For any subject other than Cheney.
Also, don’t think of a pink elephant.
by Tim F| 54 Comments
This post is in: Open Threads
For any subject other than Cheney.
Also, don’t think of a pink elephant.
by Tim F| 29 Comments
This post is in: War
Dick Lugar (R-IN) just picked up his toys and went home:
Sen. Richard Lugar, a senior Republican and a reliable vote for President Bush on the war, said Monday that Bush’s Iraq strategy was not working — and that the U.S. should downsize the military’s role.
[…] His position of not even waiting until the “surge” report due in September lines up with the recent editorial in the far more liberal Los Angeles Times. Few newspaper editorials have called for the start of a withdrawal. Polls have long shown that the public backs such a move by roughly 2 to 1, and that about 70% give President Bush a negative rating on his handling of the war.Lugar’s speech came as a surprise. Most Republicans have said they were willing to wait until September to see if Bush’s recently ordered troop buildup in Iraq was working.
“In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved,” Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. “Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.”
A wingnut’s wingnut, Lugar’s move provides massive political cover for other GOPers looking to jump ship while there’s still political mileage in it. I don’t know how many elected Republicans relish the idea of losing in 2008, but something tells me that the ridiculous public tide against them will sweep up a good number more before September.
Happy words aside, Dick Lugar could scribble his speech in a men’s room for all the practical good it will do. Unless Lugar has a veto-proof majority in his pocket, our present stalemate will go on at least into 2008. The Dems’ brilliant strategy of blinking first on the last supplemental pretty much guaranteed that. Lugar’s speech made clear that he has no plans to vote with the Dems, and Bush, as always, only listens to president Dick so I really have a hard time seeing what practical good these come-to-Jesus moments will do anybody.
Well, I do see one upshot. Lugar’s speech, which basically lays out the same pullout while keeping residual troops in Kuwait that “crazy” Jack Murtha proposed years ago, will inspire David Broder to wax lyrical about the hardheaded, realistic new thinking from Republicans.
***Update***
John Cole, who knows from Republicans better than I do, thinks that on international topics Lugar is less a wingnut’s wingnut and more Chuck Hagel in a dress. If so I stand corrected.
by Tim F| 34 Comments
This post is in: Politics, Blogospheric Navel-Gazing
Go buy it. I prefer local bookshops (here’s mine), but if Amazon is your thing then find it here.
I’m particularly recommending the book because Greenwald’s central thesis is also a personal hobby horse of mine. In both my view and Greenwald’s the concept of metaphysical evil is more than useless, it is a toxic crutch that the feeble and insecure use to avoid thinking past the end of their own noses. In a war it’s not enough to call your opponent evil, you also have to understand where he is coming from. You have to know why he does what he does and where his support comes from. Empty terms like “evil” imply the sort of ignorance about one’s enemy that usually goes together with losing.
The idea of evil has just as toxic an effect on the thinker. As Greenwald often points out, people who think that they are fighting evil can justify almost unlimited degrees of cruelty and misbehavior in the service of what they perceive as metaphysical good. I concur so strongly that a year and a half ago I coined my first Internet Law to emphasize the point:
In the context of a debate, calling another’s motivations ‘evil’ should be considered synonymous with, ‘I don’t understand and am too lazy to find out.’
Importantly, I don’t limit this point to Republicans. I cringe whenever a Bush critic starts using good/evil dichotomies because it illustrates the exact same weak thinking that caused the Bush bust in the first place. If anything our bungled terror war should illustrate how opposing bad people is not enough to make you good, you also have to do the hard work of setting an example.
Anyhow, whether or not Greenwald said it first he definitely said it longer. And there is probably a bunch of legalish mumbo-jumbo in there to firm up the point. Buy one for yourself and another as a Fourth o’ July gift for that special manichean in your life.
***Update***
Glenn talks about his book.
As the fawning Chris Matthews remarks about Ann Coulter yesterday demonstrate, a book’s success can, by itself, guarantee access to our media organs in order to make arguments and offer perspectives which are otherwise excluded. Ultimately, all other considerations are washed aside by product success, the overarching language they truly understand.
I wrote the book for the same reason I blog: because I believe that arguments can be advanced, evidence marshalled and facts revealed which can serve as an antidote to our deeply dysfunctional political discourse and, through reasoned-based (though impassioned) persuasion, constructively influence our political process. A book’s success can force media outlets to provide a platform for the book’s arguments and to expand the range of voices and perspectives which are heard.
If you need a reason to buy Greenwald’s book, think about how fun it will be to see him on regular panels with Fred Kagan, Michelle Malkin and Anne Coulter. He drives them fucking crazy. James Carville and Paul Begala are pale substitutes for the kind of entertainment that a natural archivist like Greenwald can bring when he mixes with people who think they can make shit up and get away with it.
by Tim F| 17 Comments
This post is in: Republican Stupidity
The whole story in a nut:
“Dick’s major concern, one of them was, and I agree, that there needs to be a greater and more effective role for the vice president,” Marsh, a longtime Cheney friend, said in an interview. “He holds the view, as do I, that the vice president should be the chief of staff in effect, that everything should run through his office.”
In Bush, Cheney found the perfect partner. The president’s willingness to delegate left plenty of room for his more detail-oriented vice president.
“My impression is that the president thinks that the Reagan style of leadership is best — guiding the ship of state from high up on the mast,” said former White House lawyer Bradford A. Berenson. “It seems to me that the vice president is more willing to get down in the wheelhouse below the decks.”
That “decider” line sounded awfully defensive, didn’t it? For some reason I keep coming back to this. Why The Onion uses psychics for news and not for winning the lottery I will never know.
by Tim F| 10 Comments
This post is in: Foreign Affairs, War on Terror aka GSAVE®
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, lying to the UN General Assembly about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and so much more have not just damaged America by inspiring a new generation of terrorists, they also reduce America’s ability to lead in the world. Wild-eyed moonbats like me have warned for years that countries which could go one way or the other will start to swing hard against us. Behave like a rogue state for long enough and you start to get treated like one.
by Tim F| 7 Comments
This post is in: Republican Stupidity
In two posts Josh Marshall touches on one of my favorite hobby horses regarding motivations and behavior – absent a compelling rationale for secrecy, people usually demand it to hide incompetence. Josh points out that Cheney may be a supernaturally gifted bureaucratic infighter, but his office has a real problem keeping actual secrets under wraps.
I don’t think that this point can be emphasized enough. People usually demand secrecy in order to hide their own failures, and when you give it to them their performance only gets worse.
by John Cole| 70 Comments
This post is in: Politics, The War on Your Neighbor, aka the War on Drugs, Outrage
In which the nannies hate the First Amendment:
The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner case — a split decision that limits students’ free speech rights.
Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002.
Principal Deborah Morse confiscated it and suspended Frederick. He sued, taking his case all the way to the nation’s highest court.
The justices ruled 6-3 that Frederick’s free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority’s written opinion called a “sophomoric” banner.
I guess we will just let the strict constructionists explain their position on this one. Apparently the founders were in favor of every kind of speech except those that got in the way of government aims. If Larry Flynt’s case went to the court right now, he would be a convict.
My support for Roberts and Alito was yet another instance in which I was little more than a useful idiot.