16 June 2006

Spies, Lies, & Burning Flags

After banging the drum loudly, I must grudgingly accept that it appears Rove will walk away from the Plame mess unindicted. We have no one's word but his lawyer, Robert "Gold Bars" Luskin, but one presumes Luskin isn't pushing wishful fantasies. I will, however, reiterate that Karl Rove was knee deep in the Plame/Wilson bashing, lied about his role, and made liars out of George Bush and Scott McClellan. Well, maybe Rove didn't make Bush & Scottie liars, but you get my drift.

Dig deeper into the background of this story - further back than the leak, beyond the 16 words in the state of the union, and a truly sensational story emerges. Vanity Fair has the story, and I strongly urge you to give it a look see. I have always love the Sy Hersh theory* for the origin of the phony Niger allegation that crept into the state of the union address. But this article finds that theory lacking.

*the crudely forged documents that show Iraq's intention to procure huge amounts of yellow cake from Niger were a trap laid by the cia to get meddling administration hawks off their back. the idea being that a midlevel hack will overplay his hand with intel that is clearly bunk, and the administration hawks will lose steam and stop politicizing intelligence. only the cia forgers were shocked to hear the allegation & documents cited in a state of the union speech - thinking it would die much lower on the vine. a great tale of too-clever beauracratic angling that appears to be false.

Pay attention to the involvement of Michael Ledeen. I knew of his involvement in Iran contra, but I was completely ignorant of his international Billy Carter & Pope scandal mongering. Sounds juicy? Read the article.

Michael Kinsley has a lovely piece on Kafka and wiretapping.

The Washington Monthly tears into the cannard that Bush is hurting conservativism:
"Conservative dissidents . . . extolled the president's conservative leadership when he was riding high in the polls. But the real flaw in their argument is akin to that of Trotskyites who, when confronted with the failures of communism in Cuba, China and the Soviet Union, would claim that real communism had never been tried.
{snip}
The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president's principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay's ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it.

Contemporary conservatism is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, let us be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of an attempt to solve real-world problems, such as managing increasing deficits or finding revenue to pay for entitlements built into the structure of federal legislation. It stems, rather, from the libertarian conviction, repeated endlessly by George W. Bush, that the money government collects in order to carry out its business properly belongs to the people themselves.
{snip}
Americans have learned something about the consequences of conservative ideas during the Bush years that they never had to confront in the more amiable Reagan period. As a way of governing, conservatism is another name for disaster. And the disasters will continue, year after year, as long as conservatives, whose political tactics are frequently as brilliant as their policy-making is inept, find ways to perpetuate their power."

As a "common good" democrat, I appreciate the jab at liberterians.

I'll close out with a flag burning piece by Vietnam Vet., former governor & senator, & current New School president Bob Kerrey.

"Real patriotism cannot be coerced. Our freedom to speak was attacked -- not our flag. The former, not the latter, needs the protection of our Constitution and our laws."

6 Comments:

At 18 June, 2006 12:56, Blogger Christopher said...

Meet the Press- Murtha called bullshit on Rove:

ROVE (TAPE): Like too many Democrats, it strikes me they are ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party’s old pattern of cutting and running. They may be with you at the first shots, but they are not going to be there for the last, tough battles. They are wrong and profoundly wrong in their approach.

RUSSERT: Cutting and running.

MURTHA: He’s in New Hampshire. He’s making a political speech. He’s sitting in his air-conditioned office on his big, fat backside, saying stay the course. That’s not a plan. I don’t know what his military experience is, but that’s a political statement. This is a policy difference between me and the White House. I disagree completely with what he’s saying.

Now, let’s give you an example. When we went to Beirut, I said to President Reagan, get out. The other day we were doing a debate and they said, Beirut was a different situation, we cut and run. We didn’t cut and run. President Reagan made the decision to change direction because he knew he couldn’t win it. Even in Somalia, President Clinton made the decision, “we have to change direction.” Even with tax cuts, when we had a tax cut, under Reagan we then had an increase.

We need to change directions. We can’t win a war like this. This guy is sitting back there criticizing — political criticism, getting paid by the public taxpayer, and he’s saying to us, “We’re winning this war and they’re running”? We’ve got to change direction. You can’t sit there in the air-conditioned office and tell troops carrying 70 pounds on their backs inside these armored vessels hit with IEDs every day, seeing their friends blown up, their buddies blown up, and he says stay the course? Easy to say that from Washington, DC.

 
At 19 June, 2006 15:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Score one for Murtha. I was very impressed with him last week, when he was arguing his heart out against the ridiculous GOP "stay-the-course" resolution. Sadly, 42 Democrats caved in and voted "yes."

While I'd like to think Barack Obama would not have fallen for such a cheap ploy, it turns out his take on the war is closer to Hillary than Murtha. When asked on a Bloomberg TV show this weekend whether he agreed with John Kerry about troop withdrawal, he said:

"I agree this has been a mistake. Back in 2002 when I was still candidate for the United States Senate I gave a speech to one of the first big anti-war demonstrations in Chicago in which I said I'm not opposed to all wars but I'm opposed to dumb wars and as far as I could tell I didn't see evidence of weapons of mass destruction. I didn't see a connection to Al Qaeda. I thought this could cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives."

"It's my belief we should start phasing down our troop levels this year but I think it is important for us to understand, and I said this even as I opposed us getting in, that once we were there we had both strategic interests and moral obligations to make sure that Iraq doesn't collapse into all-out civil war and that remains the best way for us to bring our troops home."

"The way I would characterize it is that we made a strategic error. Having made that error we now have a genuine interest in assuring that there's at least some semblance to stability in Iraq."

