From Joe Klein:
"Sen. Bob Bennett is a standard-issue conservative, a reliable, down the line Party-of-No voter...who, on occasion, bestirred himself to cast a bipartisan vote--or, in one extremely admirable case, co-sponsor a bipartisan health care reform bill that was simpler, more equitable and more radical than than the mish-mosh that Congress passed (the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act). For this, and for his longevity in office, he was defenestrated by the Utah Republican party today.
I never met the man, but his statement today certainly was classy:
"The political atmosphere obviously has been toxic and it's very clear that some of the votes that I have cast have added to the toxic environment," an emotional Bennett told reporters, choking back tears.
"Looking back on them, with one or two very minor exceptions, I wouldn't have cast any of them any differently even if I had known at the time they were going to cost me my career."
We are in a moment when anger seems more important than experience or wisdom. Sometimes anger is justified. Right now, a sober review of the problems we face in a very unstable world requires something more: it requires a judicious national conversation about the decisions we make as a people. Are we spending too much or too little? Are we taxing too much or too little? If we're spending and taxing too much, which services need to be curtailed--and I mean, real services that cost real money, like defense and entitlements. If we can't decide what to cut, then perhaps we need to tax ourselves more--if so, how and what should we tax?
The fact that we can't seem to have this sort of conversation right now, that's it is ripped away from the vast majority of decent Americans by telecharlatans and infotainers, does not speak well for our ability to survive as the greatest nation in the history of the world. The departure of Senator Bob Bennett is a small event in a national tidal wave of witless extremism and thoughtlessness.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/05/08/bennett-tea-bombed/
TW: The combination of highly motivated voting minorities and the apathetic/tired/distracted amidst the rest of the electorate have elected poor candidates since our republic was founded. The world changes many are afraid of it but Glenn Beck/Ms. Palin et al. ain't gonna make it better of that I have no doubt.
Showing posts with label Joe Klein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Klein. Show all posts
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
No Kidding!!
From Joe Klein at Time:
"A friend suggests that one of the reasons why support for health care reform has ticked upwards in recent days--and that support for the war in Afghanistan ticked upward after the President announced his policy--is that people hate DC gridlock, with its accompanying ration of pettiness. They want action and hope it works. I hope it works, too."
TW: I would file this under the no shit category. Why do you think the Republicans have adopted the oppose everything 24/7/365 approach. Because it works. And also because the corralary is true. If Obama with some Republican help was blazing trails with a united front to address climate change, health care, the economy etc. all incumbents would be polling through the roof, instead there is talk of a 2010 Republican wave. Folks like to say it does not but it does which is a shame (for the governance of our nation) but a reality of life.
"A friend suggests that one of the reasons why support for health care reform has ticked upwards in recent days--and that support for the war in Afghanistan ticked upward after the President announced his policy--is that people hate DC gridlock, with its accompanying ration of pettiness. They want action and hope it works. I hope it works, too."
TW: I would file this under the no shit category. Why do you think the Republicans have adopted the oppose everything 24/7/365 approach. Because it works. And also because the corralary is true. If Obama with some Republican help was blazing trails with a united front to address climate change, health care, the economy etc. all incumbents would be polling through the roof, instead there is talk of a 2010 Republican wave. Folks like to say it does not but it does which is a shame (for the governance of our nation) but a reality of life.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Why Not Pay For Wars?
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"A couple of weeks back, Matthew Yglesias had an insightful post noting that 'by far the fastest way to end the war in Afghanistan would be to ask General McChrystal’s staff to produce a plan to make it deficit neutral and find sixty votes in the Senate for his financing plan.'..."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/death_and_taxes.html
From Joe Klein at Time:
"Congressman David Obey, who called for a tax to pay for the war in Iraq two years ago, has done it again. He's calling for a tax to pay for Afghanistan. It's a very good idea for several reasons:
1. A war is, one would hope, a temporary aberration from budget norms, requiring a jolt of new revenues. It is also the most consequential decision that a President and Congress can make; therefore, they should be willing to put their money where their mouths are.
2. The notion of shared sacrifice has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle. If we really "support" the troops, we should support the troops...In a war, every citizen should have to contribute something to the effort.
Some will say: it won't pass, and we have national security interests in Afghanistan. Trye enough. I'm in favor of continuing the Afghan campaign, and I'd be more than willing to pay my fair share for it...But there's a larger national interest that needs to be tested: in the Reagan era, a disconnect has developed between the people and their fiscal responsibilities. Any tax that ties one to the other over a concrete matter, like a war, will help rebuild the necessary relationship between spending and taxing. For Republicans who favor the war but oppose taxation, this would be a particularly crucial test of citizenship. (Although it should be noted that the Democrat Lyndon Johnson was the first to fudge the funding of a war, in Vietnam.)
If the public honestly wants the Taliban to return to power in Afghanistan and increase the risk of an Islamist military coup in Pakistan, then its views should be honored. I can't believe that will be the case...if the case is properly made. But if the public believes that U.S. national security requires a continuing presence in Afghanistan, then it should be willing to pay the tab."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/23/obeys-war-tax/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fswampland+%28TIME%3A+Swampland%29
"A couple of weeks back, Matthew Yglesias had an insightful post noting that 'by far the fastest way to end the war in Afghanistan would be to ask General McChrystal’s staff to produce a plan to make it deficit neutral and find sixty votes in the Senate for his financing plan.'..."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/death_and_taxes.html
From Joe Klein at Time:
"Congressman David Obey, who called for a tax to pay for the war in Iraq two years ago, has done it again. He's calling for a tax to pay for Afghanistan. It's a very good idea for several reasons:
1. A war is, one would hope, a temporary aberration from budget norms, requiring a jolt of new revenues. It is also the most consequential decision that a President and Congress can make; therefore, they should be willing to put their money where their mouths are.
2. The notion of shared sacrifice has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle. If we really "support" the troops, we should support the troops...In a war, every citizen should have to contribute something to the effort.
Some will say: it won't pass, and we have national security interests in Afghanistan. Trye enough. I'm in favor of continuing the Afghan campaign, and I'd be more than willing to pay my fair share for it...But there's a larger national interest that needs to be tested: in the Reagan era, a disconnect has developed between the people and their fiscal responsibilities. Any tax that ties one to the other over a concrete matter, like a war, will help rebuild the necessary relationship between spending and taxing. For Republicans who favor the war but oppose taxation, this would be a particularly crucial test of citizenship. (Although it should be noted that the Democrat Lyndon Johnson was the first to fudge the funding of a war, in Vietnam.)
If the public honestly wants the Taliban to return to power in Afghanistan and increase the risk of an Islamist military coup in Pakistan, then its views should be honored. I can't believe that will be the case...if the case is properly made. But if the public believes that U.S. national security requires a continuing presence in Afghanistan, then it should be willing to pay the tab."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/23/obeys-war-tax/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fswampland+%28TIME%3A+Swampland%29
Friday, August 21, 2009
Joe Klein Is Pissed And Won't Take It Anymore
TW: Is the current version of Republican worse than previous Democractic opposition? Is the current Republican opposition worse than previous Republican opposition? I think so. Klein gets into the topic with gusto. Will get into this more later...
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...How can you sustain a democracy if one of the two major political parties has been overrun by nihilists? And another question: How can you maintain the illusion of journalistic impartiality when one of the political parties has jumped the shark?
I'm not going to try. I've written countless "Democrats in Disarray" stories over the years and been critical of the left on numerous issues in the past. This year, the liberal insistence on a marginally relevant public option has been a tactical mistake that has enabled the right's "government takeover" disinformation jihad. There have been times when Democrats have run demagogic scare campaigns on issues like Social Security and Medicare. There are more than a few Democrats who believe, in practice, that government should be run for the benefit of government employees' unions. There are Democrats who are so solicitous of civil liberties that they would undermine legitimate covert intelligence collection. There are others who mistrust the use of military power under almost any circumstances. But these are policy differences, matters of substance. The most liberal members of the Democratic caucus — Senator Russ Feingold in the Senate, Representative Dennis Kucinich in the House, to name two — are honorable public servants who make their arguments based on facts. They don't retail outright lies. Hyperbole and distortion certainly exist on the left, but they are a minor chord in the Democratic Party.
It is a very different story among Republicans. To be sure, there are honorable conservatives, trying to do the right thing. There is a legitimate, if wildly improbable, fear that Obama's plan will start a process that will end with a health-care system entirely controlled by the government. There are conservatives — Senator Lamar Alexander, Representative Mike Pence, among many others — who make their arguments based on facts. But they have been overwhelmed by nihilists and hypocrites more interested in destroying the opposition and gaining power than in the public weal. The philosophically supple party that existed as recently as George H.W. Bush's presidency has been obliterated. The party's putative intellectuals — people like the Weekly Standard's William Kristol — are prosaic tacticians who make precious few substantive arguments but oppose health-care reform mostly because passage would help Barack Obama's political prospects. In 1993, when the Clintons tried health-care reform, the Republican John Chafee offered a creative (in fact, superior) alternative — which Kristol quashed with his famous "Don't Help Clinton" fax to the troops. There is no Republican health-care alternative in 2009. The same people who rail against a government takeover of health care tried to enforce a government takeover of Terri Schiavo's end-of-life decisions. And when Palin floated the "death panel" canard, the number of prominent Republicans who rose up to call her out could be counted on one hand.
