Kerry 7, Bush 3

Smackdown, week 10

Again, I haven't had the time to compile a bullet point list. But I think it's pretty obvious that Bush lost this week because of the Abu Ghraib scandal.

And, unlike past bad weeks for Bush, I think this will have a much more lasting effect on his campaign. The main impetus of past bad weeks has been the insurgency in Iraq. However, that is something that is happening to us from outside sources. When that happens, the American people throw their support behind their leadership because they want that leadership to protect them (even when it is demonstrably clear that that leadership has made things worse).

But the bad things of this past week we did to ourselves. And when it is "we" who are doing the bad things we start looking for someone within to put the blame on. Rumsfeld may become the sacrificial goat in this instance, but Bush has tied himself very closely to the Donald's fate and won't be able to avoid being burned if and when Rummy burns out.

Kerry, in the meanwhile, has been playing it cool and "presidential" in response. Some may say he hasn't leapt on this story strongly enough, but the dynamics of this situation are far to dangerous for any smart politician to insert themselves into it willy-nilly. Besides, when things are chaotic, the people look to a leader to act cool and "presidential" and Kerry has been doing just that.

A lot of people are disgusted with Bush. Co-workers of mine have expressed exasperation about him. But many of them still consider him the "lesser of two evils". Kerry hasn't made the sale to them, but if he shows calm and collected leadership in response to this crisis he may persuade a significant number of them that switching drivers might be worthwhile.

(Last weeks smackdown)

Good evening Mr. Phelps

Recordings Contained Accounts of Communications With Hijacked Planes

[...].. Hours after the hijacked planes flew into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, an FAA manager at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center gathered six controllers who communicated or tracked two of the hijacked planes and recorded in a one-hour interview their personal accounts of what occurred, the report stated.

The manager, who is not named in the report, said that his intentions were to provide quick information to federal officials investigating the attack before the air traffic controllers involved took sick leave for the stress of their experiences, as is common practice.

According to the report, a second manager at the New York center promised a union official representing the controllers that he would "get rid of" the tape after controllers used it to provide written statements to federal officials about the events of the day.

Instead, the second manager said he destroyed the tape between December 2001 and January 2002 by crushing the tape with his hand, cutting it into small pieces and depositing the pieces into trash cans around the building, the report said.

The tape's existence was never made known to federal officials investigating the attack, nor to FAA officials in Washington. Staff members of the 9/11 panel found out about the tape during interviews with some controllers who participated in the recording.

The bold part is the most perplexing part of this story. I could understand a simple beauracratic snafu in which the manager destroys the tape as part of a union agreement (though I would think any reasonably intelligent person might wonder if that was such a smart thing to do regardless).

But why the "stake through the heart, drawn-n-quarter, burnt it and scatter to the four winds" procedure?

Even the IMF didn't have that exacting a standard for the destruction of tapes.

Christians and the Holy Land

I offer the following without much comment. I don't follow Israeli/Palestinian issues as closely as others do, but I offer this story as an interesting perspective on the whole relationship between Christians and the nation of Israel. We hear a lot about how Christian Evangelicals are among the biggest boosters of Israel in the United States (not always for the best of reasons). But, according to this story, Christians in the Holy Land aren't exactly getting a reciprocal level of support from the Israeli government.

New constraints squeeze churches in Holy Land

By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

JERUSALEM – Christian churches in the Holy Land are facing an unprecedented crisis that some say is jeopardizing their future, including their capacity to maintain the faith's holy sites and charitable institutions and to educate clergy.

The churches' difficulties have been building over the past three years as the Israeli government has failed to renew visas or residence permits for hundreds of religious workers, and has begun sending tax bills to charitable groups that have long had tax-exempt status, some since the Ottoman Empire. At the same time, the separation wall being built in Jerusalem and on the West Bank is slicing through religious facilities, in some cases taking land and blocking pilgrimage routes.

Morris vs. Morris

If there is a safe bet in politics it is this one: whatever Dick Morris says will almost assuredly prove to be wrong. Anyone who has followed American politics over the last 10 years should know that Dick Morris has a bug up his ass when it comes to Hillary Clinton. They never got along when he was a political advisor to her husband (an understatement, believe me). Morris was a promulgator of several rumors about Hillary's sexuality (both that she had multiple affairs with men and that she was a lesbian). He swore on a stack of bibles that she would not run for Senator in NY in 2000 and then, when she did run, he swore that she would lose spectacularly (she won in a landslide).

