It is a slow news day, I am unmotivated, and there is football on. Consider this an open thread. My apologies for not putting anything up today, but I just don’t have it in me today.
Reader Interactions
64Comments
Comments are closed.
by John Cole| 64 Comments
This post is in: Previous Site Maintenance
It is a slow news day, I am unmotivated, and there is football on. Consider this an open thread. My apologies for not putting anything up today, but I just don’t have it in me today.
Comments are closed.
The Disenfranchised Voter
So the DoJ is investigating who the whistleblower was in revealing Bush’s illegal actions.
Odd…
I always thought there were laws that protected whistleblowers who tell when officials break the law.
Bush broke the law (4th Amendment) and instead of punishing him we are going to punish the person who did their civic duty and revealed this to the public?
Someone is going to be punished for being patriotic and letting the public know?
Wow, well I think it’s time to start taking bets on when we will become a fascist nation. Because really, it is no longer a question of if now, only when.
DCleviathan
JC, nothing to say? Have you seen this yet?
However,
I’d put nothing past this administration.
Mike S
Funny how they didn’t investigate a leak they’ve known about for more than a year. Of course now that it has caused trouble for Bush it’s time to get to the bottom of it.
Paddy O'Shea
TDV: I suspect the concern @ BushCo is more about intimidating those thinking of coming forward in the future than it is getting the individual that spilled the beans to the New York Times.
Not that Bushie and his pals are all that happy with the whistleblower, its just that they want to do all that they can to make sure nothing else leaks out.
Of course, once the Senate starts to subpoena folks from the NSA and other spooky places, all bets are off.
This is gonna be real good.
Mike S
You might want to check out the British Torture Memos regarding Uzbechistan. This part is rather sweet.
I don’t expect it to sway the tough guys on the right who think torture is A OK.
Paddy O'Shea
Interesting article from Truthout.Org. Article says the NSA spied not only on journalists, but also members of Congress and other folks in the gummint.
If it turns out Bush did spy on members of Congress it’ll add some real spice to the hearings …
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/12/29/74957/493
Paddy O'Shea
Los Angeles Times prints the “I” word.
“Is Clinton’s Past In Bush’s Future?”
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6165
Mike S
Only if they were Republicans.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Interesting stuff guys and gals.
slide
knock it off guys we’re at war. Better get used to it. Don’t like being spied on working for the NSA then don’t work for the NSA. If we have to torture children to get their terrorists fathers to give information so be it. We’re at WAR…. GET IT… WAR…. whats that old saying? “all’s fair in love and war”
Torture….
Domestic spying…
bugging the UN…
lying about WMD…
propaganda…
citizens being locked up as enemy combatants…
journalists being paid for positive stories…
right wingers paid for op-eds…
fake news stories produced by gov’t…
warrantless searches…
secret prisons…
kidnapping people off of streets of friendly nations…
We’re at war…. WAR….
Pooh
A less sinsiter but still concerting reason why government datamining might give one pause.
Pooh
er, “disconcerting” but you knew that.
srv
The Onion has a great idea:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43889
What’s the difference between an nouveau-Article II El Presidente and Saddam, after all?
srv
I’ve suggested it before, but alot of bloggers are obviously afraid of the idea – how about New Years Predictions?
Ancient Purple
I read the torture memos last night. I just stared at the screen when I read the part about how two Muslims were tortured with boiling water.
Oh, well, just another silly fraternity prank that got out of hand.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Just as Tom DeLay abused his power, tricking the FAA into tracking the planes of Democratic state lawmakers fleeing Texas.
Jerk.
Perry Como
I predict a bunch of liberals will whine when we bomb Iran.
Pooh
I predict Darrell will derail a thread through use of non-sequitors.
demimondian
I predict that at least one prediction made in this thread will be correct.
