Blog –at– michaelsiegel –dot– net.
Note that this account tends to get a lot of spam. So try to be specific in your subject headings, unless I know you. Anything titled “Hi there” or “Just a Thought” is likely to get deleted.
Deadlines
A conservative talking point that I’m beginning to doubt goes like so: “If we set a deadline for leaving Iraq, the terrorists will just lay low until we’re gone.”
I think that’s true and it was a point I was sympathic to until recently. My thought was this: Why is that a bad thing?
If we get less violence in Iraq, a lessening of ethnic hatred and a breather for the Iraqi government to assert itself, why is that a bad thing? I don’t see that the insurgent forces would necessarily be able to marshall reserve strength faster than the Iraqi government could.
I think it is reflective of the conservative misunderstanding of the nature of our fight. This is not like World War II where we are going to track some bigwig down in a bunker and kill him and then his followers will surrender. This is an ongoing ethnic strife that is not going to end until the combatants decide it’s no longer in their interest to fight. If we set a deadline (one we can always change if necessary) and the thugs back off, that will give the people a chance to see that there is a better option — a peaceful option. It will give them a reason to stop fighting.
What’s wrong with that?
A soft deadline is a perfectly viable option, in my opinion.
Obama Surges
I’m absolutely delighted that Barrack Obama is beating Hillary in the funding game. You can almost imagine the temper tantrum going on in New York right now. “I’m supposed to be President! How dare he!”
As I’ve said in this space before, Obama=JFK (Sully today made the comparison to RFK). Not much experience, fairly left, but charisma and charm out the wazoo. I probably disagree with Mr. Obama on almost every issue. But I like him. And I, like half of Americans, can’t stand Hillary. Anything that gets her ironclad grannie undies in a bunch is outstanding.
Boortz Braggadacio
Neal Boortz’s posts were obsolete almost by the time he posted them. But let’s fisk him anyway on the Iran issue:
The proper response would be to start dropping bombs until the soldiers were returned. You know…like Margaret Thatcher…or Winston Churchill would do.
But neither Thacher nor Churchill would have had us hip-deep in Iraq with an incompetently fought war that has produced military paralysis. We couldn’t have bombed Iran because, among other things, they might have decided to send a million soldiers westward into Iraq. How would we deal with that, Mr. Boortz?
A lot of criticism of the Bush Administration has focused on their erosion of America’s soft power around the globe. But I see an equal decay in our hard power. We went into Iraq and we couldn’t pacify it. Not because of liberal media or Democrats but because of a weak, incompetent Adminsitration that was more interested in handing out reconstruction contracts to friends than rebuilding a nation. Iran was emboldened. They new we couldn’t respond forcefully. And they took advantage.
As I said, thanks a lot, George.
Score One for the Bad Guys
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just scored a gigantic political coup over the United States. Whatever else might be said of the hostage situation, he can point out that he treated his prisoners humanely while Bush waterboards them. He can point out that they were freed as a gesture of good will, while Bush has some that have been imprisoned without charges for five years.
And allow me to head off the “they were wearing uniforms” thing at the pass. Do you think that subtlety is going to matter anywhere in the world apart from National Review and Rush Limbaugh? Do you think the ROW cares about that? What they will see is terror suspects being indefinitely detained and waterboarded while Iran sets enemy soldiers free.
That’s the legacy of George W. Bush. Iran has made us look bad. Thanks a fucking million.
Passover Blogging
I’m back home for the Holiday. A few thoughts before I hit the hay:
Just Curious
The GOP and their sychophants on talk radio are slamming the Dems over their Iraqi withdrawal plan, calling it a surrender plan.
I’m just curious. What’s their plan? Other than just saying they want “victory”? What is the goal? How do they plan to achieve it? It’s becoming clearer that the surge produced only a temporary lull in the violence.
So what do they plan to do? That’s the one thing I never hear from the so-called conservatives. All they talk about is how important the battle is and how leaving it will be a great victory for Al-Quaeda — which is amazing unlikely for a radical Sunni organization in a majority Shia state. But they never present any ideas? More troops? Different tactics? Change of leadership? We’re trying that now and it doesn’t seem to be doing much good. So what is your plan? Come on Bushbots. Tell me what the plan is to achieve victory in Iraq?
A Good Point
Apparently the most dangerous terrorist in the world is less dangerous than a wheelchair-bound MS patient.
Sully on Habeas
Like all mediocre writers, I prefer to quote good ones rather than ham it up on my own:
America is now failing that test. And the Republican party has lost not only its own soul; it is busy mortgaging the soul of America and the West as a whole. On this, there can be no compromise. Until a leading Republican commits to the full restoration of habeas corpus for American citizens, whether the executive considers them an “enemy combatant” or not, no one who loves freedom can support the GOP. In fact, any lover of freedom should consider it a duty to defeat them.
Quick Links
Bush is a conservative. Yeah, right. Conservatives start trade wars all the time!
Cheerleading is dangerous. So why can’t college cheerleaders get scholarships to balance out Title IX?
It seems to me Alberto Gonzalez is a in a tight position. If he admits that he talked about the USA firings, then he lied to Congress. If he maintains that he didn’t, that means the firings were organized not by the Attorney General but by the President’s Political Advisors. That would be, to say the least, disturbing.
Why am I not surprised. At least the NYT inflation-adjusted the figure. Now if they could only adjust it for increasing disposable income. This also means that the idea of a gas tax to decrease our emissions may not work.
Humor of the Day
This is absolutely true.
On the Other Hand
As brilliant as Greenwald’s post is, I think he misses the point. The fundamental political philosophy of the GOP right now is the acquisition and maintenance of power at any cost. Every tactic they have pursued — from politicizing the Justice Department to massive spending hikes — has been designed for the sole purpose of keeping them in power. That’s why I don’t believe that Bush was serious about his Social Security reform package and why he never really pushed it very hard. That’s why I don’t believe he would ever endorse the Fair Tax. It would take too much power away.
And that’s the key to understanding this Administration. The Emperor has no clothes. Bush says a lot of things that are designed to sound good to conservatives. But these are all just ploys to get our support. In the end, he and his cronies will turn their reason upside down and backward if it supports them. If you look at his actions instead of listening to his words, you will see the naked political ambition.
As an example of what I’m talking about, Cato points out that Mr. Torture John Yoo has been caught contradicting himself. When Clinton sought executive privelege to stop investigations into his shennanigans, Yoo — and most of the Right — screamed bloody murder. Now that Bush is doing it, they think it’s OK. They’re going for the Clinton tactic of saying these are “pointless investigations” and “non-scandals” and the President should be allowed to “do his job”.
They have no principles. Only politics.
Greenwald Nails It
A brilliant post over at Salon.
It would maximize clarity in our political discussions if journalists could just ingest Brooks’ central point: the dominant right-wing political movement in this country that has spawned and driven the Bush presidency has nothing to do with — it is in fact overtly hostile to — the ostensible principles of Goldwater/Reagan small-government conservatism. Though today’s so-called “conservatives” exploit the Goldwater/Reagan mythology as a political prop, they don’t believe in those principles in any way. That movement is the very antithesis of those principles.
Read the whole thing.
Political Appointees?
Just to deal with one of the meme’s circulating in the Right:
“This US Attorneys scandal is garbage! These are political appointees!”
They seem to be missing a critical point here. The appointments are political but the office is not. Just as the Hatch Act prevents the political appointees who head the Departments of Defense or Labor or Health from using the office to advance political interests; just as it prevents the Drug Czar from his office for political interests (not that this stops him); the President is not supposed to use the US Attorneys for political means.
What we are talking about here is not the firing of eight lawyers but the use of the Department of Justice to advance the political agenda of the Republican party. I’m sorry, Neal Boortz. I’m sorry, Anne Couter. I’m sorry, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. This is not the Soviet Union. We do not have a poltiical office. We do not confound the business of government with the business of politics. And we now have ample evidence that the US Attorneys were being pressured to lay off Republicans and prosecute Democrats.
Suppose the Drug Czar were only prosecuting drug cases against Democrats and letting Republicans go free. Would that be OK? He’s a political appointee after all.