I'm sure it must gall Dick when he hears that Hillary is rated the most popular politician in New York.

Media Matters dissects his latest offering, Rewriting History, a book written in response to Hillary Clinton's Living History.

My personal favorite:

Dick Morris v. Dick Morris
Dick Morris Says:	... But Dick Morris Also Says:
"She Gives No Indication of Having Learned From the Fiasco of Health Care Reform": "In all of Living History there is almost no suggestion of personal growth. She gives no indication of having learned from the fiasco of health care reform." [Morris, Rewriting History, p. 62]	"Hillary has ... Shown Signs of Growth ... After the Health Care Fiasco, for Example": "Hillary has, at times, shown signs of growth: After the health care fiasco, for example, she backed away from further attempts at broad-scale, utopian reforms." [Morris, Rewriting History, p. 62 (just four paragraphs later!)] "She Seems to Have Learned Her Lesson": "Her left-ward tilt in the health care reform days was a thing of the past. She seemed to have learned her lesson." [Morris, Rewriting History, p. 97]

Michael Moore may be an asshole, but he's our asshole

Could Michael Moore be blowing the brou-ha-ha over the distribution of his latest film, Fahrenheit 911, out of proportion? Marc Cooper makes some interesting observations along this line, including the question of whether Disney ever planned to distribute the film in the first place.

It is fairly obvious that Disney (under Michael Eisner), doesn't want much to do with this film. But it is not clear that they are attempting to squelch the release of the film either. If they never planned to release it in the first place (thus requiring Moore and Miramax to work on another distribution deal anyway) than it couldn't really be said that they are trying to suppress it.

It is quite conceivable that Moore is taking advantage of the conflict between Miramax and Eisner and the later's uncomfortable-ness with the film in order to hype the release of his film (the fact that this comes less than two weeks before it will be premiered at Cannes). Moore is a master at public relations of this kind.

Would his doing this make me think any less of him? Not really. I've never really cared that much for Moore personally. He's a bit of a loudmouth and a grandstander. But he does make good films and books that spur useful dialog. If this gets more publicity for his film and, in the process, brings more media focus to the relationship between Bush and the Saud family then all the better. It's a story that has been woefully under covered and if it takes a little metaphorical bomb-throwing to wake people up then bombs away.

Mission Accomplished

(courtesy Republicans For Kerry)

Hmmm....

Kerry puts on pro-Kerry ads (i.e., no mention of Bush) in Republican friendly states (Louisiana and Colorado) and Bush responds with his own anti-Kerry ads (i.e., lots of mention of Kerry) in those same states. (courtesy Political Wire)

Meanwhile, Bush spends time shoring up the Republican base in southwest Ohio. (courtesy dailyKos)

Kerry is expanding beyond the swing states into Republican territory while Bush has to retreat and protect his base.

And people think Kerry is in trouble?

Ah, so now it's "Clinton's Military" again!

I guess it was only a matter of time before someone figured out a way of blaming the whole Abu Ghraib fiasco on Clinton. The following comes from the comments section of "the evangelical outpost" from someone named "puzzled":

---------------
Jim,
As Ted Kennedy and other Democrats were fond of saying, repeatedly, until the last week or so, Bush is fighting the war with "Clinton's Military".

Why should we be surprised that Clinton's military acts like Clinton?

The purging of the ranks, the training of troops to fire on American civilians (and removal of all who refused), the forced imposition of homosexuals, and the removal of Judeao-Christian ethics by the Clinton administration; all most naturally lead to what has been happening in those prisons.

Posted by Puzzled at May 5, 2004 09:28 AM
---------------

Damn that Debil Clinton!

Irony

Family Backs Reservist in Iraq Prison Case

FORT ASHBY, W.Va. (AP) - Family members of an Army reservist photographed with naked Iraqi prisoners said Tuesday she was merely a ``paper-pusher'' who was in the ``wrong place at the wrong time.''

Pictures of Spc. Lynndie England, 21, and other soldiers have sparked an international outcry over the U.S. military's handling of Iraqi war prisoners.