ImJohnGalt
I just found another blog whose author has written some pieces in a similar voice to Tim & John. In case anyone wants to check out a couple of pieces, here are a few:
http://tinyurl.com/bejcb – The Futility of illegal wiretaps
http://tinyurl.com/bokcx – ID: You have two doors. Pick one
http://tinyurl.com/ddap6 – ID & Free speech.
I’ve been using my holiday to read some blogs I’ve never read before – it’s been entertaining, and has really increased my appreciation of this one. Happy New Year, everyone.
CadillaqJaq
Following in demimondian Says: lead, I’ll fearlessly predict that about 90% of the posts in John Cole’s blog in 2006 will be 100% bull-sh**.
What I really want to know, after watching a few NCAA football officials faux pas this weekend, is when will all of college football adopt the Big Ten’s “review” rule. It cost UofM Coach Lloyd carr and his team two second half timeouts and ultimately the game in order to get a couple of official reviews. It may have cost him his job as well with the crappy season the Wolverines ended up with.
OK, that’s my end of the year rant; back to your amatuer politix… oh, Happy New Year.
Paddy O'Shea
Is it the “Brokeback Mountain” effect that causes so many righties to shamelessly exhibit their irrational love for the Preppy Cowpoke?
And is this really the first time a Yankee dressed up like a Texas cowboy and won the hearts of sensitive middle-aged fatsos all across this great land of ours?
Or maybe they just remember the … Marlboro Man.
http://www.badvertising.org/img/Marlboro-Man-Bush.GIF
Pooh
IJM, excellent links, ty.
srv
Ahmad Chalabi appointed oil minister in Iraq:
Chalabi Named Iraq Oil Minister
I predict the looting will move into overdrive now (yeah, I know, it’s too easy).
Also:
Once a terrorist, always a terrorist? If Cuba discovered oil, how long would sanctions last?
srv
Drat.
Chalabi Named Iraq Oil Minister
I predict if I trust tag buttons less, links will work more often.
demimondian
I’d go downstairs to read by the fire, but I’m currently under occupation by an army of cats, which are (apparently) trying to bring democracy to the demi-household.
Instead, I’m going to point at this link and ask what people think of the thesis that the American conservative movement has always been only superficially intellectual. Is that the case?
MMM
Did you talk to Dr. Phillips this week?
1. Yes – good job John.
2. No – you are a loser.
Paddy O'Shea
From the Iraqi perspective who better than Chalabi? Nobody is more skilled at hoodwinking, fleecing and generally depantsing high ranking members of the gullible Bush admin than old Ahmad.
Hell, I hear he refers to Dick and Rummy as “my bitches.”
Perry Como
Bob Woodruff, reporting from Iran.
Paddy O'Shea
I guess Woody figures he should pay homage to Iraq’s new owners.
Perry Como
Nah. Need to get the good angles for when either we or Israel bombs them before April.
Pb
Perry Como,
If that “Bob Woodruff, reporting from Iran” story isn’t satire, it should be.
Looks like Steven Colbert was right about him.
MC
demimondian:
I’ll bite. IMO, there are two ways to slice the intellectualism of conservatism, or any political ideology for that matter. There is the intellectual foundation of the ends of governance, the goals of the movement, and there is the approach to governance and the rigor applied to the practicality of political administration. I don’t really know a whole lot about political philosophy, but conservatism seems to portray itself as an application of ideas of people like Locke and Burke. It’s hard to think of a political philosopher that forms the foundation of liberalism – John Rawls and social justice come to mind, but again, I’m just a neophyte in the ends portion of the equation.
With regards to the second part, the intellectual rigor applied to practical governance, right now, no one has the libertarians beat. For the most part, it’s a value-neutral approach to governance based on market transaction principles, although some public choice theorists equate market choice with personal freedom. Thirty years ago, liberals rejected tools and approaches that conservatives had embraced that can best be described as “libertarian”, but today, the fuzzy-headed policy wonk is dead. Everything is about quantitative analysis, but both liberals and conservatives cook their numbers to suit to their outcomes.