A striking example of the prevailing cravenness was Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who has authored end-of-life counseling provisions and told the Washington Post that comparing such counseling to euthanasia was nuts — but then quickly retreated when he realized that he had sided with the reality-based community against his Rush Limbaugh-led party. Mitt Romney, the Republican front-runner for President according to most polls, actually created a universal-health-care plan in Massachusetts that looks very much like the proposed Obamacare, but he spends much of his time trying to fudge the similarities and was AWOL on the "death panels." Why are these men so reluctant to be rational in public?
...There was McCarthyism in the 1950s, the John Birch Society in the 1960s. But there was a difference in those times: the crazies were a faction — often a powerful faction — of the Republican Party, but they didn't run it. The neofascist Father Coughlin had a huge radio audience in the 1930s, but he didn't have the power to control and silence the elected leaders of the party that Limbaugh — who, if not the party's leader, is certainly the most powerful Republican extant — does now. Until recently, the Republican Party contained a strong moderate wing. It was a Republican, the lawyer Joseph Welch, who delivered the coup de grâce to Senator McCarthy when he said, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Where is the Republican who would dare say that to Rush Limbaugh, who has compared the President of the United States to Adolf Hitler?
...the Republicans are curling themselves into a tight, white, extremist bubble — but there may be enough of them raising dust to render creative public policy impossible. Some righteous anger seems called for, but that's not Obama's style. He will have to come up with something, though — and he will have to do it without the tiniest scintilla of help from the Republican Party."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1917525-1,00.html
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...How can you sustain a democracy if one of the two major political parties has been overrun by nihilists? And another question: How can you maintain the illusion of journalistic impartiality when one of the political parties has jumped the shark?
I'm not going to try. I've written countless "Democrats in Disarray" stories over the years and been critical of the left on numerous issues in the past. This year, the liberal insistence on a marginally relevant public option has been a tactical mistake that has enabled the right's "government takeover" disinformation jihad. There have been times when Democrats have run demagogic scare campaigns on issues like Social Security and Medicare. There are more than a few Democrats who believe, in practice, that government should be run for the benefit of government employees' unions. There are Democrats who are so solicitous of civil liberties that they would undermine legitimate covert intelligence collection. There are others who mistrust the use of military power under almost any circumstances. But these are policy differences, matters of substance. The most liberal members of the Democratic caucus — Senator Russ Feingold in the Senate, Representative Dennis Kucinich in the House, to name two — are honorable public servants who make their arguments based on facts. They don't retail outright lies. Hyperbole and distortion certainly exist on the left, but they are a minor chord in the Democratic Party.
It is a very different story among Republicans. To be sure, there are honorable conservatives, trying to do the right thing. There is a legitimate, if wildly improbable, fear that Obama's plan will start a process that will end with a health-care system entirely controlled by the government. There are conservatives — Senator Lamar Alexander, Representative Mike Pence, among many others — who make their arguments based on facts. But they have been overwhelmed by nihilists and hypocrites more interested in destroying the opposition and gaining power than in the public weal. The philosophically supple party that existed as recently as George H.W. Bush's presidency has been obliterated. The party's putative intellectuals — people like the Weekly Standard's William Kristol — are prosaic tacticians who make precious few substantive arguments but oppose health-care reform mostly because passage would help Barack Obama's political prospects. In 1993, when the Clintons tried health-care reform, the Republican John Chafee offered a creative (in fact, superior) alternative — which Kristol quashed with his famous "Don't Help Clinton" fax to the troops. There is no Republican health-care alternative in 2009. The same people who rail against a government takeover of health care tried to enforce a government takeover of Terri Schiavo's end-of-life decisions. And when Palin floated the "death panel" canard, the number of prominent Republicans who rose up to call her out could be counted on one hand.
A striking example of the prevailing cravenness was Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who has authored end-of-life counseling provisions and told the Washington Post that comparing such counseling to euthanasia was nuts — but then quickly retreated when he realized that he had sided with the reality-based community against his Rush Limbaugh-led party. Mitt Romney, the Republican front-runner for President according to most polls, actually created a universal-health-care plan in Massachusetts that looks very much like the proposed Obamacare, but he spends much of his time trying to fudge the similarities and was AWOL on the "death panels." Why are these men so reluctant to be rational in public?
...There was McCarthyism in the 1950s, the John Birch Society in the 1960s. But there was a difference in those times: the crazies were a faction — often a powerful faction — of the Republican Party, but they didn't run it. The neofascist Father Coughlin had a huge radio audience in the 1930s, but he didn't have the power to control and silence the elected leaders of the party that Limbaugh — who, if not the party's leader, is certainly the most powerful Republican extant — does now. Until recently, the Republican Party contained a strong moderate wing. It was a Republican, the lawyer Joseph Welch, who delivered the coup de grâce to Senator McCarthy when he said, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Where is the Republican who would dare say that to Rush Limbaugh, who has compared the President of the United States to Adolf Hitler?
...the Republicans are curling themselves into a tight, white, extremist bubble — but there may be enough of them raising dust to render creative public policy impossible. Some righteous anger seems called for, but that's not Obama's style. He will have to come up with something, though — and he will have to do it without the tiniest scintilla of help from the Republican Party."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1917525-1,00.html
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
End Of Life Fearmongers Are the Worst Kind Of Scum
TW: There are few who have not dealt with end of life issues at some level. They are some of the most stressful, ethically wrought and emotional processes with which responsible adults deal.
The effort by the Palins, Gingrichs, Limbaughs etc. to lie, cheat or steal in order to kill health care reform partially by stoking irrational fear and confusion about the end of life implications of the health care reform effort should give pause to all of their supporters. Many Republicans claim to ignore their leaders but I call BULLSHIT, if you actually do not agree with this approach then stand up and say so instead of meekly mumbling "oh it is just politics" or "they don't really mean that".
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...It is difficult to bear the nihilist cynicism of mainstream Republicans like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on this issue. The cruelty inherent in scaring the elderly to score political points is beyond reprehensible. I've had recent personal experience with this issue. In fact...
I've spent quite a bit of time with my elderly parents--they're both 89 and have been together since the age of 5--trying to help them steer their way through some difficult decisions, and trying to guarantee that their decisions about the rest of their lives will be honored, even if they have lost the ability to announce those decisions themselves. This isn't easy. My mother and her two sisters are quite frail and entirely dependent on my father, who has made no specific plans about what should happen to them should he lose the ability to take care of them. He has a living will, he thinks. My mother has often said that if she becomes severely debilitated, "Just let me die." But I'm not sure she has made that clear in a legal document. My father is reluctant to talk about these sensitive subjects and has resisted signing a power of attorney, to be activated if he becomes incapacitated.
My father grew up during the Depression and like many of his peers, he doesn't like spending money on services he suspects are unnecessary. End-of-life counseling on issues like living wills and powers of attorney is something he could clearly use--from a skilled professional who, unlike me, knows the best way to describe these things and the easiest way to enact them--and he would be more likely to take advantage of this service if it were offered free-of-charge, and regularly updated, by Medicare. Although, even then, I have to admit I'm not sure he'd want to take advantage of it.
I could say a lot more about this situation, about the details that make it particularly difficult, but those details are, of course, private. Suffice to say that I am personally appalled and outraged that Republicans like the nitwit Palin and the showbiz demagogues Limbaugh and Hannity have chosen this particular subject to exploit. It is an issue that needs sunlight and careful explanation. It involves the saddest and most lonely moments of life--and with a population living longer and longer, it is one that affects ever increasing numbers of parents and children.
I can understand conservatives who oppose government activism as a matter of principle. They say they hold their beliefs as a matter of respect for the rights of the individual. But the sort of scurrilous campaign they are conducting--the seditious fear-mongering that is the main staple of their public diet--is a matter of profound disrespect and incivility toward the individuals whose rights they claim to cherish. The sort of people who would conduct such a campaign can only be described as ingrates."
ADDENDUM Update from Klein: (TW: Americans deserve the governance they get. I know most Americans could give a shit about how they look to others around the world but we are really undeserving of world leadership at times):
"Senator Chuck Grassley has announced his membership in the Limbaugh mainstream of the Republican Party on the non-issue of Death Panels. This is the man who is the lead Republican negotiator in the Senate Finance Committee's effort to create a bipartisan health care bill--and he either (a) hasn't the vaguest notion of what's in the bill or (b) he is so intimidated by the ditto-head-brown-shirts that he is trying to fudge a response to keep them happy. Either way, he should be ashamed. And once has to wonder about the fate of the Senate Finance Committee deliberations if this is what the Administration is dealing with."
The effort by the Palins, Gingrichs, Limbaughs etc. to lie, cheat or steal in order to kill health care reform partially by stoking irrational fear and confusion about the end of life implications of the health care reform effort should give pause to all of their supporters. Many Republicans claim to ignore their leaders but I call BULLSHIT, if you actually do not agree with this approach then stand up and say so instead of meekly mumbling "oh it is just politics" or "they don't really mean that".
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...It is difficult to bear the nihilist cynicism of mainstream Republicans like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on this issue. The cruelty inherent in scaring the elderly to score political points is beyond reprehensible. I've had recent personal experience with this issue. In fact...
I've spent quite a bit of time with my elderly parents--they're both 89 and have been together since the age of 5--trying to help them steer their way through some difficult decisions, and trying to guarantee that their decisions about the rest of their lives will be honored, even if they have lost the ability to announce those decisions themselves. This isn't easy. My mother and her two sisters are quite frail and entirely dependent on my father, who has made no specific plans about what should happen to them should he lose the ability to take care of them. He has a living will, he thinks. My mother has often said that if she becomes severely debilitated, "Just let me die." But I'm not sure she has made that clear in a legal document. My father is reluctant to talk about these sensitive subjects and has resisted signing a power of attorney, to be activated if he becomes incapacitated.
