Does somebody up there like us?

I just got back from the rally in Portland. I would estimate that there were around 40,000 people there. This is the third time that a march has taken place on a rainy day. But, each time, the rain has stopped just prior to the march and didn't start again until after it was over. I take that as a positive sign. :-)

Should Kofi Annan liberate Iraq?

Jonathon Alter suggests that Iraq should be invaded, by the UN! It's a bizarre suggestion, but at this juncture its clear that neither Hussein or Bush can be trusted to resolve this thing peacefully.

America is great at one thing at least

Tom Spencer says that CNN is calling W a liar, sort of. Tom quoted the following passage:

But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries? Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men. Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.

There are a couple of points to be made here: (1) America is so great that if we were to attempt this forgery (not that we would ever do that) it would have been a lot better (to which Tom replies, "Oh now that makes me feel better"). Rah Rah Rah! We're #1! If we wanted to fake you out (not that we would ever do that) you wouldn't be able to figure it out. Ain't it comforting to know that the world has such respect for our ability to lie? (2) Assuming that we are so damn good at faking documents (again, not that we would ever do that) it naturally brings up the question: why are we so bad at detecting the forgeries of others? Remember, the U.S. pushed this information as evidence of Saddams perfidy, which means we must have, at one time, thought it was real. In other words, we are admitting that we are rubes (who are also happen to be very good at faking others out as well (not that we would ever EVER do that of course!)). But, what if we aren't rubes? What if we knew, or at least suspected they were questionable, yet passed them on anyway? Well, that would just prove that we are living up to our reputation for being really good liars. USA! USA! USA!

Oooh, good one

John Kerry at the California Democratic Convention (via the Kos): "If Bush can find $17 billion for Turkey to join the war, he can find $17 billion to help the states fund education." This is the kind of thing the Democrats are missing, really good sound bites. And this one is very good. It hits Bush both on incompetent foreign policy and domestic policy while also attacking him on one of the few points that he is alleged to be good at: education. Kudos to Mr. Kerry's speech writers for that one.

I've gotten religion!

Thanks to Atrios I know swear by RSS feeds. He turned me on to FeedReader, a great little free program that can monitor RSS enabled blogs and other sites and keep you informed when they change (to within five minutes). I'm following about 25 blogs on it now and I highly recommend everyone get RSS feeds working because I know I will be more likely to read your stuff if you use them. I'm going to re-organize my blogroll to show which sites have RSS feeds.

Nader Redux

Ouch! Mr. Taylor woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning that's for sure. I have a lot of deep-seated resentments against the Naderites as well. But I choose not to engage them because doing so is just counter-productive. Besdes, we will need as many of their votes as we can get in 2004. Caveat: I will, however, engage a Naderite who offers me the unsolicited opinion that they didn't do anything wrong. As far as I'm concerneed, any of them that do that is just asking for it.

Wrong to the core

Michael Lind presents a concise argument for why the Bush foreign policy is as bad in its conception as it has been in its implementation. He breaks it down into three parts. Global Hegemony:

As a vision for American national security, global hegemony is profoundly flawed. According to theorists of hegemony like Paul Wolfowitz, the U.S. should indefinitely dominate Europe and East Asia, in order to prevent Germany, Japan, France, and other allies from developing the capability to defend themselves independently of the U.S. This policy naively assumes that America’s former Cold War allies will indefinitely tolerate the use of their countries as launching-pads for actions in the Middle East and elsewhere of which they disapprove. Equally naïve is the assumption that other major countries will defer to the U.S. in security matters-as the opposition of every significant great power except Britain to America’s Iraq policy has now proven.

This is where the Bushy rhetoric of humility and the arrogance of their actually policies most profoundly clash. Bush likes to talk about working with our allies. But in point of fact this administration acts kindly only towards those who agree with them and smears as appeasers and dilettantes anyone who expresses reservations. And even those that side with them often get screwed in the long run anyway (see Rummy's dismissive comments about the possibility that Britain might have to pull back its support). Some might think that this is simply a matter of them not understanding how much these actions might offend our allies. They certainly appear clueless at times. But the fact that Bush talked as if he did care about the feelings of our allies suggests to me that at least some of them DO understand that their policies will piss people off. They just needed to fool them long enough so that they could get to the point where it was to late to stop them. Preventative War:

It is not clear whether the Bush administration regards preventive war as a prerogative of the United States alone, or as a newly recognized right of all countries. If the former is the case, then the U.S. is claiming that it is exempt from the rules that govern other nations. If the latter is the case, then Pakistan could wage a preventive war against India today, on the grounds that India might be a greater threat in a decade or two. The distinction between wars of defense and aggression would collapse entirely, if the United States, alone or along with all other nations, had the right to wage war on the basis of speculative future threats. And it is deeply troubling that the Bush administration has now adopted, as its own strategy, a “Pearl Harbor” strategy for which Japanese war criminals were hanged by the U.S. after World War II.

