Also Also

Reinhard Gets Memo; Shovels White House Manure

In their now-classic tone deaf style, the White House's response to being under siege on matters of war and intelligence is of course not to come clean or attempt to repair credibility damage, but to simply double down and repeat the same BS that got them into trouble before, only louder. CNN's Dana Bash ran a curious piece on Tuesday telegraphing that effort:

Top White House officials say they're developing a "campaign-style" strategy in response to increasing Democratic allegations that the Bush administration twisted intelligence to make its case for war.

White House aides, who agreed to speak to CNN only on the condition of anonymity, said they hoped to increase what they called their "hit back" in coming days.

The officials say they plan to repeatedly make the point -- as they did during the 2004 campaign -- that pre-war intelligence was faulty, it was not manipulated and everyone was working off the same intelligence.

They hope to arm GOP officials with more quotes by Democrats making the same pre-war claims as Republicans did about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. [emph original]

This isn't likely going to be news to anyone, although the Columbia Journalism Review's blog was rather incredulous that Bash so blithely reported the use of the MSM to push this tripe into the public discourse--while helping the White House push the tripe into the public discourse. They're not sure whether Bash is hoping that by pointing out the effort, she'll get off the hook for helping them recycle the message--or she's simply helping to recycle the message so she can file a story and go home.

Given this effort, it's no surprise to open The O this morning and discover that Associate Editor David Reinhard got the email, or the Blackberry, or fax, or whatever secret pipeline the White House uses to push its sewage through the system. See if you recognize these themes:

Did the White House "manipulate" prewar intel? If so -- and that's by no means established -- it had company. The Clinton team was making the same claims as Bush's. So were other foreign governments. So were congressional Democrats prior to the Iraq war.

For starters, it's time the Bush White House -- not just the Republican National Committee or some Capitol Hill Republicans -- meet every Democratic charge with a counter-charge of hypocrisy and back the counter-charge up with video clips or transcripts.
...

The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee is similarly concerned. But here's what West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller said before the war: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."

Was he manipulating prewar intel or trying to mislead the public? Or is he now trying to manipulate and mislead the public on the use of prewar intel?

The latter, of course. And the fact that even the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee is engaging in such opportunistic politics should tell the White House it's time to fire back.

As a lame way of covering his tracks, Reinhard frames his attack as some kind of fair and balanced spur on the White House to nut up and counter the hypocrisy of the Left--as if he's somehow out of the loop, unaware of the PR effort but amazingly saying exactly the same things the administration wants him to say.

Perhaps he listened to Ken Mehlman's RNC concall yesterday, where Mehlman tried vainly to claim a victory for the status quo in the wake of Tuesday's elections--but nonetheless managed to sneak in some commentary on Democrats who supported the war. Reinhard in his column veers off a bit into Theme 1B, Re-Discrediting Joe Wilson,  but it's all part of the same package:  Liar? Who's a liar? If we're liars, then you're liars too! The unending capacity of the administration and its shills to deflect criticism by rabidly attacking the attacker in a hail of distortions, is nonetheless wearing thin. Enjoy if you can this closing act of the pathetic passion play, a new script is currently being written.

--TJ

Congress Says "No Mas" On Social Security

Grassley and Thomas give up for the summer:

WASHINGTON, July 14 - With no consensus in sight, even among Republicans, the chairmen of the Senate and House committees with jurisdiction over Social Security have decided to postpone further consideration of the issue at least until September.

With every passing week, the prospects for major Social Security legislation, President Bush's top legislative priority, appear dimmer.

In interviews, Senator Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, and Representative Bill Thomas, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said that with only two weeks remaining before the August Congressional recess, they were consumed with other legislative business.

They said they were still committed to trying to move Social Security legislation before the year is out. But with Democrats solidly against the president's proposal and Republicans split several ways about how to proceed, neither chairman has been able to forge legislation that stands a chance of enactment.

Given that September is budget deadline time for the next fiscal year, my interepretation of this public capitulation is "it's not gonna happen." And if it doesn't happen in 2005, you can forget it for 2006, and then of course all bets are off pending the midterms after that.

If you were looking for a sign to celebrate having turned back the enormously expensive and time-consuming effort to find a way out of paying back our Social Security obligations, I think this is pretty much it. So if you did something to help stop it, raise a glass and toast yourself.

