Centerfield

The moderate media?

A recent Pew survey reports that, although many more journalists describe themselves as liberals than conservatives, the majority consider themselves to be moderates. Now Dan Drezner reports the results of an extensive survery that finds that the top three most read blogs among journalists are (1) Andrew Sullivan (who is way out in front), (2) Instapundit, and (3) Mickey Kaus. All of these guys are strong Kerry and media critics. Interesting.

Kerry and National Security

In numerous posts over the past two months I have been harping on the need for Kerry to convince me that, as president, he would be a Lieberman Democrat, not a (Ted) Kennedy Democrat, on national security issues. I have never believed that he needs to say exactly what he would do -- I view that as an unreasonable request given the fluid nature of events -- but I have been looking for him (1) to state unequivocally that we simply can't afford to fail in Iraq, (2) to identify his general ideas about how we maximize the potential for success, and (3) to commit to a pro-active, not reactive, approach to terrorism. To his credit, he has recently tried to do all of these things. I have also recently said that a change of presidents, for the sake of change, may ultimately be in the national interest and a tie-breaking reason to vote for Kerry.

On Sunday, the Washington Post editorial page effectively summarizes my current thinking, albeit far more eloquently than I could do so. Thus, I will simply recommend that you read the editorial and I limit my comments to these: "I agree." (Exception: The idea that if Bush had been less of a bully and more of a diplomat, France might have been brought on board. Other countries, maybe; France, never.)

Kerry hasn't got my vote yet, but I am getting comfortable that he offers a real choice for moderate hawks.

On the Lighter Side (Vol. 5)

- "Sandwiched between two squirming, squealing piglets, Gov. Mark Sanford walked up the State House steps to take a light-hearted jab at the Legislature about pork in the state budget." (here)
- "Croatia's Euro 2004 squad warned against 'acrobatic sex'" (here)
- "Las Vegas Officials Worried About City's Foul Stench" (here)
- Onion: Cheney to Run

Good Essay on Threats from Troubles from Non-Globalizing Regions

Saw this great essay, The Pentagon's New Map linked at buzzpundit. I think it's great stuff.

Ironically from the title, I think his "threat map" is a tad weak and needs a little work (it overexuberantly covers PR and the VI,which are doing pretty well - in fact, most of the eastern Antilles are doing OK globalization-wise - it's Cuba and Hispaniola that are troublesome now. But thiere are many things that struck me as very likely right in this essay.

Selecting the Iraqi Prime Minister, Part II

After reading conflicting news reports yesterday, I was nursing a pet theory on the naming of Dr. Iyad Allawi as the soon-to-be Iraqi Prime Minister.

My guess was that Brahimi and members of the Bush administration were worried about Allawi's longstanding ties with the CIA and State Department, and that they had the Iraqi Governing Council nominate him to counter impressions that he was the "U.S. guy".

The article in my morning paper has me wondering, though. It reports the following:

• Brahimi's choice for Prime Minister was Dr. Hussain al-Shahristani, as reported last Wednesday. However, the Iraqi Governing Council objected to that choice, and Shahristani withdrew in the midst of those objections.

• Dr. Allawi has been lobbying his fellow council members for the nomination.

• Brahimi and U.S. officials were surprised by the IGC's nomination of Allawi yesterday.

I wonder if Allawi essentially managed to scuttle Brahimi's choice and then nominate himself.

I also wonder about the selection of an interim leader who may have political ambitions. In the runup to elections seven months from now, would you rather have an interim leader who was running for office, or someone above the fray?

My guess, the latter. If the appointed Prime Minister is truly sovereign, he may have influence over the electoral process that will have to be established in the coming months. If he's perceived as stacking the deck in his favor -- while also being a "U.S. guy" -- that could feed the cynical interpretation of the whole thing.

What do you think?

Homeland Security Coordination

I thought it a bit odd when I saw Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller announcing at a press conference that there is an increased risk of a major terrorist attack in the U.S. between now and the election, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was not even present, much less making the announcement. I figured that there would be some logical explanation. Turns out that I was wrong.

Homeland Security Department was surprised by the announcement Wednesday by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller that a terrorist attack was increasingly likely in the coming months, officials said.

The department, created a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, is charged with issuing terrorism warnings to the public, and tension arose when Ashcroft and Mueller effectively took over that role at a news conference Wednesday when they said al-Qaida is preparing an attack inside the United States.

Officials said the Homeland Security Department knew in advance about the news conference but expected it to focus on seven suspects with ties to al-Qaida who were wanted for arrest or questioning. Department officials were caught off guard when Ashcroft went further and warned that al-Qaida "is ready to attack the United States."

This strikes me as Ashcroft and Mueller engaging in prospective CYA politics. If there is a major attack before the election, they can now say that they warned us. I never had strong feelings about Ashcroft one way or the other before last month, but his stunt of declassifying the memo from Jamie Gorelick on the eve of his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, combined with this blindsiding of Ridge, has caused me to develop an affirmative dislike and distrust of him.

UPDATE: Apparently, I am behind the news curve: "NBC News has learned one of Ashcroft’s sources is highly suspect."

Committee GOP Centrists Stand Strong on Abu Ghraib

See this article in the Washington Post.

I have to point out that as a Republican, and a centrist, I have been especially proud of Chairman John Warner, and Senators Collins, McCain, and Graham for the work they have done in the investigation of the Abu Ghraid prison abuse allegations. Brushing off what could be considered badgering from some on the right in the Republican Party, including the distinguished gentlemen from Oklahoma and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, these four have continued to ask the tough questions.

As an American, who was deeply disturbed by the prison abuse scandal, I am thankful that we have individuals in the U.S. Senate that are willing to see this process through. As a people, we have a right to know that everything is being done to fix the systematic failures that occured within the military that we pay for with our tax dollars.

I also believe that Majority Leader Frist deserves credit for doing the right thing and backing the investigations.

Open Thread

What's on your mind? Nothing is off-topic

More on Kerry's Recent Proposals

Here is a real disappointing article from the DLC, supporting the strong arming of Saudi Arabia plan. I expect more than this from the voice of reason within the Democratic Party. The Progressive Centrist position should focus on reducing the demand for oil, not increasing supply by forcing Saudi Arabia to step up production.

On the other hand, I love Greg's take on the Kerry speech in Seattle.

If Kerry and Bush want a lesson on how to discuss a war plan they should read Wes Clark's article over at TNR. He still annoys me, but the General makes some good points here that I haven't considered before. Instead of just saying we need international support, which is obvious to everyone, he actually proposes ideas on how the United State can "clear the air" by giving other Arabic countries a place at the table.

An excerpt (and a really interesting point):

"...the United States must correct the "dynamic of conflict" that it has injected into the region. In essence, the Bush administration has scared Iran and Syria into believing that, if the United States is successful in its occupation of Iraq, they will be the next targets. To the Iranians and Syrians, the implication is that their survival depends on dragging the U.S. mission in Iraq into failure. Furthermore, America's perceived pro-Israel bias, and its failure to engage seriously in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has fed the poisonous atmosphere fueling Arab anger toward the United States and its efforts in Iraq."

Advocating Withdrawal

I've mentioned the ads run by MoveOn.org a few times in conversations about the war over the past few months. I'm occasionally told that my reading of their position is wrong. That, for example, they weren't against the $87 billion in reconstruction spending -- they were just against the war initially, and wanted to point out better things that could be done with that money.

It's all a little clearer now that MoveOn is one of 42 liberal groups backing an initiative called Win Without War, which calls for the Bush administration to set a specific date for withdrawal from Iraq.

Their argument goes like this:

There is no military solution in Iraq. We therefore call upon our government to end the military and economic occupation of Iraq and to withdraw our troops by a date certain. There is no justification for letting any young American be the last to die for a mistake.

We reject the argument that America cannot withdraw from a costly, bloody occupation that was mistaken from the beginning. Such a course will only doom more Americans and Iraqis to die for a dubious cause at costs we cannot afford. To those who claim that American credibility is at stake, we say that the best way to restore America’s credibility, respect and honor in the world is through the success of a vigorous citizen’s movement in ending the occupation and holding those responsible fully accountable. The Win Without War coalition is fully committed to this end.

This is, I suppose, the organized representation of a certain segment on the left that thinks we should withdraw. I applaud them for taking a position -- although I hesitate to call it a clear position. The title they add at the top of all their statements says "Set a Date for the Withdrawal of our Soldiers" -- and that's how they're representing it to the media, apparently.

That's a pretty broad request. The president could set a date a month, a year, or two years from now. Their actual statement, though, makes it pretty clear they're talking about a quick withdrawal, not just setting a formal end-date.

