Two Dummies don't make an Argument

Two of the not-so-smartest guys in the lefty blogosphere tell us all about why Obamacare is such a good deal. Or not really.

TM has the details and does a far better job of ripping our esteemed know-it-alls then I could ever hope. First, from Kevin Drum:

Let's recap: the United States spends about twice as much on healthcare as any other developed nation in the world and in return receives just about the worst care. Can someone remind me again why there's even a debate about whether we should put up with this?

Brilliant...

Once you've recovered from the magnificence of that non-argument, we go to the guy who replaced Kevin over at Washington Monthly, one Steve Benen:

They've pulled it off, so far, by telling almost comically-ridiculous lies, and managing to get scared, gullible people to believe them. It's no small feat. Indeed, it's almost impressive. Conservatives have managed to create a debate out of nothing but partisanship, paranoia, and greed.

And here's where I give you over to TM and his sharp-knives:

Really? If memory, that unfaithful servant, can be relied upon the Dem leadership has yet to put forth a plan costing less than a trillion dollars over the next ten years. Medicare is projected to be racing towards bankruptcy (whatever that would mean for a government-funded program) and no one has suggested any credible means of controlling, let alone cutting, its costs.

And the Dem health care reform favored by the left is to spend even more money and envelop the rest of us in some sort of universal Medicare. I'm not sure it takes a conniving liar to wonder how that is going to save us money. "We're spending too much on health care and the answer is to spend even more!" - do Dems really think that will be a winning message?

Hardly Schocking

At Politico today:


Trust in President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies to identify the right solutions to problems facing the country has dropped off significantly since March, according to a new Public Strategies Inc./POLITICO poll.

Just as Obama intensifies his efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and reach an agreement with Congress on health care reform, the number of Americans who say they trust the president has fallen from 66 percent to 54 percent. At the same time, the percentage of those who say they do not trust the president has jumped from 31 to 42.

The president’s party has taken a similar hit since the last Public Trust Monitor poll, with only 42 percent of respondents saying that they trust the Democratic Party, compared with 52 percent who do not. The party’s numbers are nearly the inverse of March’s survey, in which 52 percent said they trusted Democrats and 42 percent did not.

Obama’s personal approval rating has fallen below 60 percent in a number of recent major polls, and according to a Washington Post/ABC News survey out Monday, support for the president’s leadership on several key issues has fallen below 50 percent.

Not to beat the same drum but some of us right-wing troglodytes saw this coming. The Oval Office is no place for on-the-job training for a Neophyte Executive.

UPDATE: Gallup reports similar numbers. But this is my favorite...thats gonna leave a mark:

President Barack Obama's tumbling poll numbers have dipped below those of his predecessor George W. Bush at the same point in his White House tenure, according to a national poll released Tuesday.

Class is in Session

Megan McArdle at The Atlantic takes Kevin Drum to school.

I always get a kick out of that. I don't know what it is about Kevin. Whether at Cal Pundit, Washington Monthly or now at Mother Jones I've just seen him write too many head-scratchers to take him overly serious.

Maybe it's just me.

When measured meets insane

This is what you get when a left-leaning blogger attempts something resembling a measured argument about George W. Bush...in this case, Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum.

LOL at the insanity. I especially loved the letter-writer:

I am appalled. Does Washington Monthly as a magazine support this errant, inaccurate, and uncaring opinion?

I daresay that those unfortunate souls who have been secretly, illegally, and unconstituionally renditioned in unmarked white CIA planes to other countries to be tortured for months -- without recourse to counsel, legal proceedings, or habeas corpus protections -- would be the first to say that Bush's crimes are worse than Bush's. And would they be wrong?

Well -- would they? I'm asking you to defend Kevin's assertion. And if you don't support it, to apologize to your readership. Whether on Kevin's behalf, or not, I don't care -- I'm talking to you. I'm making an ethics and morality check on YOU, the editors.

