Over at The Huffington Post, Bill Maher asks "If we all do 'support the troops', how come there has not been a demonstration, a march on Washington to DEMAND that they get the armor they've (needed) for so long?"
It's like this, Bill. If we march on Washington and demand the troops get the armor they've needed for so long, we'll send a signal to the insurgent terrorists that they're winning because we're not supporting the policies of our leaders who haven't gotten our troops the armor they've needed for so long.
This would motivate the insurgents to commit more acts of terror against our troops, who are still vulnerable to terror attacks because they still don't have the armor they've needed for so long.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, and the rest of our leaders who haven't given the troops the armor they've needed for so long would rightly accuse us of "costing lives" of unarmored troops who died in terrorist attacks that we incited by demanding the troops get the armor they've needed for so long. Our actions would be labeled as irresponsible, unpatriotic, and downright treasonous.
That would ruin the morale of our troops, depressing them to such an extent that they wouldn't bother to use what armor they do have, which would make them even more vulnerable to terror attacks whether they have the armor they've needed for so long or not.
So you see, Bill, the best thing we can all do to support the troops is to do nothing at all to support them.
---
Dubya quote of the day:
"I don't worry about anything here in Washington D.C."
What, him worry?
JLH
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Monday, May 30, 2005
The Counterproductive War to End Counterproductive Wars
In a Memorial Day blog post, Arianna Huffington wrote:
"For a long time now I’ve written about the need to put an end to the failed drug war -- a $40 billion dollar a year debacle that has...siphoned resources from the war on terror."
Helping to end the counterproductive war on drugs by making it unaffordable would give the war on terror a tangible accomplishment. Next problem: what sort of counterproductive war will we have to start to end the war on terror, and how much will it have to cost?
JLH
"For a long time now I’ve written about the need to put an end to the failed drug war -- a $40 billion dollar a year debacle that has...siphoned resources from the war on terror."
Helping to end the counterproductive war on drugs by making it unaffordable would give the war on terror a tangible accomplishment. Next problem: what sort of counterproductive war will we have to start to end the war on terror, and how much will it have to cost?
JLH
Sunday, May 29, 2005
A Different Colored Sky
As we remember those who died in service to our country this Memorial Day weekend, let's take a look at what our nation's leadership is up to in running the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).
A Sunday Washington Post article reveals that three and a half years after the 9-11 attacks, the Bush administration has, for the first time, launched an internal review of its anti-terror strategy.
Why the delay? Key administration counterterrorism jobs have been vacant for months. "We're five months into the next term," says former counterterrorism official Roger W. Cressy. "You end up losing valuable time."
"There's been a vacuum of leadership," says another former counterterrorism official. "No one knows who's running this on a day-to-day basis."
The Bush administration now wants to "broaden" its approach to defeating terrorism, turning away from its former "decapitation strategy" that focused on rolling up senior al Qaeda leaders. By this point, according to some experts, al Qaeda is no longer an effective organization, but has evolved into an "amorphous global jihad movement."
"What we really want now is a strategic approach to defeat violent extremism," a senior spokesman said. "GWOT is catchy, but there may be a better way to describe it."
I have no idea what catchy new acronym they'll come up with (Leverage Over Violent Extremism?), but you can bet your bottom tax dollar that high priced think tanks will be working overtime on the project once they come back from the weekend holiday.
--
Not everyone is convinced that we have rolled up the sidewalk on al Qaeda. A panel consisting of Fred Thompson, Lee Hamilton, and others expressed grave concerns about al Qaeda's intentions on Meet the Press.
When asked if he was convinced al Qaeda was "single minded" about obtaining nuclear weapons, head of the 9-11 Commission and former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean said, "I don't think there's any question about it...they have been doing everything they can to acquire the means of both the methods and the materials in order to (ignite a nuclear device in) an American city." Governor Kean also characterized America's borders and ports as "extremely porous," and said "we have not got a machine yet that will really detect nuclear materials properly as it comes across."
