discussions of illegal immigration is the point that our nation is made up of immigrants (mostly). We have wrongly turned our back on those seeking a better life, instead of trying to find ways to give them that better life. How do we accomplish that goal while maintaining a high quality of life for those of us already here? That to me is the real challenge.
Re: Law Enforcement and Illegal Aliens
First off I understand the term "the wall" in a far more limited way than discussed in the CSMonitor article to which you refer, as well as your discussion suggests. I want to turn to the issues that you raise about the need to separate immigration and criminal enforcement functions as a policy matter, but that is different than the issue raised by the 9/11 Commission (at least as I understand it). Before getting to your points, then, let me offer a few points on the current debate related to "the wall."
FISA and "The Wall"
As Commissioner Jamie Gorelick used the phrase in her WP commentary, and as Andrew McCarthy did in his criticism of Gorelick [National Review Online], (not to mention several.other.commentators on the same topic), "the wall" addresses the legal barrier that was built specifically in response to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"). That Act permits intrusions into the liberty of "foreign powers" and agents of foreign powers under different rules than normally apply to searches and seizures.
A special appeals court (appointed specially for the purpose of evaluating issues arising under FISA) ruled that FISA was constitutional as applied to foreign powers and their agents even if the information obtained was used for criminal prosecution. Up until that ruling, some were concerned that the FISA procedures may suffice for purposes of obtaining foreign intelligence information but not sufficient for criminal prosecutions. Therefore, lawyers for the DOJ thought that the two functions needed to be separate--thus, a wall between the two functions was put in place.
Various groups, including the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), raised constitutional challenges to the lowering of the wall between criminal functions and foreign intelligence-gathering. The thrust of their argument as I understand it was that the Fourth Amendment requires (1) probable cause, (2) reasonableness in relation to the stated purpose of the search or seizure, and (3) particularity of the place or person to be searched, and FISA as applied to criminal prosecutions does not meet those three requirements (see this FAQ from the EFF explaining the issues). The Court rejected that argument, finding that FISA procedures were constitutionally adequate.
My concern with the Court's ruling is that FISA now permits the government to intrude upon a non-citizen's liberty interests far too easily--under the rubric of national security. As long as the DOJ shows that foreign intelligence-gathering is a "significant purpose" of the search or seizure (rather than the "primary purpose"), a warrant will be issued under FISA. The government must meet a far greater burden to obtain a warrant under normal criminal investigations. That "burden" goes to the heart of the Fourth Amendment's protections. Yet some, like Andrew McCarthy, appear to view those protections as nothing more than a nuisance:
It is, of course, a reality that in the law-enforcement realm, because it is hopelessly lawyerized and hyper-vigilant about civil liberties, we actually are forced to worry about such things as the privacy rights of drug dealers. Thus, we do find ourselves litigating ad nauseam such commonsense matters as whether, just because you properly heard something, you should be allowed to use it to protect the public.
Where national security is at stake, McCarthy contends that we can entirely abandon all procedural protections because they are just "theoretical" concerns. I wholeheartedly disagree. The Fourth Amendment extends equally to all persons in the United States and although I recognize that genuine threats to national security deserve a different approach than a garden-variety criminal investigation, the government should not be able to dress up a criminal case in "national security" cloth to escape the procedural protections provided by the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, because our nation is so terrorized by terror, we allow that to happen with little or no scrutiny.
Call me a cynic if you must, but I believe that we all must scrutinize government conduct as closely and as often as possible or we risk losing the rights upon which our great country was founded. The FISA warrants provide an ideal illustration--in the roughly 25 years that the Act has been in place, the DOJ itself has documented 75 material misstatements made to the FISA court to obtain warrants under that Act (see Dahlia Lithwick's commentary [Slate] for more details). Before 2002, of the 10,000 applications for FISA warrants, not one request was turned down.
Surely we should not ignore the threat that terrorism poses to our personal security. But at the same time I hope we do not cease to fear tyranny.
FISA and "The Wall"
As Commissioner Jamie Gorelick used the phrase in her WP commentary, and as Andrew McCarthy did in his criticism of Gorelick [National Review Online], (not to mention several.other.commentators on the same topic), "the wall" addresses the legal barrier that was built specifically in response to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"). That Act permits intrusions into the liberty of "foreign powers" and agents of foreign powers under different rules than normally apply to searches and seizures.