British Colonial Occupation and Iraqi Elections

The inspiration for this posting is that I've been reading Churchill's 6-volume WWI history (yes, WWI, not II - he has has a separate 6-volume set on WWII), and just finished the Appendix on Britain's occupation of Iraq, Appendix A. Interestingly, it's right after the Conclusions, which happen to be located in which volume? Volume 6, you would guess? Nope, Volume 5. The war ends with volume 4. Volume 5 is about the postwar era. Volume 6 is about the war on the Eastern Front. You could think of it as an extended appendix, I guess. Imagine if Lord of the Rings had had an entire separate volume for the appendices! Churchill liked appendices. Although, it's also a similar era to LotR.

It does have an impact on current events. All of a sudden, I think prompt elections are a lot more important than I did before reading Appendix A, and that Bush would talk more about elections than Iraqi sovereignty, because the British already burned some bridges on yielding sovereignty. Before I read about this, I didn't think too much about it, but now I'm in the Kaus korner on early elections.

The British were in Iraq after WWI. A system of what President Wilson euphemistically called "mandates" (basically colonies) were handed out by an American commission following the war. These mandates covered miscellanous pieces of turf from empires on the losing side of WWI (German, Austrian and Turkish). Britain got Mesopotamia (renamed Iraq) and everybody's favorite trouble spot, Palestine (Britain set Jews in the territory to rule over the Arabs, memories of which are still a source of some trouble).

Kemal Ataturk made infeasible a certain mandate that the commission earmarked for the US: Armenia. I think it's fortunate we couldn't "collect", but certainly Kemal's solution was the worst possible one, the, er, final solution. Yes, this was the massacre of the Armenians. I'm wonderins how much Milosevic was inspired by him, because they both took the same approach to their countries' borders.

First I'll grumble about Britain. After getting Arab support in WWI by promising freedom, their occupation was the real thing as far as imperialism went. Churchill, note, was a staunch imperialist. He was Lloyd George's problem-solver, and his choice to solve the nasty Mesopotamian - now Iraqi - problem. Lawrence of Arabia had been directed to bring Arabs into WWI against their masters the Turks by promising them freedom. The British Empire reneged against that promise, and sent in troops to take over after the war. A rebellion resulted. Churchill, then in charge of the War Office, cracked down. Here's an interesting Guardian comment on the subject:

Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _"

It's rather ironic, as charges of chemical stockpiles, and reminders of gassings of Kurds were part of the rhetoric used to justify the war.

After putting down the revolt, Churchill was moved to the Colonial Office, to deal with Iraq, Palestine, and develop relations with the new Irish Free State. Some good advice from the chap on the scene (Arnold Wilson) and British voter distaste for heavily occupying Iraq in addition to Germany and other post-WWI trouble spots combined to persuade Churchill to grant native rule. His idea, presumably because he had doubts of native ability to understand the hard democracy stuff (a familiar refrain), was to appoint a King (another recently-heard refrain), Feisal. To British credit, they did hold a referendum to approve King Feisal's reign. But he was chosen by Englishmen, and there certainly weren't any other candidates, nor any alternative plan presented on native rule.

It didn't go over too well. My favorite quote from Appendix A:

Iraq advanced rapidly under our guidance. The term 'mandate' acquired an unpleasant significance in the country. It was held to imply a degree of tutelage which the new State considered that it did not require.

Imagine that! Bloody ungrateful natives! Anyway, Churchill and Britain wisely decided to give further. They forced the new Iraqi Monarchy to be a Parliamentary one and yielded it "responsibility". But they also kept troops there for a long time, and refused to yield independence, though they don't seem to have interfered much.

Churchill's Appendix A is decidedly sketchy, even though he spend lots of time on Iraq. Not only did he run the occupation, and oversee the transfers of power to Feisal, but he was Britain's guy in the conference that decided Iraq's borders. But just about the only thing documented in Appendix A is how Churchill saved money by replacing the British Army with the Air Force. He doesn't mention that the savings were achieved by replacing security patrols with a threat of bombing uncooperative villages. Churchill thoroughly documents the things he's proud of, (British Navy at the start of WWI, giving tanks a friend in high places, grumbles that the Army was wasting men, role in the Irish Free State, etc.), and even some not-so-proud things, like the Dardanelles. Iraq, though, is a different story. Imperialist though he was, I don't think he was atall proud of his record there. Similarly, Eisenhower's memoirs get decidedly sketchy when he talks about overthrowing Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh (an error which may have cost us the two towers).

So, what's the impact on present events? Iraqis familiar with history will be deeply cynical about a "sovereignty transfer." I'm sure it seems rather similar to bringing in King Feisal. It's probably even worth using the less-than-trustworthy food-for-oil voter rolls that Saddam used. Stability problems can be addressed by only holding them in fairly secure districts (most of Iraq) and in trouble spots as they stabilize.

Because Britain forced a parliamentary monarchy on Iraq, Iraq has had experience with democracy. It was admittedly not terribly stable, probably partially because of its novelty, and partly because it was forced on them by the just-evil British. The constitutional monarchy ran 1924-1958, with independence in 1932. Admittedly, not many living Iraqis were around. But it remains as memories and Iraqi examples to look back on.

Does Churchill's use of poison gas on Iraqis invalidate the moral case of a coalition including Britain invading Iraq? Not in my view. Irony from the past doesn't keep current events from spinning as they will. And wide condemnations of both colonialism and use of poison gas in warfare only developed afterwards, with Britain on the right side of both issues for half a century. Iraqis were deeply unhappy about Britain's post-WWI role in Iraq. They are happy to be free from Saddam Hussein (if unhappy about being occupied).

Kerry's National Security Speech

The text of Kerry's speech in Seattle is here.

I will have to read it again before I form a strong opinion, but the center of the speech is clearly that we need to form international coalitions... Duhh!!! Kerry doesn't tell us directly how is he going to do this, and I think he is relying on the fact that people will believe that his mere presence in office, as opposed to George Bush, will be enough to rally the world around us. I am by far not convinced of this fact... I think France and Germany's opposition to the war had nothing to do with their relationship with the United States, or their opinion of Bush for that matter, and everything to do with their economic interest in keeping Saddam around. Self interest is what our relationship with the world depends on, not who our President is.

He also said that Bush did not exhaust his diplomatic options before going to Iraq, which I think is a joke. We did nothing in this country for ten years but exhaust our diplomatic options with Iraq. What is really a kick in the pants is that Kerry makes this statement, and then in the same breath he says we need to build international coalitions like we did in Kosovo, a country that not only didn't we have UN approval to invade, but President Clinton didn't even ask for it.

What I find very interesting is that Kerry almost argues in some cases that Bush has not been hawkish enough in the war on terrorism, especially in regards to Saudi Arabia, which is a statement I would agree with. About Iraq, Kerry encourages the President to act on his statements the other night in regards to the UN and NATO... I agree again.

Finally, Kerry discusses his plan to decrease American dependence on foreign oil, but like I said in my earlier post, I don't think he makes a valid argument on this one. How do you decrease American independence on foreign oil and then argue that we need to reduce gas prices by convincing the owners of that oil to produce more of it? Which is it Senator, are we going to rely on foreign oil or not?

All in all I am not impressed. I think the message is still: I will do what George W. Bush is doing, but things will be better because I am not George W. Bush... Not exactly what I would call a winning message.

UPDATE:

The Bush campaign has posted a timeline of Kerry contradictions on Iraq. Unlike the "I am not George W. Bush" message for Bush, I think this will stick with Kerry throughout the campaign. He has but for a few short weeks in Iowa not been consistent or been able to articulate a coherent message since he announced he was going to run for President, or for his entire Senatorial career for that matter.

Kerry's Oil Contradiction

The USA Today lambastes the Democrats and John Kerry for their recent proposals regarding gas prices:

Here is an excerpt:

On Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry stood in front of a row of school buses in Portland, Ore., and blamed skyrocketing gasoline prices on President Bush's failure to pressure foreign oil producers to open their spigots more.

Kerry's attack is the latest attempt by Democrats to convince voters that Bush is responsible for prices averaging $2.06 a gallon for unleaded nationwide, up 60 cents since December. Last week, a group of Democratic senators called on the administration to lower prices by releasing 1 million barrels a day from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Ten Democratic governors are demanding an investigation of oil prices, and Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe claims the White House is "in the pocket of Big Oil."

Ho-hum. Must be an election year, when the aim is to get votes, not fix the problem.

The oil-price spike is driven by a trio of long-term forces: rising demand at home, inadequate supplies and spectacular growth in emerging markets, particularly China. No quick solution exists for any of the three. Or at least none that will work by Election Day. So Democrats would rather flog the administration and trot out a few useless bromides than propose sensible remedies.