For example, thirty years ago, conservatives would argue that cost-benefit analysis was imperative to enacting environmental policies so we could really see how much the business community would be impacted. Opposed to the emotion-based appeals of liberals of the time, this approach has real intellectual appeal – rational, evaluative decision-making ruled by observation and analysis, not feelings. Liberals learned how to the play the game, doctor their own policies, and at the same time, conservatives start to reject the approach when they realize some of the things they support don’t hold up under analysis – case in point, our new “energy policy” or the plan to “save” Social Security. Who’s emotional now?
I can’t speak to the foundations of goals of a political movement, but with regards to the intellectual foundations of conservative governance, they stole ideas from liberatarians when convenient as a foil to the emotion-based policy approach of liberals but rejected those ideas when they became cumbersome. Of course, as my friend says, the most interesting and challenging ideas come from libertarians because they have no fear of running seriously for office. They can stand on principle because they don’t have to mount real national campaigns.
Paddy O'Shea
Perry: Well, I hope that for the Iran campaign Rove and the psy-ops boys can come up with something a little more convincing than “shock and awe.”
I’m afraid that all we can expect if we use that one again is a lot of giggling in Persian.
Paddy O'Shea
Better stick the fork in DeLay. Once Abramoff turns canary bug boy is done.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10657504
demimondian
Damn! I just copied that link, Paddy, and you beat me to it.
(One question: what’s a “canary bug boy”? Is it a description of the color that BugMan’s face turns?)
Paddy O'Shea
My bad, I should have used a comma or something. A “canary” is a film noir kind of term for a criminal who turns state’s evidence in exchange for a lighter sentence. Another way of putting it would be, “he’s chirping like a little bird.” Or, to put it in the proper vernacular (and as one of Jersey City’s finest products I know this quite well), “He’s choiping like a little boid.” Stool pigeon would be another phrase used to describe what Mugsy might have called “a dirty rat.”
Which is what Delay is going to be calling Abramoff soon.
Bug Boy because Tom DeLay’s original business arrangement was as the owner of a pest control company. But that was before he got into politics and started cozying up to vermin rather than gassing them.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Commas are our friends.
Paddy O'Shea
Here’s an interesting Washington post piece. Looks like The Great Terrorism Fighter is attacking the undergrowth again. But what really caught my eye is that Bush has now spent 365 days or 1 entire year out of his 5 or so in office farting around on his vanity ranch.
If only al Qaeda played as much hooky as the First Landscaper.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001326.html
Perry Como
MC,
It’s actually an interesting conversation to have. I don’t know that conservatism has lost its intellectual component any more than politics has lost its intellectual component. Labels like conservative and liberal are bandied about, in the case of liberal these days, as a way to attack a person someone disagrees with, much like conservative was used in the past. Liberalism as a movement seems to be dead for the moment and conservatism may be on the decline too as “conservative” policies fail.
Philisophical foundations of political movements have changed greatly over time and it seems there is another shift in this generation. In the years before my birth, there was a profound shift in the Democratic and Republican parties. It was the shift that was referenced in demimondian’s link, but also extends to the neo-conservative movement that was born out of abandonded policies of the 70s Democrats.
To the roots of the respective parties as they are, I don’t know that you can apply classical thought to much of it. “Conservatives” would seem more likely to identify with Hobbes, rather than Locke these days. “Liberals” would be more along the lines of Rousseau (staying within the Social Contract theme), minus the importance of property rights. I see it as their position on the state of nature and the opposing viewpoints on methods to solve the issue of governance. Any way you look at it, both parties are working out of political expediency rather than a fundamental philosophy.
Libertarianism is an attractive idea, but it doesn’t scale well. The best we can hope for is to keep the bi-party system fighting each other — which means no one party controls all branches — so government can only grow slowly. As witnessed over the last five years, government will grow and spend regardless of the controlling party, moreso when dominated by one party. How fast it grows depends on how much resistance the opposition party can present.