There's no telling how much we've spent so far on Homeland Security. You certainly won't find a comprehensive figure at the Department of Homeland Security web site. But a swag of $100 billion is probably low.
---
And on Sunday's Face the Nation:
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Richard Myers admitted that May was a brutal month in the Iraq operation, but optimistically claimed that "the trend lines are up."
When asked if more troops should have been committed to the Iraq excursion, Myers said, "Personally, I don't think so." Myers made the standard argument that more troops might simply have provided more targets for the insurgents.
He skipped over the reality that if the U.S. hadn't sent troops into Iraq on fuzzy pretexts, not only wouldn't there be any targets, there wouldn't be any insurgents.
Myers also said that the military has gone to "extraordinary lengths to treat people humanely and uphold the Geneva Conventions."
General Myers is not known to have failed a random military drug test lately. But he's not known to have taken one lately either.
---
Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition: "U.S. troops will be in Iraq for the foreseeable future."
---
In summary:
--44 months after 9-11, the Bush administration realizes it needs a new strategy in the Globar War on Terror, but the best thing it's come up with so far is to decide to give the war a new name.
--Al Qaeda is determined to sneak a nuclear weapon into the United States, and there's next to nothing we can do about it.
--Our senior military officer lives on a planet with a different colored sky.
This isn't a quagmire. It's a Technicolor nightmare. Our leadership has no strategy and no grasp of reality. Everything we do or don't do, say or don't say, plays directly into the radical Islamists' game plan.
Come next Memorial Day weekend, and for many Memorial Day weekends to come, we'll lament the passing of still more dedicated service men and women who fell fighting whatever we wind up calling this leaderless, rudderless war.
JLH
A Sunday Washington Post article reveals that three and a half years after the 9-11 attacks, the Bush administration has, for the first time, launched an internal review of its anti-terror strategy.
Why the delay? Key administration counterterrorism jobs have been vacant for months. "We're five months into the next term," says former counterterrorism official Roger W. Cressy. "You end up losing valuable time."
"There's been a vacuum of leadership," says another former counterterrorism official. "No one knows who's running this on a day-to-day basis."
The Bush administration now wants to "broaden" its approach to defeating terrorism, turning away from its former "decapitation strategy" that focused on rolling up senior al Qaeda leaders. By this point, according to some experts, al Qaeda is no longer an effective organization, but has evolved into an "amorphous global jihad movement."
"What we really want now is a strategic approach to defeat violent extremism," a senior spokesman said. "GWOT is catchy, but there may be a better way to describe it."
I have no idea what catchy new acronym they'll come up with (Leverage Over Violent Extremism?), but you can bet your bottom tax dollar that high priced think tanks will be working overtime on the project once they come back from the weekend holiday.
--
Not everyone is convinced that we have rolled up the sidewalk on al Qaeda. A panel consisting of Fred Thompson, Lee Hamilton, and others expressed grave concerns about al Qaeda's intentions on Meet the Press.
When asked if he was convinced al Qaeda was "single minded" about obtaining nuclear weapons, head of the 9-11 Commission and former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean said, "I don't think there's any question about it...they have been doing everything they can to acquire the means of both the methods and the materials in order to (ignite a nuclear device in) an American city." Governor Kean also characterized America's borders and ports as "extremely porous," and said "we have not got a machine yet that will really detect nuclear materials properly as it comes across."
There's no telling how much we've spent so far on Homeland Security. You certainly won't find a comprehensive figure at the Department of Homeland Security web site. But a swag of $100 billion is probably low.
---
And on Sunday's Face the Nation:
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Richard Myers admitted that May was a brutal month in the Iraq operation, but optimistically claimed that "the trend lines are up."
When asked if more troops should have been committed to the Iraq excursion, Myers said, "Personally, I don't think so." Myers made the standard argument that more troops might simply have provided more targets for the insurgents.
He skipped over the reality that if the U.S. hadn't sent troops into Iraq on fuzzy pretexts, not only wouldn't there be any targets, there wouldn't be any insurgents.