I seem to recall a story that the German's infiltrated the Polish border just prior to the Sept. 1st attacks and staged a fake attack on Germany by German soldiers dressed up in Polish uniforms. I don't know whether this is true, but it wouldn't be the first time an aggressor has used the excuse that the other side was about to attack them so they had to defend themselves. The Bush policy is different only in that he is extending the concept of how far in advance you can start worrying about the potential aggression of another nation. Also, keep in mind that Iraq's excuse for invading Kuwait was that Kuwait was attacking their economic infrastructure by tapping into oil fields under Iraqi soil. By that logic, the invasion of Kuwait was a preventative war. The Pearl Harbor analogy is a good one. I've been thinking of making a sign for protests that read, "Pearl Harbor was a preventative attack". It's another sign of the arrogance of this administration that they don't factor in the consequences of other nations adopting the same policy. I guess this is to be expected considering that they came to power because of a non-precedent setting Supreme Court decision. The rules are different when you last name is Bush. The War On Terror:

In addition to lumping together a variety of anti-American states with different goals and capabilities, the Bush administration has used the trite phrase “the war on terror” to obscure the differences between al-Qaeda, a transnational Muslim terrorist group with members from many nations that targets the United States and Western European countries, and Hamas and Hezbollah, militant groups targeting Israel. If Hamas and Hezbollah are treated as America’s enemies, even though their quarrel is not with the United States, why aren’t the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Basque terrorists in Spain, Chechen terrorists in Russia and Tamil terrorists in Sri Lanka part of America’s “war on terror,” too?

"The War On Terror" is the modern equivalent of the perpetual war. It can never be won, so, in effect, we will always be on a war footing. This has the added benefit of giving the authoritarians the excuse they need to crack down on their opponents. How many times have we heard that, in times of war, we have to sacrifice certain liberties.

The strategic fallacies of the Bush administration need to be replaced by strategic common sense. The United States can begin to recover from the self-inflicted disaster of the Bush administration by replacing the misguided policies of hegemony and preventive war, and ill-conceived rhetoric about the “war on terror” with sound policies based on sober analysis of America’s national interest.

It's not going to happen as long as Bush is in charge. Doing this would require him admitting that he was wrong and that is the one thing Bush will never do. It's inconceivable! The best we can hope for is to put enough roadblocks in their way that we can minimize the damage they inflict and reduce the amount of work that will be needed to repair the system after Dubya is gone.

The butt covering begins

Go to Atrios to find out more. I wonder if Mr. Weisman can still type with only one functioning hand?

Irresponsible Boomers

A comment dialogue for my "America, what is it good for?" post: Mike P:

I fail to see why the US should place its security after the economic interests of France, Russia, and Germany. They haven't provided any serious moral justification for not removing the Hussein regime.

Dre:

Because in any honest long term assessment the security and economic interests of the US and the rest of the world are inseparable. Granted the rest of the world also needs to see that this is true. It is not the fault of France that Bush's assessment appears to be neither honest nor long-term.

That's big picture thinking dre and that's an awful lot to ask of former governor Bush. We are an instant gratification society that has problems thinking beyond what we can do for fun tonight. The idea that what we do now might come back to bite us a few years down the line is just to much for them to deal with. Bush is the ultimate personification of the right-wing stereotype of the irresponsible child of the baby boom.

A well deserved and long overdue spanking

The editors of the New York Observer come out swinging with an opinion piece as harsh on "a callow and blustering" Bush as anything I have read in the blogosphere. It also lays into the Democrats "hiding under Washington toadstools" and the reporters who cover Bush ("a docile collection of game-show hosts"). But it reserves the lion share of the opprobrium on Dubya.