"I think that it is important for us to recognize that there was a significant victory not just in the killing of Zarqawi but, more importantly in finally completing the cabinet of the new government. ... If they're able to build on that and create a national unity government ... then I think we have the opportunity not for the Jeffersonian democracy that George Bush promised, but at least sufficient stability that it allows us to pull out and for the Iraqis to look after themselves."

A not unreasonable point of view, but it won't make the base happy.

The Tomasky piece helped me understand this concept of the "greater good" a bit better, CR. I don't agree with his argument that special interest groups should always support Democrats--how then could they ever gain any political leverage?--but I could see how the "greater good" idea could work as an overall campaign theme.

I also enjoyed the "gold bars" link. It is interesting to note that Sheldon Whitehouse, the U.S. atty who went after Luskin back in '97, is now the Democratic candidate for Senate in Rhode Island, and is receiving some very high-profile support.

 
At 20 June, 2006 07:40, Blogger Christopher said...

yeah, obama needs a new line soon if he wants to run. my biggest problem with him right now is his war stance, and that's a big problem. this might not be the issue that he uses to distance himself from the base.

hell, murtha is pro-life (or close to it) but i'd love to see him be majority leader. he's an example of a candidate who could give fits to interest groups. but if he's the only convincing strong voice from the party to oppose the war (the most important issue of our day)they had better not support a rival candidate. i'm not saying they should spend their $ to support him if he's not on board with their issue, but maybe they could sit it out. greater good, man.

obama ought to engage on this issue. sounds like he's spouting boilerplate. and this "dems don't need to fix bush's problem' line probably doesn't resonate with families of fallen soldiers. are dems not gonna fix health care, or FEMA, or push for reform? For a long time, i've thought the onus was clearly more on bush (and still is) and criticizing the dems for not having a plan was beside the point. but for major, influential figures (hillary, obama), the time has long past for playing coy.

i wonder what kind of stability we've got in iraq, or will have in the magic "six months" that friedman and others keep asking us to wait for. "reassess in six months" - it's been 3yrs. pull the curtains.

 
At 20 June, 2006 08:02, Blogger Christopher said...

for some compelling points on how dems can frame the iraq issue in '06 (not how individual potential candidates should position for '08) - here are two reader comments from talkingpointsmemo.com:

"I'd like to see the main Democratic talking point become, "Bush will be in Iraq forever. Period. The Democrats will extricate us. Period." And let the administration convince the public otherwise. I think if the Dems just keep saying, over and over, "Republicans want us there forever, that's why we have no timetables, that's why THEY ARE building permanent bases, etc.," this would be a useful evolution of the basic description of the situation."

"Any attempt to ask Democratic candidates what their plan is for Iraq should be met with a "I am not the President, and won't have the power to implement any such plan if elected, so that is a ridiculous request. What I *can* do, however, is hold this administration accountable for their mistakes. Do you want more Iraqs and disastrous responses to natural disasters? Or do you want a Congress that thinks 'checks and balances' means 'holding the President accountable', not being the President's rubber stamp. Never was the wisdom of our nation's founders more apparant in the need for a Congress as a check on the President, and never has there been a Congress as woefully inadequate in*being* a check on the President".

The question of the Democratic plan for Iraq is something that has to wait until 2008, when it is actually relevant."

i sure don't see the need for a unified democratic plan for iraq for '06. but dems itching to run in '08 better have some ideas. we already ran an election that critiqued iraq in 2004.

right now, kerry, feingold, & murtha are the key incumbents pushing the envelope on this. regardless of their motives, or how this will ultimately affect their political futures, good for them. but i thought i should post those 2 very well reasoned comments on why a dem plan is a little beside the point - esp. in regards to '06.

but you better have something to say when republicans and the media say that it's easy to criticize a tough war, harder to wage and end it.

 
At 20 June, 2006 08:12, Blogger Christopher said...

and on obama's point that "there was a significant victory not just in the killing of Zarqawi but, more importantly in finally completing the cabinet of the new government. ..." i think murtha really gutted this line of reasoning by pointing out that the development of this government is all in the green zone - totally cut off from the rest of iraq and that the government is essentially in a fortress where saddam was. and that the zarqawi killing was essentially done from the outside the country with aerial bombs. the kind of thing we could accomplish if we re-deploy to the horizon, as murtha suggests.

also, and murtha kind of did this, go after bush on this the way rove would. counter-intuitive. say bush doesn't have a plan - not escalating or bringing troops home, just kind of drifting. which is probably the worst thing you could do in a war. and characterize their attacks as playing politics, while dems are worried about the policy, security, and the soldiers. so invert it: the republicans are playing politics with national security and they have no plan for the war they created that is three years old. and they control all levers of power.

 
At 21 June, 2006 08:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iraq is such a tough call that I think it's a credit to the Democrats that they have not shown more "party discipline" on the issue. Their ambivalence-leaning-toward-opposition on the war is much more reflective of the public mood than the GOP's lockstep support.

I think Obama's and Hillary's positions are reasonable and principled (in line with Kerry '04's "pottery barn" rule), and I don't think they should be excluded from '08 consideration because of them.

However, your arguments in favor of pulling out are compelling, CR. I find myself seduced by the power of your words.

A good place for Dems to draw the line and demonstrate some party discipline should have been that noxious war resolution in the House. How could any Dem, hawkish or not, vote "yea" on equating the war in Iraq with the "global war on terror?"

I'm looking at you, Stephanie Herseth, Melissa Bean, Leonard Boswell, and Dennis Moore! (I'm surprised you haven't emailed HH about this, Yance.)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home