Myers also said that the military has gone to "extraordinary lengths to treat people humanely and uphold the Geneva Conventions."
General Myers is not known to have failed a random military drug test lately. But he's not known to have taken one lately either.
---
Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition: "U.S. troops will be in Iraq for the foreseeable future."
---
In summary:
--44 months after 9-11, the Bush administration realizes it needs a new strategy in the Globar War on Terror, but the best thing it's come up with so far is to decide to give the war a new name.
--Al Qaeda is determined to sneak a nuclear weapon into the United States, and there's next to nothing we can do about it.
--Our senior military officer lives on a planet with a different colored sky.
This isn't a quagmire. It's a Technicolor nightmare. Our leadership has no strategy and no grasp of reality. Everything we do or don't do, say or don't say, plays directly into the radical Islamists' game plan.
Come next Memorial Day weekend, and for many Memorial Day weekends to come, we'll lament the passing of still more dedicated service men and women who fell fighting whatever we wind up calling this leaderless, rudderless war.
JLH
Friday, May 27, 2005
The War to Prevent All Wars
On this morning's Imus program, Senator Orrin Hatch (R Utah) justified the Iraq invasion by saying that U.S. troops are fighting in the Middle East in order to prevent World War III. Senator Hatch is losing track of his world wars--which is an easy thing to do these days.
Some military scholars think of the War on Terror as World War III. Others say World War III was the Cold War and the War on Terror is World War IV.
So viewed one way, Hatch is saying this war is an attempt to prevent itself. Viewed another, we're fighting this war to prevent the previous one.
Senator Hatch, a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, never served in the military.
JLH
Some military scholars think of the War on Terror as World War III. Others say World War III was the Cold War and the War on Terror is World War IV.
So viewed one way, Hatch is saying this war is an attempt to prevent itself. Viewed another, we're fighting this war to prevent the previous one.
Senator Hatch, a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, never served in the military.
JLH
Thursday, May 26, 2005
39,999 Iraqi Troops on the Wall...
BBC News and other sources report that over 40,000 Iraqi troops will deploy in Baghdad to hunt down insurgent forces.
Iraq Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi says the force--composed of troops from the Defense and Interior Ministries--will be split into seven areas of operations. The security measures will be more strict than any seen before, Mister Dulaimi warns, and will be the first phase in a crackdown that will eventually cover all of Iraq.
This comes at a time when senior U.S. military officials have admitted unsatisfactory progress in training Iraqi troops, predicted a much longer U.S. involvement in Iraq, and even confessed to the possibility that the Iraq effort could fail.
I sincerely hope this Iraqi troop deployment is not a premature move designed to quell panic over the Iraq situation. If so, it could prove disastrous to the new government in that country, and to American efforts to stabilize the region.
Deploying 40,000 troops could simply provide insurgents with 40,000 new vulnerable targets and 'crackdown" security measures could inflame the passions of Iraqi civilians against their own government. That might well catapult the insurgency to previously unseen levels of activity, further inflame anti-U.S. sentiments throughout the Middle East, and lead to increased U.S. military presence in that region.
I hope this is not the case. The last thing I want to see is more American troops thrown into the quagmire created by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perl, Kristol, and the rest of the neo-conservative chicken hawks.
I pray the Iraqi troop deployment is an overwhelming success, and all of our troops can come home.
Iraq Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi says the force--composed of troops from the Defense and Interior Ministries--will be split into seven areas of operations. The security measures will be more strict than any seen before, Mister Dulaimi warns, and will be the first phase in a crackdown that will eventually cover all of Iraq.
This comes at a time when senior U.S. military officials have admitted unsatisfactory progress in training Iraqi troops, predicted a much longer U.S. involvement in Iraq, and even confessed to the possibility that the Iraq effort could fail.
I sincerely hope this Iraqi troop deployment is not a premature move designed to quell panic over the Iraq situation. If so, it could prove disastrous to the new government in that country, and to American efforts to stabilize the region.