My father grew up during the Depression and like many of his peers, he doesn't like spending money on services he suspects are unnecessary. End-of-life counseling on issues like living wills and powers of attorney is something he could clearly use--from a skilled professional who, unlike me, knows the best way to describe these things and the easiest way to enact them--and he would be more likely to take advantage of this service if it were offered free-of-charge, and regularly updated, by Medicare. Although, even then, I have to admit I'm not sure he'd want to take advantage of it.
I could say a lot more about this situation, about the details that make it particularly difficult, but those details are, of course, private. Suffice to say that I am personally appalled and outraged that Republicans like the nitwit Palin and the showbiz demagogues Limbaugh and Hannity have chosen this particular subject to exploit. It is an issue that needs sunlight and careful explanation. It involves the saddest and most lonely moments of life--and with a population living longer and longer, it is one that affects ever increasing numbers of parents and children.
I can understand conservatives who oppose government activism as a matter of principle. They say they hold their beliefs as a matter of respect for the rights of the individual. But the sort of scurrilous campaign they are conducting--the seditious fear-mongering that is the main staple of their public diet--is a matter of profound disrespect and incivility toward the individuals whose rights they claim to cherish. The sort of people who would conduct such a campaign can only be described as ingrates."
ADDENDUM Update from Klein: (TW: Americans deserve the governance they get. I know most Americans could give a shit about how they look to others around the world but we are really undeserving of world leadership at times):
"Senator Chuck Grassley has announced his membership in the Limbaugh mainstream of the Republican Party on the non-issue of Death Panels. This is the man who is the lead Republican negotiator in the Senate Finance Committee's effort to create a bipartisan health care bill--and he either (a) hasn't the vaguest notion of what's in the bill or (b) he is so intimidated by the ditto-head-brown-shirts that he is trying to fudge a response to keep them happy. Either way, he should be ashamed. And once has to wonder about the fate of the Senate Finance Committee deliberations if this is what the Administration is dealing with."
Friday, July 10, 2009
Cap And Trade Will Not Happen
TW: I have been skeptical on cap n'trade from day one. It is the wrong approach to a very serious issue. It has one thing going for it, it is something, in the face of a status quo that is leading to a failure and a Republican opposition that has no serious alternative. The current bill has been so bastardized (i.e. giving away the credits) that is almost entirely dependent upon future legislation anyway, future legislation that is begging to be a victim of regulatory capture.
Yet I suspect Obama is going to have to put so much focus and use so much political capital to get health care done that cap n'trade will be delayed until next year which means it will not happen until at least post 2010 elections (when Republicans may very well gain seats).
But remember the status quo is failing therefore to do nothing (the Republican approach) is a greater failure.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...The most important point here is that policies like this, which are difficult for most people to understand (and which, in this case, according to the polls, is far down the list of voters' priorities), have to be kept as simple as possible. And they have to work. A carbon tax swap--the revenues used to lower payroll taxes--not only would send important price signals about the use of fossil fuels, it would benefit workers at the lower end of the economic spectrum, especially those, as Jesse Jackson used to say, who "take the early bus" to work. I think that if Barack Obama spends this year focusing on the economy and health care, he could focus--and convince the public--on the need for this sort of tax swap next year. As written, the Waxman-Markey bill will achieve very little in term of carbon reduction, could create a huge new bureaucracy to monitor emissions and will give polluters an excuse to raise rates unduly (although the various carrots included for alternative energy research and deployment are obviously worth enacting). According to several Administration sources, it's dead in the water for this year, in any case.
Yet I suspect Obama is going to have to put so much focus and use so much political capital to get health care done that cap n'trade will be delayed until next year which means it will not happen until at least post 2010 elections (when Republicans may very well gain seats).
But remember the status quo is failing therefore to do nothing (the Republican approach) is a greater failure.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...The most important point here is that policies like this, which are difficult for most people to understand (and which, in this case, according to the polls, is far down the list of voters' priorities), have to be kept as simple as possible. And they have to work. A carbon tax swap--the revenues used to lower payroll taxes--not only would send important price signals about the use of fossil fuels, it would benefit workers at the lower end of the economic spectrum, especially those, as Jesse Jackson used to say, who "take the early bus" to work. I think that if Barack Obama spends this year focusing on the economy and health care, he could focus--and convince the public--on the need for this sort of tax swap next year. As written, the Waxman-Markey bill will achieve very little in term of carbon reduction, could create a huge new bureaucracy to monitor emissions and will give polluters an excuse to raise rates unduly (although the various carrots included for alternative energy research and deployment are obviously worth enacting). According to several Administration sources, it's dead in the water for this year, in any case.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
We Shall See On Syria
TW: While some demagogue, hopefully something positive is stirring with Syria. Syria is the redheaded step child of the Middle East- little oil, not enough population to demand attention and a mediocre military. Its government garners attention asymmetrically by fomenting terrorism and generally causing mischief.
But if Syria could be pulled into a more integrated, more symmetrical diplomatic and economic posture, good things could happen. Lebanon's stability enhanced, Iran further isolated and one less sovereign nation left to foment terrorism. Obama sending an ambassador over is one of those little noticed but potentially very significant events that will hopefully bear fruit over time.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"The Obama Administration has decided to send a U.S. Ambassador back to Syria, for the first time since Margaret Scobie was pulled by the Bush Administration, which was protesting the likely involvement of the Syrian government in the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. This is a wise move on several grounds. It is a reflection of productive negotiations between the U.S. and Syria just below the radar screen. It also sends an interesting signal to Iran, whose regime should begin to wonder if Syrians are shifting with the international tides, given the Iranian regime's public brutality and the recent defeat of Hizballah in the recent Lebanese elections. And it positions the U.S. as mediators in potential peace talks between Syria and Israel, which both sides have been pursuing through intermediaries for years.
The Syrians have been slightly uncomfortable with their Iran alliance for years, but they tend to move very slowly and cautiously in negotiations. This is a sign that something's bubbling in Damascus."
But if Syria could be pulled into a more integrated, more symmetrical diplomatic and economic posture, good things could happen. Lebanon's stability enhanced, Iran further isolated and one less sovereign nation left to foment terrorism. Obama sending an ambassador over is one of those little noticed but potentially very significant events that will hopefully bear fruit over time.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"The Obama Administration has decided to send a U.S. Ambassador back to Syria, for the first time since Margaret Scobie was pulled by the Bush Administration, which was protesting the likely involvement of the Syrian government in the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. This is a wise move on several grounds. It is a reflection of productive negotiations between the U.S. and Syria just below the radar screen. It also sends an interesting signal to Iran, whose regime should begin to wonder if Syrians are shifting with the international tides, given the Iranian regime's public brutality and the recent defeat of Hizballah in the recent Lebanese elections. And it positions the U.S. as mediators in potential peace talks between Syria and Israel, which both sides have been pursuing through intermediaries for years.
The Syrians have been slightly uncomfortable with their Iran alliance for years, but they tend to move very slowly and cautiously in negotiations. This is a sign that something's bubbling in Damascus."
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Bob Gates Does the Near Impossible
TW: Gates has become a true bi-partisan. He is weaving his way through two very different POTUSes seemingly with ease. He is putting his stamp firmly on the national security policies of the U.S. He clearly knows how to work the bureaucracies known as the U.S. government and Pentagon. He is also benefiting immensely from what Klein refers to as to be that "unbound, fearless advisor" without future ambitions (not so sure he is truly in his twilight).
We could use more folks like him. It will be interesting to see how long he stays around, he is providing massive cover to everything Obama is doing on the national security front. Furthermore his shift of resources from the longer-term potential threats (i.e. China) to the actual real time threats in Iraq/AfPak inherently will look good until and unless those longer-term threats emerge.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...[during testimony to Congress] Gates is a different sort of Defense Secretary. He warned the legislators that each decision was "zero sum." Any money that went to things he didn't want would come out of programs necessary to support the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Undaunted, the legislators pressed their case — especially the Republicans, who seemed convinced, as one said, that the Pentagon budget was part of a nefarious Obama Administration plot: "Fiscal restraint for defense and fiscal largesse for everything else." Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona was very concerned about anti-missile defense — a gold-plated pipe dream, if there ever was one — and especially a product dramatically called the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. To which Gates replied, in a manner so casually dismissive that Franks seemed to shrivel in his seat, "I would just say that the security of the American people and the efficacy of missile defense are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs ... that are essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars."
...And as for that kinetic contraption, it was a "five-year development program, in its 14th year, not a single flight test, little work on the third stage or the kill vehicle, etc., etc., no known launch platform ..."
...Robert Gates is suddenly seeming almost, well, charismatic. He reeks authority. He is, according to several sources, the most respected voice in National Security Council debates. The President is said to love his unadorned manner. Much of which is attributable to the fact that, in the self-proclaimed twilight of his public career, Gates has emerged as that most exotic of Washington species — the bureaucrat unbound, candid and fearless. He tells members of Congress what he really thinks about their pet programs. He upends Pentagon priorities, demotes the military-industrial hardware pipeline and promotes the immediate needs of the troops on the front line. He fires high-ranking subordinates without muss or controversy — an Air Force secretary and chief of staff who didn't agree with him on the need to end production of the F-22 aircraft; the commandant of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, who presided over disgraceful conditions; even a well-respected general like David McKiernan, a conventional-warfare specialist unsuited for the asymmetrical struggle in Afghanistan.
...The Cheney-Rumsfeld axis, which essentially ran national-security policy in the first half of the Bush Administration, was stuck in the Cold War. Rather than fight the enemy we had — the stateless terrorists of al-Qaeda — they sought more conventional enemies.
...Gates summoned General David Petraeus — no favorite of Rumsfeld's...Gates was about to travel to Iraq and wanted to know what the big questions were. "The biggest question is whether we have the right strategic concept to fight the war," Petraeus told him. "Instead of concentrating all our efforts on transitioning to Iraqi control, we need to go out and secure the population."...
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1901342,00.html
We could use more folks like him. It will be interesting to see how long he stays around, he is providing massive cover to everything Obama is doing on the national security front. Furthermore his shift of resources from the longer-term potential threats (i.e. China) to the actual real time threats in Iraq/AfPak inherently will look good until and unless those longer-term threats emerge.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...[during testimony to Congress] Gates is a different sort of Defense Secretary. He warned the legislators that each decision was "zero sum." Any money that went to things he didn't want would come out of programs necessary to support the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Undaunted, the legislators pressed their case — especially the Republicans, who seemed convinced, as one said, that the Pentagon budget was part of a nefarious Obama Administration plot: "Fiscal restraint for defense and fiscal largesse for everything else." Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona was very concerned about anti-missile defense — a gold-plated pipe dream, if there ever was one — and especially a product dramatically called the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. To which Gates replied, in a manner so casually dismissive that Franks seemed to shrivel in his seat, "I would just say that the security of the American people and the efficacy of missile defense are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs ... that are essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars."
...And as for that kinetic contraption, it was a "five-year development program, in its 14th year, not a single flight test, little work on the third stage or the kill vehicle, etc., etc., no known launch platform ..."
...Robert Gates is suddenly seeming almost, well, charismatic. He reeks authority. He is, according to several sources, the most respected voice in National Security Council debates. The President is said to love his unadorned manner. Much of which is attributable to the fact that, in the self-proclaimed twilight of his public career, Gates has emerged as that most exotic of Washington species — the bureaucrat unbound, candid and fearless. He tells members of Congress what he really thinks about their pet programs. He upends Pentagon priorities, demotes the military-industrial hardware pipeline and promotes the immediate needs of the troops on the front line. He fires high-ranking subordinates without muss or controversy — an Air Force secretary and chief of staff who didn't agree with him on the need to end production of the F-22 aircraft; the commandant of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, who presided over disgraceful conditions; even a well-respected general like David McKiernan, a conventional-warfare specialist unsuited for the asymmetrical struggle in Afghanistan.
...The Cheney-Rumsfeld axis, which essentially ran national-security policy in the first half of the Bush Administration, was stuck in the Cold War. Rather than fight the enemy we had — the stateless terrorists of al-Qaeda — they sought more conventional enemies.
...Gates summoned General David Petraeus — no favorite of Rumsfeld's...Gates was about to travel to Iraq and wanted to know what the big questions were. "The biggest question is whether we have the right strategic concept to fight the war," Petraeus told him. "Instead of concentrating all our efforts on transitioning to Iraqi control, we need to go out and secure the population."...
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1901342,00.html
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Iraq Simmering Not Boiling For Now (cont.)
TW: Iraq barely makes headlines which in a way is a good thing. But the absence of coverage has more to do with the attention shift to Afghanistan partly due to MSM's lack of funds to cover more than one war at a time. It does not mean things are settled much less over. Am reading over and over that while progress has been made the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd divide remains wide as ever. Maliki is a Shiite whose Sunni bonafides do not appear to be growing.
We are going to greatly reduce our forces barring a massive shift in realities on the ground. What Iraq will look like a year from now is anybody's guess.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...the arrest of a key leader of the Sunni Awakening Councils in Diyala province is not a good sign. Diyala, which is located just northeast of Baghdad has been one of the toughest provinces to calm over the past two years, in part because it is not pure of sect--the Sunnis represent a significant minority. Diyala is, then, a crucial test for the Maliki government's effort to reintegrate Sunnis into the government...and there are far too many indications that Maliki is failing in Diyala and elsewhere.
We are going to greatly reduce our forces barring a massive shift in realities on the ground. What Iraq will look like a year from now is anybody's guess.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...the arrest of a key leader of the Sunni Awakening Councils in Diyala province is not a good sign. Diyala, which is located just northeast of Baghdad has been one of the toughest provinces to calm over the past two years, in part because it is not pure of sect--the Sunnis represent a significant minority. Diyala is, then, a crucial test for the Maliki government's effort to reintegrate Sunnis into the government...and there are far too many indications that Maliki is failing in Diyala and elsewhere.
I'd suspect that a good part of the rising body count in Iraq is being orchestrated to coincide with the planned departure of U.S. troops from the major cities, which is to take place over the next month. But there is a growing danger that Iraq could backslide into civil war--not just between Sunni and Shiites, but between Arabs and Kurds--if Maliki doesn't start making a more determined effort to reunite his country."
Thursday, May 14, 2009
We Committed a Crime
TW: This Klein piece summarizes very well my own thoughts on the torture situation in general and the non-release of the associated photos in particular. We as a nation, not just certain Republicans (although they bear a disproportionate share of responsibility as evidenced by their rabid and venomous defence), committed errors post 9/11. These errors are arguably criminal. Whether criminalizing these errors is even more arguable.
That these errors may not be criminalized does not diminish the shame all Americans should feel regarding the actions taken in our name. As Klein points out, we do not need more photos to document what we now all know. I could post a hundred shameful photos from previously released files. If those do not make you ashamed, then that is your problem.
Those lefty folks getting all bent out of shape neglect the costs associated with creating a brand new set of propaganda for our enemies. Rubbing our collective noses in the stench and rot and feces will accomplish little.
That said having to hide our shame is no way to act as a country that prides itself on being "exceptional". Those who cry loudest about alleged American exceptionalism are some of the same folks taking actual pride in conducting torture. Exceptional countries need to be better than our enemies not equally brutal.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"A picture is worth more than a thousand words to an illiterate. The literacy rate in the non-urban areas of Afghanistan and North West Pakistan is less than 10%. Thousands of American troops will be pouring into southern Afghanistan this summer. They will have their hands full with the Taliban. As it is, they have to overcome the disastrous impact of civilian casualties caused by aerial bombing, a tactic one hopes will become far less common with the new, counterinsurgency-based military leadership in Afghanistan. They certainly don't need the intense provocation that torture photos will cause among the Pashtun tribes, which is why, I think, the President has decided to oppose their publication.
I am sure the civil liberties absolutists will say that this impinges on the free flow of information. They have a point. But we've gotten the picture: we know what American torture looks like. And the distribution of these photos, with American troops and diplomats and international humanitarian workers at risk, constitutes something akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
I oppose torture. I think Dick Cheney, the mastermind of this program, is pretty close to a criminal--and that his attempts to twist the U.S. Constitution to his purposes, based on, shall we say, an eccentric reading of one of the lesser Federalist Papers, is obscene. I also believe that those who are now claiming that these expanded interrogation techniques "worked" have a very steep hill to climb--especially since the example they usually give, the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, is inaccurate. (Zubaydah had given up the whereabouts of Khalid Sheik Mohammed long before he was waterboarded, under proper interrogation by the FBI.)
But I also believe there were mitigating circumstances. This was right after 9/11. There were 3000 dead. There was anthrax in the air. I can understand Nancy Pelosi's impulse to look the other way--if I'd been in a position of authority, I might have acted the same way...and you might have, too. I think the impulse of some on the left to perseverate on this issue is understandable--torture is illegal--but it is unfortunate. All the energy devoted to this will result in...what? Justice, you say? Well, maybe. But most lawyers who are not civil liberties absolutists seem to believe it will be exceedingly difficult to make a case against the Bush Administration miscreants. And the publication of these photos is far more likely to inflame--and endanger--than inform or illuminate. We don't need to see them, especially now."
That these errors may not be criminalized does not diminish the shame all Americans should feel regarding the actions taken in our name. As Klein points out, we do not need more photos to document what we now all know. I could post a hundred shameful photos from previously released files. If those do not make you ashamed, then that is your problem.
Those lefty folks getting all bent out of shape neglect the costs associated with creating a brand new set of propaganda for our enemies. Rubbing our collective noses in the stench and rot and feces will accomplish little.
That said having to hide our shame is no way to act as a country that prides itself on being "exceptional". Those who cry loudest about alleged American exceptionalism are some of the same folks taking actual pride in conducting torture. Exceptional countries need to be better than our enemies not equally brutal.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"A picture is worth more than a thousand words to an illiterate. The literacy rate in the non-urban areas of Afghanistan and North West Pakistan is less than 10%. Thousands of American troops will be pouring into southern Afghanistan this summer. They will have their hands full with the Taliban. As it is, they have to overcome the disastrous impact of civilian casualties caused by aerial bombing, a tactic one hopes will become far less common with the new, counterinsurgency-based military leadership in Afghanistan. They certainly don't need the intense provocation that torture photos will cause among the Pashtun tribes, which is why, I think, the President has decided to oppose their publication.