Let this be a model for moving forward: the Democrats and interested third parties got way out ahead of the President and Congressional leaders on this one, framed the issue, made sure the press didn't wholly bite on the various prevarications used by the White House in selling it, and kept up the pressure when they could have declared premature victory and started negotiating away their power. Of course it helped that Social Security is the one major government program that most people think is a good thing, but getting Americans to vote against their economic interests has been a specialty of the Bush administration since 2000--so some credit must be due.

(clap, clap)

--TJ

 

Fox News Agrees with Kerry on Downing Street and Piles on Bolton

Downing Street Memo Mostly Ignored in U.S.

The memo suggests that British intelligence analysts were concerned that the Bush administration was marching to war on wobbly evidence that Saddam posed a serious threat to the world. [...]

"But the case was thin," reads the memo on Straw's impressions. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The memo also paraphrased former head of the British Secret Intelligence Services, Richard Dearlove, fresh from meetings in the United States. The memo said Dearlove believed "military action was now seen as inevitable."

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo reads. "But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy," according to Dearlove's impressions.

"The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The memo, which received sporadic reporting in major newspapers in the United States throughout May, has sparked an outcry from more than 88 Democratic members of Congress who have signed two letters to President Bush demanding a response.

The Fox piece currently has an ad for "anti-right wing" products.  So fair, so balanced.  Hannity must be confused.  The article concludes with the following:

"It's a little late," he (Ellis Henican, a columnist for New York Newsday and a FOX News contributor) said of the memo story, adding that people are resigned to the fact that the United States is in Iraq for the long term, regardless of what events led to the war. "We're kind of stuck."

That's no excuse, said Zappala, who argues someone has to be made accountable for the lives lost on false pretenses. "The goal was always to invade Iraq whatever obstacles, legal and moral, were in our way," he said. "I feel that we deserve an amount of accountability by our officials for the decisions they make."

Digby isn't impressed. 

So, this morning Fox tries once again to appease the liberal witch hunters, by scooping the competition with more revelations of Bolton's irresponsible, and in this case illegal, bullying.

Bolton Engineered 'Unlawful' Ouster, Says Ex-Aide

Bustani, who says he got a "menacing" phone call from Bolton at one point, was removed by a vote of just one-third of member nations at an unusual special session of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (search), at which the United States cited alleged mismanagement in calling for his ouster.

The United Nations' highest administrative tribunal later condemned the action as an "unacceptable violation" of principles protecting international civil servants. The OPCW session's Swiss chairman now calls it an "unfortunate precedent" and Bustani a "man with merit."

"Many believed the U.S. delegation didn't want meddling from outside in the Iraq business," said the retired Swiss diplomat, Heinrich Reimann. "That could be the case."

This article invokes the Downing Street Memo yet again.

An official British document, disclosed last month, said Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed in April 2002 to join in an eventual U.S. attack on Iraq. Two weeks later, Bustani was ousted, with British help.

If it isn't clear by now that Bolton was involved with the intel manipulation that led us into war on "a pack of lies," well Fox seems to be willing to cautiously allow the point.

After U.N. arms inspectors had withdrawn from Iraq in 1998 in a dispute with the Baghdad government, Bustani stepped up his initiative, seeking to bring Iraq — and other Arab states — into the chemical weapons treaty.

Bustani's inspectors would have found nothing, because Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed in the early 1990s. That would have undercut the U.S. rationale for war because the Bush administration by early 2002 was claiming, without hard evidence, that Baghdad still had such an arms program.

In a March 2002 "white paper," Bolton's office said Bustani was seeking an "inappropriate role" in Iraq, and the matter should be left to the U.N. Security Council — where Washington has a veto.

Bolton said in a 2003 AP interview that Iraq was "completely irrelevant" to Bustani's responsibilities. Earle and Bohlen disagree. Enlisting new treaty members was part of the OPCW chief's job, they said, although they thought he should have consulted with Washington.

Former Bustani aide Bob Rigg, a New Zealander, sees a clear U.S. motivation: "Why did they not want OPCW involved in Iraq? They felt they couldn't rely on OPCW to come up with the findings the U.S. wanted."

(emph. added)

The whole article is packed with juicy innuendo.  To that I say "good for Fox news."

-- Zap

Kerry is not seeking impeachment of Bush, but he should be

In the quiet corners of the conservative blogosphere there are excited rumors filtering into the noisier echo chamber that Kerry is going to push for impeachment. 

He isn't.  But, he should.  Someone should.  The good news is the Democratic candidate is going to join a few other brave souls and bring the Downing Street memo to light.  If you're conservative, liberal, libertarian, independent, or apathetic, this still deserves your signature.

Here's the article starting the Kerry rumors.