Somehow, the Bush administration’s cowboys have done the unthinkable. They have alienated friends, ruined international relationships, squandered the good will and sympathy that the Sept. 11 atrocities inspired, and turned America into a global villain. All of this, while Saddam Hussein smiles and watches the world turn in his favor, inheriting the gusts of international opinion that Mr. Bush has mind-bogglingly forfeited. Rarely in modern times has such a blundering swap taken place. A poll in an Irish newspaper recently found that the majority of respondents in that America-friendly country believed that George Bush was a bigger threat to peace than Saddam. It is not just those perfumed pansies in Paris who are alarmed by our behavior. Somehow Mr. Bush has contrived to have people the world over see this nation—the nation that created the Marshall Plan and ended the Cold War—as an international menace on matters of security, on the environment, on justice and on fair trade. With its Reagan-era bluster and frat-house machismo, the Bush administration has played into the hands of terrorists, breaking apart NATO and fracturing half-century-old relations with Europe that have persevered through all the roilings of post–World War II history. And the administration did it at just the very moment when the West has been targeted—not by that wretched despot Saddam, but by the murderous followers of Osama bin Laden. Thanks to the President and his hubristic crew of ideologues, America and Europe are not united, as they should be, in the face of global Islamic militancy. Instead, many people talk about the end of America’s strategic alliance with Western Europe. Instead of France and Germany, some say, we will simply align ourselves with the post-Communist states of Eastern Europe—like, say, Bulgaria. Osama bin Laden did not create this sad state of affairs. George W. Bush did. Rarely in the face of war has the leadership in this country—both the executive and the opposition—served it so badly. The opposition has cynically acquiesced; they have not challenged this intellectually challenged President. There are, as Thomas Friedman has pointed out so eloquently in The New York Times, many merits to the argument for the war; the President has not made them. Mr. Bush, having painted himself into a diplomatic corner unlike any in American history, has created rationales for attack that are less in the tradition of American war Presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, even Bush Sr., and more in the tradition of William McKinley as he bumbled his way into the Spanish-American war. These are hyperbolic and misinformed times. So it was hardly surprising to hear a television commentator report, just before the President’s press conference, that Mr. Bush was not expected to use the opportunity to declare war on Iraq. It did not occur to the reporter—any more than it has to Mr. Bush and his bunch of crusaders—that no President has ever declared war, because no President has ever had that power. Congress declares war; it’s in the Constitution. Yes, Congress—that reviled collection of the people’s representatives—declares war in this Republic. Why? The Founders understood that the power to declare war was so awesome and so serious that it should not be one person’s decision. The test of this nation at this moment may not be creating democracy in Iraq; it may be in reacquainting the American people and their institutions and President with the glory and responsibility of American democracy itself.

At least this one institution in the establishment has finally decided that enough is enough.

Stupid poll questions

Wolf Blitzer's poll question for today is typically stupid.

What's more patriotic for Americans: To support or to oppose a war with Iraq?

I voted in it because, as Atrios says, if Wolf is stupid enough to read these things on the air than it behooves us to take advantage of them. However, I reject its premise: it is neither more nor less patriotic to support or oppose this war. The point is that ones patriotism should not be called into question simply because of your views on the subject. Patriotism involves doing what is necessary to support the country you love. But it is possible that a war could be contrary to our best interests (think Vietnam) and opposing such a war would be a very patriotic act. So it comes down to the question of whether this war is good or bad for America and that is simply a matter of opinion, not patriotism.

America? What is it good for?

Following up on this post in which I talked about the US losing the world at the same time we win Iraq... I'm not suggesting that the rest of the world will be declaring war on us after we attack Iraq. Hopefully we are still a few years away from that possibility (though Bush is making a good start). But I think this situation has planted the seed of the idea that maybe, just maybe, the world doesn't need America to survive. The situation is analogous to the playground bully who intimidates all of his classmates, until a new kid comes to school who stands up to the bully and doesn't get pummeled for it. The rest of the kids see this example and begin to ask, "What they were so afraid of in the first place?" Bluster can only get you so far. When the audience is no longer impressed by it, it starts to look comical.