Deploying 40,000 troops could simply provide insurgents with 40,000 new vulnerable targets and 'crackdown" security measures could inflame the passions of Iraqi civilians against their own government. That might well catapult the insurgency to previously unseen levels of activity, further inflame anti-U.S. sentiments throughout the Middle East, and lead to increased U.S. military presence in that region.
I hope this is not the case. The last thing I want to see is more American troops thrown into the quagmire created by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perl, Kristol, and the rest of the neo-conservative chicken hawks.
I pray the Iraqi troop deployment is an overwhelming success, and all of our troops can come home.
What They Do and What They Say, Part II
Today's Bob Herbert column hits the nail on the head regarding ultimate culpability for the War on Terror prison abuses. Referring to report from Physicians for Human Rights that examined the use of psychological torture by Americans against detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba, Herbert writes:
"People have been murdered, tortured, rendered to foreign countries to be tortured at a distance, sexually violated, imprisoned without trial or in some cases simply made to 'disappear' in an all-American version of a practice previously associated with brutal Latin American dictatorships. All of this has been done, of course, in the name of freedom.
"This insidious and deeply inhumane practice was not the work of a few bad apples...the abuses flowed inexorably from policies promulgated at the highest levels of government."
High-level government officials, Herbert notes, who embrace a "culture of life."
--
And while several junior enlisted and officer personnel have faced courts martial over prison abuses, the highest-ranking government official to receive censure is Janice Karpinski, who was demoted one pay-grade, from brigadier general to colonel.
--
Don't Miss Big Sister!
Ann Coulter will be on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC show tonight, arguing against liberal bias in federally funded public broadcasting. Her argument will no doubt be the standard right wing rant--PBS and NPR should either eliminate the bias or stop accepting federal funds.
Ann won't point out that while the government funds public radio and television to the tune of $387 million, it wants to spend well over ten times that amount--as much as 48% of the proposed $2.5 trillion proposed federal budget--on the military and "defense" related items in 2006.
I'm a lot more concerned with what the government's doing with our military than I am over whether or not PBS and NPR are "biased."
Ann Coulter's the perfect mouthpiece for the radical right. She goes to show just how far a pretty gal can ride on a sixth grade sense of humor and a broomstick.
JLH
"People have been murdered, tortured, rendered to foreign countries to be tortured at a distance, sexually violated, imprisoned without trial or in some cases simply made to 'disappear' in an all-American version of a practice previously associated with brutal Latin American dictatorships. All of this has been done, of course, in the name of freedom.
"This insidious and deeply inhumane practice was not the work of a few bad apples...the abuses flowed inexorably from policies promulgated at the highest levels of government."
High-level government officials, Herbert notes, who embrace a "culture of life."
--
And while several junior enlisted and officer personnel have faced courts martial over prison abuses, the highest-ranking government official to receive censure is Janice Karpinski, who was demoted one pay-grade, from brigadier general to colonel.
--
Don't Miss Big Sister!
Ann Coulter will be on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC show tonight, arguing against liberal bias in federally funded public broadcasting. Her argument will no doubt be the standard right wing rant--PBS and NPR should either eliminate the bias or stop accepting federal funds.
Ann won't point out that while the government funds public radio and television to the tune of $387 million, it wants to spend well over ten times that amount--as much as 48% of the proposed $2.5 trillion proposed federal budget--on the military and "defense" related items in 2006.
I'm a lot more concerned with what the government's doing with our military than I am over whether or not PBS and NPR are "biased."
Ann Coulter's the perfect mouthpiece for the radical right. She goes to show just how far a pretty gal can ride on a sixth grade sense of humor and a broomstick.
JLH
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
The Beat Goes On
"I really, truly believe that we are as close as we have ever been to peace."
-- Laura Bush, May 20, 2005
"I think (the terrorists are) being defeated, and that's why they continue to fight."
-- George W. Bush, May 23, 2005
"U.S. deaths mount in Iraq: 14 killed in past three days; May is on track to become one of deadliest months in the past year."