Here's part of what Kerry said:

"When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," he said of the memo, which has not been disputed by either the British or American governments. "I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."

He questioned Americans' understanding of the war and the sense that criticism equals disloyalty, saying, "Do you think that Americans if they really understood it would feel that way knowing that on Election Day, 77 percent of Americans who voted for Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found and 77 percent believe Saddam did 9/11? Is there a way for this to break through, ever?"

Good for him.  I hope the old prosecutor is serious. 

And this is about the most thorough review of the issue I have seen.

-- Zap

NW Dems Vote To Kill "Paris Hilton Tax"

From a Yahoo roll call listing:

Hooley (D-OR): Yes
Larsen (D-WA): Yes

Pick up the phone! Give them a call! I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
--TJ

WA Gov: Excell Interview, Part Two

In Part One Mr. Excell and I went over his background, the base duties of the Secretary of State's office, his own role as Assistant or Chief of Staff, and specifically the process of review after an election. I think it was important to get that framework from which to phrase further questions, but he and I knew eventually I'd get around to asking about King County.  And so I did, in Part Two...

One of the first things I wanted to do was confirm what I had been overpromised by the Office's Communications Director--that King County had met all legal requirements. There seems yet to  be confusion on this point among some of the punditry, as if someone with a website had used Mr. Excell's words to imply that King was not complying. Excell provided confirmation however, and extended it to all 39 counties. As far as the Secretary of State is concerned,  all statutory requirements were fulfilled by all counties, and all required materials were received. Given the poor results so far on the recall effort of Reed, beefs to the contrary that may appear in Rossi's petition cannot be expected to hold much sway there, either.

I asked for a little more detail about what counties provided to the office, and in what steps. The first submission was the certified report of ballots cast, which was accepted and transmitted to the Legislature. The extent of this affirmation appears to be that the total number of votes equaled the sum of votes for all candidates.  (We agreed that this duty of the Secretary was "ministerial" rather than authoritative.) The second step would have been the fulfillment of the requirements in the WAC, including the emergency amendments of August 2004, which covered (among other things) pollnight reconciling and compiling of the by-precinct reconciliation forms and explanations that populate The Binder. These are not submitted to the SoS, but are held by the counties themselves. That they should be the focus of any reconciliation analysis is not in dispute, but the SoS does not have them--nor have they asked for them. 

What have they asked for? Clearly in Stefan Sharkansky's interview, there was something they'd asked for, that they'd only gotten in "dribs and drabs," and that they "didn't have a complete file yet." The last part is simple: on March 31st, counties are expected to provide a by-precinct abstract of the election. So if King hasn't provided a complete file, it's because no one has.

And here again, Excell reflected a sense that the contest process would significantly drive the discovery process for the SoS. After describing the additional info coming at the end of the month, he noted "we'll wait until the contested case is over, to get the final story."  This sounded suspiciously like a note of grace for the counties as they continue to serve the litigants. The state Republicans have not given their final allegations (this was before the release of the "naughty voters" list on Thursday), and it appears the Office is content to wait for those allegations to be placed into discovery, and learn along with the rest of us. One way some folks can get a jump on what happened,  Excell hinted, would be to check the canvassing board meeting minutes--for the boards handled many of the by-precinct discrepancy review discussions, and would give a taste of the discrepancies being seen out in the field.

So maybe King and the other counties are getting a break on their abstracts, but what else is the SoS looking for? I was never fully able to join the comments Sharkansky attributed to Excell, with the things that Excell explained to me that they were requesting from King--more formal reports on "their situation"--some kind of summary evaluation, apparently at a more technical level than the for-mass-consumption report given by Dean Logan last month. 

Excell was careful to say that King was not obligated to provide these things, but that "it would be helpful," and that it would "happen anyway; it's just a matter of time"--again underlining the lack of urgency, the dearth of fear about a cover-up, the normalistic way in which the SoS's office was proceeding with the aftermath of the election.  The interest would seem to be primarily on a public relations level, rather than an auditing level. And he also surmised that things had slowed down greatly in the last month or two, that he didn't expect any more bombshell-style revelations or further allegations about the mistakes that had been made.

This reference to past quotations Excell did stand behind, albeit in a revealing way: in his view and that of the Office, King County did make serious mistakes in their running of the election. He pointed to the usual examples--the 22 unsecured ballots, the 348 misfed provisionals, the 723 poorly matched signature absentees. ("A-HA," I can hear some of you saying. "Spin that!") When I asked why he considered them serious, he said "they're serious because there's an impact on the bottom line." I asked, so the level of seriousness is not based on the severity of the transgression in your mind, but on the fact that the race turned out so close and every mistake was highlighted? Yes, was the answer.