Democracy is messy

Continuing the thoughts of this previous post... The problem, I think, is that those who want to promote Democracy are often to afraid of its consequences to go the extra mile to see it done. As I said before, what do we do if we institute a democratic system in Iraq and the first people who get elected are Osama wannabes? We could step in and stop them from taking office, but that would put a lie to our stated desire to foment democracy. I think a better option would be to let the fanatics come to power and then deal with them as we would any other potentially corrupt and/or dangerous leader. You let them do what they want to do and, if what they do is something you don't like (like supporting terrorists who plan to fly airplanes into your buildings), then you take them out (like we did with the Taliban).(*) This way, you are not violating the principles of democracy. You are simply asserting the principle that says that it's okay to swing your arms just so long as you don't hit my face. Besides, as our current history suggests, when the fanatics take power, they often turn out to be incompetent and corrupt leaders. In a robust democracy, they would lose the favor of the people who put them into office and be elected out. Those who worry that this won't happen have fundamentally lost faith in the principle of Democracy. History shows that it can work, as long as people are willing to put up with the chaotic nature of the process. It's the authoritarians who like things done neat and orderly. How messy is your desk?
(*: if you determine that they are doing this before the fact, you go through international bodies like the UN. If you determine that they were behind something that has already happened (like 9/11), then you can do it yourself. That is what the UN charter is all about.)

Split the baby

Iraq debate plays out in front yards Steven and Jennifer Proper's flag-decorated sign in bold red and blue letters says: "Liberate Iraq, Support Our Troops, Call Your Congress Person." Right next door sits their neighbors' maroon sign with white lettering: "Say No to War With Iraq; Call Your Congress People." Barbara Johnson and her husband, Richard Andre, put up their anti-war sign in November. The Propers countered with their sign last month. Johnson, an attorney, says the dueling signs signal a healthy, open debate. But Steven Proper disagrees, saying the anti-war signs are "demoralizing to our troops." "I really hate the sign," says Proper. "I respect their opinion, but I think it's getting into people's faces. And it's not a healthy debate — it's an annoyance."

The difference in attitude expressed by the two neighbors in the above story is quite illuminating. That they have a disagreement about the war is one thing. But what is even more telling is their feelings about the expression of opinion by the other side. The anti-war neighbor thinks that it is healthy for their to be a diversity of viewpoints while the pro-war neighbor, while grudgingly conceding the neighbors right to express their view, still wishes that the other sign weren't there since it would be "demoralizing to our troops". Why is the pro-war side so insecure that they feel it necessary to criticize the very expression of the other sides viewpoint? If they really felt confident that they were in the right then why are they bothered by dissent? Are they really so sure that American soldiers are of such weak minds that the presence of a "no war" sign in a neighbors yard might demoralize them? Why do they lack such confidence in them?

Inconceivable!

Fragments From a Diary by Wallace Shawn ... We're passengers. We're waiting. We're sitting very quietly in our seats in the car, waiting patiently for the driver to arrive. We're nervous, of course, looking out the window at the gray landscape. Soon the driver will open the front driver's side door, sit down in his seat, and take us on a trip. We're going to Iraq. We don't want to go. We know we'll be driving straight into the flames, straight ahead into the flames of hell. It's crazy. It's insane. We know that. But we're paralyzed, numb, can't seem to move. Don't seem to know how to reason with the driver. Don't seem to know how to stop the car from going. Don't seem to know even how to get out of it. ... Following the "news" each day before an enormous event occurs, as now before (maybe) war, reminds me of an old sensation: There was a children's game in which we were supposed to pin a paper tail on a paper donkey, and before you made your attempt you were blindfolded, and invisible hands spun you around and around till you were dizzy and disoriented and didn't know where you were. That's how I feel. President Bush is about to take a step toward seizing control of the entire planet. People and countries are terrified about the consequences for the human race if Bush does what he plans to do. And yet it seems as if we, the consumers of "news," when we try each day to learn about this desperately important moment we're living through, are given a huge, overpowering pile of stories, almost all of which deal not with the question of humanity's future, but instead with the question of Iraq's weapons. Bush himself is not actually frightened by the weapons held (or not held) by this destroyed country, Iraq, nor is he actually shocked by the probability that Iraq, like all other nations on earth (because of the nature of nations), wants to be as well armed as it possibly can be. But he's managed to convince the governments of the world that, just as he will never say why he wants to invade Iraq but will only talk about Iraq's weapons, they must never say why they oppose the invasion, except by talking about Iraq's weapons. Bush will say Iraq has a lot of weapons, the opponents of war will say Iraq has few. This discussion will go on until the troops are ready and the weather's right for war, and at that moment Bush will declare he's "lost patience" with the laborious pace of the discussion of weapons, and he'll go to war. The editors of the New York Times must know as well as anyone else that the discussion of weapons is the public relations branch of preparing for war, the propaganda arm of the process of preparation. The discussion of weapons, on Bush's part, pretends to be sincere, as all advertising does, but it is not sincere, and so it makes sense only as part of the story of preparation. But each morning I find in my newspaper two separate narratives, apparently describing unrelated developments: One (a thin little column) says that the preparations for war are going smoothly and the weather soon will be right for an attack, and the other (pages and pages) says that the discussions about Iraq's weapons are going poorly, and there's a danger that Bush may "lose patience." The thin column describes something that's actually happening. The pages and pages spin me around until I don't know where I am. ... Why are we being so ridiculously polite? It's as if there were some sort of gentlemen's agreement that prevents people from stating the obvious truth that Bush and his colleagues are exhilarated and thrilled by the thought of war, by the thought of the incredible power they will have over so many other people, by the thought of the immensity of what they will do, by the scale, the massiveness of the bombing they're planning, the violence, the killing, the blood, the deaths, the horror.