First of all, I agree with Easterbook, gas prices are just not as urgent of a problem as the Dems are making it seem. I see Kerry's current proposals as the actions of a campaign that is desperate for issues because the economy is improving and they do not want to talk about Iraq.

Second of all, this is exactly what bothers me about Kerry. On the one hand, energy independence is one issue where I believe he could do a better job than the current administration. His plan calls for reducing American dependence on foreign oil by providing tax incentives for alternatives to be created and used, demanding lower emissions from the automobile industry, promoting smart growth and liveable communities, and re-engaging the United States into the discussion with the global community. All of these ideas I strongly support, but on the other hand, Kerry is spending a lot of time pleasing the UAW and other oil loving special interests by promoting short term ideas that mostly will not work in the end, like tapping into national reserves or twisting the arm of Saudi Arabia.

Oil is not the answer. The government should be putting its energy into creating alternatives that are clean and efficient and providing an economic incentive for American's to create a market for fuel cell and hybrid technology, as well as other alternatives such as solar, wind, and ethanol. You want to lower gas prices? Fine, than reduce the demand for gas, and you can do this by ending corporate welfare for oil companies and forcing them to fairly compete against cleaner energy alternatives.

So here is my question: What John Kerry is going to be President, the one that in the long term is going to stand by the legislation he created with John McCain to reduce car emissions, or the one that promotes oil production as the way to lower gas prices? Those interests are definitely conflicting. What will win policy or politics?

To accomplish the goals Kerry set out on his sight will take bold leadership. Certain interest groups or individuals will not be happy with sound environmental policy because it will hit them in the pocketbook. With my current perception of Kerry based upon his campaign since he won Iowa and his nineteen year voting record, I am not sure that he will do more than propose bold ideas without doing what is takes to see them come to fruition. In the mean time I am afraid he will enact pointless political short-term solutions to advance his own career.

On the environment, what makes Kerry any different than the current administration who has also talked a good talk with little action concerning these same issues? What about him or his leadership gives us any real reason to change?

Send the Peacekeepers! Umm, maybe not...

Everyone who loves the idea of sending UN peacekeepers to take over in Iraq should read this story in the Washington Times....

On a side note, everyone have a great Memorial Day weekend. I take off today for an extended weekend myself. Wear your seat belts and be careful out there.

IN MEMORIAM:

Thomas H. Roberts b.(1804?) d. March 6, 1836, San Antonio TX.

(One of many in a long list kept by my family.)

Amusing NY Times headline

"Kerry Will Accept Nomination at Democratic Convention"

Seven days ago we would have assumed that this headline was from the Onion.

UPDATE: Headline has been changed.

Circling the Wagons

To continue my speculation about the unlikely, there's a curious circling of the wagons among prominent Democrats about the possibility of a McCain VP pick.

The most curious, perhaps, is listening to one of the other top VP candidates endorse the idea. Dick Gephardt apparently said Monday that it was a pretty good idea, and that McCain would be accepted by Democrats.

Hillary Clinton said on the Sunday talk shows that she's a "big admirer" of McCain and that she could support him.

The previous Sunday, Joe Biden pressed McCain directly on the point on Meet the Press, making a passionate plea about the need to "heal the red and the blue".

All of this could be campaign strategy -- and effort to make Kerry look more moderate by association with McCain. That's the likely explanation, but not the most interesting one.

There's also, by the way, a Kerry-McCain website now.

Clancy and Zinni on Bush

TNR has a very interesting article on Tom Clancy and Anthony Zinni's new book... Check it out!

Here is an excerpt:

The novelty of the book isn't that Clancy has moved away from criticizing liberal elites; he hasn't. Rather, it's the suggestion that President Bush, who was has so effectively positioned himself as the champion of Red State America, might in fact be no better than Clancy's old left-wing villains. Clancy, after all, seems now to be harboring contempt for both "flower children" and the Bush administration, raising the question of whether, in the author's mind, they are equally destructive forces. This is a possibility rarely considered in our polarized political climate. But in Battle Ready, Zinni and Clancy air a contention that has been percolating among right-wing realists for some time now--namely, that an overambitious Republican president can be just as bad for the U.S. military as a wimpy Democrat, albeit in a different way. Tom Clancy has long been one of popular culture's most reliable conduits of conservatives attitudes. If this is where those attitudes are headed, Bush is in trouble indeed.

The New Iraqi Prime Minister?

Several news outlets were reporting late last night that the new prime minister of Iraq would be Dr. Hussain al-Shahristani.

It was then promptly reported this morning that Shahristani would not be the guy.

I don't know anything about him other than what's mentioned in these articles -- but the guy sounds really quite impressive. He's apparently a true humanitarian, an Iraqi patriot, and something of a resistance hero from the Saddam days. He was Iraq's leading nuclear scientist, but refused to be transferred to the nuclear weapons program and spend 11 years in Abu Graib prison for it.

He's relatively non-political -- he didn't join any of the Iraqi exile groups. But he's also a close friend to Ayatollah al-Sistani.

That's almost a perfect combination, I would think. Granted, the Sunnis and Kurds will be uncomfortable with a Sistani man at the top, but you can name Sunnis and Kurds to the other top spots. And ultimately, the moderate Shiites are the ones you want to make sure are on board.

This guy sounds almost like Vaclav Havel, and might garner the same kind of broad respect that Havel had as first president of a free Czechoslovakia.

Update: There's a bit more detail in this profile. Boy, this guy's story would make for a great movie.

Leadership Vacuum

I know there are some here that are not interested in poll watching, but I saw one yesterday that I think speaks directly to Kerry's "secret plan" strategy.

First, a Gallup poll was released that pretty much refuted the CBS poll from the day before that said Bush's ratings where down to 41%, and in a head to head match up Kerry was ahead by 8 points. Gallup has Bush at 47% and only behind Kerry by 1 point.

I would tend to agree that Gallup, because of it's methodology, leans Republican, but I would also argue that CBS tends to lean Democrat, so in the end I would think that Bush's ratings are really around 44-45% and he is probably behind Kerry by 4-5 points.

Since there is more than five months left until election day, obviously the nationwide polls are not telling us much about what will actually happen in the end. More telling, in my opinion, is the question that asked: would things in Iraq improve if (Kerry or Bush) won the election. Only 32% said Kerry and 27% said Bush.

I think these results show us three things: First, Bush is not behind because voters believe in John Kerry. Second, Bush cannot win if the public does not believe that the situation in Iraq has improved in the next four to five months. Third, Kerry cannot take advantage of Bush's recent bad numbers unless he decides that he wants to step up to the plate, share ideas of his own, and start having a discussion with the American people about the most important issue in this election: Iraq and the war on terrorism.

The Senator's current, let's just keep letting Bush lose the election, defensive strategy is not only incredibly stupid because it relies on things staying the same for five more months, it is unfair to the American people. We deserve to see a debate on the issues; we deserve to have clear alternatives to choose from... Since the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans this country has been great in large part because of the debate our leaders have had on the issues.

I know there is five more months left and that Kerry has plenty of time to start the debate, but until he does I am under the assumption of one of two things: either he doesn't have a plan or any ideas of his own, or he doesn't have the courage to express them.

A Deal with al-Sadr?

The Christian Science Monitor suggests that a deal is imminent:

The four-point agreement, which has already been agreed to by Sadr, according to [an aide of a Governing Council member], calls for the Mahdi Army to become an unarmed political movement and requires the Mahdi Army to return all government property - such as police cars, buildings, and guns - to the state. Coalition forces agree to pull out of the holy cities immediately. The possible accord also obligates Sadr to be tried by an Iraqi court if he is asked to do so after the transfer of authority June 30th.

If this is true, I think this is probably the right thing to do. Attempting to crush his forces militarily apparently has only increased his popularity.

Hey Europe! Welcome to Our World

The EU is in bitter haggling over its new constitution according to this Boston Globe article. Read this and see if it gives you a "deja vu all over again" chuckle. Don't choke on those federalist papers, boys.

The bitter debate is over big issues still on the table such as the legal force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the voting weights for EU countries, and whether or not nations will have veto power in such areas as taxation, foreign policy, and EU funding.

There are other deeply emotional issues, such as whether or not the preamble to the constitution should include a reference to ''God" or to Europe's ''Christian tradition," as has been proposed.

So far the preamble has no mention of God or Christianity, and the fiercely secular French government is insistent that to have any such mention would violate the separation of church and state.

Italy, Spain, and Poland -- Europe's most Catholic countries -- have been adamant that Europe's history of Christianity be recognized as part of what binds these countries.

