Also Also

NW Blogger Joins Sheehan, Others in Crawford

#61#

As I posted last night, a growing string of local media outlets are running stories about Cindy Sheehan, often featuring someone from their town who held a support rally or even came out to Crawford themselves. One of the linked stories was from the Seattle PI, which NPI picked up and connected the dots as to who Lietta Ruger is: the co-author (with her husband) of the robustly named Dying to Preserve the Lies, URL-linked by the name dyingwarriors.com, and a partner blog to the alliances that grew from the Downing Street revelations.

Lietta's first full-day dispatch yesterday showed how busy it was, in terms of the media exposure they were putting themselves under. Those who have gone to make a statement, to be heard, they'd better have something to say. This is their stage for the moment; they have the proverbial floor and you don't get to keep it for very long if you can't justify your disruption, so I have to reject the criticism that they are whoring themselves out by being so media overexposed. That's what they wanted, to be shown as supporting the lives of the young men and women overseas, and to register as bitterly opposed to the war that threatens them. Let them speak to anyone who will listen now. Sheehan is doing some speaking; her testimonial and challenge to Bush is airing in a small buy in Crawford, designed to get free reairings by the media. It's surprisingly strident and frank. I liked it.

The road directly in front of the White House's is closed due to 9/11. You may walk across Lafayette Park  to cross its silenced street and move up to the gates of the backyard, and peer through the irons. I saw it recently, and while it's sad the road had to be closed, the White House never looked better. It gained a stateliness to have nothing else moving, no activity in front of it (well, it's the backside actually). There is some activity, actually: a continuous vigil has been underway on the opposite side just inside the park since 1981, seeking the cessation of nuclear weapons production and stockpiling.

Back then, the park was demonstration central. Now, only small gatherings are allowed, unless you keep a continuous presence to your protest, as a vigil. Ironically, 9/11 gave them what is akin to exclusivity in front of the White House, and also thanks to the Bush administration the calls for nuclear reduction and antiproliferation are once again relevant to current events.  (It was probably a lonely time during the heydays of detente).

So Cindy has a long way to go, but all she needs is the rest of the month to make her point. It's hard to say whether she'll really become a known national figure, but so far the way her story has drawn increasing attention I think it's increasingly likely. There are people who do think she's self-aggrandizing, being puppeteered by the likes of Michael Moore, or disgracing her son's service by protesting the Commander in Chief. But thanks to Firedoglake, we get a good look at them. Apparently just a bunch of stooges...!

--TJ

How Could Iraq Happen?

Predictably, the president's speech last night has many invoking parallels to LBJ speaking about Vietnam.  Turning back the calender to 1967, this essay by James C. Thompson, Jr., then an east Asia specialist and Harvard historian, provides clues by uncovering 40 year old DNA. 

The entire article is a timely lesson in history repeating itself.  But this closing paragraph, warning future Americans, suggests Thompson was prophetic:

From How Could Vietnam Happen?

There is a final result of Vietnam policy I would cite that holds potential danger for the future of American foreign policy: the rise of a new breed of American ideologues who see Vietnam as the ultimate test of their doctrine. I have in mind those men in Washington who have given a new life to the missionary impulse in American foreign relations: who believe that this nation, in this era, has received a threefold endowment that can transform the world. As they see it, that endowment is composed of, first, our unsurpassed military might; second, our clear technological supremacy; and third, our allegedly invincible benevolence (our "altruism," our affluence, our lack of territorial aspirations). Together, it is argued, this threefold endowment provides us with the opportunity and the obligation to ease the nations of the earth toward modernization and stability: toward a fullfledged Pax Americana Technocratica. In reaching toward this goal, Vietnam is viewed as the last and crucial test. Once we have succeeded there, the road ahead is clear. In a sense, these men are our counterpart to the visionaries of Communism's radical left: they are technocracy's own Maoists. They do not govern Washington today. But their doctrine rides high.

They govern Washington today.

-- Zap

Posting Stalled--Weekend Ramble-- Reading Recommendation

Gregory Djerejian, the author of Belgravia Dispatch, has long been a favorite blogger in the AlsoRight blogroll.  There's about a half dozen links here to blogs which better represent my "right of center, anti-neoconservative, counter-intuitive" positions, all of them from the paleocon Christian community.  But those friendly folks seem convinced all the world's woes are the fault of liberals (who've been basically powerless for five years, making global destruction at their fiendish hands an enormous improbability).  So, demonizing the weak is something I usually avoid, and frankly, detest. 

Djerejian, on the other hand, writes with concern, insight and balance; and generally hasn't the time or space for anger and name calling.  I wish I was equally restrained.  I occasionally disagree with him, but I always appreciate his willingness to address objections before they come.  He writes long detailed posts in order to do so, and considers the issues from multiple angles.  It's refreshing.  I try to do the same, time permitting.

Which is why regularly scheduled posting, from me anyway, will be temporarily stalled.  There's three topics I'm trying to cover.  None of them can be addressed in brief posts, and my tyrannical daughter is ruling the realm this weekend. 

The first topic in the hopper has a working title:  "The Good The Bad and The Ugly-- Fear and Loathing on the Mexican Border."  And it would be best handled by Sergio Leone and Hunter S. Thompson, but you're stuck with me.  The modern day spaghetti western just south of our border deserves a dose of gonzo journalism, which I haven't the talent to emulate.  So a long detailed post on the barbarity will have to do, in good time.  If you've followed my associated commentary, what's coming is most distressing. 