Yeah, I'm mad. This is how the country slides further and further down the slippery slope to authoritarianism and despotism, when the opinion leaders can't be bothered to call a war criminal a war criminal and a destroyer of the Constitution exactly what he is.

I await your response, and I expect to hear personally from one of you.

Regards,

Rob Conrad
Chicago, IL

The most obvious point (So obvious that it's one of those things you feel guilty pointing out but only for a moment) is of course his confusion of Bush's crimes with those of...Bush; apparently he's so angry he forgot who he was writing about.

Rob needs a big dose of Get Over Yourself...demanding answers from the magazine editors for Kevin's audaciousness. 'Cause after all, he's mad!

I'm no fan of most of Kevin Drum's work as anyone who looks around will notice. But he has all the sympathy in the world on this one.

Kevin's no fan of the President but undertook, as best I can tell, an honest appraisal of the difference, as he sees it, between President Nixon and Bush the younger. And what does he get for his trouble?

The lefty venom that so usually pervades his regular readership turned back onto the unsuspecting author, that's what. I guess though when you've been feeding the bears for years you shouldn't be surprised when one of them takes a bite out of you.

I guess that Settles It!

Kevin Drum is now convinced that Valerie Plame was in fact covert at the time her name was made public in 2003. All because Patrick Fitzgerald says so:

In a court filing today, Patrick Fitzgerald provides a summary of Valerie Plame Wilson's status with the CIA's Counterproliferation Division at the time she was outed to the press by members of the Bush administration. Guess what? She was covert:

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.

So that settles that. I hope the wingosphere can finally stop bleating about how she wasn't "really" covert and there was no harm in what Libby et. al. did.

Right wingosphere Plameologist Tom Maguire begs to differ. He writes, actually in response to the typically snarky Glenn Greenwald, that:

1. As to "Plame's covert status is based upon the CIA's own internal documents which make clear she was covert", I have labored at length to point out that the CIA, in its own vernacular, uses "covert" and "classified" interchangeably without regard to the IIPA. This was emphasized in my discussion of the Waxman hearing (linked above under "noted at the time") and is not a new point. However, I did allude to it in the original post above by saying "Waxman quite clearly danced around the question of whether Ms. Plame was "covert" as defined by the IIPA rather than by the less exacting in-house CIA standard". This semantic point - "covert" is used interchangeably with "classifed" by the CIA but is not consistent with "covert" a sper the relavant [sic] statute - is simply not controversial, subtle, or new.

Perhaps irrelevant in the short-term. Val may very well have been covert as defined under the IIPA and I remain open to the possibility, but seems to me the source for that conclusion ought to be the CIA, not Fitz.

Don't ignore Maguire's point that the CIA still has, presumably, not done the leg-work necessary to clearly, concisely and once-and-for-all put the question to rest: So what was the opinion of CIA Counsel on Ms. Plame's status under the statute? That would not be fully dispositive either, but it would certainly carry some weight. Bob Novak followed up on this with various annoyed Republican Congressman, and wrote this on April 12:

On March 21, Hoekstra [Ranking Republican on the House Intel Committee] again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."

So as of April 2007 the CIA had not yet done the homework to form an opinion.

This of course is all irrevelant in the bigger picture. Sim rightly pointed out in another venue that the narrative on this has already been written. We'll sooner see it fossilized than changed at this point.

What of course is only slightly humorous is that neither Kevin nor Glenn nor any of the usual suspects triumphant over today's revelations have anything to say about the Changing stories of Valerie Plame.

Like I'm surprised.

Downing Street-ish

Kevin Drum discussed Jonathan Schwartz's take on Peter Eiser's tome, The Italian Letter in this blog post yesterday. I understand the reason folks want to run with his highlighted quote but it all struck me as somewhat Downing Street Memo-ish.


The funny part was, apparently more than a few commenters were less-than-convinced as I was. Highly unusual for Drum's crew.