But the most profound battle lines in the debate have been drawn between London -- which seeks to temper and tone down what it sees as too much integration of the countries and a loss of independence -- and Paris and Berlin, which want closer cooperation among European countries in fields such as tax, social policy, and justice.

After the number of EU member states grew from 15 to 25 on May 1, the organization became the largest single trading bloc in the world.

This marked a historic realignment of states within Europe, but it remains an open question how these states will strike a balance between their avowed intention to forge a shared military and foreign policy strategy and the desire to preserve individual national rights.

One major change would be the European Council's election of a president, creating a more centralized EU government and increasing the power of the presidency. Currently, the Council's presidency rotates among the member states every six months, and Ireland now holds the presidency.

One might be tempted to speculate that this enterprise could give Europe a greater appreciation for the American political experience, and maybe even lessen old world haughtiness which some Europeans bring to their view of our culture. That would make too much sense, though.

Liberal vs. Centrist Democrats

A few rumblings of conflict are underway between the centrist faction of the Democratic party and the liberal base.

First, Markos Zuniga (aka Kos of DailyKos) tells the Democratic Leadership Council to shut down:

Time for the DLC to Die

This is a somewhat controversial suggestion to centrist Democrats, including one of the best centrist bloggers, Greg Wythe. He has a few choice words.

As Greg points out, Kos has been attacking centrist Democrats rather pointedly for many months now -- calling for the end of the DLC and The New Republic, and rejection of leading centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman.

His justification for the organizational death penalty is that the DLC is "divisive" -- they criticize other Democrats.

Centrist Democrats are being divisive if they criticize liberal Democrats, but liberals aren't being divisive if they call for the shutdown of the biggest centrist organization in the Democratic party. There's some weird logic in there somewhere.

And Now For Something Completely Different...

That's right, it's Stupid Survey Time!

I'm always curious about what people are up to, especially those who aren't dedicated wing-nuts. So, answer if you like, ignore totally if you wish.

[1] What are the last three books you read?

[2] Do you live in a big urban area, a small urban area, or a rural area?

[3] Do you do any community volunteer work, and if so, what kind?

Just to be fair, I'm posting my responses first.

[1] Paul Dull BATTLE HISTORY OF THE IMPERIAL JAPANESE NAVY; Patrick O'Brian DESOLATION ISLAND; and James Burk HIGH RAGE.

[2] Small urban.

[3] Yes, local literacy groups, school district, MMRS/CERT, and neighborhood outreach.

The President's Address

Whadja think of the president's speech?

Staying the Course

For a few weeks now, a certain set of recommendations and expectations has taken root among some on the right side of the political spectrum. There's a "rosy" scenario they discuss that involves transferring sovereignty in Iraq to a caretaker government, and then holding elections by the end of the year. The expectation is that the Iraqi parties and factions who win will be fervently anti-occupation and anti-U.S., and that they will ask us to leave.

This scenario is discussed, I suppose, as the "realistic" one -- the one that's fairly likely to happen. It's not ideal, from a U.S. perspective, but thought by some to be inevitable. Perhaps it is.

I think we all know the dangers of this path, but a new report by the Strategic Studies Institute at the Army War College puts it succinctly:

"The United States is gambling regardless of what it does; if a prolonged military presence threatens to delegitimize the new Iraqi government, a premature and abrupt withdrawal could create a security vacuum encouraging disorder, even civil war."

The "rosy" scenario involves, quite possibly, a short timeline of U.S. involvement, and holds the distinct risk of medium-term failure in meeting our basic goals.

Liberals have long offered us policies with similar prospects. Kucinich told us to "get the US out and the UN in" during the Democratic primaries, in spite of the fact that the UN doesn't have an army to send in to Iraq, and that no member countries are likely to contribute sufficient troops. Dean argued against sending more troops and publicly opposed the $87 billion in reconstruction funds. The liberal group MoveOn.org still runs ads against the $87 billion -- as if we had a viable alternative to spending that money short of withdrawal.

Enough voters on the left are against the war to push policies into the "short timeline" arena -- where we're expected to conclude what we're doing post haste and bring the boys home.

What we've entered, it seems, is a very strange period in our politics where words and impressions don't mean what they're thought to mean by average Americans, and where the spectrum of our opinion has folded back on itself.

Liberals and conservatives both seem to be engaging in what amounts to short-timeline thinking in Iraq. We'll be gone within a year. And hopefully things will turn out ok. Yet, in the public imagination, the administration is the "stay the course" side of the debate and the left the "cut and run" faction.

I suspect, in a way, that the right and left have folded over onto one another, and that moderate foreign policy realists are the only ones offering something at a genuinely different end of the spectrum.

Those ideas and proposals are floating around the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- a committee stacked with the most distinguished moderate foreign policy internationalists from both parties. Look at the statements of three committee members over the past many months, and you get a feel for it.

Just yesterday, Sen. Lugar put more bite into his rhetoric, criticizing the president directly. Hagel has made similar remarks for months. And Biden gave the most compelling and passionate plea for an alternate course in his closing remarks at the Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearings last Tuesday.

I note from a New York Times article that Lugar and Biden met with the president recently, and offered their suggestions in frank terms. "We were not shy, and it was about a 45- or 50-minute period," Lugar said afterwards.

What they're offering is typical of foreign policy internationalists. It's applauded by folks on the left -- featured prominently on Democratic blogs, for example. But it's not a good fit with significant elements of the liberal perspective on Iraq.

All three of these guys -- Lugar, Hagel, and Biden -- favored the Iraq war, and all voted in favor of the reconstruction funds. None of them assume the things that underlie the views of Dean, Kucinich, and the anti-war crowd. The U.N. will not take over in Iraq, nor will any country offer significant additional forces to assist with the occupation.

All three of these guys are more willing to expend actual resources in support of this mission and to see it through doggedly to as positive a conclusion as we can manage. In place of the idealist internationalism of the left, they offer a committed, realist internationalism.

Biden laid it out in clear, compelling terms in his closing remarks Tuesday. He knows his alternative plan well enough to pitch it spontaneously, without benefit of notes.

He begins by pointing out some of the basic facts. We're about to turn over sovereignty -- some of it in a month, and the rest by the end of the year.

We are unpopular in Iraq. And this means, with the approach of elections, that we can expect the leading factions to incorporate anti-American rhetoric in their campaigns -- perhaps with specific proposals to evict U.S. forces from their country.

Nobody will be able to afford politically to cooperate with us on an overt level. We're about to become very lonely in Iraq.

If we want continued influence -- if we want to "stay the course" in any practical sense -- we have to change the appearance of things dramatically.

Biden says we should approach the major world powers -- particularly those in NATO -- and get them involved in the political transition and the occupation. He wants to put an international face on the political process and a NATO face on the occupation.

He understands, of course, that none of these countries want to get involved. They will not -- and certainly have not -- responded to overtures from the likes of Powell, Armitage, Rumsfeld, or Bremer.

He thinks, however, that they might respond to a direct appeal from the president. If the president went to the world capitals, pleaded his case, and twisted some arms, he might in effect pull the world to the table in managing the Iraq transition.

In such a scenario, we might give the Iraqis someone else to deal with during this critical phase. They won't have to cooperate with Americans -- which will soon be politically poisonous. And they can keep a NATO-run force in country longer than an overtly U.S.-led force.

Biden doesn't make the standard Democratic assumptions about the practicality of this plan. He knows it's difficult. But he also sees what the stakes are. There is no "staying the course" without greater world involvement in Iraq. Having any influence -- and offering any help with security -- could depend on such measures.

If the president thought the success of his policy hinged on this critical factor, perhaps he could expend enough effort and political capital to drag a difficult international initiative into the realm of possibility.

That's what the moderate internationalists think. It's a debatable point -- the practicality of it is questionable -- but I, for one, suspect they're right.

New UN Resolution

Item.

The United States and Britain circulated a draft resolution at the United Nations Security Council today that pledges a full transfer of sovereignty to Iraq, an essential role for the United Nations there, and an initial one-year mandate for the multinational military force, members said. . .

The text, being reviewed at the Security Council today, is considered likely to lead to the fairly quick passage of a resolution. . .

A broadly supported resolution would represent a significant closing of the bitter breach that developed over the American-led preparations for war. It would also signal acceptance by the Bush administration, as it struggles to retake the initiative after weeks of bruising setbacks in Iraq, of the importance of the world body. . .

The introduction of the draft resolution left diplomats at the United Nations speaking in more upbeat tones about Iraq than they had had occasion to do in some time.

This is the Kerry approach. I'm glad it is now the Bush approach.