There are rare moments when I catch some TV commentator start to go down this line of thought. But they usually quickly stop themselves and dismiss the notion as ridiculous. Surely they couldn't be like that could they? I think they are afraid to speculate on this matter because it is to frightening a concept and, if they did, they would probably be raked over the coals by their colleagues for entertaining such ridiculous, kooky, notions. We can well envision the leaders of other countries being this way. But when it comes to our own country many of us are just not willing to admit that it can happen here. Inconceivable!

Foggy Bottom is not impressed with PNAC

Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible' A State Department report disputes Bush's claim that ousting Hussein will spur reforms in the Mideast, intelligence officials say. By Greg Miller Times Staff Writer March 14, 2003 WASHINGTON -- A classified State Department report expresses doubt that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document. The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq. The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform. Even if some version of democracy took root — an event the report casts as unlikely — anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.

Now here's an aspect of this that I have not previously heard discussed. If we were to invade and if we were to establish a democratic system in Iraq how would we react if the first people to win election under this new system were 2nd-cousins to Osama bin Laden? How could we prevent this without undermining the very democratic principles that we were allegedly trying to inspire? And don't think that it won't happen. Even if the Islamic extremists make up a very small portion of the Iraqi population, they, like their extremist kinfolk around the world, make up in fervor what they are lacking in numbers (why do you think the GOP can rely so completely on the extremists in our own country to always come out and vote for their candidate?) This demonstrates, once again, the problem with "imposing" democracy on another country.

Blair to Bush: I can't see you tomorrow, I have to wash my hair, yeah, that's it!

BUSH SCRAPS HIS VISIT TO BLAIR GEORGE BUSH abandoned plans yesterday to fly to London to support his crisis-hit ally Tony Blair. The US President wanted the last-minute visit to boost morale as Blair tries desperately to get United Nations backing for war in Iraq. But sources said Downing Street advised against the trip because the sight of Bush would anger rebel Labour backbenchers rather than pacify them.

The Bush who started it all!

All hail HercuBush!

Does the world need America?

U.S.-Backed Resolution Appears Doomed ... Diplomatic tension ran high today, as U.S. and British officials assailed what they considered high-handed intransigence on the part of France, which rejected the British proposal even before Iraqi officials did so in Baghdad. Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the United Nations, appeared wan and haggard as he attempted to gather support for a compromise that would lay out conditions for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to meet to avoid a war. But diplomats said the U.S. insistence that Hussein be given only until next week to disarm was too much and too fast for the other countries on the council. "A lot of us feel bad about doing Saddam's bidding but that appears no worse than carrying out a war for the Americans," said a diplomat from one of the undecided nations.

One weapon the U.S. has always been able to use against the world would be to essentially threaten to pack up and force the world to go it alone without the United States. No President, until Dubya, has every really threatened this, but it was essentially understood to be one of the basic realities of international diplomacy: don't get on the bad side of America if you can avoid it. But, now that Dubya is actually trying to throw the full weight of the U.S. around, the world is starting to openly question whether things should continue as they have. Perhaps they can survive without the leadership of America. Especially if that leadership is as ignorant and arrogant as George W. Bush. We have already lost folks. We could invade Iraq tomorrow morning, overthrow Baghdad by dinner time and have Saddam in leg-irons by midnight and it wouldn't matter one bit, because the age of American dominance of foreign policy is effectively coming to an end. Truly, we may win Iraq and lose the world. Which would you rather have?