A special appeals court (appointed specially for the purpose of evaluating issues arising under FISA) ruled that FISA was constitutional as applied to foreign powers and their agents even if the information obtained was used for criminal prosecution. Up until that ruling, some were concerned that the FISA procedures may suffice for purposes of obtaining foreign intelligence information but not sufficient for criminal prosecutions. Therefore, lawyers for the DOJ thought that the two functions needed to be separate--thus, a wall between the two functions was put in place.
Various groups, including the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), raised constitutional challenges to the lowering of the wall between criminal functions and foreign intelligence-gathering. The thrust of their argument as I understand it was that the Fourth Amendment requires (1) probable cause, (2) reasonableness in relation to the stated purpose of the search or seizure, and (3) particularity of the place or person to be searched, and FISA as applied to criminal prosecutions does not meet those three requirements (see this FAQ from the EFF explaining the issues). The Court rejected that argument, finding that FISA procedures were constitutionally adequate.
My concern with the Court's ruling is that FISA now permits the government to intrude upon a non-citizen's liberty interests far too easily--under the rubric of national security. As long as the DOJ shows that foreign intelligence-gathering is a "significant purpose" of the search or seizure (rather than the "primary purpose"), a warrant will be issued under FISA. The government must meet a far greater burden to obtain a warrant under normal criminal investigations. That "burden" goes to the heart of the Fourth Amendment's protections. Yet some, like Andrew McCarthy, appear to view those protections as nothing more than a nuisance:
It is, of course, a reality that in the law-enforcement realm, because it is hopelessly lawyerized and hyper-vigilant about civil liberties, we actually are forced to worry about such things as the privacy rights of drug dealers. Thus, we do find ourselves litigating ad nauseam such commonsense matters as whether, just because you properly heard something, you should be allowed to use it to protect the public.
Where national security is at stake, McCarthy contends that we can entirely abandon all procedural protections because they are just "theoretical" concerns. I wholeheartedly disagree. The Fourth Amendment extends equally to all persons in the United States and although I recognize that genuine threats to national security deserve a different approach than a garden-variety criminal investigation, the government should not be able to dress up a criminal case in "national security" cloth to escape the procedural protections provided by the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, because our nation is so terrorized by terror, we allow that to happen with little or no scrutiny.
Call me a cynic if you must, but I believe that we all must scrutinize government conduct as closely and as often as possible or we risk losing the rights upon which our great country was founded. The FISA warrants provide an ideal illustration--in the roughly 25 years that the Act has been in place, the DOJ itself has documented 75 material misstatements made to the FISA court to obtain warrants under that Act (see Dahlia Lithwick's commentary [Slate] for more details). Before 2002, of the 10,000 applications for FISA warrants, not one request was turned down.
Surely we should not ignore the threat that terrorism poses to our personal security. But at the same time I hope we do not cease to fear tyranny.
Oral Arguments in Gitmo Case Available at C-SPAN
In a rather unusual move, the Supreme Court has released audio from today's oral arguments and may be accessed here [CSPAN]. The Court also plans to release the oral arguments on the case involving Cheney's refusal to hand over documents related to the task force to develop an energy policy (the case that gave rise to the ever-entertaining imbroglio of duck hunting) and the Hamdi-Padilla arguments (the US citizens detained as enemy combatants). Both cases go in front of the Supreme Court next week.
FAIR AT WORK?
I Would like to hear your input on if working moms should get "special treatment" on scheduling, time off, and other family "excuses". Do you think other employees should get ahead on promotions since they put more hours or as some people put it "put all their heart" into work?
Law Enforcement and Illegal Aliens
A CSM editorial today praises work done to eliminate the wall, which they refer to as "old and needless", between law enforcement and immigration control. I can't say that I entirely agree with their sentiment. There is a reason for the wall, and not as CSM suggests, in order to prevent racial profiling. There are millions of illegal immigrants in the US, many of them living in relatively concentrated areas. Whether they should be here and how we should deal with them from an immigration standpoint is a good question, the answer to which we haven't quite figured out yet. But the point is they are here. Bringing local police into the immigration enforcement business means that none of these illegal immigrants will go to the police for help. And it's not secret that crime and exploitation flourish in situations where there no legal means to address them. This move will create communities rife with lawlessness, havens for criminals, sweatshops, drug traffickers, and possibly even terrorists. In my opinion local law enforcement should have an open door for illegal immigrants, no questions asked, so that they don't get shut out from these communities. Let the feds deal with immigration. If at some later date we are able to substantially reduce the number of illegals in the US, the wall may not need to exist, but while illegal aliens number somewhere over 10 million, for our own sake and theirs, we can't afford to cut them all off from the protection of law enforcement.