The Liberal Media?

There's a new Pew Survey out that finds that national journalists (print, TV, radio) are five times more likely to call themselves liberals than conservatives, and this trend is growing.

Pew Survey Finds Moderates, Liberals Dominate News Outlets

I find it interesting that the majority of journalist don't call themselves either, but think they're moderates. I've noted before that people from both ends of the spectrum often think they're moderates simply because they believe themselves reasonable and they're not as extreme as the true wing-nuts--or because they're surrounded by people who hold the same views as they do.

This Should Be Good

Bush to speak tonight at 8PM Est... Did anyone know about this? Apparently it will be the first in a series of speeches leading up to the June 30th Deadline to discuss how the transition of power will take place and what is to be expected in weeks, months, and years ahead.

This could be a good thing if the President is candid, honest, and forthcoming with information. The American people need straight talk, and they need it now.

I am looking for details Mr. President... Don't leave me with "we need to stay the course." I want to know within reason who, what, when, where, how ($$$) and why.

Kerry Gets it Right on Higher Education

As you may have noticed my disgust with the way this administration is handling the War in Iraq has grown, and I have been more and more critical of the President. After seeing Bush's approval numbers dropping to 41% I will be so bold to say that if there is not either a shift in policy or a dramatic improvement in Iraq in the next 90 days, John Kerry will be the President of the United States.

Coming to this realization I have been hoping that Kerry would step up to the plate and be the leader he was in Iowa when we all thought Howard Dean was going to be the nominee, and not the shifty eyed frontrunner that he has been since he won in New Hampshire.

Am I throwing down my Republican colors and supporting the opposition? Absolutely not, I still believe that Iraq can be turned around, and that the June 30th deadline and the months after will tell us the President's fate. I also am not one to totally abandon ship when the going gets tough. The fact of the matter is that my view of what is going on in Iraq is shaped by the media, and I agree with Tully and Mort Kondracke that they are making things seem worse than they really are.

That been said, I thought Kerry gave some good news to centrists last week with his statement about judges, his call for energy independence, and my favorite, his plan for Higher Education. I think Kerry hits the nail on the head when he talks about his ideas to make college more affordable.

His plan:

1. A tax credit each and every year of college on the first $4,000 paid in tuition – the typical tuition and fees at a public college or university. Kerry’s tax credit, according to his site, will be refundable for our most economically vulnerable students and for those who receive other credits.

2. A “Service for College” initiative that will offer Americans the chance to earn the equivalent of their state's four-year public college tuition in exchange for two years of service.

3. Federal subsidization to stop the bleeding from state budget cuts with the condition that colleges and universities adopt efficiency standards that will streamline services and reduce duplication.

4. A $1,000 "I have a dream scholarship" designed to help high schoolers prepare for college. And proposed reforms that include: encouraging more states to allow 11th or 12th graders to take college courses; ensuring that Advanced Placement programs are available in all schools; strengthening math, science, and writing instruction, and expanding early intervention efforts like the Gear-Up and TRIO programs for students who are at risk of dropping out of school.

5. Encouraging universities to beef up counseling services designed to keep students in school, as well as pushing universities to reform their programs to better enable community college students to transfer to four year universities.

6. Defending Title IX and expanding college opportunities for women.

There is always the question: how are you going to pay for it and balance the budget, but besides that there isn't an idea hear that I couldn't support. I think Kerry's policy team touches on some of the biggest problems in higher education and it sounds like he is proposing to do more than just throw money at the system. I especially like the ideas of pressuring schools to become more efficient, the "Service for College Initiative," and the tax credit for low income college students.

What do y'all think?

Blog Readers

An interesting entry by Matt Yglesisas building off Josh Marshall's audience survey. Matt, who is liberal, senses that his audience is mostly to the left of him. Josh's survey found his audience to be 60% liberal, 35% moderate, 1% conservative.

That makes me wonder how our audience would answer.

Bipartisan Call for a Bigger Military

On Fox News Sunday, Hillary Clinton and Lindsay Graham appeared together, and, among other things, called for expanding the U.S. military:

"A number of us have been sounding this alarm. We have to face the fact we need a larger active-duty military," Clinton told the television show "Fox News Sunday."

"We cannot continue to stretch our troops, both active-duty, Guard and Reserve, to the breaking point, which is what we're doing now."

Graham said the United States is "putting too much pressure on the men and women in uniform."

"We need more of them, sooner rather than later," he said.

The senators acknowledged that an increase in the size of the military would be an expensive venture.

Clinton said, "I don't think we have any alternatives." And Graham said, "If we lose Iraq -- if it fails to go from a dictatorship to a democracy -- then we've had a great setback in the Mideast."

There's a growing trend towards bipartisanship as things get tough in Iraq and as more leaders recognize the ways we're all likely to suffer in the event of failure. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing this past Tuesday was a pretty awesome display of bipartisan problem-solving.

Question is -- which of the two top leaders will pick up the flag and build a common basis for handling these fundamental, critical issues?

The Blob That Ate The Tax Code

I recently posted over at my own weblog about how I would like to see a third political party formed that is based on common sense. One area of government that seems to have gotten totally out of control is federal income taxes. I've been using Turbo Tax to do my income taxes since the mid-90's so I don't know what it's like to do them manually any longer, but I suspect that it's becoming impossibly complicated for most middle-income wage earners. I also suspect that one of the major reasons for the complication is the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

The AMT was instituted in 1969 as a means of ensuring that the very wealthy would not be able to reduce their tax liabilities below an acceptable level, or avoid taxes altogether. A laudable goal, to be sure, but the AMT has a serious flaw with unintended (I would hope) consequences — it was never indexed to inflation. As a result, taxpayers the AMT was never intended to affect will now be impacted. According to Smartmoney:

While only 19,000 people owed the AMT in 1970, 2.6 million are paying it now, according to the IRS.

What happened? Inflation, mostly. While the “regular” tax brackets, exemptions and standard deductions are adjusted annually for inflation, the AMT brackets and exemptions are not, so many people whose income has grown with the economy enter the dreaded AMT zone each year. Especially vulnerable are people with income over $75,000 and some large deductions, but not the exotic ones that were originally targeted by the AMT's creators. Most vulnerable are taxpayers with several children, interest deductions from second mortgages, capital gains, high state and local taxes, and incentive stock options.

In order to find out if you owe AMT, you need to fill out a completely separate form, often more than one, from the 1040. According to the Tax Policy Institute, “The AMT is notoriously and pointlessly complex. The Internal Revenue Service and the Taxpayer Advocate have flagged the AMT as one of the most complicated tax provisions to comply with and administer. Most people required to fill out the AMT forms end up owing no additional taxes. The AMT also creates complicated interactions with the regular income tax.” For more reasons why the AMT doesn't work, check out their Facts and Projections.

So why isn't something being done to fix or get rid of the AMT? According to U. S. News & World Report's Jodie T. Allen,

The House recently passed a fix-up that would arrest the growth of the AMT — for one year. Why not for all time if it's such a plague? Because repealing it outright would be hugely expensive — even the one-year fix costs $17 billion. A full repeal, says the Congressional Budget Office, would add nearly $550 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. And if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, the cost of abolishing the AMT would rise to $658 billion, since, if it were still on the books, it would reclaim much of the lost revenue.

In addition, according to the Tax Policy Institute, “More than 75 percent of the benefits of repeal would go to households with income above $100,000 in 2010.”

It is clear that tax reform is becoming increasingly necessary. What is also clear is that this is one issue the politicians consider anethema. For some reason, they can't see beyond the possibility of killing the proverbial goose and golden egg. That's unfortunate, because even I, with no real experience, could come up with some reasonable alternatives — at least for individuals. If I can do that, surely the professionals could (and probably have) provide workable solutions for re-writing the tax code that would both simplify it and provide sufficient revenue for the government to continue to run at its current inefficiency.

(Cross-posted at Ruminations & Ramblings.)

Good News From Iraq

The New York Times is reporting that the al-Sadr militia forces have abandoned Karbala. The city is now being patrolled by Iraqi forces.

U.S. Military Says Shiite Rebels Seem to Have Ceded Karbala

Hawk Taxonomy

Dan Drezner has a great post building off a New Republic article. If you were for the war, which category do you fall in now?

I'm a

"The Neo-Paleos: We Shoulda Known": Burkean conservatives who never bought the democracy-building line, but did by the "Iraq has WMD" line (George F. Will, Tucker Carlson, Fareed Zakaria);

So is Obsidian Wings.

There must be something in the water

If you haven't figured it out by now, in Minnesota voters are, to be polite, unpredictable. In the recent past, we have elected the following individuals.