Another problem is that Libertarianism would not be practical without a major restructuring of our current government (revolution). There is too much infrastructure and dependence within society (social and corporate) to make it practical.
RonB
DV, I understand where you’re coming from, but this isn’t the first time an executive has overreached in the execution of it’s duties. This wrangling over the executives powers is as old as the nation itself. I’m not excusing it, but I just wanted to mention it lest we all get swept up in the type of rhetoric that serves no one and changes nothing. Yes, Bush is a dipshit-but in context, we shouldn’t be surprised that the executive is trying to expand its powers, and you can bet there will be and is a pushback. It’s a good indication that the system is working as it should.
Happy New Year to all here from Korea!
RonB
I’ll take this opportunity to quote Ambrose Bierce, who tells the dead on truth while managing to be damn funny:
“Conservative-a person enamored of existing evils, as opposed to the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.”
Pooh
One of the more interesting things in Assasin’s Gate (fantastic thus far, about 40% through) is how the neo-con movement inverted the traditional Realist-Liberal split in terms of right and left – the GOP/Right, led by Kissinger, et al, used to be hardline realpolitkers while the left/Dems tended to worry about more about process and law, both natural and man-made. Somehow,the neocons adopted a bizzaro-world semi-messianic liberalism with a heavy pinch of manifest destiny, while the left became disillusioned with interventionism in the ’90s and retreated into a more traditional realist framework.
I think. Not sure what that all means (my IR theory is very rusty), but it is interesting, no?
Perry Como
Well, sorta. It’s not a “bizzaro-world semi-messianic liberalism” as much as it is a contiuation of a failed policy. The defeat of the Soviet Union was predicated on defeating the Soviets by stopping the spread of communism. The Soviet Union fell under its own weight (not a sustainable system), with outside pressue from the US egging on its failure (proxy wars).
The neoconservatives were the people that subscribed to the domino theory in Vietnam. If Vietnam was a democratic nation, then all of the other nations would reject communism. Similar to present circumstances, which oddly enough have many of the same actors on our side, and seem to be managing it about as well.
Communism still exists to some extent. A communist nation is one of our largest trading partners and buys alot of our treasury bonds. I’m pretty sure the monitor I’m looking at is at least 50% communist. So much for the domino theory.
But hey, maybe This Time It’s Different™. Perhaps the failed foreign policy of the neoconservatives will work this time. After all, the terrorists have the ability to utterly destroy the US, just like the USSR…ah crap. Nevermind. Ideology over reality.
Pooh
My ideology says calling it BWSML is more fun.
srv
Except that in the past, “wars” had a finite time-frame. Lincoln did alot of nasty things, but it was a real insurrection, and at least he bothered revoked habeas corpus. FDR could have gone alot farther in excercising powers, given the state of the nation when he came in, and later the war.
I think our last chance to avoid empire was with Truman, and once he created the National Security State, the fix was in. Ike did nothing but continue it (other than his farewell “beware” warning). Now we have a single military super-power with control over most of the economic levers, corporate media, and “two” parties that really have no real differences in policy that matters.
Congress has been giving up power for decades, either to the Executive or the courts. Congress won’t stop an Article II crazy Executive – and Bush will back down before he loses to SCOTUS. But in the end, the goal posts will have been moved, and the Executive will be winner.
I think it’s going to be the fatal flaw in the American character. What we’ve seen this century is that The People want a strong, central authority. Naturally, that authority is only going to be interested in acquiring power. A forever war (permanent state of fear) provides the means, and since the “enemy” is amongst us, we will all be suspect.
Perry Como
And the Congress was taking power for decades before the Executive stepped in. Each branch of government will encroach on the other as often as possible. It’s the nature of the system.