Pottery Barn Takes Issue With Powell's Statement--Considers Starting PB Anti-Defamation League
See this article, entitled "Powell's Potterygate Slip" [NY Daily News]. Pottery Barn spokesperson Leigh Oshirak clarifies that they really do not have a "you break it, you buy it" rule:
A good percentage of Pottery Barn's inventory is beds and other furniture, and we do sell ceramics, glassware, kitchenware and other things that are breakable. But if something breaks, that's the cost of doing business. We always put our customers first - that's part of our corporate values. If someone breaks a wine glass, for instance, our managers just mark it down as 'out of stock.' The customer isn't asked to pay for it.
In response to the State Department's statement that no aspersions toward Pottery Barn were intended, Oshirark stated: "Well, it's out there."
For some reason this story reminds me of an event a few months back where a lady got trampled at Wal-Mart trying to snatch a $29 DVD player. A Wal-Mart spokesperson later said they were disappointed that the stampede happened and hoped the woman returned to Wal-Mart as a shopper. They even offered to put a DVD player on hold for her while she recovered [see this BBC account]. Kinda makes you feel for these corporations, doesn't it?
A good percentage of Pottery Barn's inventory is beds and other furniture, and we do sell ceramics, glassware, kitchenware and other things that are breakable. But if something breaks, that's the cost of doing business. We always put our customers first - that's part of our corporate values. If someone breaks a wine glass, for instance, our managers just mark it down as 'out of stock.' The customer isn't asked to pay for it.
In response to the State Department's statement that no aspersions toward Pottery Barn were intended, Oshirark stated: "Well, it's out there."
For some reason this story reminds me of an event a few months back where a lady got trampled at Wal-Mart trying to snatch a $29 DVD player. A Wal-Mart spokesperson later said they were disappointed that the stampede happened and hoped the woman returned to Wal-Mart as a shopper. They even offered to put a DVD player on hold for her while she recovered [see this BBC account]. Kinda makes you feel for these corporations, doesn't it?
Monday, April 19, 2004
Hurrah For TV-Turnoff Week
This week is the 10th annual National TV-Turnoff Week. CSM has a supportive editorial. Slashdot also discussed this event, and the response of slashdrones was overwhelmingly positive. Obviously much more needs to be done to combat the corrosive influence of TV-culture (as per our Bowling Alone discussions), but it's good to see the idea seems to be gaining momentum.
Iran and Sadr
CSM has a great writeup of Iran's intervention with Sadr. It's clear that the CPA was none too enthusiastic about Iran getting involved. That may have tied Iran's hands as far as working out a deal...
Gorelick's Defense, in Her Own Words
9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick has been taking some heat lately for her role in the Clinton administration, and she has this to say in her own response [WP].
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Woodward's book
There has been lots of talk over the weekend about Bob Woodward's new book, Plan of Attack. Several of the charges are sure to raise some concern over the coming week, but the one I find most troubling is the claim that President Bush diverted some funds that were allocated for the Afghanistan military efforts to start the build-up for an Iraq invasion in July 2002, unbeknownst to Congress.
I have been trying to research this point, but I have been unable to locate the specific appropriation that Woodward refers to. The Bush administration's early response is that the money was not tied down to specific activity (see this article discussing the Bush team's response to many of the charges) [USAT]. Also, see the transcript of Condi Rice's appearance on Face the Nation Sunday where she discusses the charges (thanks, Joe).
This is a most serious charge. Article II, Sec. 8 sub.7 provides:
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
I imagine that members of Congress (particularly those with a "D" next to their name) will be screaming bloody murder about this over the course of the week. And as well they should. President Bush will have to provide a better answer than he has come up with so far.
I have been trying to research this point, but I have been unable to locate the specific appropriation that Woodward refers to. The Bush administration's early response is that the money was not tied down to specific activity (see this article discussing the Bush team's response to many of the charges) [USAT]. Also, see the transcript of Condi Rice's appearance on Face the Nation Sunday where she discusses the charges (thanks, Joe).