Portraits in Courage

Atrios has the details on a confession by Washington Post reporter Jonathan Weisman. The short and simple: the White House has been requiring reporters to alter quotes before vetting them for publication. In other words, if a reporter wants to quote a White House insider anonymously they have to submit them the White House first who may then alter them before saying that the quote is okay. And the reporters, knowing this is going on, have willingly allowed the printing of quotes that aren't quotes. Is there any doubt left about the complete bankruptcy of the establishment press?

The Silence Of The Lambs

The NY Observer has an interesting article up in which several journalists are critical of the stage-manged "press conference" that Bush held last week.

"People ask me, ‘Do you wish you were back at the White House?’" Mr. Donaldson said. "And I say, ‘No, not really.’" But, said Mr. Donaldson, inflating his supersized larynx up to indignant, mega-bass proportions, "there are moments like Thursday night when—yeah—I want to be there!" It wasn’t just Sam. Somewhere Mike Deaver, Ronald Reagan’s media-fixing P.R. king, was smiling. But reporters on-site were alternately flabbergasted, flailing and embarrassed by the experience. None seemed to have the legs to get into the game. Mr. Bush ran out the clock on his hour of prime time, using it with the focus of Jimmy Dean selling sausage, snubbing tough reporters while calling on buddies, issuing one-size-fits-all talking points to all comers, giving the answers he wanted to the questions he didn’t. He even openly taunted one correspondent, CNN’s John King, for daring to ask a multi-part question.

Considering that Bush worked off a list of Ari-approved journalists I wonder if we might see the beginnings of a shame campaign here. After all, if Dubya considers you worthy to call on that must mean he thinks you are compliant enough not to be to tough on him. In other words, being on Bush's chosen list should be a mark of dishonor for a journalist.

Mr. Bush worked from a podium-pasted pre-determined list of acceptable reporters to call upon. USA Today’s Larry McQuillan, on the White House beat since Jimmy Carter, said Mr. Bush’s homeroom-proctor sheet of preferred questioners managed to insult those didn’t appear on it—and make those who did seem like Karl Rove’s brown-nosers, the camp kids who got the best desserts. "The process in some ways demeaned the reporters who were called on as much as those who weren’t," Mr. McQuillan said.

"In some ways"? That's putting it mildly Mr. McQuillan.

Global Candlelight Vigil for Peace

Iraqi Drone U.S. Warned of Looks More Like Model Airplane By Niko Price Associated Press Writer Published: Mar 12, 2003 AL-TAJI, Iraq (AP) - A remotely piloted aircraft that the United States has warned could spread chemical weapons appears to be made of balsa wood and duct tape, with two small propellors attached to what look like the engines of a weed whacker.

Members of the Basra Model Airplane Club demonstrate their latest developments in airborne toxin delivery technology.

Don't give him any more incentive guys!

So I hear Paul Begala has announced that he intends to follow John Kerry's lead and cease criticism of Bush during the invasion of Iraq. Like Bush really needs another reason to go for it.

Bush calls for ban on judicial filibusters President Bush, his appeals court nomination of Miguel Estrada mired in party politics, called Tuesday for a ban on judicial filibusters and a mandatory vote on all court nominations he and future presidents send to the Senate.

Ah hell, why not just disband Congress? You know it's what he really wants to do. A dictatorship would be so much easier.

The New York Times is also on this story, though they aren't willing to go as far with it as CBS has:

Britain, the United States' staunchest ally in its campaign to disarm Iraq, has begun to distance itself from the White House's insistence on confronting Baghdad with or without the United Nations' blessing.

So, it's not that Britain is pulling out. But they are sending signals to Bush that, if they don't get the UN resolution, the United States might have to go it alone. Not that that would bother the PNAC crowd. In fact, they'd probably like it. All the less glory to share and all the better to demonstrate to the world that we can make them obey all on our lonesome. Thus Rummy's initial shrug this afternoon at the news that this might happen. And once again proving to the world that, while Bush may screw his enemies, he will screw his friends even harder.