If the Executive overstepped its bounds in an egregious way, fuck ’em. We have a system to deal with it, let it play out.
searp
Congress doesn’t care about anything that isn’t related to money. That is, the only power that Congress wants to retain is the ability to define and direct streams of money.
The other stuff simply isn’t that important to modern elective politics. Sure, speeches and talking points, but the real work is in the money end of things.
Paddy O'Shea
searp: I’d love to see how you would separate the money aspect from all the other forms of power available in Washington. If you took away Congress’s constitutionally guaranteed rights within the system of check and balances sans the cash aspect, wouldn’t that one remaining part of their once vast powers be reduced to mere rubberstamping of the financial demands of the Executive branch?
And say Congress authorizes a certain amount of spending for the NSA. Do they just hand over a sack of cash and tell them to spend it as they will, or do they specify how it is to be spent? Do they not care if their will is enforced?
Your kinda blithe attempt to explain away Congressional concern over any potential loss of its Constitutionally mandated powers seems a tad on the simplistic side. You make it sound like all Congress is concerned about is beancounting. Money is both politics and power. They are one and the same.
Paddy O'Shea
Of course, there are those within Congress who have allowed their concern for mere cash and the power it brings to get in the way of their more ethical responsibilities. Below is a link to a comprehensive list of private individuals and corporations who have forked over some dough to the Tom Delay Legal Trust Fund.
Of course, with the Abramoff plea bargain deal looking to break big, Tommy is going to need a lot more than what he has raised here …
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/delay.asp?display=A
Paddy O'Shea
AP: U.S. Death Toll In Iraq Nears 2004 Level
Despite what President Happy has been saying between extended bouts of vacationitus, all hell is breaking loose in Iraq.
– Two more U.S. soldiers were killed in iraq as the year wound down Friday, putting the American military death toll at 841 so far – just 5 short of 2004’s lost lives …
– Violence continued on saturday with gunmen raiding a house near Iskandariyah, 30 miles south of Baghdad, and killing five members of a Sunni family, army Col. Hussein Sheyaa said. A roadside bomb also exploded in Baghdad, killing five policemen …
– In addition, five members of the Iraqi Islamic party died when a roadside bomb exploded near their headquarters in Al-Khalis, 10 miles east of Baqouba …
– In Baghdad, hundred of cars lined up at gas stations as word spread that iraq’s largest oil refinery shut down two weeks ago because of threats of insurgent attacks. Nearly three years after the US-led invasion, a fuel crisis again threatens to cripple a country with the world’s thrid-largest proven oil reserves …
– At lest 17 people were killed in shootings, mortar attacks and a suicide car bombing in baghdad on Friday. In the most serious incident, police said nine people were killed in a drive-by shooting – apparently because they were drinking alcohol in public …
– Two Iraqi army captains were also gunned down in the town of Dujail, north of Baghdad, as they drove home …
– A senior Sudanese diplomat said his country closed its embassy in baghada in an effort to win the release of six kidnapped employees – including one diplomat. Al-Qaida in iraq had threatened Thursday to kill five Sudanese on Saturday unless the country removed its diplomatic mission from Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051231/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Yeah, things are winding down over there …
CadillaqJaq
srv posted: “I think it’s going to be the fatal flaw in the American character. What we’ve seen this century is that The People want a strong, central authority.”
I think it’s past the stage of “going to be.” I say that based on the reaction of so many following hurricane Katrina. It seemed to me that too many citizens were expecting “King George W” to somehow exhibit omnipotent powers, ordering people, troops and supplies about the gulf coast with a simple wave of the hand. When it didn’t happen, his “crown” became tarnished.
I certainly agree with the “flaw” aspect: apparently our public schools have failed in the basic teaching of Government and Civics in recent years.
CaseyL
The Abramoff testimony should be fascinating. There’s going to be a full court press to present whatever he says as equally damaging to Democrats as it is to Republicans – and considering that 99% of his bribery/influence peddling benefitted Republicans, that faux even-handedness will necessitate some very fancy dancing.