This is a most serious charge. Article II, Sec. 8 sub.7 provides:
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
I imagine that members of Congress (particularly those with a "D" next to their name) will be screaming bloody murder about this over the course of the week. And as well they should. President Bush will have to provide a better answer than he has come up with so far.
The Wonders of Internet Culture
I have discovered (thanks to one of my forums) Japan's answer to badger badger badger. I can imagine no appropriate commentary to accompany that, aside maybe from WTF!?! I love the internet.
Friday, April 16, 2004
How to Discuss Iraq
This is my last one for today (probably).. The Washington Post today features a couple of columns about how Iraq is, or should be, discussed in the presidential campaign. In his column, Campaigning on Defeat, former Senator Fred Thompson, criticizes criticism of the war. He says that the president's opponents cheer for failures and celebrate setbacks. He claims that they feel that there is a "constituency to be won from failure abroad." He states that we're there now, so instead of repeating claims that the war was a mistake, critics have an obligation to explain how they will secure victory. At the end he over-extends his wrong, but not entirely outrageous argument, to say that not only is such criticism politically dishonest, but that it materially helps the terrorists to even suggest that management of Iraq should be led by the UN or international allies. Woah, Nelly.
So, there is a part of his criticism that is interesting. That is the idea that war critics celebrate defeat, and also that since the choice is long over with, we shouldn't waste time discussing whether the war was a good idea, but rather should focus on how to win it now. The first charge is a good one. It's a zinger, in many ways it rings true, and it certainly appeals to the picture that Bush-supporters like to paint of their opposition. But I, obviously, don't think it's true. What I do think is true is that critics, like myself, opposed the war because we thought it would be a disastrous policy; costly, complicated, difficult, and possibly doomed to ultimate failure. When things go wrong, there may be a small element of "I told you so", but there's a much larger element of "don't you get it yet!?" When I see some new catastrophe in Iraq, I often think, maybe this will finally be it, maybe we'll get a clue, change tack, and really try to fix this thing. So far, no luck. It's not about being glad things go wrong, it's about feeling a certainty that things will go very wrong and hoping that there will be enough early warning signs that we will change course in time to avert disaster. As to whether or not it is important to talk, so long after the fact, about the initial decision on the war, of course it is. In his approach to the war on Iraq, George W. Bush made the greatest US foreign policy blunder in my lifetime. How can that not be a relevant topic to discuss as we assess the President's performance during his reelection campaign?
The one point on which Thompson is tangentially correct is that it is important to discuss what should be our course of action now that we're stuck in Iraq. I don't think that this topic should be separated from the topic of whether the war should have been fought in the first place. The manner in which we launched this war is precisely what created the rather untenable situation in Iraq we now face. Because we went in under false pretenses, without a UN mandate, without a significant coalition, without Arab and Muslim support, we have a huge legitimacy crisis and carry the entire burden of Iraq on our unilateral shoulders. Now there are no good choices, only choices between bad and worse. That needs to be noted when discussing what to do now.
On the topic of what should be done now, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and Clinton national security adviser Anthony Lake have a Post column detailing their recommendations. Those are essentially as follows: Delay the handover of sovereignty until elections can be held. A turnover of power before that will be a sham and the Iraqis will see right through it. Increase the number of US troops in Iraq and use our renewed commitment to security in Iraq to convince our allies to also increase their forces in Iraq. And in the interim while we wait for elections and a new Iraqi government, form a true coalition governing authority that involves allied nations and puts a non-American at the helm. Great recommendations, all.
So, there is a part of his criticism that is interesting. That is the idea that war critics celebrate defeat, and also that since the choice is long over with, we shouldn't waste time discussing whether the war was a good idea, but rather should focus on how to win it now. The first charge is a good one. It's a zinger, in many ways it rings true, and it certainly appeals to the picture that Bush-supporters like to paint of their opposition. But I, obviously, don't think it's true. What I do think is true is that critics, like myself, opposed the war because we thought it would be a disastrous policy; costly, complicated, difficult, and possibly doomed to ultimate failure. When things go wrong, there may be a small element of "I told you so", but there's a much larger element of "don't you get it yet!?" When I see some new catastrophe in Iraq, I often think, maybe this will finally be it, maybe we'll get a clue, change tack, and really try to fix this thing. So far, no luck. It's not about being glad things go wrong, it's about feeling a certainty that things will go very wrong and hoping that there will be enough early warning signs that we will change course in time to avert disaster. As to whether or not it is important to talk, so long after the fact, about the initial decision on the war, of course it is. In his approach to the war on Iraq, George W. Bush made the greatest US foreign policy blunder in my lifetime. How can that not be a relevant topic to discuss as we assess the President's performance during his reelection campaign?