-- The Virginian-Pilot, May 25, 2005
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
-- Mark Twain, late nineteenth century
Insurgents have killed 54 U.S. troops so far this month, The Pilot reports. More than 620 people, including 58 American troops, have been killed since Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari established his new government on April 28. Insurgent attacks presently average 70 per day. In light of increasing sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites, Iraq appears to be turning into two battlefields--insurgents fighting the U.S. military and religious sects fighting each other.
These insurgent dummies need to start listening to Laura and Dubya. How long before they realize they're losing and give up? (The insurgents, I mean.)
Countless Bush administration supporters have explained our difficulties in combating terrorism by claiming this is a "new kind of war," but there's nothing about this war that the Greek general and historian Thucydides didn't describe in 400 B.C.--and none of it was "new" then, either.
In coming weeks, I'll outline historic case studies--from Hellenic times to the present day--that illustrate how wars are similar regardless of technologies and cultures, and how war itself is a proven failure as a tool of national power.
Hope you can stop by, read, and comment.
JLH
-- Laura Bush, May 20, 2005
"I think (the terrorists are) being defeated, and that's why they continue to fight."
-- George W. Bush, May 23, 2005
"U.S. deaths mount in Iraq: 14 killed in past three days; May is on track to become one of deadliest months in the past year."
-- The Virginian-Pilot, May 25, 2005
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
-- Mark Twain, late nineteenth century
Insurgents have killed 54 U.S. troops so far this month, The Pilot reports. More than 620 people, including 58 American troops, have been killed since Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari established his new government on April 28. Insurgent attacks presently average 70 per day. In light of increasing sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites, Iraq appears to be turning into two battlefields--insurgents fighting the U.S. military and religious sects fighting each other.
These insurgent dummies need to start listening to Laura and Dubya. How long before they realize they're losing and give up? (The insurgents, I mean.)
Countless Bush administration supporters have explained our difficulties in combating terrorism by claiming this is a "new kind of war," but there's nothing about this war that the Greek general and historian Thucydides didn't describe in 400 B.C.--and none of it was "new" then, either.
In coming weeks, I'll outline historic case studies--from Hellenic times to the present day--that illustrate how wars are similar regardless of technologies and cultures, and how war itself is a proven failure as a tool of national power.
Hope you can stop by, read, and comment.
JLH
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Pigs in Space
A May 24th New York Times article was critical of the U.S. Air Force's desire to put offensive and defensive weapons in space. Among other things, it said, "What the Air Force has in mind is shrouded in secrecy and euphemisms."
Murky, obscure jargon is a standard feature of military rhetoric. That's how the Pentagon keeps the public fearful of "emerging threats" and from figuring out just what the military is up to: making false justifications for grabbing an ever increasing piece of the national budget.
No service is better at this sort of thing than the United States Air Force. Since its creation as a separate branch after World War II, the Air Force has tried to convince anyone who will listen that aerospace power makes all other forms of military power obsolete. Their critics point out that decades of tangible evidence indicate otherwise.
Air Force counter-arguments usually state that aerospace power failed to be solely decisive in any given conflict because we didn't use it the right way, or we didn't use enough of it, or that it didn't work because the big old Army and Navy meanies in charge didn't want it to work.
Now, relegated to irrelevance in the Global War on Terror, the Air Force argues that aerospace power will work if we just put it up a little higher. This is typical of the arms race we're creating with ourselves; the false promise of "military transformation" that says flying tanks, swimming airplanes, eighteen-wheeled ships, and tire irons hurled down from space will accomplish our national aims in ways that previous weapon systems have failed to do.
What the transformation vision ignores is that all forms of military power--aerospace and otherwise--are becoming obsolete as tools of national power. Economy, information, and diplomacy have eclipsed them. The rest of the world has caught on to this reality. Within twelve months, according to Janes Military Industry, America will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined.
In theory, the bi-lateral arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was the thing that forced the Evil Empire to collapse under its own weight. Today, it appears the U.S. is bound and determined to implode on itself by engaging in a unilateral arms escalation, spending itself into the dirt while rest of the world sits on the sidelines and chortles.