But the biggest story of 2006 could be Bush expanding the war to Iran. If he does that – and Israel, at least for now, has said it won’t act as his proxy, so any military action against Iran looks like it’ll be Made in the USA – then all else pales into insignificance, as 2006 ushers in America’s Gotterdammerung.
Paddy O'Shea
CL: Bush could very well go into Iran. It is either that or face the humiliation of going down in history as the president who lost Iraq to the Iranians, and spent a vast quantity in cash and American lives doing it.
Speaking of which, it does look like the Iranians were pretty happy about the Iraqi elections returns. In this little item they’re positively gloating.
Iran hails “first Islamist Arab state in Iraq
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5006
CaseyL
Paddy – Americans have the collective attention span of a tree shrew. It won’t matter to them one bit whether Iraq is an Islamic state, or even if Iraq blows apart at the seams, once US troops are out of there.
If Bush had the sense God gave a potato, he’d declare victory in Iraq and pull the troops before the Islamist/separatist/civil war shit hits the fan, and most Americans would buy it.
He might actually do that, if only to free up the troops for an Iranian operation.
DougJisAll
Okay I have a prediction, DougJ will reveal all his identities to us in 2006 after we get a priest for him to exorcise his multiple personalites. Maybe we should start taking money for correct guesses. I’ll start the guesses:
DougJ =
Perry, AncientPurple, Mike S, Lines, Paddy O’Shea, Seearp, goldStarforRobertBoy, srv. I’m sure there is more. Bascially if you see any of these IDs, assume that most of the ones around it are DougJ.
srv
I know I’m not DougJ. I liked him before I hated him. And he swears he’s not Perry.
You forget Dexter, Emily and a couple of others that start with “D”.
demimondian
I am not a croo…err, I mean, I am not DougJ.
DougJisAll
Now that one is a lock, for sure. Okay, strike srv off the list though, that sounded pretty genuine.
Sine.Qua.Non
Have a safe and fabulous New Year’s eve and day everybody. I have a house full of people here and we are drinking martini’s—I need MORE! (Sorry to break the thread.)
RonB
You guys really think so? I find the possibility unlikely. I think the Administration’s taste for wars of choice has changed. Not to mention that after Iraq, there is going to be a huge sit-down for lessons learned inside the Armed Forces from the Pentagon to the platoons before the military is ready for another venture. I just can’t see him doing this again considering it has been so fraught with difficulty. Like Bush said, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me-you can’t get fooled again.”
More unnerving Bush quotes here! Enjoy!
The Disenfranchised Voter
…
I’d have to respectfully disagree on that.
What makes you think their stance has changed?
RonB
DV, the political backlash has been enormous, don’t you think?It has turned out far worse than they imagined. I mean, I know there are hostile overtures being made in Iran’s direction, but that seems to me to be necessary in much the same way a guarded stance towards ‘ol Kim Jong is. But invading is not the answer, it isn’t the only answer, and while I know President Bush is a stubborn man, I simply don’t see that inner circle being able to pull his levers for yet another disastrous conflict. There’s also the economic angle that they would consider…haven’t we done enough to the curve of peak oil that we wouldn’t dare further destabilize the region?
I ask you the same question, what gives you the indication that he would tangle with Iran?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well mainly, I think he truly believes in the Neo-conservative ideology. He is a stubborn man as well, and with the loss of Powell, his inner circle consists fully of “yes (wo)men”. As for the economic angle, it is safe to say that the Neo-Cons think not invading Iran would cause the middle east and Iraq to destablize more. As for domestic economic reasons, I don’t think Bush gives two shits how high the deficit runs, and in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he is pulling the old “starve the beast” trick–not in the Libertarian sense either, I think he wants to build the defense budget even more.
If you are not familiar with the Neo-conservative philosophy when it comes to foreign policy all you need to read if The Project for a New American Century (aka PNAC)’s mission statement: