A Solo Dialogue
Talking Points Memo asks a good question:
Let's assume Bill Clinton had launched the country on a major war on the other side of the globe. Clinton's top military advisors had told him and his Sec Def that he was sending them to war gravely under-gunned, without all they needed to get the job done and protect the lives of American troops. Then let's assume that Clinton and his Sec Def ignored their advice. He and the Sec Def told the generals they didn't understand how modern wars were fought and sent them out anyway. And then let's assume that the generals and admirals warnings were rapidly confirmed on the battlefield with a bogged down offensive and an escalating number of American casualties. Do you think Clinton and his Sec Def might be in some hot water? Yeah, me too.
It isn't unpatriotic to ask questions about the war and the decisions that have been made before and since.
While Clinton was in office, every criticism was valid for Republicans. Senator Don Nickles felt free to continually criticize the progress of the war in Kosovo in 1999. “Once the bombing commenced, I think then [Slobodan] Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started.” He also stated that “[t]he administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians.”
Bill Saletan wrote
this article in 1999 at the time of the Kosovo campaign, about criticism of that war. His last paragraph is hauntingly accurate:
Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time.
My criticism about this war has always been about how the administration handled the run up. It alienated most of our allies with its heavy-handed diplomacy, and worst of all, failed to get Turkey to allow us to open up a second front.
We are going to get rid of Saddam, which is a good thing, he poses a risk to worldwide peace and security. It doesn’t matter how long it takes, as long as it is done at minimum risk to our servicemen, and hopefully, Iraqi civilians as well. The question in the long term that the administration will have to answer is: did they do everything they could before the war started to make sure to get the job do right. I don’t know the answer yet, but I am worried that civilians, like Don Rumsfeld, decided they knew better than the career military guys and let their own pet theories control how we conducted ourselves.
A great series of articles by Gregg Easterbrook on the
technical aspects of the war and on our strategy. (Look at the bottom of the article for links to his other columns, I think he is updating daily.)
A small victory for fiscal sanity was won on Monday whenthe Senate cut in half the President's tax cut plan. The vote reduced the amount earmarked for tax cuts from $725 billion over 10 years to $350 billion. This was a result of the Administration finally putting a price tag on our Irag adventure, at $75 billion.
The fight isn't over, because most, if not all of the tax cut will be put back in a House/Senate conference, but at least the concern over the growing deficit won the day for now.
Between the war and the NCAAs, I haven't posted too much, primarily because I haven't been doing much surfing (at least about non-war or NCAA stuff), hence no new posts.
I'll try and do better over the next few days.
This story (
Bush Has Audacious Plan to Rebuild Iraq Within Year) seems to me to be an example of why this war is so troubling to so many people who could otherwise support this war. Rebuild Iraq in only one year and using private companies? This has disaster written all over it. Afghanistan and Iraq ares showing that Junior can win a war, but can't win the peace.
This AP story that the US is telling the
UN inspectors to leave Iraq is the clearest sign that war is about to start.
My guess is on Thursday -- just in time to screw up the NCAA coverage.
At this point, since we clearly are not interested in convincing the world to join us, we may as well go. But I don't want those who support the war now to complain when our troops are still there come 2006. (And if our troops aren't there in 2006, we will have failed in our attempts to "change the culture" of the Middle East.)
My ambivalence about this whole adventures continues unabated.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says that he's in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says. And it's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm. And, yes, we'll call for a vote.
Q No matter what?
THE PRESIDENT: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.
From the March 6th Press Conference Junior makes his position very clear!
PS - There won't be a vote.
NCAA brackets are out, and I don’t think I can remember a year where I disagreed with the committee as much as I do this year. Their seeding, their placement, and their in/out decisions were all pretty week. Auburn in, but BC out? Illinois as a 4 seed? UConn as a 5? Plus how about Syracuse as a 3 getting to play in Albany if they make it to the Sweet Sixteen?
The West is ridiculously hard, with Arizona, Kansas, Duke and Illinois, not to mention dark horses Creighton and Memphis. The Midwest may be the easiest, but I love the Pitt/Kentucky match up to go to the Final Four.
I am also pretty happy with UConn’s bracket, although I think they should be at least a 4 seed, probably a 3.
My early prediction for the Final Four - Pitt, Illinois, Texas and Syracuse. (I of course reserve my rights to change my mind six or seven times between now and Thursday.)
As usual, I’ll be running my pool, send me an email if you want a bracket.
This story from the Washington Times shows that Freedom Fries weren’t enough.
A congresswoman has introduced legislation that would allow relatives of Americans killed in France and Belgium during World War II to have the remains returned.
"I, along with many other Americans, do not feel that the French government appreciates the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made to defend the freedom that the French enjoy today," Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Republican, said in a prepared statement.
"The remains of our brave servicemen should be buried in patriotic soil, not in a country that has turned its back on the United States and on the memory of Americans who fought and died there."
I for one feel even this is not enough and hope to start a movement to return the Statute of Liberty, and rename St. Louis, for starters.
I can't vouch for the source, but
this blind story about not 1, but 2 Supreme Court vacancies (go to the third paragraph) is very interesting.
The whole Estrada confirmation fight is simply a tune up for one of these confirmations. (If, in fact Estrada isn't even one of the nominees.) The level of acrimony over a Supreme Court fight is going to be unprecedented unless things significantly change. Junior looks determined to send up very conservative nominees, and the Democrats seem pretty united on the issue.
Depending on who the Justices who step down are (my guess -- Rehnquist and O'Connor), the White House’s best strategy may be to send up both with one being a well respected conservative judge with a paper trail, and a more moderate nominee with less of a paper trail (probably White House counsel Alberto Gonzales).
Of course, if Rehnquist retires -- and his daughter just announced that she is leaving her post at HHS under a bit of heat -- that will also open up a the Chief Justice's spot. (My guess -- he nominates Scalia, and that is where the real fun begins.)
All this from a blind, two-sentance story from an uncertain source.
Donald Rumsfeld has been good at alienating our allies, who disagree with us over Iraq. (See "New Europe vs. Old Europe".) Now he targeting
the allies who agree with us. One can only imagine that he won't be happy until we are the only country to support action in Iraq. It is just another example of how this administration makes it difficult for people, like me, who support action in Iraq to go along with them.
Congressman Rob Ney wins the award for most stupid use of American taxpayer paper (and web space) with this press release,
announcing the renaming of French Fries to Freedom Fries in the three House of Representative cafeterias. Although there seems to be a movement afoot to do this in various restaurants around the country (primarily, I think centered in the South), it is something different for our representatives to actually spend any time worrying about this.
Now beyond the obvious fact that the French WON'T CARE AT ALL, the French are still our
ally. They are not the enemy; we simply have a disagreement about Iraq with them. As conservatives like to point out (in a different context when talking about our own country), France is a sovereign nation, and thus can make their own decisions in their own national interest.
In light of the fact that our economy seems to be careening out of control and we have crises in Medicare and Social Security, one can only hope that Congressman Ney will spend his time a little more productively.
UPDATE - My opinion seems to be shared by others on various parts of the political spectrum. See
here,
here, and
here.
This poll from Quinnipiac University has Junior trailing an unnamed Democrat 48-44. I am sure it has caused quite a stir in the White House. Of course, so far I haven't figured out a way to get "unnamed Democrat" on the ballot. He still leads all of the actually announced candidates.
The most striking number in the poll is that Junior is only getting 89% of the GOP voters. If he gets any less than 90%, he may not be able to get reelected. (The unnamed Democrat gets 87% of the Dem vote.) Still early, but numbers like these show the country is still very divided and 2004 could be very close, again.
I thought Junior looked practically sedated at his press conference, and if he wasn't sedated then he was just bored. The only time he showed any energy was when he was asked about the role his faith plays. But his answers to the other questions were so rambling and unfocused; I don't think he did himself any good.
The question I have for Karl Rove is what did you ant to accomplish with the press conference? He didn't convince any of our allies with his answers and I doubt he convinced any Americans who didn't already support him. It was, I think, the weakest press conference that I have ever seen a President give. Reagan and Clinton were masters of the press conference, and even Senior was able to display his knowledge and grasp of the situation. Whatever message Junior was trying to get across, I think he failed. My prediction: No more prime time press conference until after 2004.
Update:
Tom Shales agrees with my impression of Junior's performance.
One of the nice things about having so many credible candidates in the Democratic primary is that the fringe candidates get significantly less attention. That means less stage for a demagogue like Al Sharpton. All Democrats should be thankful for that, and hope that it continues.
A story like this,
Clinton Develops Into a Force in the Senate, must simply drive conservatives nuts.
It looks to me like the
Democrats are winning the Estrada battle. This is a classic inside the Beltway story, and the GOP has simply not been able to create a fury within the Hispanic community. Outside of some already conservative Florida Cubans, I haven't seen much outrage by Hispanics. Tactically the White House has done everything right to win this battle, but the problem is strategic: nobody really cares.
It’s not over yet, but it will be interesting to see if the Democrats are empowered to try this even more.
Apparently a $300 billion dollar deficit is
not a problem for this administration.
According to the New York Times:
Treasury Secretary John W. Snow reiterated the administration's argument that budget deficits over the next several years posed little danger. The deficits envisioned by the administration, Mr. Snow said as the committee opened hearings on the tax-cut proposals, "are really modest and clearly manageable and will not have any impact on long-term interest rates, which is the real concern."
I'm certainly not an economist, and a bad economy affects the size of the deficit, but $300 billion and growing worries me. It especially worries me when you think that it doesn't include the costs of the war against Iraq, or of Bush's proposed tax cuts.
The administration likes to blame much of the economic downturn on 9/11 (when they aren't blaming President Clinton). However, it seems to me that since another terrorist attack is possible (if not likely), then its effect on the economy would be similarly negative. But no worst-case scenario planning is being done by the White House economically. It spends all of it's energy on a dividend tax cut, which at best will do little to stimulate the economy immediately, but will reduce the flow of money tpo the government's coffers significantly. It will provide $100 billion in stimulation, but will cost $1.5 trillion. Again, not an economist, but that logic don't seem to make much sense.
I meant to mention this earlier, but the lack of mention of the Rhode Island fire at the Grammys was outrageous. (See
this Slate article.) But the article doesn't even mention the fact that one of the acts felt okay to go on with flames spouting in the background, as if no one would notice. I generally enjoy the Grammys more than the other awards shows, but their insensitivity was an abomination.
In light of the Miguel Estrada mess,
here is an interesting proposal by Walter Dellinger, a former Clinton Administration lawyer. I don't know if I agree with his idea, primarily because I don't think the current system is really broke.
I don't think the founding fathers would have expected judicial nominations to be nonpartisan matters. We should have fights about judicial nominees; otherwise we have to live with those appointments without having had a chance to thoroughly vet them. The more that the Estrada matter goes on, the more I continue to believe that no changes are needed. The President should nominate whomever he feels should have the job, but the Senate need not confirm them.
We haven't reached a crisis of not having enough judges yet. Besides, so far, only one judge has been held up, and for years the GOP said that there was no need for another judge of the DC Circuit anyway. I'm not sure who will win in the end, but I am having fun watching.
I don't know how accurate this story is,
NCAA tourney expected to cost employers $1.4B, but I am damm excited that the tourney is almost here. Two weeks and counting till the selection show!
I case anyone has forgotten
North Korea remains a very real problem. This type of provocation is very dangerous. But as one White House official said "its not a crisis, because a crisis requires immediate action." Good to know we don't have to worry then.