JLH
Murky, obscure jargon is a standard feature of military rhetoric. That's how the Pentagon keeps the public fearful of "emerging threats" and from figuring out just what the military is up to: making false justifications for grabbing an ever increasing piece of the national budget.
No service is better at this sort of thing than the United States Air Force. Since its creation as a separate branch after World War II, the Air Force has tried to convince anyone who will listen that aerospace power makes all other forms of military power obsolete. Their critics point out that decades of tangible evidence indicate otherwise.
Air Force counter-arguments usually state that aerospace power failed to be solely decisive in any given conflict because we didn't use it the right way, or we didn't use enough of it, or that it didn't work because the big old Army and Navy meanies in charge didn't want it to work.
Now, relegated to irrelevance in the Global War on Terror, the Air Force argues that aerospace power will work if we just put it up a little higher. This is typical of the arms race we're creating with ourselves; the false promise of "military transformation" that says flying tanks, swimming airplanes, eighteen-wheeled ships, and tire irons hurled down from space will accomplish our national aims in ways that previous weapon systems have failed to do.
What the transformation vision ignores is that all forms of military power--aerospace and otherwise--are becoming obsolete as tools of national power. Economy, information, and diplomacy have eclipsed them. The rest of the world has caught on to this reality. Within twelve months, according to Janes Military Industry, America will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined.
In theory, the bi-lateral arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was the thing that forced the Evil Empire to collapse under its own weight. Today, it appears the U.S. is bound and determined to implode on itself by engaging in a unilateral arms escalation, spending itself into the dirt while rest of the world sits on the sidelines and chortles.
JLH
Monday, May 23, 2005
What They Do and What They Say
From the BBC and other sources:
The U.S. military says it will "aggressively" investigate how the photos of Saddam Hussein's underpants got in the newspapers. Military and legal experts say the pictures may breach Geneva Convention rules on the treatment of prisoners of war.
Interesting how the American military gets all concerned about Geneva Convention rules when a former head of state is involved.
President Bush said he did not think the photos would encourage insurgents in Iraq.
"I don't think a photo inspires murderers. I think they're inspired by an ideology that's so barbaric and backwards that it's hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how they think."
No doubt it's equally difficult for many in the Muslim world to comprehend how Mister Bush thinks--how, given the backdrop of U.S. abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan, Bush can accuse another culture of being "barbaric." This is especially puzzling when Newsweek and others have revealed that the dismissal of Geneva Conventions in the War on Terrorism was approved by Mister Bush himself.
They key to understanding the Bush administration's hypocrisy is its adherence to the concept of "moral equivalence." The moral equivalence argument goes that you can't equate Bush atrocities and anyone else's atrocities because everyone else's atrocities are far worse than Bush's.
This is the exact equivalent of your teenage son saying, "Johnny shoplifted a hundred-dollar catchers mitt. I just stole a three-dollar baseball. Why am I in trouble?"
It's sad that so many Americans who wouldn't take this kind of thing from their kids will tolerate it from their national leaders.
--
The other sides of their mouths
Funny how the Bushies blamed Newsweek for the violence in Afghanistan, but don't think the Hussein picture will stimulate any violence in the Muslim world. Could that have something to do with the fact that the Hussein picture ran in newspapers owned by Bush supporter Rupert Murdoch?
--
Hap-hap-hap-hap-hap-hap happy talk...
In the post-blame game joint press conference with Presidents Bush and Karzai, it was hard to say who topped who in the delusional rhetoric department.
Bush complemented Karzai for "showing the countries next to you what's possible."
What would that be, Mister Bush? See, you too can become an out-of-control narco-state?
Karzai said that the Afghan people appreciated the American people. I guess that accounts for all the pro-America pep rallies we've seen in Afghanistan lately.
My favorite remark was President Bush's answer to a question regarding progress against the terrorists:
"I think they're being defeated," he said, "and that's why they continue to fight."
So if they stop fighting, that means they've won?
JLH
The U.S. military says it will "aggressively" investigate how the photos of Saddam Hussein's underpants got in the newspapers. Military and legal experts say the pictures may breach Geneva Convention rules on the treatment of prisoners of war.
Interesting how the American military gets all concerned about Geneva Convention rules when a former head of state is involved.
President Bush said he did not think the photos would encourage insurgents in Iraq.
"I don't think a photo inspires murderers. I think they're inspired by an ideology that's so barbaric and backwards that it's hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how they think."
No doubt it's equally difficult for many in the Muslim world to comprehend how Mister Bush thinks--how, given the backdrop of U.S. abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan, Bush can accuse another culture of being "barbaric." This is especially puzzling when Newsweek and others have revealed that the dismissal of Geneva Conventions in the War on Terrorism was approved by Mister Bush himself.
They key to understanding the Bush administration's hypocrisy is its adherence to the concept of "moral equivalence." The moral equivalence argument goes that you can't equate Bush atrocities and anyone else's atrocities because everyone else's atrocities are far worse than Bush's.
This is the exact equivalent of your teenage son saying, "Johnny shoplifted a hundred-dollar catchers mitt. I just stole a three-dollar baseball. Why am I in trouble?"
It's sad that so many Americans who wouldn't take this kind of thing from their kids will tolerate it from their national leaders.
--
The other sides of their mouths
Funny how the Bushies blamed Newsweek for the violence in Afghanistan, but don't think the Hussein picture will stimulate any violence in the Muslim world. Could that have something to do with the fact that the Hussein picture ran in newspapers owned by Bush supporter Rupert Murdoch?
--
Hap-hap-hap-hap-hap-hap happy talk...
In the post-blame game joint press conference with Presidents Bush and Karzai, it was hard to say who topped who in the delusional rhetoric department.
Bush complemented Karzai for "showing the countries next to you what's possible."
What would that be, Mister Bush? See, you too can become an out-of-control narco-state?
Karzai said that the Afghan people appreciated the American people. I guess that accounts for all the pro-America pep rallies we've seen in Afghanistan lately.
My favorite remark was President Bush's answer to a question regarding progress against the terrorists:
"I think they're being defeated," he said, "and that's why they continue to fight."
So if they stop fighting, that means they've won?
JLH
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Jumpin' Judicial Jive...
To recap the fuzzy figures on the federal judge nomination fury:
Democrats have been claiming for some time that they have allowed confirmation of 95% of Bush II's judicial nominees.
When The New York Times ran a chart on May 18 showing that Bush II had a 53% nominee confirmation rate for federal appeals court seats, the lowest percentage for all appellate nominees going back to Truman, the right wing echo chamber went ape snot, howling like hyenas about the lies, half truths, and distortions from the left as confessed to by a liberal media source.
But the Times chart left some questions. How did they calculate their numbers, and how could the Dems have cooked a number so out of sync with what their theoretical ally, The Times, reported?
For starters, the right cherry picked the Times' numbers. While their numbers show that Bush II's appellate confirmation rate is 53% compared to Clinton's 59%, they also showed that the Bush II district court rate was 87% versus Clinton's 81% and concluded that the two president's averages were "roughly on par." But The Times didn't publish overall averages, and didn't provide raw figures that would allow average observers to calculate them for themselves.
I searched extensively through the web for a concise, comprehensive data table for government, mainstream media, or blogosphere sources of that data, came up with nothing, and asked readers for assistance. A friend sent me two links that answered some questions but created many more.
The first was a Washington Post article from December 2004 that states:
"Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term."
This would substantiate the Dems' 95% acceptance claim (the exact percentage is closer to 96). I guessed at first that judges not confirmed by means other than filibuster would account for the discrepancy between the Dems' claim and the Times' numbers.