1. Rudy Perpich. Governor: 1976-1979*; 1983-1991. Semi-liberal former dentist nicknamed by Newsweek as "Governor Goofy." (*served out term of ultra-popular Wendell Anderson, who resigned and had Perpich (LG) appoint him Senator after Mondale became VP).

2. Paul Wellstone. Senator: 1990 to 2002. Ultra-liberal former college professor who won election by campaigning out of a green school bus.

3. Rod Grams. Senator: 1994 to 2000. Ultra-conservative former local TV news anchor.

4. James George Janos (a/k/a Jesse Ventura). Governor: 1998 to 2002. Ultra-moderate former professional wrestler who won election by campaigning out of an RV adorned with "Jesse" action figures.

5. Mark Dayton. Senator: 2000 to --. Ultra-liberal heir to department store fortune who had been perpetually running for the Senate since 1984.

Although I can't yet find the transcript, I heard on NPR tonight on the way home from work a speech from Dayton in which he said that we can declare "success" in Iraq and leave immediately after June 30. NPR said he was the first Senator to make that explicit of a statement. I'm so proud (not).

Kerry on Social Security

Jeff Lemieux of Centrists.org has a nice analysis of Kerry's latest comments about Social Security. Here's the summary:

Unfortunately, Kerry’s main idea to sustain the program -- faster economic growth -- and his fall-back idea, means-testing, fall well short of what should be expected. And Sen. Kerry's sidebar on Medicare solvency would be laughable if that program's cost problems weren't so serious.

Jeff believes we need to do something bold to reform the system. He points out that a recent partial privatization plan proposed by Reps. Kolbe and Stenholm deals responsibly with most of the issues involved in such a change.

Revisiting the Vietnam Analogy

I'm not the world's biggest fan of Mort Kondracke of ROLL CALL, but this op/ed over at RealClearPolitics seems pretty on target to me.

And this op/ed in the Boston Globe today is a good example of exactly what Kondracke's talking about.

Open Thread

What's on your mind? Nothing is off-topic.

Pay As You Go

Moderate Republican senators are holding out for pay as you go.

Four Senate moderates - John McCain of Arizona, Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island - had insisted on attaching a provision that would have applied pay-as-you-go-rules for the next five years.

The House budget resolution called only for a pay-as-you-go rule that would apply to new spending programs outside of defense and domestic security. The Bush administration staunchly supported the House approach, determined to permanently extend the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 rather than let them expire over the next several years.

Homeland Security and Pork

From a news report on the 9/11 Commission hearing in New York:

For the fiscal year 2004, New York state received $5.45 per capita in Homeland Security grants. Nebraska . . . got $14.33 per capita; North Dakota $30.42; Wyoming $38.31; and American Samoa $101.43.

Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge told the commission he was working to change the formula so that high-target urban areas got a larger share of the money.

Clearly these types of numbers oversimplify complicated issues, but something seems seriously out of whack. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was slightly more harsh: "[P]ork barrel politics at its worst. It's the kind of shortsighted 'me first' nonsense that gives Washington a bad name [and] has the effect of aiding and abetting those who hate us and plot against us."

9/11 Commission

I gave up on the 9/11 Commission last month, and have been trying to ignore it ever since. But I couldn't avoid the news of the proceedings in New York during the last couple of days. I agree with every word of this editorial from the New York Post today. In particular --

Now come the nitpickers from the national 9/11 Commission, working personal and political agendas by second-guessing men and women who came through when it counted. Maybe not perfectly - but as close to it as mere human beings are likely ever to come.

McCain Lays the Smackdown

Who won this exchange? You be the judge:

This was Dennis Haster's conversation with a reporter:

Talking to reporters, Hastert pretended not to know who McCain was when asked about a recent statement by the GOP senator from Arizona. As other House GOP members stood behind him laughing, Hastert, R-Illinois, then expressed doubt that McCain was indeed a Republican.

The exchange started when a reporter asked: "Can I combine a two issues, Iraq and taxes? I heard a speech from John McCain the other day..."

Hastert: "Who?"

Reporter: "John McCain."

Hastert: "Where's he from?"

Reporter: "He's a Republican from Arizona."

Hastert: "A Republican?"

Amid nervous laughter, the reporter continued with his question: "Anyway, his observation was never before when we've been at war have we been worrying about cutting taxes and his question was, 'Where's the sacrifice?'"

Hastert: "If you want to see the sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda. There's the sacrifice in this country. We're trying to make sure they have the ability to fight this war, that they have the wherewithal to be able to do it. And, at the same time, we have to react to keep this country strong."

And here's McCain's reponse:

McCain, a prisoner of war during Vietnam, later released a written statement.

"The Speaker is correct in that nothing we are called upon to do comes close to matching the heroism of our troops."

"All we are called upon to do is not spend our nation into bankruptcy while our soldiers risk their lives. I fondly remember a time when real Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility. Apparently those days are long gone for some in our party."

A secret plan for Iraq

Kerry has a plan for Iraq, only he won't tell us what it is.

“It will not take long to do what is necessary. I’m not going to give you a specific date, but I’ll tell you that I have a plan and I will put that plan in place.” Republican Richard M. Nixon used similar language during the 1968 presidential race, but the war dragged on for years after his election.

Didn't Kerry realize that he would be immediately compared to Nixon after making a statement like this? I think that this going to turn out to be another unforced error.

More positively, Kerry said a lot of things in the same interview targeted at moderates, including that he would appoint non-ideological judges. I'm all in favor of that.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds: "Richard Milhous Kerry?" Richard Wolffe: "Kerry’s Secret Plan to End the War". Roger Simon: "Kerry Channels Nixon".

NPR vs. Blair

For my first post in the new digs (the equivalent of some fingermarks on the new paint, maybe?), I'm getting in a quick grumble about an NPR snark on Blair. Sunday (5/16/04), somebody said, roughly:

Blair would be like John F. Kennedy if only he hadn't given in to Bush on the war issue.

This one sentence has so many underlying misconceptions, I hardly know where to begin.

First, of course, is the idea that John F. Kennedy was the acme of leadership. I think Kennedy was a good President who became a martyr (ironic, given his religion) (Hitchens, better-informed than me, has a worse opinion of him. Throughout my life, I've been hearing how great he is without any corroborating explanation. It's just assumed. Well, I've finally read enough history to agree that he was good stuff. ??Great, though?? That idea will die with the generation that remembers his death as a feature of their childhoods. To be like Kennedy, Blair would have to die in office. Doesn't sound worthwhile, somehow.

A related misconception is on how Blair has come to be seen as a special leader. He's seen that way because he's come out for the war, repeatedly and wisely defying his party's base, including people who make unthoughtful comments like this one!

The third misconception is that Bush was an Iraq hawk before Blair, which is unlikely. He expressed considerable unease when the busy-with-stupid-GOP-mongered-scandal Clinton limited US response to bombing likely Iraqi WMD sites. ISTR the Economist had an article at the time with admittedly unidentified sources that said that that Blair had tried to mong war at an Iraq Coalition conference with Clinton and other leaders. I think Blair kept his warmonging in private for the sake of alliance unity. Really, Bush should be dinged for being Blair's poodle.

First conviction

Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits pled guilty to four abuse charges in the first court-martial stemming from mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison. But I find what happened at the sentencing to be odd. Even though he had a "pre-trial agreement with the prosecution, presumably to testify against others accused in the case" and he appealed to the court for leniency, he still received the maximum penalty -- one year in prison, reduction in rank and a bad conduct discharge.

Now I don't have any problem with the sentence, but in a civilian criminal case a person who pleads guilty almost always gets some sentencing consideration, and someone who agrees to testify against others gets even more consideration. Sounds like the prosecution didn't want to give any appearance of leniency, and this guy simply didn't have the desire to put up any fight at all.

You Have Arrived!

If you're reading this, the new web host has kicked in and you're looking at the new weblog. Welcome!

If you're a Centerfield blogger, you need a new password to log in here. Contact me at wswann@mindleaders.com to get one.

Athletes as diplomats

The US Olympic Committee aims to help repair the country’s “reputation.”

American athletes have been warned not to wave the US flag during medal celebrations at this summer’s Olympic Games in Athens, for fear of provoking crowd hostility and harming the country’s already battered public image. . . .

The plan is part of a programme aimed at repairing the country’s international reputation following the deepening crisis in Iraq and damaging revelations of torture and mistreatment of detainees by US forces at the Abu Ghraib prison.

The best rationale I have come up with to justify my possible vote for Kerry is that he won’t fundamentally change course, but his election would eliminate a visceral source of hatred for the U.S. among so many, a hatred that represents a real obstacle to improving the national security situation of the country.