Refresh my Memory

Today at the Washington Monthly blog Kevin Drum highlights a piece from McClatchy's Greg Gordon discussing the politicization of the Bush Justice Department. Kevin calls it Banana Republicans:

Greg Gordon of McClatchy on the politicization of the Justice Department:

For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates.

The administration intensified its efforts last year as President Bush's popularity and Republican support eroded heading into a midterm battle for control of Congress, which the Democrats won.

....On virtually every significant decision affecting election balloting since 2001, the [Civil Rights] division's Voting Rights Section has come down on the side of Republicans, notably in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Washington and other states where recent elections have been decided by narrow margins.

At first blush I wasn't sure who to be most appalled by...Kevin or Greg. For all his success--after all he blogs for a living, I do not--Kevin is not exactly the most astute blogger in the world.

Upon further review however, the ridiculousness of all this is all on Gordon. Kevin, as good bloggers do, only highlighted the bad logic. He just forgot to call it that.

It's that last quote that kills me. Essentially we're to believe that part & parcel with a systematic shredding of the Constitution over the last 6+ years the Bush Justice Department has acted inappropriately--dare we say illegally--to influence elections!?

Let's hit the refresh button for a minute and reflect; was it Republicans that car-pooled homeless folks to the polls in Wisconsin, enticing them with free cigarettes in 2004? Did Republican would-be student activists vote multiple times in 2004?

Was it dead Republicans voting in both 2000 and 2004? Or maybe it was Republicans who sought recounts in only certain counties, applying different standards across Florida in 2000?

Well, no it wasn't. And perhaps the reason the Voting Rights Division "sided" with Republicans so often since 2001 is that Democrats were responsible for the majority of documented voter rights violations and attempts at voter fraud.

Just a thought.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Kevin Drum offers proof again that...well, the Peter Principle is alive and well. Harsh you might ask?

Probably, but this is the guy who told us that Bill Burkett was credible.

Kingmaker?

If you read this part of the LA Times feature about the GOP's '08 crowd, you'd almost get the sense that they think Jeb Bush is playing a little bit of Kingmaker:

But the presentation was most notable for what it lacked: There was no photo of Jeb Bush with McCain. The absence of a McCain photo seemed to carry meaning. The presentation, with its implied signal of Jeb Bush's preferences among the GOP presidential field, was played last week for the governor's staffers and state lawmakers, many of whom are being courted by the 2008 contenders.

The presentation was produced by one of the governor's longtime advisors, Sally Bradshaw, who is now a Romney strategist. Bradshaw is so close to Jeb Bush that it is unlikely she would work for any of the 2008 candidates without his blessing. In an interview, Bradshaw said that Jeb Bush only "encouraged me" to meet with Romney, insisting that the Florida governor is not trying to indicate a favorite in the race.

I suppose then it's never too early for Big Media to start pounding on that McCain '08 drum...

I have a List and I'm not afraid to not Publish it!

The other day while I was asking why no one has outed David Corn for the rotten journalist that he is, Tom Maguire was asking other questions...some not so strong, others stronger:

Mr. Corn's position on outing Republicans is clear enough but he does not explicitly state a position on the merits of outing gay Democrats. However - if he had any journalistic integrity at all he would have to be opposed to "stealth advocacy". A black man arguing for "black" issues does not need to separately declare his personal stake in the discussion, nor does a woman discussing "women's issues".

But surely Mr. Corn agrees that it is unseemly to advocate for gay issues under the pretense of having been swayed by force of argument when, in fact, the advocate is touting his own self-interest. So presumably Mr. Corn, troubled as he is by closeted Republican gays, is equally troubled by closeted Democratic gays.

Or maybe not.

Let's be clear as mud - the Foley scandal is not about homosexuality but it would not be unreasonable to out gay Republicans in response to it. Can anyone follow that? I would suggest the outing of those who are abusing their power but that logic may be too linear for someone from the reality based community.

I also love this evasion of responsibility - "anytime a gay Republican is outed by events". No, David, it won't be "events" that post that list, it will be activist Democrats trying to win an election. Hope that helps your understanding. A likely candidate would be Mike Rogers of BlogActive.com, who has spent years outing gay Republicans and whose current fund raising appeal says this:

Please help me with this effort. We have five weeks to save our nation from these right wing homophobes in the closet -- and there are more in Congress!

As to "What about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay?", well, what about those GOPers who favor lower taxes (and happen to be gay), or who favored a robust national defense in the Reagan era (and happened to be gay), or who favor gun owner's rights (and happen to be gay), or for some other reason don't fit themselves neatly into the special interest group boxes drawn up by earnest Democratic strategists?

Or what about GOPers who were put off by Bill Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" debacle or by Clinton's signing of the "Defense of Marriage Act", or by John Kerry's insistence that his position on gay marriage did not differ from Bush's? Are they allowed to think that maybe the Dems are more talk than action, and that other issues are more important? Does David Corn really agree with 100% of the Democratic Party platform?

This is the current state of the left - sexual privacy rights for their political opponents are trumped by a desire for power.

Later on Larry and Curly join up with the other stooge with some utter ridiculousness of their own: Ahh, Plan B - Josh Marshall is pretending that it is Republicans who are going to out these gay Republican staffers, and Kevin Drum is playing along.

That is quite a working theory - a group of evangelical Reps, outraged by the gays in their midst, worked up a list of gay Republican staffers ands then leaked it to their natural ally, David Corn. Mr. Corn then choked back his abhorrence at this sexual McCarthyism and penned a few paragraphs rationalizing their effort. Uh huh. Can I guess the rest - some lefty blogger will print it "just to show us what awful tricks those crazy House Republicans are up to".

Please.

Personally, I figure that since there are Dem activists who do this routinely, my money is there. But we have nothing to fight about since we all agree this is awful. And since Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum think "The List" will be coming from Republicans, I encourage them to denounce the concept unequivocally and pre-emptively, as I am doing here.

If The List appears, they will be on record as having condemned it, and perhaps other Dems will join them. And if it is the work of crazed evangelical Republicans, condemning it should be easy, yes?

This is me holding my breath.

The best zinger is saved for last of course. TM points to an almost-but-not-quite confession of conscience at The American Spectator:

I am guided to evidence of Dems with both a brain and a conscience:

"We're getting into very dangerous territory, and I've warned my colleagues to be careful." That's what a Democrat leadership aide was saying on Wednesday, as word circulated about David Corn's blog posting that revealed that a list of gay Republicans congressional staffers was circulating through emails.Such a list has been talked about for months, if not years, by more militant homosexual activists, who have threatened to out Republican congressional staffers or even congressmen if they take positions counter to their gay lifestyle. ..."If that list is made public, all of the political gains we've made in the past 96 hours get flushed down the toilet," says the leadership aide.

I apologize - this may not be evidence of a conscience at all. just a recognition that as a pragmatic matter this is dumb idea for Dems. But one can hope.

And one can wonder - why, if the list is coming from the homophobic right, would it reflect badly on Democrats?

I've maintained this week that there are two distinct things going on in this Foley mess. First off, the disgraceful, inexcusable behavior of the Congressman is outrageous. I'm not sure I've heard or read of a single person who disagrees with that.

It is good and right that he has left the House and should it become evident that he committed actual crimes, I have no problem with seeing him prosecuted for them. Likewise, pretty much every Republican I know of agrees.

The other issue is of course the political fallout and manipulation of the matter by certain folks on the left. Mainstream Democrats are trying to make hay out of it as is of course their right to do. The questionable timing and sourcing of the information however--and as TM notes, "I figure that since there are Dem activists who do this routinely, my money is there"--is leading some to scream about rank political opportunism and a smear job of the highest order.

"The List" is no less a part of that and is equally reprehensible in my book. Corn, Marshall and Drum (the collective brainpower is truly stunning) should frankly be ashamed that they've even touched this at all.

That is though, as I said of Corn earlier, if they ever had any to begin with.

What if 9/11 Never Happened?

A basically pointless, albeit irresistible question especially considering that it is posed to an eclectic mix of thinkers. New York Magazine takes on this rhetorical challenge by coaxing a variety of viewpoints running the gamut from Tom Wolfe to Fareed Zakaria to Al Sharpton.

There are some real stinkers:

Andrew Sullivan

And your point, caller? Gore would've prosecuted the GWOT better, the same as, worse than W.? And Andrew, puhleeze. You were banging the drum on Bin Laden, al Qaeda and "Islamofascists" prior to September 11, 2001? You were begging Bush and Gore to mix it up on this subject in their presidential debates? Are you freaking kidding me? I don't have the links, but I feel rather certain that you were mining a different vein.

"The neocons"....um would you have ever even advanced that terminology without 9/11? Britain, Russia, Germany and China all on the same side in the UNSC, with France blocking? Um, newsflash: Germany isn't on the UNSC in 2006. And when has THAT constellation ever existed? Johnny-Come-Latelys on this sort of thing embarrass themselves at every turn.

Would "Digital Brownshirts Up is Dowynnn and Dowynnnn is Uuuup" Gore EVER quote Ronald Reagan? And what's with the continual Tom DeLay references? You mean if 9/11 hadn't happened DeLay would still be central to the political discourse in this country? 300,000 troops in Afghanistan? I mean, if you don't like Iraq you sure aren't going to like an occupation of Afghanistan set upon by ISI-sponsored and nuclear-armed pincers coming in from Baluchistan and Waziristan, much less on the border of a nuclearizing Iran. Gee, containment in Iraq is slowly getting it done? An organic democracy about to blossom? If only.

I used to really see a lot of smart stuff coming out of Andrew Sullivan. Now it's just weak piffle. I'm embarrassed that I linked him so frequently in the past. I still give him credit for sussing out good sites and articles, but anymore his opinions don't seem to mesh much with reality. (Exception: the torture issue and I give him mad props for sticking it out on that front)

Tom Friedman

China. The World is Flat...now available in paperback. Here's another guy who's basically eroded in my opinion with more exposure. Unlike Sullivan he still has the occassional flicker (Syria is the game-changer in the Middle East), but I'm pretty tired of his branding campaigns disguised as thoughtful analysis. Anymore it seems to me like Friedman's learned that the path to the $bling$ is paved with clever catch-phrases and appearances on Charlie Rose and Russert.

Bernard-Henri Lévy

I'm sure it's just language issues. I know you're on the right side of this debate. But what in the hell are you talking about?

Dahlia Lithwick

Slate's Supreme Court correspondent does the Wacko Rag. Without 9/11 the cloud-talkers would reign supreme and Ashcroft would still be shredding the Constitution. It was the plan all along.

Frank Rich

Since his column is a perpetual SeethingStrawmanFest, is it surprising that Frank runs with nuggets like these?

Without 9/11 to fill the vacuum of his slacker’s presidency, we’d likely have seen a fast-tracking of the scandal foretold by the Tom DeLay K Street project and an earlier and bloodier culture war: Karl Rove could focus his undivided attention on satisfying his base’s hunger for decisive action against abortion, stem-cell research, contraception, and gay people.

Without 9/11, there would have been no rationale for ginning up hysteria about imminent mushroom clouds emanating from Baghdad and hence no way to pivot to a gratuitous war in Iraq. Besides, Bush had come to office pledged to a “humble” (i.e., minimalist Bush 41) foreign policy and opposed to nation building. Grand neocon delusions would have remained dormant as Rumsfeld instead busied himself on his grandiose schemes for remaking the Pentagon, not the Middle East.

Since the Republicans would have had no fear card to play in the 2004 election, the Democrats, having won the popular vote in 2000, would have won it again, this time benefiting from a backlash against the religious right’s overreach, even if they had neither better ideas nor candidates than the opposition. Once in office, might they too have ignored an intelligence briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”? Maybe, but once the inevitable attack came, they too would have won the war in Afghanistan—and, not being tied down in Iraq, maybe they would have made sure it stayed won rather than let the Taliban regroup in the ensuing years.