In one photo, England is shown making a thumbs-up gesture behind a pyramid of naked Iraqi men; in another, cigarette dangling from her lips, she points to a hooded and naked prisoner.

``It's ridiculous,'' said Destiny Goin, 21, who has lived with England's extended family since high school and considers herself England's sister.

``It's her picture that you see more than anyone else's, and she really wasn't involved. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.''

Unlike six other members of the 372nd Military Police Company based in Cumberland, Md., England has not been charged but she is being detained at Fort Bragg, N.C.

Goin said England has been restricted to base and has not been given access to legal counsel.

A spokeswoman at Fort Bragg referred calls to an Army spokesman in Virginia, who did not immediately return phone calls.

Goin said England and the six soldiers who have been charged are ``scapegoats - that's what they're being used for.''

England was trained to be a ``paper pusher'' who helped process prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, said Goin and England's brother-in-law James Klinestiver. She was in the area where the photos were taken to visit friends in the 372nd who served as guards, the two said.

Goin and Klinestiver said the family is furious with the comments of President Bush, who said he was ``disgusted'' by the photographs.

``He doesn't know what these guys are going through,'' Klinestiver said. Referring to Bush's limited National Guard service during the Vietnam War, he added, ``How can you make decisions for our military unless you've served yourself?''

God but wouldn't it be ironic if this were the thing that finally pushed a lot of military types out of the Bush camp?

They did not die in vain

KING HENRY. I dare say you love him not so ill to wish him here alone, howsoever you speak this, to feel other men's minds; methinks I could not die anywhere so contented as in the King's company, his cause being just and his quarrel honourable.

MICHAEL

WILLIAMS. That's more than we know.

JOHN BATES. Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough if we know we are the King's subjects. If his cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out of us.

MICHAEL WILLIAMS. But if the cause be not good, the King himself hath a heavy reckoning to make when all those legs and arms and heads, chopp'd off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place'- some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection.

King Henry V
Act IV, Scene I

Thanks to Josh Marshall for posting this.

For the last several weeks I've been trying to think of a way of answering those who seem to think that it is necessary that Bush's cause be just in order to "give meaning" to the deaths of the soldiers who die to bring his vision to reality. I saw a segment on Larry King several weeks back in which the father and wife of one of the fallen in Iraq were obvious in their desperation to try and find justification for the war. It was obvious that they needed the cause to be just in order to feel that their loved one "did not die in vain".

What they don't understand, and what a lot of those who continue to support Bush don't understand, is that the fact that a leader may use a soldier's commitment to his country to perform an unjust act does not make that commitment to their country any less honorable. When a soldier surrenders his will to his leader he also surrenders a measure of responsibility for his actions (not completely, of course. The Nuremberg precedent still applies.)

The Inevitable Consequences

Think we shouldn't care what the rest of the world thinks about us?

U.S. Delays Rights Report Partly Due to Iraq Scandal

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The State Department plans to delay the release of a human rights report due out on Wednesday partly because of sensitivities over the U.S. prison abuse scandal in Iraq, U.S. officials said.

One official who asked not to be identified said the release of the report, which describes actions taken by the U.S. government to encourage respect for human rights by other nations, could "make us look hypocritical."

Can you remember when the United States used to have credibility?

War without cost

Sterling Newberry has an excellent diary entry on the use of imagery by the Dean campaign.

What made the Dean movement work is something very simple - something touched upon by Bill Maher's "When you ride alone, you ride with bin Laden": namely, Americans want a war. Or more exactly, we want a war effort. It is what the country demanded in the wake of 911, and what we did not get. On the contrary, what we got was a phony war, and a phony war effort.

What made the devotion to Dean work was that Howard Dean took us to war. He called on Americans to build a homefront, and Americans responded, as they continue to respond today as other campaigns, including the one I work for ask Americans to give of themselves, for the good of the country, and towards a larger victory.

The Republicans like to criticize Democrats for promising the moon while avoiding discussing the cost of getting there. Yet what is Bush's "War on Terror" but giving America a way to vent their anger after 9/11 without asking them to actually sacrifice anything to pay for it? It's the ultimate example of spoiled bratishness.

Kind of what you would expect from Bush.