P.S. I know it won’t happen, but wouldn’t it be great for an Iraqi to win a medal and run around waving a flag? Oh well, at least the Iraqi athletes won’t be jailed and/or tortured when they return home this time.

Hersh v. Rumsfeld, Round 2

UPDATE: There's a much better Newsweek article on the subject at MSNBC. It's more constructive and likely-seeming in several ways. I still wonder a bit about sources, since sourcing isn't discussed as much, but it does seem alot likelier to be the product of double sources, if probably anonymous.

I just read Hersh' latest article. There are some grim things there that seem all too likely to be true.

But another thing that bothers me is that Hersh's making some very serious charges with Drudge's level of credibility. This is a very serious matter, and it's a national tragedy that Hersh - and his editors - felt the need for so much wishful thinking and stretching of his sources. It's ironic that the article appears right below the word "FACT."

What I find completely creditable from that article - because it corroborates with non-anonymous evidence - is that intelligence agents involved in some out-of-hand operation told the soldiers at Abu Ghraib what to do. I also believe that somebody with some rank was likely involved to get General Karpinski to despair (possibly of the very thing that happened to her) and look away.

The existence of some kind of operation for getting bad guys being extended to this horror seems at least not unlikely, since at least there are two sources for that allegation, although they are anonymous.

Beyond that, it's totally thin. The allegation about Rumsfeld is single-anonymous-sourced and beyond thin:

"Rumsfeld and Myers approved the program." When it came to the interrogation operation at Abu Ghraib, he said, Rumsfeld left the details to Cambone. Rumsfeld may not be personally culpable," the consultant added, "but he's responsible for the checks and balances."

E.g., the guy knows nothing about Rumsfeld. And it's only on this one dubious source that even the Cambone accusation rests. Same thing with Hersh' statements that Americans were torturing prisoners in Afghanistan. Professional standards demand that Hersh point out the thinness of the proof.

I think this Rumsfeld fixation is sad. We are so hard on our leaders. It goes back to the start of democracies - that's what Athens used its infamous 20-year ostracisms for. At that, it might have been more gentle that what happened when fallen leaders stuck around. Does "innocent until proven guilty" stop applying once one is in office?

I want to reiterate that I do believe that there was a group with high-level backing arranging for torture and humiliation, and that I hope the higher-level, truly guilty are brought to justice. That'll be easier if we can take our eyes off Rumsfeld and Bush as the sources of all evil.

Kerry and free trade

One of the reasons that I became more pro-Democrat in the 1990s was the party's general acceptance of free trade policies, which culminated in the ratification of NAFTA. Kerry was a firm supporter of both free trade generally and NAFTA specifically. During this campaign, however, Kerry has offered a bone to protectionists. He proposes a 120 day review of trade policy after his inauguration.

Is the only purpose of this talk to lure voters in states like Ohio? Does anyone think that Kerry would seek to institute a fundamental change in U.S. trade policies? I sincerely hope not, but I would like a more clear statement of intended policy before the election. I don't like the "I will tell you after you vote" approach.

Pardon Our Progress

As some of you know, we started experiencing problems with our web host a couple weeks ago. The site went down for a few days, and when it came back up it was running very slow.

We've since been able to determine that the problem has something to do with traffic. There's about a 3 gigabyte stream of traffic going through our account every day -- which is about twice as much traffic as we were getting every month prior to the shutdown of our site.

We know this traffic isn't going to the Centrist Coalition site or this weblog -- in fact, our site visit stats have been down during this period. However, we can't get our web host to tell us exactly where this traffic is coming from or going. Hence, we can't fix the problem, whatever it may be.

About a week ago, we decided to start the process of switching to a new web host. We've been reconstructing both the Centrist Coalition and Centerfield sites -- and we're nearing completion of that process.

We're not sure quite yet when the switch will happen. When we initiate it, it may take 24-48 hours for the new DNS settings to propagate through the internet. It's possible we will lose some posts or comments during that time.

We will post something here (and on the new weblog) when we initiate the switch -- so you'll know when it's underway. Also, those of you who blog here should contact either Rick or myself regarding the password to your account. The one thing that will not transfer is your password -- and you'll have to log in with one that we provide and reset it when you first visit the new site.

You can reach me at wswann@mindleaders.com if you need a password.

Finally, if you're curious, feel free to visit the new sites at their temporary addresses:

Centrist Coalition site
Centerfield weblog

Thanks for your patience -- and, more generally, for making this weblog such an interesting place to discuss politics.

"We have to heal the red and the blue man..."

If you did not watch Meet the Press this morning you missed an awesome exchange regarding the War in Iraq between Senator Biden and Senator McCain. The fireworks though where really about the recent NYT article reporting that high-level Democrats where pushing the idea of a Kerry/McCain ticket.

After being asked the question Senator McCain insisted once again that categorically he will not be the Vice President of the United States. Furthermore, he insisted the notion that he was still angry over the 2000 election was completely and utterly false. He further stated that his constituents do not want him to look to the past but to the future, and that he was a loyal Republican and Bush supporter because the President had provided steady leadership since September the 11th.

After McCain was finished Russert turned to Biden who endorsed the idea of a bi-partisan ticket and stated the reason that this may still a possibility when he said: "We have to heal the red and the blue man... I hope John McCain will put being a loyal American above being a loyal Republican." Russert then pointed out statements made by former Senator Bob Kerrey in the NYT article, that McCain in choosing to take the number two spot would not have to stop being a loyal Republican and could influence cabinet selection, as long as he agreed to not attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I think the Democrats may give McCain a way out of his past statements by insisting that for the good of the country he join a bi-partisan ticket intended to unite a fractured and divided country. I could really see the Senator changing his mind, for the good of the American people, and taking one last tour of duty for the country he has served so valiantly.

Do I think that John McCain is going to be Kerry's pick? It is still highly unlikely. But if there is ever a time for unconventional politics it is now. With the current situation in Iraq theres is ample opportunity for Kerry, or Bush for that matter, to reach outside their own political inclinations and attempt to unite our nation around the message of bringing democracy, prosperity, and hope to not only Iraq, but to any country that breeds hate and terrorism toward the United States and freedom in general.

Biden, who I do not know much about, was exactly right on MTP when he said in response to a question from Russert that it is time for this administration to stop reacting and for this President to lead.

On a weirder note, Russert’s interview with Sec. of State Powell was cutoff when a press aide reportedly moved the NBC camera off of Powell just as he was being asked about inaccurate information regarding the case for war that was presented to the United Nations. The camera after a weird exchange between the Secretary and his aides was put back on, and Powell answered that clearly the sources of information where wrong and that he was disappointed and regretted it.

Rumsfeld's problems continue

Strong stuff from Seymour Hersh:

The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.

This story will get a lot of attention. A Pentagon spokesman says that it is "outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture."

The sharks are circling.

The Veepstakes Wire

I made my pick in the Great Kerry Veepstakes Pool right here several months ago, while the dust from Iowa was still drifting Northeast. Richard Gephardt. I won't explain my reasoning, I just want to note I was there first, and long ago. So when it comes up someone else, you can ALL tell me why I was wrong....

Some dreamers in the Kerry camp keep waxing rhapsodic about walking John McCain across the aisle, but forget it, folks, it will never ever happen.

So what are your picks, people? Remember, there's no money riding on it, and we can always start an odds pool to reflect multiple picks of the same person. You can even pick McCain if you want to, it just won't do you any good!

On the Lighter Side (Vol. 4)

- Katherine Harris' absentee ballot disqualified (here)
- Slogans for Kerry from the Onion (here)
- Spoof interview with Instapundit; "Heh" (here)
- Tom Toles at his best (here) . .

Open Thread

What's on your mind? Nothing is off-topic

Moderate Republicans Cave

Nothing to be proud about. I though Houghton is retiring. I wonder why he didn't withstand the pressure.

On March 31, with their eyes on record budget deficits, 11 Republican moderates in the House penned a letter to their leadership, demanding that any congressional budget resolution this year require that future tax cuts be offset by spending reductions or tax hikes. Yet yesterday, four of the signatories -- Amo Houghton (N.Y.), Mark S. Kirk (Ill.), Thomas E. Petri (Wis.) and Todd R. Platts (Pa.) -- bowed to their leaders' demands and voted against that position. On the 207 to 211 tally, those four votes effectively scuttled the motion.