The one point on which Thompson is tangentially correct is that it is important to discuss what should be our course of action now that we're stuck in Iraq. I don't think that this topic should be separated from the topic of whether the war should have been fought in the first place. The manner in which we launched this war is precisely what created the rather untenable situation in Iraq we now face. Because we went in under false pretenses, without a UN mandate, without a significant coalition, without Arab and Muslim support, we have a huge legitimacy crisis and carry the entire burden of Iraq on our unilateral shoulders. Now there are no good choices, only choices between bad and worse. That needs to be noted when discussing what to do now.
On the topic of what should be done now, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and Clinton national security adviser Anthony Lake have a Post column detailing their recommendations. Those are essentially as follows: Delay the handover of sovereignty until elections can be held. A turnover of power before that will be a sham and the Iraqis will see right through it. Increase the number of US troops in Iraq and use our renewed commitment to security in Iraq to convince our allies to also increase their forces in Iraq. And in the interim while we wait for elections and a new Iraqi government, form a true coalition governing authority that involves allied nations and puts a non-American at the helm. Great recommendations, all.
I like this Juan Cole Fellow
For the second time this week, I would like to refer y'all to Juan Cole's blog, Informed Comment. For a history professor, he sure has a good handle on current events. His most recent posts address the current derailing of the al-Sadr deal (in part due to the assassination of one of the Iranian diplomats), the duality of the Bush foreign policy, and the US abandoning all hope of being an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It is also worth reading Cole's comparison of Fallujah to Palestine that was published by Salon.com (even though Salon makes you sit through a commercial to access the whole article. But I suppose I prefer that to Wall Street Journal's subscriber-only access). He argues that in a very strange way, Israel's conduct in Palestine has brought Shiite and Sunni forces in Iraq together like no one else has been able to accomplish. He contends that the recent uprisings in Fallujah and those of Sadr's forces were both in response to Israel's assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, and that Arab television is portraying the seige on Fallujah in much the same light as Israel's seige on the West Bank and Gaza.
Although I am not sure how far I would extend the comparison, I certainly think that neither Israel nor America can claim the moral highground in its recent military operations. The missile strike on the mosque in Fallujah last week has not gone over well in the Middle East (and I suspect that today's mosque-shelling [Melbourne Herald Sun] won't win over anyone either). And then of course there's America's Psych-Ops, like blaring insults over loudspeakers such as "you shoot like a goat-herder" [AP].
It is a big mistake to approach the security of Fallujah as Israel deals with Palestine, and we are both feeling the repurcutions of treating an occupied group as though they were less-than-human. Most importantly, however, I hope that comparison does not extend to mean that we should anticipate a long, drawn out battle that may determine the very survival of our nation.
It is also worth reading Cole's comparison of Fallujah to Palestine that was published by Salon.com (even though Salon makes you sit through a commercial to access the whole article. But I suppose I prefer that to Wall Street Journal's subscriber-only access). He argues that in a very strange way, Israel's conduct in Palestine has brought Shiite and Sunni forces in Iraq together like no one else has been able to accomplish. He contends that the recent uprisings in Fallujah and those of Sadr's forces were both in response to Israel's assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, and that Arab television is portraying the seige on Fallujah in much the same light as Israel's seige on the West Bank and Gaza.
Although I am not sure how far I would extend the comparison, I certainly think that neither Israel nor America can claim the moral highground in its recent military operations. The missile strike on the mosque in Fallujah last week has not gone over well in the Middle East (and I suspect that today's mosque-shelling [Melbourne Herald Sun] won't win over anyone either). And then of course there's America's Psych-Ops, like blaring insults over loudspeakers such as "you shoot like a goat-herder" [AP].
It is a big mistake to approach the security of Fallujah as Israel deals with Palestine, and we are both feeling the repurcutions of treating an occupied group as though they were less-than-human. Most importantly, however, I hope that comparison does not extend to mean that we should anticipate a long, drawn out battle that may determine the very survival of our nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