Other's have pointed out an interesting aspect of the previous post about Britain possibly pulling out of the "coalition of the willing". Whether it actually happens or not (and I think it is still highly questionable) the bizarre part of this story is that Rumsfield's reaction to it was to to, in effect, shrug. In other words, it is rumored that the single most important ally the United States has in its campaign against Iraq is getting weak-kneed and the Bushies couldn't really care. If nothing else proves to the fence-sitters that the whole point of this exercise is to demonstrate that America can go it alone and, indeed, will destroy every international body that stands in its way, then what will? Saddam is a convenient target. But if he didn't exists the Bushies would go looking for the next available candidate to demonstrate their new, oily (in more ways then one) form of foreign policy. Quite simply put it is this: the world will do what we want it to do or it will be made to pay for its insolence.

Is Britain out?

ABC News goes out of its way to avoid saying that the UNSC six (the non-veto countries who have, until now, declined to say which they will vote) are, in fact, leaning towards voting no.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States and Britain on Monday delayed a United Nations vote on their resolution giving Iraq a March 17 ultimatum to disarm or face war, after France and Russia threatened a veto and six uncommitted nations refused to back Washington.

If they are refusing to back Bush then how is that being "uncommitted"?

Helen Thomas at today's press baffling: "How do YOU know what the Iraqis think? Would they rather be dead?" An appropriate image courtesy of schmanda over on the BartCop Forum.

A generally positive review of Dean's performance on Meet The Press from the New Republic.

There were two striking things about Howard Dean's performance on "Meet the Press" Sunday. First was Dean's ability to fend off the many Russertian gotcha questions thrown his way. Second, and more importantly, was the fact that the Howard Dean on "Meet the Press" sounded more like the Rockefeller-Republican Howard Dean one hears about from Vermonters than the red-meat Howard Dean one hears on the stump. Both aspects of Dean's performance should come into play as the campaign progresses.

No more using Scowcroft as a cutout?

Bush Sr warning over unilateral action The first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity. Drawing on his own experiences before and after the 1991 Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr said that the brief flowering of hope for Arab-Israeli relations a decade ago would never have happened if America had ignored the will of the United Nations. He also urged the President to resist his tendency to bear grudges, advising his son to bridge the rift between the United States, France and Germany. “You’ve got to reach out to the other person. You’ve got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity,” he said.

I wonder if the right-wing pundits will now criticize this former president for being openly critical of the current White House resident? This is a pretty amazing development. Things must be getting really bad between father and son that George Sr. has to resort to a public forum to get his message out. And the fact that he is no longer using Brent Scowcroft to deliver his messages makes it doubly significant. Has this been talked about at all in the American press?

So, Russia is saying they will veto the resolution as is? Good news? Not really. Consider this: if Bush doesn't get the 9 votes he needs from the current crop of UNSC fence-sitters, Russia won't have to veto. If they don't have to veto then they won't have to risk the troubles said veto will produce. Now, those fence-sitters are under considerable pressure from the U.S. to join them. Voting no would require a pretty big measure of courage. But, if those fence-sitters think that Russia is going to veto the resolution anyway then what do they really have to lose by voting for it? They can get the U.S. off their backs and the resolution will still fail. win-win for them. Russia and France should keep the question of their veto power unclear at best if they want to avoid having to use it at all. By making it clear what they will do they are, potentially, shooting themselves in the foot.

There have been reports in the press the last couple of days that Bush has been "serene" and "calm" about the approaching invasion of Iraq. As if this suggests that his is a steady hand at the tiller of state. No More Mister Nice Blog has an alternative suggestion. To tell you the truth, when it comes time to decide whether to launch an attack that will likely lead to the death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, I don't want a leader who is "serene" about it. That just tells me he doesn't appreciate the gravity of the decision he is making.