This seemed to me the most damning thing Excell said about Rossi's chances in the contest (he didn't offer a prediction, and I didn't ask).  Without clear official fraud--which I imagine Excell would have found serious even if the vote were not close--Rossi's best hope is to promulgate the image of an election gone awry, one seriously out of whack and irregularly irregular.  The WSRP and Rossi are trying to build a litany of error,  in hopes that the accumulated imperfections will undermine the platform of the governorship.  How does he make that case, if the errors he points to are not prima facie evidence of truly poor conduct? Any legal appeal that relies on the closeness of the result instead of the severity of the error on its own merits, to me is an appeal that will not persuade. Judges want to be convinced the process was out of whack before they declare the results just so.

We finished with some odds and ends:

• I asked for the hundredth confirmation that military ballots indeed went out on time. I got it, quote: "They did get out on time." We discussed briefly the ability of servicepeople abroad to fill out federal write-ins, even to the point of allowing simple straight-ticket instructions.  He also made the point that, for many Washingtonian military abroad, they were not receiving any mail, ballots or other kind.

• On HB 2158, the suggestion that all voters be de-registered in order to refresh the rolls and verify people as they re-up: Bzzzzt. Excell began to discuss conflicts with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) provisions, but then I mentioned that this alternative might seek simply to inactivate the voter status, and request that registrants re-activate them. Quote, "That doesn't cut it, either." There are no Washington statutory grounds for inactivating a voter, except for non-participation in elections. Beyond the legal impossibility, Excell described it as a logistical nightmare, and a wide open door to fraud--"Imagine us trying to verify 3 million registrations all at once!"

• I asked if there were media outlets they had problems with in terms of their reporting, and he specifically pointed out the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (whose ponderous allegation sheet on the elections was released last week). Of particular ire were the claims about aliens voting (of which the Office has received no complaints to date), and the allegation that counties did not affix county seals to their certification materials (some simply didn't show up in the copies). According to Excell, neither reporting error has been fixed at EFF's site.

• I finished with a set of references to Sharkansky's claim that Excell declared SoundPolitics to be "pretty accurate," and that he (Stefan) seemed to have taken that to the bank, in a SoS-Approved, Good Housekeeping stamp kind of way. Since Sound Politics had been given the "pretty accurate" bill of health, I wanted to make sure Excell knew he was giving broad approval to.  I asked if it would be accurate to say that King County's compliance with federal guidelines on issuing military ballots was "still in doubt." That would not be accurate, he said. I asked if it would be accurate to say that Dean Logan's voter credit explanation was "a confession of massive incompetence, or worse." It would not be, he said. And I asked if it would be accurate to call Gregoire's election a "coup de tat by fraudulent voting and bureaucratic incompetence...a disgusting trashing of our democracy."  Amazingly, Excell said in his opinion that would not be accurate, either.

One thing I did not ask Excell about, was the inability of King to adequately account for a discrepancy of 1,860 between voters credited and ballots cast. I assumed that he was as clear as the rest of the county and state officials in understanding that the voter credit process was not a ballot reconciliation process. I leave it to others to ponder the continued vigor with which some continue to pursue such a thankless (and here laughably meaningless) task. I do admire the ability to make nice tables within text, however. In my single recent attempt to do such a thing, I failed early and often, and ended up linking to it instead.

I asked for 30 minutes from Mr. Excell; he gave me 55. If the Secretary of State feels like he's under siege, he's sending out his deputy to appear cool as a cucumber.

--TJ

Capitalism Should Do The Marching

It's not often I read something that almost perfectly describes my world view.  Robert Wright has put my sentiments on paper so precisely, that I wish I'd written it. 

A common theme from neoconservatives is claiming their opponents whine, but offer nothing in terms of solutions.  I must have heard or read this accusation a half dozen times today.  It's a false claim.  A steady flow of alternative options have been endorsed by liberal, progressive, libertarian, independent, and paleoconservative thinkers.  If you read nothing else today, give this some thought.

Here's some excerpts that cover the theme and some highlights:

Human history, the president said in his inaugural address, "has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of liberty." Accordingly, America will pursue "the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world" - and Mr. Bush has "complete confidence" of success.

He underestimates the impetus behind freedom and so doesn't see how powerfully it imparts a "visible direction" to history. This lack of faith helps explain some of his biggest foreign policy failures and suggests that there are more to come.