Another topic, which has been alluded to, from time to time, since the conception of this blog, is the Hunt for bin Laden.  A pastime of mine.  You didn't think I was headed to Uganda just for the kids, did you?  That's a big reward!

It's a worthless topic without dispelling the common myths, and I want to remain reality-based.  So, my thoughts go back to 1982 Beirut (therapy for terrorists according to some), get very involved from there, and may someday be edited down to a readable essay.  For now, I recommend The Dread Pirate Bin Laden for ideas I've long endorsed for a serious war on terror.

Finally, I'm studying answers to the question:  "Should we pull out of Iraq?"  This one's getting plenty of attention lately, with officials in both the US and Iraq endorsing withdrawal.  They remain in the minority, and after much reading and consideration, I'm undecided but determined to discuss the possibilities (or lack thereof) in detail.  Djerejian sides with Rumsfeld, as does Torrid, I believe.  So does Juan Cole, who predicts Armageddon if we pull out and aren't saved by the UN.  Don't tell the theocons, or they will demand withdrawal. 

Back to Djerejian and recommending his Belgravia Dispatch (BD).  Currently, he's seeking right leaning names for a list he calls the Conscience Caucus:  Conservatives opposed to torture.  It's disturbing such a list needs to be developed, but give the comments under that post a read.  Really disturbing.  I certainly qualify for the caucus, feel guilty for not addressing the topic more often, and find it astonishing the Left hasn't made serious "moral values" headway in exposing a very unfortunate right wing lapse in American ideals.  Torture is a deadly serious topic that BD has handled indepth, with honor and decency.  If that post isn't gut wrenching and slapping his readers into reality, then maybe Billmon's right and many are just beyond redemption.  Too many. 

Another current post on Troop Morale is a bullseye, but I won't hold my breath for this administration to follow sound advice.  Finally, he's promising (like me) a detailed analysis of the increasing rattling of sabers directed at Syria.  I notice he has Josh Landis in the blogroll, and I hope he considers these comments in his analysis. 

So, why did I write such a long post while complaining about not being able to write long posts?  Because this one was easy, took less than an hour, and those other posts I mentioned require too much thinking for someone with a six year old climbing on his head.  Also also because I know many of our readers from the Left are fed up with the onslaught (understandably so), and I thought BD would be a breath of fresh air, an appeaser. 

I have a question related to sending progressives to BD.  It's been on my mind for a couple weeks.   

Is it just me, or is the Right far more interested in foreign policy than the Left?

I'm well aware of Juan Cole, Marc Lynch, Praktike (BD's good spirited nemesis) and several others, but I bet if we lined up the top 200 blogs left vs. right, we'd see a remarkable disparity favoring the Right in the attention given to foreign affairs.  I also wonder if this doesn't play heavily in presidential elections.  The Executive Branch is empowered to conduct foreign policy, and the extra attention alone may well be worth enough votes to change the outcome of our extremely tight national elections.  You know the idea:  Vote democrat locally, but republican nationally.  Could foreign policy have a major psychological influence in that?  I think so.  Should the Left be a little more attentive?  Obviously, but why isn't it?

Enjoy the links that aren't back to A2.  There may be a test later.  I'm going to teach this kid the proper way to use a slip 'n slide. 

-- Zap

This is Interesting

The Twenty Second Amendment

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

H.J. RES 24

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'

Okay, so here's a bill seeking to repeal the 22nd amendment.  It's sponsored by: House Democrat, Steny Hoyer.  Co-sponsored by House Democrats Howard Berman, Martin Sabo, Frank Pallone, Jr., and House Republican, F. James Sensenbrenner.

What's the deal?  They think Bill Clinton should be allowed to run again?  Or, more to the point, they believe serving two terms shouldn't disqualify a president from seeking re-election.  I guess one could make the argument, but peaceful change of power is the beauty of our idea.  And I should add, be careful what you ask for. 

-- Zap

The Watergate Papers, Released

In the midst of our discussions on Iraq and Washington state, please allow me a minor indulgence: if there's one story I can't nearly get enough of, it's Watergate.  I think my interest might go back as far as age six, actually; I vividly remember visiting relatives in Hamburg, Germany and seeing the giant headline of the morning paper that day in August. It was two words:

NIXON OUT

Obviously I had no idea at the time what was really going on, but in my mind's eye I can still see that headline (in German, it said "NIXON AUS"). As I made my way through high school, college and then graduate school, I became more interested in both the political story and the journalistic story. Watching how the MSM deals with political stories today, it pains me to think that the ethic of hard work and shoe leather is being subjugated to the easy headline and the he- said-they-said formula of reportage.

The University of Texas at Austin has paid $5 million for the materials surrounding "Woodstein's" efforts, and if you're a buff like me you can't help but be enthralled. If you're not altogether sure just what Watergate was, this probably isn't the best place to start, but they do reprint some of the key articles in the series to give you an idea.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled fisking and debunking activities...

(hat tip, Kos diaries)
--TJ

Tomorrow's WaPo

Since I had something from NYT's Sunday edition, and this caught my eye via a diarist at Kos, here's a more direct window into the mind of the President:

As for perhaps the most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the administration has so far been unsuccessful in its attempt to locate the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Asked why, Bush said, "Because he's hiding."

[emph mine]

At least nothing gets past the guy.

--TJ