The Support Dean Challenge:

There are now almost 5,000 members signed up at Meetup.com for Howard Dean. March 31st is the end of the 1st quarter for FEC reporting. As you know, Dean has been getting great press lately but is this press translating to money? How about all of us meetup.com enthusiasts and netroots fans of Dean raise a million dollars for Dean's candidacy by March 31st? Achieving such a goal would help Dean gain traction on all the press he’s been getting. Like it or not, money counts, and as Dean is the best candidate out there, we need to support him now. A million bucks, though? Think it's hard? Here's a formula to ponder: If every one of the 5,000 people who have signed up for Meetup or joined a Yahoo group for Howard Dean took it upon themselves to donate the cost of an average movie ($10.00), and encourage 10 friends to do the same, then we will have raised $500,000 for the campaign. Since Federal campaign laws match every dollar raised under the $250.00 level, that's $1,000,000 right there. I think we can do it. Go over to www.deanforamerica.com and make a ten dollar contribution today. Then forward this message on to 10 people and encourage them to to do the same. Or, print up some of the contribution forms and have your friends fill them out. Just be sure that your friends follow up! This could really work. But only if you do it!

I have not yet decided whether to go all out for Dean, but I think his candidacy is an important one because he is the only serious 2nd tier candidate who is holding the Democrats feet to the fire. He is also the only one who seems to understand the kind of difficulty that any Democrat will face in 2004 from the smear campaigns of the GOP. For that alone he needs to remain viable. So, regardless of whether you think you will eventually vote for the guy, I think it behooves us all who want the Democrats to get off their butts and finally start acting like an opposition party to invest a little bit of capital in the only one who is trying to do that.

Matthew is still looking for some reason to stay on the pro-war side:

I know he's regarded by some as little more than a propagandist, but watching an hour and a half of Wolf Blitzer's show has left me feeling more hawkish.

To take your points in order:

The alternatives to war — give the inspectors more time, the Walzer "little war", etc. — don't sound to me like they offer any real advantages over war. They won't be cheap, since they involve keeping large numbers of US troops in the region for an indefinite amount of time.

And invading Iraq, overthrowing Saddam, establishment a caretaker government, and "fostering democracy" over a period of several years will not?

They won't be very beneficial to the Iraqi people, since they'll keep them suffering under the dual burdens of sanctions and Saddam.

And bombing them to hell in a campaign of "shock and awe" will be better for them?

They won't better equip us to cope with North Korea since it'll require constant, full-time attention from the US diplomatic corps to keep them in place.

And stabilizing the caretaker government in Iraq won't also distract us from dealing with this problem?

They'll generate less anti-American sentiment abroad than a war would, but not less than the already-considerable amount we're dealing with, and because they'll keep this issue on a constant simmer they all-but-guarantee that America won't turn its image in the world around.

Oh but bombing them back to the stone age and imposing our martial will on them will be so much better? Really Matthew, you're starting to grasp at straws here. Simply put there is no argument made against the "costs" of containment that don't apply equally to the "costs" of invasion and regime change. The only difference between the two scenarios is the name of the person in charge of Iraq. Either alternative sucks. But at least the containment alternative leaves us with less blood on our hands.

Prime Minister Howard of Australia takes a page from Dubya's playbook: conflate a terrorist attack (the bombing in Bali that killed 88 Australians) with the invasion of Iraq despite the fact that there is no evidence Iraq had anything to do with it. I wonder if the Australian press will be as complicit in letting him get away with it as the American press has been with Dubya's lies.

Mark Kleiman, in the comments to this post, said:

I'm holding out too. If the choice is having a war with Iraq before it has deployed nuclear and biological weapons or having a war with Iraq after it has deployed nuclear and biological weapons, that seems like an easy choice to me, even with Bush and his crew running it. Details here.

I think that is a false set of choices Mark. The Bushies would like us to believe that they are the only two possibilities open to us. I don't buy it and their increasing shrillness and reliance on lies to make their point makes me even more skeptical of the suggested choices. Something needs to be done about Saddam? Yes. Is Bush the man to do it? No. Is there still time if we don't go now? Yes. Will things get worse if we do go now? Yes. The choice is pretty clear to me.

Matthew asks the question:

When it comes to war, one needs a clear position, so here it comes again. I favor the war that Bush says we're about to fight. I suspect, however, that that's not the war we're going to get. I don't really know if that makes me pro-war or anti-war.

To me it's really simple Mathew. If you support Bush while knowing that he will likely NOT do what you want him to do then how can you not be said to be supporting what he actually does end up doing? In other words, if you put your faith in a man that you know to be a liar, and he lies to you again, then who is the fool? No one is asking you to give up your support for the removal of Hussein. But that does not mean you have to support anyone who promises to do it.