Oddly, the underlying problem is that this Republican president doesn't appreciate free markets.

Wilsonian internationalism is a foreign policy model from the early 20th century left wing.  Liberals who adopted it claim to have been slapped in the face with reality and become neoconservatives.  They then found a comfortable home in the current republican party, where the near century old left wing ideology found fertile soil. 

Strong faith in an invisible hand that guides free markets toward a better world, is rooted in conservative education and philosophy.  President Bush, via neoconservatism, abandoned that thread of traditional conservatism for the old left wing philosophy of intervention, believing it will lead to a better world.  More:

This link between economic and political liberty has been extolled by conservative thinkers for centuries, but the microelectronic age has strengthened it.

You won't hear much about such progress from neoconservatives, who prefer to stress how desperately the global fight for freedom needs American power behind it (and who last week raved about an inaugural speech that vowed to furnish this power).

Mr. Bush doesn't grasp the liberating power of capitalism, the lethal effect of luring authoritarian regimes into the modern world of free markets and free minds.

Wright describes this failing as a lack of faith.  I would go a step further-- it is inherently un-American.   H.L. Mencken described us perfectly when he said, "Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed,  and are right." That description was humorous because our economy-- spurred by capitalism-- ensures prosperity and the byproducts of freedom and liberty.  It wouldn't be funny without the economic insurance. 

Capitalism has it's worts.  They spread through corporatism and monopoly.  Adam Smith himself understood the imperfections:  "For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many."  It's not pretty, but it is like Churchill's understanding of democracy:  "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."  Likewise, capitalism is the worst form of economy except for all the other that have been tried. 

Capitalism's advantage over democracy, as an incubator of hope and freedom, has become obvious in recent years.  It works its way into oppressed societies through natural ambitions of citizens desiring a better life.  Democracy doesn't offer the economic incentive that drives human need.  It offers a political benefit generally met with opposition and all the involved political banter.  Capitalism says, plant your field, start your business, make a living doing what you love.  Democracy says empower your favorite leaders.  There's a profound difference of message, one is personal, the other national. 

I recently read a story from a soldier who raided an Iraqi home suspected of harboring terrorists.  Once inside he found a teen-aged kid had Pamela Anderson (a poster, not really Pam herself) on the wall.  Michael Jordan is an institution in Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.  Globalization, a capitalistic movement, is working in Russia, it's working in China, it's working in India; all with various problems, but it worked in Germany and Japan.  In South America they love to hate our government, but hate themselves for loving our economy.  They want fast food restaurants and BMWs. They don't want our government forced on society, but they long for our lifestyle, or a version of it within their own cultural interpretations. 

Before I get too carried away.  Hat tip to Digby for recommending the article, and making the more applicable point:

Then along came 9/11 and "changed everything." The PNAC neocon crowd, who had always dissented from that argument, held sway with their belief that the US had to expand its influence through the use of hard power and force the gooey good stuff because otherwise it wouldn't happen.

They did not understand that it's our "idea" that is the compelling thing, not our awesome military and economic might, which exists not to spread freedom but to protect it.

(emphasis mine)

-- Zap
                                                       

Republican Congressman, Libertarian Gadfly-- Has Questions

What if It Was All a Big Mistake? - by Ron Paul.

1. What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing the world, nation building, and spreading our values through force are deeply flawed?
2. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction?
3. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never allies?
4. What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance our national security?
5. What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of our client oil states in the region?
6. What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9% of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?
7. What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than our government admits?
8. What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some claim, and what is an acceptable price for "doing good?"
9. What if Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become worse under a Defense Secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of the war?
10. What if we discover that, when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support Islamic (Sharia) law over western secular law, and want our troops removed?
11. What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?
12. What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination while rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non-Iraqis?
13. What if it turns out radical Muslims don't hate us for our freedoms, but rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs and Muslims?
14. What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?
15. What if we discover that democracy can't be spread with force of arms?
16. What if democracy is deeply flawed, and instead we should be talking about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted through persuasion, not force?
17. What if Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and occupation of Arab/Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?
18. What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?
19. What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings were ignored or denied?
20. What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won't have to fight here, is wrong, and the opposite is true?
21. What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?
22. What if the principle of preemptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, "justified" by current U.S. policy?
23. What if preemptive war and preemptive guilt stem from the same flawed policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?
24. What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when conditions deteriorate?
25. What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions that would be used to justify a military response and preemptive war against them?
26. What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails, and ends up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret – an alliance not achieved even at the height of the Cold War?
27. What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is deeply flawed?
28. What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American citizens when arrested?
29. What if we discover the army is too small to continue policies of preemption and nation-building? What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops?
30. What if the "stop-loss" program is actually an egregious violation of trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers? What if it actually is a backdoor draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political leadership running the war?
31. What if the Pentagon's legal task-force opinion that the president is not bound by international or federal law regarding torture stands unchallenged, and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans, while totally disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments against such a policy?
32. What if the intelligence reform legislation – which gives us bigger, more expensive bureaucracy – doesn't bolster our security, and distracts us from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?
33. What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an unwinnable guerrilla war?
34. What if we discover, too late, that we can't afford this war – and that our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?

I hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to these concerns. If I'm completely wrong in my criticisms, nothing is lost except my time and energy expended in efforts to get others to reconsider our foreign policy.

But the bigger question is:

What if I'm right, or even partially right, and we urgently need to change course in our foreign policy for the sake of our national and economic security, yet no one pays attention?

For that a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?

The entire text of his speech posing these questions to the House of Representatives can be found here. 

-- Zap

Iraq Elections-- Secret Names Revealed

Allawi announces list of election candidates

Surrounded by women and men variously clad in tribal garb, clerical turbans and smart suits, Allawi pledged to work for national unity and move away from "religious and ethnic fanaticism."

Once again I read something that defies parody.  Surrounded by religious and ethnic fanatics, Allawi vows to end religious and ethnic fanaticism.  This is vaguely familiar of our system.

Iraq's Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, speaks during a news conference in which he introduced a group of candidates for the country's upcoming national elections in Baghdad December 15, 2004. Allawi unveiled his candidacy for the elections, with his name at the top of a 200-strong alliance dubbed the 'Iraqi List', which includes several ministers from his interim government.

An estimated 75 names were not revealed from Allawi's alliance.  Reports surfaced that the missing names include a few dozen members from the Project for a New American Century, The American Enterprise Institute, Israel's Likud Party and the Christian Coalition. 

Allawi made the announcement on the last day parties were allowed to register. Wednesday was also the first official day for campaigning ahead of the vote...

Nice.  An official campaign season that lasts a whole three days.  We could use that kind of campaign reform. 

Some Sunni Muslim leaders, among them top clerics and Sunni elder statesman Adnan Pachachi, have called for the polls to be delayed until security improves.

Or else, they threatened to shoot any and everyone who turns out to vote.

Highlighting his goals, Allawi echoed other candidates in saying his party would push for the eventual withdrawal of multinational forces.

"Rebuilding the army and the forces of national safety enable us to work on asking for the final withdrawal of the multinational forces from our beloved country according to a set timetable," he said.

I guess he didn't get the memo in my post below.  Either that or he's establishing the time honored tradition of making promises he has no intention of keeping.  This is also known as lying. 

Okay so it didn't defy parody. 

The new assembly will appoint a government and draft a permanent constitution.

In all seriousness, I wish them well.  Foremost may they keep safe.  May their voice be heard.  May the count be honest, the people represented, and the country on it's way to self-rule. 

--Zap

Troop Reductions Scheduled-- In a couple years maybe

U.S. will not cut troops for two years.

The Pentagon moved yesterday to quash speculation about a swift pullout of American troops after the election in Iraq as a first step towards complete withdrawal.

Lt-Gen James Lovelace, the deputy chief of staff responsible for operations, said there was no plan to reduce troop numbers for at least two years. The army thought it "most probable" that it would need about 120,000 men in Iraq at least until the end of 2006, he said.

Weren't we supposed to have elections, settle things down, and reduce boots on the ground to about 40,000?  Yeah, that was the parades and flowers plan.  So, the plan now is to stay indefinetely. 

Yesterday the White House predicted that the United States budget deficit for 2005, including the money for Iraq and Afghanistan operations, will total $427 billion.

Didn't bin Laden suggest his primary strategy was bankrupting us, bleeding us financially?  Nice to see we're calling his bluff.

Anticipating that the Iraqi election will provoke calls for withdrawal in America and elsewhere, the two men (former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz) set out the risks in the Washington Post. A botched departure would, they wrote, "usher in a series of convulsions in the region as radicals and fundamentalists moved for dominance, with the wind seemingly at their backs".

Our presence is such a stabilizing force in the region.  It apparently doesn't matter if the new Iraqi government wants us to leave.  So much for sovereignty. 

--Zap