Centrist Mush

E. J. Dionne in the Washington Post both insults us and says we're essential

That middle will decide this election. That does not mean the election will be about who can successfully mouth centrist mush. The middle will move on the basis of events and also on judgments about which of these candidates can solve the problems these voters care about -- Iraq, health care, education costs, jobs and wages. The issue is problem solving, not positioning

A Modicum of Objectivity

My main gripe about op-ed columnists and political bloggers is that the overwhelming majority view and interpret every news item through an ideological prism, and I can predict their opinions as easily as I can predict the ending of a bad movie.

Today (albeit in the process of attempting to convince us that Bush is a moron), Josh Marshall admits the existence of this phenomenon and that he is guilty of it.

Now, certainly no one is perfect when it comes to subjecting and then resubjecting their viewpoints to fresh facts or challenging their assumptions with intelligently stated contrary views. I can't claim to be. But it's one thing to fall short of the mark and another to work out a system of self-rationalization and denial to ensure you come nowhere near the mark.

Earlier this week, Andrew Sullivan wrote this:

The question I have asked myself in the wake of Abu Ghraib is simply the following: if I knew before the war what I know now, would I still have supported it? I cannot deny that the terrible mismanagement of the post-war - something that no reasonable person can now ignore - has, perhaps fatally, wrecked the mission. But does it make the case for war in retrospect invalid? My tentative answer - and this is a blog, written day by day and hour by hour, not a carefully collected summary of my views - is yes, I still would have supported the war. But only just.

The point of this post is this -- I want a president who will have reasonably acceptable convictions, good judgment, and intellectual dexterity. My problem with Bush is that although he has some convictions that I agree with (at least with respect to national security issues), he seems to have questionable judgment and limited intellectual dexterity. My problem with Kerry is that although he obviously has intellectual dexterity, he has dubious convictions and similiarly questionable judgment.

Kerry Riding the Wind?

I have tried very hard to see what good could come out of a Kerry presidency. While he was down in the polls and fighting for his life in Iowa I truly believed he could be a good President, but ever since he has received the nomination I have been disgusted by his inability to take a stand and prove he can lead.

Still, it is very clear that there are management problems in Iraq, and Kerry has an oppurtunity to prove to the American people that he can take charge. What has he done with this opportunity? He has said little to nothing and offered no ideas of his own, only that Secretary Rumsfeld should resign and John McCain would more than likely be his choice at Defense (both of which I strongly agree with).

Than there is this, from Howard Fineman:

"Kerry’s theory of this campaign is pretty straightforward: to be the guy people have no choice but to vote for on Nov. 2. Not because he has a stirring new vision (he doesn’t); not because he’s such a darned likable guy (he isn’t); but because circumstances are such that fair-minded “swing” voters have no choice but to pick him. He’s not running against the war, per se, but as the nobleman at the end of the Shakespeare play, a beacon of sanity on the battlefield...

For whatever reason, Kerry always has yearned to be the designated leader, and he doesn’t care if people don’t like him as long as he gets the certified role. He was an outsider in prep school, but got to give the big speech. He was regarded as too hungry at Yale, but ran the Yale Political Union anyway. In ’Nam, he commanded the swift boat; back home, the anti-war boat. He’s not beloved in Boston, but they kept electing him. His timing was almost always superb. He beat a popular Republican governor in 1996 — in a year when Massachusetts went overwhelmingly for Bill Clinton over Bob Dole...

Most famously, Kerry voted for the Iraq resolution in 2002 and then against the $87 billion for it in 2003 and then pointed out that he had voted for an alternative version of that bill before finally voting against it. Talk about tacking..."

Maybe it is just me, but I would rather vote for the guy who I disagree with a whole lot but know where he stands than the other guy who I don't like that is going to determine his actions based solely on where the wind blows. You can say what you want about George W. Bush, he plays politics with the best of them, but at least we know which direction he is going.

War funding bill

Late Wednesday, the Bush Administration sent up a formal request to Congress for a $25 billion reserve fund for Iraq that called for Congress to abrogate oversight of how the money would be spent. I will give you one guess as to the reaction on Thursday. Who thought that this would fly?

Kerry also ended the non-existent suspense about his vote once the bill is reworked.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, said in a statement he would back the additional money despite voting against a previous supplemental bill for Iraq. "The situation in Iraq has deteriorated far beyond what the administration anticipated. The money is urgently needed," he said."

Kerry still is going to need to try to come up with a way to argue convincingly how his 1991 vote against Gulf War I, his 2002 vote in favor of Gulf War II, his 2003 vote against the supplemental funding of Gulf War II, and this soon-to-occur 2004 vote in favor of supplemental funding are somehow consistent. The problem is, he can't. I might vote for him anyway, but there are a lot of people who won't.

FWIW, 3 Arab States Stepped Up

For what it's worth, 3 arab states have condemned the beheading of Nicholas Berg in pretty clear language:

Three Arab states -- Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates --- are condemning the beheading of American Nicholas Berg by his Iraqi captors, shown in a video that appeared on an Islamist Web site.

"There is no doubt that killing detainees and mutilating the remains of the dead are acts which are condemned by all religions and contrary to the morals of all nations and peoples," Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan said in a statement released Wednesday.

"The Al-Zarqawi group is a criminal, deviant and un-Islamic group, allied with bin Laden and the criminals of Al Qaeda who are killing even Muslims and Arabs for no reason.

"Accordingly, it is not out of character for them to commit acts that violate the teachings of Islam, a noble religion that deplores such acts."

Read the whole thing. All 3 statments were pretty unqualifed. And it's a helluva lot better than silence, no? Hopefully this chorus grows.

In Which I Endorse Torture

1 year ago, when Mark Kleiman was surveying blogger reaction to the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the #3 ranking leader of Al Qaeda, I was the only blogger to forthrightly advocate torturning him, here and here.

KSM, as he is known, is thought to have been the operational mastermind behind 9/11, and revealed under interrogation further plans for terrorist acts in the USA.

Most bloggers endorsed the Bush Administration's position

"The standard for any type of interrogation of somebody in American custody is to be humane and to follow all international laws and accords dealing with this type of subject. That is precisely what has been happening and exactly what will happen," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

while Meryl Yourish, in an email, said I was naive to believe the Administration's statements to the press. Meryl was right. Now comes news that KSM was subject to aggressive interrogation tactics, including a "technique known as 'water boarding,' in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown." See Mark Kleiman's new post on this subject, and Shot In The Dark.

As someone who once almost drowned in a mountain lake, ingesting water, and barely making it to shore, I feel as qualified as any to state that near-drowning is a form of physical torture and not merely a psychological operation.

I continue to endorse the torture of KSM. What I don't endorse is lying about it. We are a culture that cannot keep secrets.

I make a distinction between the war with Al Qaeda and the Iraq War. In Iraq, we fought an conventional war, and we're continuing to fight a conventional insurgency. This is what the Geneva Conventions were made for.

The asymmetric mega-terrorist acts plotted by Al Qaeda are of a different nature. Al Qaeda does not abide by the laws of war. It targets civilians rather than military personnel, as as we saw with the recent beheading, executes prisoners.

There is more than one Geneva Convention, and it's the 1977 protocols, which the United States never ratified, that deal with combat with irregular forces. There may be a legal argument that the torture of KSM is not in fact prohibited by treaties the United States has signed.

But it's our moral capital, not the legal niceties, that are critical. KSM was responsible for 3000 murders of civilians and planning more, so even if sticking his head underwater to get him to disclose his future plans was technically illegal, I believe that many Europeans and even Arabs would have tolerated it, at least after the fact. In Iraq, on the other hand, it seems that we've applied abusive techniques more widely. As Mark Kleiman pointed out, there is a slippery slope, and we've fallen down it.

One way to avoid the slippery slope is to be open and honest. By dissembling about our tactics, the Bush Administration created confusion within our own ranks. I continue to endorse torture in the "ticking time bomb" scenario. But we shouldn't lie about it. The truth comes out eventually, and it's better to take the heat when the bomb is "ticking" than when the cover-up is disclosed.

Update:
I found this White House press release declaring that Al Qaeda prisoners are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, as Al Qaeda, not being a state, is not a signatory to the Conventions.

Should Kerry resign from the Senate?

Eight years ago this week and trailing Bill Clinton by 12 points at the time, Sen. Bob Dole resigned from the Senate to campaign full-time for the presidency. In February of this year, Sen. John Kerry announced through a spokeswoman that he would not follow Dole's example and that he would "'continue to fight for the issues important to the people of Massachusetts and all Americans' as he makes his bid for the White House."

This week, the Senate rejected by one vote, 59-40, an effort to extend federal unemployment benefits. Kerry was the only senator who missed the vote. And this was not a vote he was dodging, it was simply a vote he decided that he didn't have time to make.

Does this suggest that Kerry should resign from the Senate now? Would his resignation demonstrate his commitment to and confi