Shopworn strawmen so colorful, they almost call out to Mr. Rich to return to his previous life as a movie reviewer. I feel certain that is his real calling.

Tom Wolfe

Stunningly argues nothing would be that different without 9/11.

W-o-W.

Maybe it's time for another Acid Test.

Al Sharpton

Sharpton's predictably hypocritical dropping caused me to double over in laughter-pain when I read this:

The attack and the fear it generated led to people returning in mass to faith, depending more on religion for guidance and protection, which gave a tremendous revival to those who in my judgment misuse their religious fervor. People were searching for answers and absolutes, which gives zealots an opportunity to promise something that wasn’t there. Sometimes people can only find comfort by grabbing at something that promises stability.

A long time ago someone very wise told me that "If you spot it, you got it." Al clearly has spotted it. Now, you do the math.

Doris Kearns Goodwin

I sure like Doris and I've certainly enjoyed much of her work. But the notion that Weathervein Gore was prepared to set us free with a "Manhattan Project for alternative energy" is completely fanciful in a non-9/11 world. Earth in the Balance spoke of the end of the internal combustion engine. But Gore never mentioned that on the campaign trail and its unlikely he would fritter away political capital on it unless he needed to.

But I'll cut her some slack. She's a historian, not a futurist.

Douglas Brinkley

Makes the list just on the general principle of throwing out "Marshall Plan" language. What problem can't be solved with a Marshall Plan?


But amidst the many stinkers, one can certainly enjoy the bloom of a few roses. And this issue of New York Magazine does come through with a couple of American Beauties:

Fareed Zakaria

While he musingly suggests we'd be more focused on Chandra Levy and Bush's faith-based domesic agenda, he closes with a truism that the conspiracy theorists and many of the Democrats ought to face up to:

History would have been delayed, not denied.

Ron Suskind

Suskind brings the pervasive and empowering nature of globalization (which itself is a metaphor for hypetext terrorism) home with some insightful metaphors:

In the eyes of the violent jihadist community, maybe 9/11 is akin to the U.S. hockey team winning the ’80 Olympics: “Oh, my goodness! I can’t believe how many breaks we got to have a moment like this!” Or, maybe, it’s like the early days of Microsoft—a few people with a powerful, disruptive idea. Bin Laden is as much an ideology as an individual at this point.

Dalton Conley

NYU's Sociology Chair inadvertently raises the point that America is a photo-negative in the wake of 9/11. New York was hit that crisp fall day, but the rest of the country has borne a larger proportion of the psychic cost in the aftermath of the attacks.

Five years later, I think New York is perhaps the least-affected place in the country. And that’s simply because the wheel that 9/11 set in motion has led to two wars and the largest deployment of military reserve forces in recent history. This means that places like Scranton, Pennsylvania, or Mobile, Alabama, have had their daily rhythms and lives continuously uprooted, and New York, and Manhattan in particular, with perhaps the lowest percentage of reservists of any area in the country, has not really felt the impact of Afghanistan and Iraq as much as Peoria, Illinois.

Thus, one must question the "conventional wisdom" regularly spun out of blue state, anti-war, "we support the troops," anti-Bush New York in comparison with those who seem to be shouldering much more of the burden. In what way...at all...is New York representative of this nation's thinking and values? As a former New Yorker, I can attest to a deep schism between coastal and flyover mentalities. Which is more right? I don't know. But among those bearing the most burden, there is considerably more commitment. But then again, is that really surprising? If they're shouldering the burden, wouldn't they be the ones with the most skin in the game, so to speak?

Hank Sheinkopf

The political consultant makes a grandiose statement that cannot be documented on the scale that he suggests. But on a personal level, I feel it to be true:

We didn’t really grasp the significance of this place, that it was more than just a financial combine. New York became a human place for people. We didn’t realize who we were before: We are the center of the world. And I don’t think we ever really understood what that meant before that day.