I am sure the civil liberties absolutists will say that this impinges on the free flow of information. They have a point. But we've gotten the picture: we know what American torture looks like. And the distribution of these photos, with American troops and diplomats and international humanitarian workers at risk, constitutes something akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
I oppose torture. I think Dick Cheney, the mastermind of this program, is pretty close to a criminal--and that his attempts to twist the U.S. Constitution to his purposes, based on, shall we say, an eccentric reading of one of the lesser Federalist Papers, is obscene. I also believe that those who are now claiming that these expanded interrogation techniques "worked" have a very steep hill to climb--especially since the example they usually give, the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, is inaccurate. (Zubaydah had given up the whereabouts of Khalid Sheik Mohammed long before he was waterboarded, under proper interrogation by the FBI.)
But I also believe there were mitigating circumstances. This was right after 9/11. There were 3000 dead. There was anthrax in the air. I can understand Nancy Pelosi's impulse to look the other way--if I'd been in a position of authority, I might have acted the same way...and you might have, too. I think the impulse of some on the left to perseverate on this issue is understandable--torture is illegal--but it is unfortunate. All the energy devoted to this will result in...what? Justice, you say? Well, maybe. But most lawyers who are not civil liberties absolutists seem to believe it will be exceedingly difficult to make a case against the Bush Administration miscreants. And the publication of these photos is far more likely to inflame--and endanger--than inform or illuminate. We don't need to see them, especially now."
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Pashtunistan
TW: Klein continues to crank out good stuff on Pak/Af or more aptly relative to the emerging term, Pashtunistan. As in any war it is essential to understand why your opponent is fighting. In Pak/Af are we fighting Al-Qaeda? nationalists? criminals? tribalists? religious zealots? The answer, of course, is some combination of all of the above. We can accommodate in some form with all of them but for Al-Qaeda unfortunately segregating one from the other is next to impossible.The map above displays the challenge of trying to explicitly accommodate Pashtun nationalism beyond strict limits. Neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan would appreciate losing half their current geography to a new entity. Not to mention opening that can of worms would set of India as similar nationalist sentiment would emerge on their western frontier (and probably on Iran's eastern frontier as well). This is merely another example of those lines created during the colonial era between about 1880 and 1925 based almost exclusively on European politics, which are now coming back to bite the world in the ass.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...the Taliban's strategic advantage is plain: they don't have to worry about the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Indeed, they have a different map than we do.
Our map divides Afghanistan and Pakistan along the Durand Line, the imaginary boundary imposed by Sir Mortimer Durand in 1893. But neither the Afghans nor the Pashtuns accept that. The Afghans believe that the Durand line--which follows geographic markers, like rivers and the mountain lines, rather than tribal realities--was a 100-year fix that expired in 1993...The real Pashtunistan includes the Pakistani North West Frontier province and tribal areas plus much of Afghanistan's south and east, including the cities of Kabul, Jalalabad and Kandahar.
The Taliban are, in effect, the Pashtun Liberation Army. They don't see the same border that we--or the Pakistanis--do. Their motivation is, in part, religious, but very largely nationalist--and traditionally xenophobic. They don't like outsiders, whether they are Americans, Punjabis (who control the Pakistan military) or Tajiks (Afghanistan's Northern Alliance). They have made common cause with the "Arabs"--Al Qaeda--because of religious affinity and the existence of common enemies (namely us).
I have not yet heard one credible account of how the U.S. addresses this problem. But I imagine that a plausible solution would ultimately involve the following: We recognize the Pashtun reality, in some form, and the Pashtuns, in turn, decouple themselves from, and kick out, Al Qaeda. That seems quite impossible, of course, given the alternative reality we've inherited from the British--Afghan and Pakistani statehood along a ridiculous and untenable line. The only way this situation is resolved, however, is if some way can be found to make those competing realities mesh."
Saturday, May 2, 2009
That American Exceptionalism
TW: Klein frames better than I can why those on the right getting bent out of shape at Obama not walking around with a chip on his shoulder despite representing the world's superpower need to reconsider. This stuff makes sense.
From Joe Klein Time:
"...American exceptionalism means one thing to Americans and quite the opposite to most of the rest of the world, especially after the Bush fiasco. To Americans, it refers to our most obvious and unique strength--that ours is the only nation where citizenship is not dependent on ethnic identity, but on the willingness to subscribe to the ideas of freedom, equality and democracy. When we're at our best, America tends to mean that to the rest of the world as well.
But in recent years, much of the rest of the world came to see American exceptionalism as a belief that we can make our own rules, make exceptions, as it were. We could unilaterally decide to make war in Iraq, withdraw from the global warming negotiations, allow India and Israel to abide by one set of rules when it came to nuclear proliferation and Iran to another. What Obama was actually saying was this: While America regards itself as extraordinary, we will no longer act on the international stage as if we are the ultimate repository of wisdom and righteousness. We are going to try to defuse tinhorns like Hugo Chavez with civility. We will sit and patiently listen to Daniel Ortega's toothless rant, just as all the other countries in the hemisphere do. We have enough faith in our values that we're willing to open relations with anyone--Cuba, Iran--secure in the knowledge that the more those countries are exposed to us, the more they'll want to be like us, which will put enormous pressure on their governments to change (as was the case with Russia and China).
This sort of policy, which should have been America's default position since the end of the Cold War, was delayed first by Clinton's weakness and defensiveness and then by Bush's crude xenophobia. It will take some time for the world to get used to it; it may not work in every circumstance. There may be times when the U.S. has to go it alone. But the past eight years were an unprecedented American disaster overseas and the overwhelming majority of Americans--an exceptional 7 out of 10 in some polls--believe that Obama's new path is the right one."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/28/exceptional-myopia/
From Joe Klein Time:
"...American exceptionalism means one thing to Americans and quite the opposite to most of the rest of the world, especially after the Bush fiasco. To Americans, it refers to our most obvious and unique strength--that ours is the only nation where citizenship is not dependent on ethnic identity, but on the willingness to subscribe to the ideas of freedom, equality and democracy. When we're at our best, America tends to mean that to the rest of the world as well.
But in recent years, much of the rest of the world came to see American exceptionalism as a belief that we can make our own rules, make exceptions, as it were. We could unilaterally decide to make war in Iraq, withdraw from the global warming negotiations, allow India and Israel to abide by one set of rules when it came to nuclear proliferation and Iran to another. What Obama was actually saying was this: While America regards itself as extraordinary, we will no longer act on the international stage as if we are the ultimate repository of wisdom and righteousness. We are going to try to defuse tinhorns like Hugo Chavez with civility. We will sit and patiently listen to Daniel Ortega's toothless rant, just as all the other countries in the hemisphere do. We have enough faith in our values that we're willing to open relations with anyone--Cuba, Iran--secure in the knowledge that the more those countries are exposed to us, the more they'll want to be like us, which will put enormous pressure on their governments to change (as was the case with Russia and China).
This sort of policy, which should have been America's default position since the end of the Cold War, was delayed first by Clinton's weakness and defensiveness and then by Bush's crude xenophobia. It will take some time for the world to get used to it; it may not work in every circumstance. There may be times when the U.S. has to go it alone. But the past eight years were an unprecedented American disaster overseas and the overwhelming majority of Americans--an exceptional 7 out of 10 in some polls--believe that Obama's new path is the right one."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/28/exceptional-myopia/
Thursday, April 16, 2009
This Bulge Explains Much
TW: Nate Silver hits on a good point regarding why drug legalization is creeping back towards respectability. The baby boomers and those since were much heavier users (or at least experimenters) with pot than those who came before them. As the user demographic crowds out the older voters, pot becomes less exotic and perhaps less threatening.Joe Klein put together a recent piece on legalization. We have hit many of the points previously but he reiterates some of the numbers and angles. Pot legalization goes to numerous challenges facing the U.S.- need for tax revenue, desire to reduce imports and grow domestic industry, need to reduce the stress at the Mexican border, need to address our ineffectively bulging prisons, and ultimately the need to address whether pot, alcohol and tobacco should be treated so differently.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...the U.S. is, by far, the most "criminal" country in the world, with 5% of the world's population and 25% of its prisoners. We spend $68 billion per year on corrections, and one-third of those being corrected are serving time for nonviolent drug crimes. We spend about $150 billion on policing and courts, and 47.5% of all arrests are marijuana-related.
...It is estimated that pot is the largest cash crop in California, with annual revenues approaching $14 billion. A 10% pot tax would yield $1.4 billion in California alone. And that's probably a fraction of the revenues that would be available — and of the economic impact, with thousands of new jobs in agriculture, packaging, marketing and advertising.
So why not do it? There are serious moral arguments, both secular and religious. There are those who believe — with some good reason — that the accretion of legalized vices is debilitating, that we are a less virtuous society since gambling spilled out from Las Vegas to "riverboats" and state lotteries across the country. There is a medical argument, though not a very convincing one: alcohol is more dangerous in a variety of ways, including the tendency of some drunks to get violent. One could argue that the abuse of McDonald's has a greater potential health-care cost than the abuse of marijuana. (Although it's true that with legalization, those two might not be unrelated.) Obviously, marijuana can be abused. But the costs of criminalization have proved to be enormous, perhaps unsustainable. Would legalization be any worse?.."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889021,00.html
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Terrorism About Which I Worry
TW: I concur with Klein. The type terrorist attacks I have always considered most likely are where heavily armed folks start shooting or exploding things amidst crowds (a mall, stadium, crowded street, airport check-in, schools etc.). This is what happened in Mumbai, the ease with which motivated (i.e. suicidal) terrorists could pull off such acts is not particularly high I would think regardless of security measures. This would essentially be Columbine on steroids.
The manic means by which American media and the public reacts to domestic sourced shootings overlaid with the emotion associated with "terrorism" would lead to a populist trauma that would have little bounds. Such trauma is exactly what the terrorists would be seeking of course.
"The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud--who likely planned the assassination of Benazir Bhutto--has claimed credit for [the recent] horrific attack at the Pakistani police academy near Lahore, and he is threatening similar attacks in Washington:
"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone.
This is not an insignificant threat: U.S. intelligence officials have been worried since the Mumbai slaughter in December that a new wave of low-tech terrorist attacks are in the offing, less spectacular that 9/11--but horrific nonetheless. "We've been lucky, if you can call it that, that Al Qaeda has been fixated on duplicating spectacular plots like 9/11," one intelligence expert told me.
...The Mumbai effort required no local infrastructure--no sleeper cells in India, nothing more than a few boats to ferry the attackers into Mumbai harbor, plus communications equipment and smalls arms. Similarly, and unlike the elaborate planning that preceded 9/11, Al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists could sneak across the porous Mexican or Canadian borders and hit a shopping mall, a government building, a sports event, a school anywhere in the United States..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/31/terrors-next-wave/
The manic means by which American media and the public reacts to domestic sourced shootings overlaid with the emotion associated with "terrorism" would lead to a populist trauma that would have little bounds. Such trauma is exactly what the terrorists would be seeking of course.
There will come a time when Americans have to face up to sacrificing tremendous liberty in a likely futile effort to limit any losses to terrorists or learn how to absorb the risk and move on with their lives.
From Joe Klein at Time:"The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud--who likely planned the assassination of Benazir Bhutto--has claimed credit for [the recent] horrific attack at the Pakistani police academy near Lahore, and he is threatening similar attacks in Washington:
"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone.
This is not an insignificant threat: U.S. intelligence officials have been worried since the Mumbai slaughter in December that a new wave of low-tech terrorist attacks are in the offing, less spectacular that 9/11--but horrific nonetheless. "We've been lucky, if you can call it that, that Al Qaeda has been fixated on duplicating spectacular plots like 9/11," one intelligence expert told me.
...The Mumbai effort required no local infrastructure--no sleeper cells in India, nothing more than a few boats to ferry the attackers into Mumbai harbor, plus communications equipment and smalls arms. Similarly, and unlike the elaborate planning that preceded 9/11, Al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists could sneak across the porous Mexican or Canadian borders and hit a shopping mall, a government building, a sports event, a school anywhere in the United States..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/31/terrors-next-wave/
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Republicans Really Need A Facial
TW: The Republicans have a serious problem. Their party is being defined as a cast of undesirables by a fleet of obnoxious, toxic media stars. The combination of W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Sarah Palin and now Micelle Bachman as brought to us by Rush, Hannity and Glenn Beck is creating a witches brew.
Barack Obama and the Dems are not perfect but the not so loyal opposition is failing to provide even a modicum of considered, serious, viable alternatives. This piece by Klein frames the challenge. He makes an indirect comparison between Rush and Paul Krugman. Yes, Krugman is strident and outspoken, and even porcine. But Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist with massive economic credentials, more importantly his name recognition is likely not even half of Rush's. Rush is an entertainer and a primary face of the Republican party, Krugman is an academic little known beyond the pages of the NYT.
Meanwhile, Bachmann, Gingrich et al. appear regularly on Fox making increasingly outlandish and largely irrelevant accusations and claims. Glenn Beck and Bachmann are touting a one-world currency conspiracy more or less out of thin air. Crazy pols are not new. Racist and virulent anti-communist congressmen fomenting illusory conspiracies were no rarity through the 1960's. But there was no Internet, you tube or Fox News back then to push such rubbish to the fore.
This toxic combination of political caricatures and foaming media personalities bodes ill for the Republicans and the country. We need a serious opposition to help tone policies, not crazy harangues.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"I've known Newt Gingrich for about 20 years now and I've always enjoyed him intellectually, but detested him politically. The reason for the latter is his now-anachronistic first resort to anger; again and again, he cheapens public discourse through exaggeration and wild claims. One imagines that if John McCain were President and Paul Krugman had said, out of the box, that he wanted McCain to fail, Gingrich would be leading the charge, calling Krugman "unpatriotic" and even, perhaps, traitorous.
As it is, I won't call Newt--or the other conservative hyperbolic baloney slicers--unpatriotic. Just graceless, boorish. And completely, demagogically out of touch with the national mood--which is concerned, serious and resistant to right-wing bullpucky. The latest was Newt's completely over-the-top reaction to Tim Geithner's new regulatory plan on the vile Hannity's program the other night:
So far, Geithner--and yes, Summers--have shown excellent balance, a respect for the free market system plus an awareness that the public needs to be protected from the sharks. Gingrich et al will remain banished somewhere in the outer darkness--and the Fox News cave-ghetto--until they realize that the Obama Administration's economic plans are not at all extreme, but a reflection of the broad American middle. Just ask Paul Krugman."
Barack Obama and the Dems are not perfect but the not so loyal opposition is failing to provide even a modicum of considered, serious, viable alternatives. This piece by Klein frames the challenge. He makes an indirect comparison between Rush and Paul Krugman. Yes, Krugman is strident and outspoken, and even porcine. But Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist with massive economic credentials, more importantly his name recognition is likely not even half of Rush's. Rush is an entertainer and a primary face of the Republican party, Krugman is an academic little known beyond the pages of the NYT.
Meanwhile, Bachmann, Gingrich et al. appear regularly on Fox making increasingly outlandish and largely irrelevant accusations and claims. Glenn Beck and Bachmann are touting a one-world currency conspiracy more or less out of thin air. Crazy pols are not new. Racist and virulent anti-communist congressmen fomenting illusory conspiracies were no rarity through the 1960's. But there was no Internet, you tube or Fox News back then to push such rubbish to the fore.
This toxic combination of political caricatures and foaming media personalities bodes ill for the Republicans and the country. We need a serious opposition to help tone policies, not crazy harangues.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"I've known Newt Gingrich for about 20 years now and I've always enjoyed him intellectually, but detested him politically. The reason for the latter is his now-anachronistic first resort to anger; again and again, he cheapens public discourse through exaggeration and wild claims. One imagines that if John McCain were President and Paul Krugman had said, out of the box, that he wanted McCain to fail, Gingrich would be leading the charge, calling Krugman "unpatriotic" and even, perhaps, traitorous.
As it is, I won't call Newt--or the other conservative hyperbolic baloney slicers--unpatriotic. Just graceless, boorish. And completely, demagogically out of touch with the national mood--which is concerned, serious and resistant to right-wing bullpucky. The latest was Newt's completely over-the-top reaction to Tim Geithner's new regulatory plan on the vile Hannity's program the other night:
We are seeing the biggest power grab by politicians in American history. The idea that they would propose that the treasury could intervene and take over system assets gives them the potential to basically create the equivalent of a dictatorship.Actually, what we're seeing is a reasoned public reaction to the fact that the financial services industry was given free rein--by Republicans and Democrats (I'm still looking at you, Larry Summers)--to engage in the most outrageous schemes since the 1920s. Millions and millions of people have had their retirement plans shredded by these banker-mopes, millions have lost their jobs. But those are people who do not inhabit the Beltway-right-wing-lecture-circuit planet that Newt and various others live on. Their unwillingness to protect average Americans from the untrammeled rapacity of an unregulated market is a disgrace.
You don't want to do what they want, they take over your company. You do what they want, Congress retroactively, and this is what made last week's lynch mob like a third world government when the Congress literally got out of control, panicked, panicked because people were mad at it, and it turned out that the Congress had passed the authorization in the stimulus bill for to pay those bonuses.
The Congress had approved it, the people at were acting what they thought was the rules set by the government. Suddenly they're being attacked,they are retroactively losing their money. Why would anybody want to invest in a country.
So far, Geithner--and yes, Summers--have shown excellent balance, a respect for the free market system plus an awareness that the public needs to be protected from the sharks. Gingrich et al will remain banished somewhere in the outer darkness--and the Fox News cave-ghetto--until they realize that the Obama Administration's economic plans are not at all extreme, but a reflection of the broad American middle. Just ask Paul Krugman."
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Russia: Grizzly or Cubby Bear?
TW: I vote for Cubby. The neo-cons vote for Grizzly. Do the Russians have a chip on their shoulder? yes; nukes? yes; a strong conventional military? absolutely not; a strong economy?absolutely not; strong moral authority associated with a western liberal democracy? absolutely not; are they surrounded by hostile or dysfunctional states on nearly every border? YES.
Yet the neo-cons want to fret and create another frictional relationship between the U.S. and Russia. Respect the Russians and politely tell them to pound sand whilst their economy implodes. It will be much less risky and costly than the neo-con confrontational, answer a chip on the other's shoulder with a bigger chip approach.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"[Neo-cons are promoting that] Barack Obama is getting played by the Russians. This is a theme that goes back to John McCain's overreaction to the skirmish in Georgia last summer--and further, to Robert Kagan's theory that the Russkies are roaring again. Which goes back to the neoconservative tic of searching for--at times, creating--enemies rather than opportunities.
In other words, this is cold war nonsense. The Russians were behind Kyrghizstan's "decision" to close down the American base there, an important Afghan supply link. (The "decision" is more like the opening round in a negotiation, which will probably wind up with the U.S. shelling out more for the rights to use the base.) The Russians want to have a choke-hold on U.S. Afghan supply routes. The Russians want to build a naval base in Abkhazia--nominally part of Georgia, but not really--on the Black Sea. The Russians want to gobble up Georgia.
OK. Russia has a history of aggression in its near-abroad. Let's assume all of the above is true, even if it probably isn't. (Why would the Russians want to put a choke-hold on our ability to fight in Afghanistan, where the enemy is the jihadi allies of the central asian Islamic terrorists--Chechens, Uzbeks etc--making life difficult along Russia's southern border?) Realism dictates that if the Russians actually want to swallow Georgia, there's nothing we can do to stop them. (Realism also dictates that the Russians learned a lesson when their stock market tanked last summer--foreign investors fleeing--when it seemed they would actually press on to Tblisi.)
On the other hand, let's say we do what Obama seems interested in doing: make further reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles, and agree to put a hold on the anti-ballistic system in Europe (a system that is a technological fantasy, so far, in any case)...if the Russians successfully help to convince--or help threaten--the Iranians to halt their nuclear weapons plans. Diehl seems to think that because the Russians appear to open to this sort of negotiation, we should be suspicious of it. If--a big if, granted--we could stop the Iranian bomb program at the price of the anti-ballistic missile system (and slow-walking Georgia and Ukraine's entry into NATO), who wouldn't take that deal?
The fact is, Russia isn't the Soviet Union. Its military, beyond a few elite units, is decrepit. Its economy is suddenly shaky, given the recession--and the drop in demand for its oil and gas. It may be able to threaten a few former Soviet provinces, but its Eastern European satellites are safely tucked beneath the NATO and EU umbrella.
We have had eight years of neoconservative huffing and puffing about this putative enemy and that. This Russia fixation is among the weirder outcroppings. Obama's "reset" with Russia may not work, but it's certainly worth a major effort."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/23/ursa-minor/
Yet the neo-cons want to fret and create another frictional relationship between the U.S. and Russia. Respect the Russians and politely tell them to pound sand whilst their economy implodes. It will be much less risky and costly than the neo-con confrontational, answer a chip on the other's shoulder with a bigger chip approach.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"[Neo-cons are promoting that] Barack Obama is getting played by the Russians. This is a theme that goes back to John McCain's overreaction to the skirmish in Georgia last summer--and further, to Robert Kagan's theory that the Russkies are roaring again. Which goes back to the neoconservative tic of searching for--at times, creating--enemies rather than opportunities.
In other words, this is cold war nonsense. The Russians were behind Kyrghizstan's "decision" to close down the American base there, an important Afghan supply link. (The "decision" is more like the opening round in a negotiation, which will probably wind up with the U.S. shelling out more for the rights to use the base.) The Russians want to have a choke-hold on U.S. Afghan supply routes. The Russians want to build a naval base in Abkhazia--nominally part of Georgia, but not really--on the Black Sea. The Russians want to gobble up Georgia.
OK. Russia has a history of aggression in its near-abroad. Let's assume all of the above is true, even if it probably isn't. (Why would the Russians want to put a choke-hold on our ability to fight in Afghanistan, where the enemy is the jihadi allies of the central asian Islamic terrorists--Chechens, Uzbeks etc--making life difficult along Russia's southern border?) Realism dictates that if the Russians actually want to swallow Georgia, there's nothing we can do to stop them. (Realism also dictates that the Russians learned a lesson when their stock market tanked last summer--foreign investors fleeing--when it seemed they would actually press on to Tblisi.)
On the other hand, let's say we do what Obama seems interested in doing: make further reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles, and agree to put a hold on the anti-ballistic system in Europe (a system that is a technological fantasy, so far, in any case)...if the Russians successfully help to convince--or help threaten--the Iranians to halt their nuclear weapons plans. Diehl seems to think that because the Russians appear to open to this sort of negotiation, we should be suspicious of it. If--a big if, granted--we could stop the Iranian bomb program at the price of the anti-ballistic missile system (and slow-walking Georgia and Ukraine's entry into NATO), who wouldn't take that deal?
The fact is, Russia isn't the Soviet Union. Its military, beyond a few elite units, is decrepit. Its economy is suddenly shaky, given the recession--and the drop in demand for its oil and gas. It may be able to threaten a few former Soviet provinces, but its Eastern European satellites are safely tucked beneath the NATO and EU umbrella.
We have had eight years of neoconservative huffing and puffing about this putative enemy and that. This Russia fixation is among the weirder outcroppings. Obama's "reset" with Russia may not work, but it's certainly worth a major effort."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/23/ursa-minor/
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Getting Our Allies Off Their Asses
TW: Have spoken in past about how Bush leaving and Obama arriving puts increased pressure on our allies. With Bush life was simple, since Bush had little credibility the allies could sit on their hands and claim the U.S. was not promoting valid policies regardless of the circumstances. With Obama the onus shifts to the allies to articulate how they will participate in jointly addressing the plethora of challenges facing the world. This is not to say they should follow the U.S. like lemmings as we will still make mistakes but in these very challenging times there is always the need for leadership and the U.S. remains that entity.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"At this year's U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, speaker after Muslim speaker had nothing particularly awful to say about the United States. The Muslims were, in fact, hopeful about, and slightly amazed by, the new American President. Some even wondered aloud what they could do to help him succeed.
...Anwar Ibrahim, the Malaysian opposition leader [asked]...'will the U.S. find credible partners in the Muslim world? ... How do we expect the President of the United States to solve our problems when we do nothing?'
...The clearest statement of American intent came from Vice President Joe Biden in Munich...'We will listen. We will consult. We will strive to act preventively, not pre-emptively." And "America will act aggressively against climate change." He offered an unclenched fist to Iran and a willingness to push "the reset button" with Russia'
...This clarion statement of international sanity had a curious effect on its audience: stunned silence, as the assembled Europeans and Russians were confronted with a terrifying new reality. They were out of excuses, especially our NATO allies. If the U.S. was done with thoughtless bellicosity, the peaceable Euros might have to respond more substantively to our requests for them to live up to their pledges in Afghanistan. This seemed the underlying tension in Munich — the split between countries whose troops actually fight in Afghanistan and those whose troops do not. It is a breach to watch, one that could cripple the alliance.
...As a result, Obama's foreign policy will move at the speed of diplomacy — slower than a sclerotic donkey — punctuated by the occasional laser whoosh of a Hellfire missile in Waziristan. His policies will be nuanced and will not please anyone overmuch — not the Muslims (nor the Israelis) nor our NATO allies nor those Americans seeking ideological clarity or consistency"
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1880379,00.html
From Joe Klein at Time:
"At this year's U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, speaker after Muslim speaker had nothing particularly awful to say about the United States. The Muslims were, in fact, hopeful about, and slightly amazed by, the new American President. Some even wondered aloud what they could do to help him succeed.
...Anwar Ibrahim, the Malaysian opposition leader [asked]...'will the U.S. find credible partners in the Muslim world? ... How do we expect the President of the United States to solve our problems when we do nothing?'
...The clearest statement of American intent came from Vice President Joe Biden in Munich...'We will listen. We will consult. We will strive to act preventively, not pre-emptively." And "America will act aggressively against climate change." He offered an unclenched fist to Iran and a willingness to push "the reset button" with Russia'
...This clarion statement of international sanity had a curious effect on its audience: stunned silence, as the assembled Europeans and Russians were confronted with a terrifying new reality. They were out of excuses, especially our NATO allies. If the U.S. was done with thoughtless bellicosity, the peaceable Euros might have to respond more substantively to our requests for them to live up to their pledges in Afghanistan. This seemed the underlying tension in Munich — the split between countries whose troops actually fight in Afghanistan and those whose troops do not. It is a breach to watch, one that could cripple the alliance.
...As a result, Obama's foreign policy will move at the speed of diplomacy — slower than a sclerotic donkey — punctuated by the occasional laser whoosh of a Hellfire missile in Waziristan. His policies will be nuanced and will not please anyone overmuch — not the Muslims (nor the Israelis) nor our NATO allies nor those Americans seeking ideological clarity or consistency"
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1880379,00.html
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Israeli Election: Astride the Precipice
TW: As we collectively stare at our own navels with the stimulus kerfuffle and on-going economic crisis, the rest of the world also lives. Next Tuesday Israel holds its national election. The right-wing Likud led by Netanyahu is currently favored but even if he wins a plurality he will need coalition partners. One of his potential partners is even further right-wing. Here is to hoping Kadima and Labor fare better than forecast or at least Netanyahu does not head down the path of joining up with Yisreal Beitanu.
Note the reference to our treatment of the Japanese during WWII, we are frequently the moral standard, a lesson we should always keep in mind.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...The New Republic warn[s] about the apparent strength of Avi Lieberman's demi-racist anti-Arab Yisrael Beitanu ("Israel is our Home") party in the coming elections:
Lieberman has focused much of his campaign inciting public anger against Israel's Arab minority. He accuses Israeli-Arab lawmakers of harboring Hamas sympathies, and has called for the parties to be banned from running in the election. His campaign ads show Israeli-Arab students demonstrating against the Gaza war as a narrator ominously intones, "We won't forget that, during the Gaza conflict, there were those among us who stood with Hamas." As for the Gaza operation itself, Lieberman has denounced the cease-fire as a sell-out of the military. His preferred strategy is total war against the Gazan population: "We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II."