But another link from my friend made me guess again. From an interview with National Public Radio's congressional correspondent Brian Naylor and its Senior Washington Editor Ron Elving:
"The president's nominees to the district court level of the federal system have not been blocked. The conflict has come at the next level, the appeals court level, which is the intermediary step between trial courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats' use of the filibuster to prevent a floor vote. Three of these nominees subsequently withdrew from consideration, but seven others have returned for renomination in the current Congress."
According to the Times' numbers, 13% of the district court nominees were not confirmed, so the NPR guys must have meant they fell out by means other than filibuster, or The New York Times is out to lunch, or the NPR guys are out to lunch, or The New York Times and NPR are both out to lunch (which won't be the first time that happened).
At the appellate level, if 42 of 57 appeals court nominees were confirmed, the confirmation rate is 73.7%, not the 53% that NYT reported. Even if we count the seven judges who were filibustered but nominated again twice, we get 42 of 64, or 65%.
In any case, the left has once again blown an opportunity to get its act together and decisively refute the right, which is further out to lunch than The New York Times and NPR combined. Those characters manufacture numbers out of thin air and their followers wash them down with the latest batch of grape Kool Aid.
The shame of all this is that in the "land of the free" and during "the information age," average citizens can't cut through the smoke screens to find accurate, coherent, comprehensive data that should be the coinage of national debate.
We truly live in Orwellian times.
JLH
Democrats have been claiming for some time that they have allowed confirmation of 95% of Bush II's judicial nominees.
When The New York Times ran a chart on May 18 showing that Bush II had a 53% nominee confirmation rate for federal appeals court seats, the lowest percentage for all appellate nominees going back to Truman, the right wing echo chamber went ape snot, howling like hyenas about the lies, half truths, and distortions from the left as confessed to by a liberal media source.
But the Times chart left some questions. How did they calculate their numbers, and how could the Dems have cooked a number so out of sync with what their theoretical ally, The Times, reported?
For starters, the right cherry picked the Times' numbers. While their numbers show that Bush II's appellate confirmation rate is 53% compared to Clinton's 59%, they also showed that the Bush II district court rate was 87% versus Clinton's 81% and concluded that the two president's averages were "roughly on par." But The Times didn't publish overall averages, and didn't provide raw figures that would allow average observers to calculate them for themselves.
I searched extensively through the web for a concise, comprehensive data table for government, mainstream media, or blogosphere sources of that data, came up with nothing, and asked readers for assistance. A friend sent me two links that answered some questions but created many more.
The first was a Washington Post article from December 2004 that states:
"Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term."
This would substantiate the Dems' 95% acceptance claim (the exact percentage is closer to 96). I guessed at first that judges not confirmed by means other than filibuster would account for the discrepancy between the Dems' claim and the Times' numbers.
But another link from my friend made me guess again. From an interview with National Public Radio's congressional correspondent Brian Naylor and its Senior Washington Editor Ron Elving:
"The president's nominees to the district court level of the federal system have not been blocked. The conflict has come at the next level, the appeals court level, which is the intermediary step between trial courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats' use of the filibuster to prevent a floor vote. Three of these nominees subsequently withdrew from consideration, but seven others have returned for renomination in the current Congress."
According to the Times' numbers, 13% of the district court nominees were not confirmed, so the NPR guys must have meant they fell out by means other than filibuster, or The New York Times is out to lunch, or the NPR guys are out to lunch, or The New York Times and NPR are both out to lunch (which won't be the first time that happened).
At the appellate level, if 42 of 57 appeals court nominees were confirmed, the confirmation rate is 73.7%, not the 53% that NYT reported. Even if we count the seven judges who were filibustered but nominated again twice, we get 42 of 64, or 65%.
In any case, the left has once again blown an opportunity to get its act together and decisively refute the right, which is further out to lunch than The New York Times and NPR combined. Those characters manufacture numbers out of thin air and their followers wash them down with the latest batch of grape Kool Aid.
The shame of all this is that in the "land of the free" and during "the information age," average citizens can't cut through the smoke screens to find accurate, coherent, comprehensive data that should be the coinage of national debate.
We truly live in Orwellian times.
JLH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)