War is expensive. War can not be waged "on the cheap" (ala Don Rumsfeld). If people want a war then they better well be prepared to deal with the cost of that war. And Americans, God bless them, generally have been willing to make that sacrifice.

But when our leaders try to give us war without sacrifice ultimately the phonyness and bullshit builds up until it all comes crashing around our shoulders. And Americans, God bless them, sense this in their hearts and love it when a leader comes along who appeals to this sense of sacrifice (FDR, Churchill and Dean).

To many politicians are afraid to ask their constituents to dig into their pockets and pay for the costs of whatever battle needs to be waged because they have bought into the whole notion that the voters are interested only in money and keeping as much of it as they can. So we end up with leaders who promise to give us the moon without asking us to pay the cost of the ticket to get there.

And Bush is the biggest huckster of the lot.

SHUT UP!

Amen

How Bush could save his butt AND save Iraq

Josh Marhsall opines that Bush is "too small-minded and vainglorious" to deal with the situation in Iraq as it is and take the necessary steps to correct the problem. Steps including, but not limited, to a "clean sweep" of those in his circle who are primarily responsible for the massive fuckup this has become (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney. But keep Rice around if for no other reason then it is not clear that she is at all doctrinaire about Iraq.) Josh further states that this move might doom Bush politically but that a "good leader" would damn those consequences and do it anyway for the good of the country.

I agree with Josh on the first point but disagree on the latter. If Bush were to jettison the whole crew and start over I think the American people would give him another chance. The sad reality is that the majority of Americans either love the guy or want to love the guy but that his pig-headedness is making it harder and harder for them to do so. If he were to just come right out and make a major course correction and say, "we fucked up but now we're going to fix it" then I think a lot of those people would vote to give him the chance to do it right this time.

Americans are suckers that way.

No, the main reason this is unlikely to happen (unless things get really bad) is that Bush is just constitutionally incapable of admitting to error. Something that would be necessary to make this kind of action work. He might try to go half way and eject everyone while still talking as if it was all their fault and that he would have succeeded sooner in Iraq if Rumsfeld and Cheney hadn't been such idiots. But I think that might push the American people's tolerance for bullshit to the breaking point (God I would hope so).

No, if Bush were to do this and pull it off (i.e., still get re-elected and have a reasonable chance of saving face in Iraq) he would have to do something he has never done in his life: take personal responsibility for something going wrong.

Yeah right.

Looking for solutions

Having recently come to the conclusion that sticking it out in Iraq (because of the "you break it, you bought it" rule) is no longer tenable (because our continued presence in Iraq is the single biggest obstacle to resolving the situation in Iraq) the question then becomes: what other way do we solve this problem?

Harold Meyerson offers an interesting commentary on this issue as it relates to John Kerry's political campaign. The short of it is that Kerry is in a bind as long as he continues to maintain that the U.S. can solve the problem of keeping a single unified Iraq together through sheer force of will (and increased military presence). Policy wise it just won't work anymore as the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is a fertile field for increased bloodshed and for growing more ill-will against the United States in the Middle East. But politically it doesn't work either because the American people are quickly heading towards a "bring them home now" state of mind which will rebel against any belated attempt to stabilize Iraq through increased military force (that might have worked right after the fall of Saddam, but not now).

Meyerson uses an essay by Peter Galbraith in the New York Review of Books as the launching point for this discussion. As Meyerson explains it, Galbraith's proposal is that the three ethnic regions of Iraq (Kurdish North, Sunni Middle, Shiite South) be allowed a measure of autonomous rule but that they continue to operate under an umbrella organization for handling international relations. More of a loose confederation than a strong union. It's a proposal that is radical enough to perhaps break the gridlock of policy paralysis we currently face without being so radical as to stoke fears of an independent Kurdish or Shiite nation at the heart of the Middle East.

I'm certainly not trained enough in foreign policy to judge the rightness of this proposal. But politically I think it is something worth considering as the current policy options available to Kerry will provide little opportunity for him to distinguish himself from Bush ("I'm going to do what he wants to do, but I'm going to do it right!") and plenty of opportunity for political attack ("Kerry wants to (appease terrorists by reducing forces)/(put more of your sons and daughters in danger by increasing forces).")