If, as seems likely, Binyamin Netanyahu and the Likud Party wins the election next Tuesday, this will be a real test. Netanyahu will have to build a coalition to govern--does he include Yisrael Beitanu? Or does he take a more centrist, and traditional path, by including Kadima (Ariel Sharon's old party, led by Tzipi Livni) and Labor (led by Ehud Barak, who should remain as Defense Minister). If Netanyahu goes the radical route, it has to be seen as an extremely provocative, xenophobic (and perhaps racist) move. The U.S. should express deep concern and disapproval. In fact, the U.S. should be sending a clear message that no matter the makeup of the new government, the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has to end immediately. With no exceptions."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/05/an-israeli-electoral-embarrassment/
Note the reference to our treatment of the Japanese during WWII, we are frequently the moral standard, a lesson we should always keep in mind.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...The New Republic warn[s] about the apparent strength of Avi Lieberman's demi-racist anti-Arab Yisrael Beitanu ("Israel is our Home") party in the coming elections:
Lieberman has focused much of his campaign inciting public anger against Israel's Arab minority. He accuses Israeli-Arab lawmakers of harboring Hamas sympathies, and has called for the parties to be banned from running in the election. His campaign ads show Israeli-Arab students demonstrating against the Gaza war as a narrator ominously intones, "We won't forget that, during the Gaza conflict, there were those among us who stood with Hamas." As for the Gaza operation itself, Lieberman has denounced the cease-fire as a sell-out of the military. His preferred strategy is total war against the Gazan population: "We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II."
If, as seems likely, Binyamin Netanyahu and the Likud Party wins the election next Tuesday, this will be a real test. Netanyahu will have to build a coalition to govern--does he include Yisrael Beitanu? Or does he take a more centrist, and traditional path, by including Kadima (Ariel Sharon's old party, led by Tzipi Livni) and Labor (led by Ehud Barak, who should remain as Defense Minister). If Netanyahu goes the radical route, it has to be seen as an extremely provocative, xenophobic (and perhaps racist) move. The U.S. should express deep concern and disapproval. In fact, the U.S. should be sending a clear message that no matter the makeup of the new government, the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has to end immediately. With no exceptions."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/05/an-israeli-electoral-embarrassment/
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Useful Perspective On the Stimulus Process
TW: Joe Klein reminds folks about how messy the legislative process is and how the media gets all tied in knots covering the process as opposed to the substance.
From Klein at Time:
"In 1993, I did a pretty shabby job of covering Bill Clinton's economic plan. It was, in sum, a very good plan--it worked wonders for the economy--but I focused on the mishaps. (Clinton, for example, pulled the rug out from under House Democrats by offering a carbon tax, which they voted for...and then the President removed it from the bill.) Clinton couldn't get any Republican votes for the package. A disaster! He had trouble getting Democratic votes for it; he had to beg Bob Kerrey for his vote to get it through the Senate. His presidency was in ruins! He had lost all credibility! (Actually, those of us who had focused on some big ugly trees rather than the blooming forest were the ones who had lost credibility.)
It pains me to watch normally reasonable colleagues overreacting to Obama's situation now--which is far less dire than Clinton's was. Some form of stimulus will pass. If it doesn't revive the economy, then more stimulus will be passed. Obama's maintaining the proper balance of reaching out to Republicans, making some compromises, but staying firm on the need for a bill that includes public works as well as tax cuts. A Republican Senator, a vocal opponent of the bill, told me the other day: "The guy has really impressed us. We may not vote for the bill, and he may have to learn that you have to give us more than he wants to give us to make us happy, but he's made a really strong start that will work to his benefit down the road."
3. The legislative process is as ugly as a wart. We only notice it when an earth-shattering monstrosity like the stimulus bill comes gallumphing down the track, but there is no such thing as elegant legislation. You always have to throw in a little sweetener--the museum of organized crime in Las Vegas, the military kazoo band, whatever--if you want to cobble together the votes needed to win. This is business as usual--and Barack Obama is guilty as charged: he's trying to get this thing through the old-fashioned way. So what? What's new is his priorities: his efforts to put the needs of the working poor and the unemployed ahead of the wealthy, to build a new green economy, to fund inner city education and remake the health insurance system. That is what the American people voted for after an era of Republican neglect. The messiness of the current process is not only inevitable, it also says very little about Obama's ability to deliver on those very necessary goals."
From Klein at Time:
"In 1993, I did a pretty shabby job of covering Bill Clinton's economic plan. It was, in sum, a very good plan--it worked wonders for the economy--but I focused on the mishaps. (Clinton, for example, pulled the rug out from under House Democrats by offering a carbon tax, which they voted for...and then the President removed it from the bill.) Clinton couldn't get any Republican votes for the package. A disaster! He had trouble getting Democratic votes for it; he had to beg Bob Kerrey for his vote to get it through the Senate. His presidency was in ruins! He had lost all credibility! (Actually, those of us who had focused on some big ugly trees rather than the blooming forest were the ones who had lost credibility.)
It pains me to watch normally reasonable colleagues overreacting to Obama's situation now--which is far less dire than Clinton's was. Some form of stimulus will pass. If it doesn't revive the economy, then more stimulus will be passed. Obama's maintaining the proper balance of reaching out to Republicans, making some compromises, but staying firm on the need for a bill that includes public works as well as tax cuts. A Republican Senator, a vocal opponent of the bill, told me the other day: "The guy has really impressed us. We may not vote for the bill, and he may have to learn that you have to give us more than he wants to give us to make us happy, but he's made a really strong start that will work to his benefit down the road."
3. The legislative process is as ugly as a wart. We only notice it when an earth-shattering monstrosity like the stimulus bill comes gallumphing down the track, but there is no such thing as elegant legislation. You always have to throw in a little sweetener--the museum of organized crime in Las Vegas, the military kazoo band, whatever--if you want to cobble together the votes needed to win. This is business as usual--and Barack Obama is guilty as charged: he's trying to get this thing through the old-fashioned way. So what? What's new is his priorities: his efforts to put the needs of the working poor and the unemployed ahead of the wealthy, to build a new green economy, to fund inner city education and remake the health insurance system. That is what the American people voted for after an era of Republican neglect. The messiness of the current process is not only inevitable, it also says very little about Obama's ability to deliver on those very necessary goals."
Monday, January 19, 2009
Mythbusting
TW: Klein does a fair job of busting this meme the Republicans are trying to create about the alleged high cost of jobs Obama would create with his stimulus plan. There are valid reasons to question the stimulus approach (although none that are dissuasive that I have seen) but using badd math is not a good one. I would add I strongly doubt the Republicans would actually advocate letting the states, food stamps and unemployment insurance just dangle without additional funding.
From Klein at Time:
"...John Boehner's office has been peddling to willing journo-stenographers: that the stimulus package is going to cost $275,000 per new job created.
...$300 billion of the $825B is going to tax relief, which is not at all job-creation related. Another $200 or so billion is going to the states, to enable them to maintain the services they currently provide, also not job-creation related. When you throw in the money going for food stamps, extended unemployment insurance and so forth, you're down to a much smaller number per job created--you'll excuse me if I haven't done the math--much of which will be involved in projects that will save money in the long (retrofitting federal buildings will lead to lower energy costs, for example), make us less dependent on foreign oil, greener and stronger. For the best account of the possibilities and pitfalls of the stimulus plan that I've read, check out Michael Grunwald's excellent piece in this week's Time.
Are there crap projects that will be funded? Undoubtedly. Will the stimulus turn the economy around? Maybe not. (Paul Krugman and others argue it should be larger). But Jennifer Rubin's drivel is an exemplar of the kind of phony-baloney propaganda that we've seen, sadly, from Republicans in recent years, since their "new" ideas either grew old or proved defective. These are not serious arguments; they are, in fact, insulting. They assume a witless populace.
I'd hope that we'd have an intellectually responsible Loyal Opposition that will help hone the fat out of the Obama Administration's proposals; John Boehner's name has never been associated with the words "intellectual" or "responsible." I suspect the G.O.P. will remain in the wilderness for as long as it thinks it can hoodwink the public with such slovenly thinking."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/19/the-hoover-caucus/
From Klein at Time:
"...John Boehner's office has been peddling to willing journo-stenographers: that the stimulus package is going to cost $275,000 per new job created.
...$300 billion of the $825B is going to tax relief, which is not at all job-creation related. Another $200 or so billion is going to the states, to enable them to maintain the services they currently provide, also not job-creation related. When you throw in the money going for food stamps, extended unemployment insurance and so forth, you're down to a much smaller number per job created--you'll excuse me if I haven't done the math--much of which will be involved in projects that will save money in the long (retrofitting federal buildings will lead to lower energy costs, for example), make us less dependent on foreign oil, greener and stronger. For the best account of the possibilities and pitfalls of the stimulus plan that I've read, check out Michael Grunwald's excellent piece in this week's Time.
Are there crap projects that will be funded? Undoubtedly. Will the stimulus turn the economy around? Maybe not. (Paul Krugman and others argue it should be larger). But Jennifer Rubin's drivel is an exemplar of the kind of phony-baloney propaganda that we've seen, sadly, from Republicans in recent years, since their "new" ideas either grew old or proved defective. These are not serious arguments; they are, in fact, insulting. They assume a witless populace.
I'd hope that we'd have an intellectually responsible Loyal Opposition that will help hone the fat out of the Obama Administration's proposals; John Boehner's name has never been associated with the words "intellectual" or "responsible." I suspect the G.O.P. will remain in the wilderness for as long as it thinks it can hoodwink the public with such slovenly thinking."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/19/the-hoover-caucus/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)