After having lived in New York for three years, 9/11 made me feel like a New Yorker for the first time. Since that day, I have always felt like a New Yorker and I will retain that ownership for the rest of my life. In part, due to 9/11 and in part due to it having just been New York, I will always feel a kinship and connectedness with the rest of the world. That may be hard for someone who has never lived there to understand, but it is a vibrant and visceral notion to me.

Dan Doctoroff

New York's deputy mayor of economic development and rebuilding correctly points out that 9/11 has fundamentally changed the rules of the game in the city. Long-term, New York will be better and more beautiful:

Many of the big projects that are under way today would not be where they are had it not been for 9/11. The transformation of lower Manhattan, the expansion the West Side, the extension of the 7 line, the Atlantic Yards, the list goes on and on.

But I save the best for last.

When I read this piece from Leon Wieseltier yesterday afternoon I was struck by its completeness and resonance. It seemed to fully capture the dynamics and realities of 9/11 in a way that the other submissions failed to.

It addressed America's delusional preoccupations and the inevitability of our fate.

America would have enjoyed the luxury of some more time in the post–Cold War, inward-looking, money-mad bliss. History had ended, remember? But the bliss would have, in any event, been short-lived. Because if 9/11 had not happened, then 9/12 would have happened, or 9/13 or 9/14.

It addressed America's own shock and awe. (Is 9/11 from whence Rumsfeld derived the term? After all, that bastard was pulling bodies out of the flames that day. He had firsthand knowledge that few of us will thankfully ever have.)

The turbulence in the Islamic world; the fear of modernity and its great representative, the United States; the hatred of Israel—these were all waiting to explode. (So was the North Korean nuclear gambit and the Iranian nuclear gambit: The world was, even then, a much more perilous place than many Americans, and many American policymakers, had wanted to know.)

Wiestelier nudges at a hint of an acorn of a thought I have long possessed: No matter WHO was President on 9/11 or since, we'd likely still be enduring many of the same foreign policy and security / civil rights debates.

I imagine that it must have been excruciating to be the president of the United States on 9/11, and I understand his subsequent virulence toward the enemies of the United States, but Bush became another victim, the most distinguished and powerful victim, of the instability of thought that 9/11 unleashed in this country.

Does he say that in so many words? No, not really. But think it through. If Al Gore had been President, can one say that his sense of patriotism and obligation to American ideals and the American people wouldn't have risen to the occasion in some sense? If there is a failure or neurosis in the post-9/11 world it is of the mass variety. This society has gone through its grieving. It's gone through its anger. And now what? What is the right course of action? Reasonable arguments on both sides. But what do we find? Wiestelier describes in the most cogent language I've read to date on the subject what is the essential reality of today's American political discourse:

Since 9/11, the discussion of urgent national questions has been dangerously volatile: In Washington, there is almost no point in beginning a political conversation anymore, since you immediately discover that you are speaking either to a Shark or a Jet.

Indeed. It would be Sharks and Jets or Jets and Sharks. NSA "wiretapping" would have been a Gore-ian brainchild had it not been the providence of the Bush Administration's reign. At the margins, surely there would have been differences. But I am hard-pressed to imagine a radically different situation. Even with regard to Iraq. So in my opinion, under Gore, Bush or Kerry, it wouldn't matter.

We can't debate the really meaningful issues of the day because it might lead to conflict or bad feelings. And as a consequence we're still ignoring the essential and pertinent questions such as "What ought to be America's Role in the World?" to debate Swiftboats and Vietnam, enjoy American Idol and Jessica Simpson, lambast Mel Gibson and Israel in the same breath, and commiserate over gas prices and rising interest rates. We're so addicted to the personalities (and the Jets / Sharks shiny satin jackets) that we can't focus on the debates that matter. I noticed in 2003 that it became impossible to really discuss political issues unless with someone of your own orientation. What the hell is that about? Is it just too painful for us?

I'd argue that in a polarized democracy, nothing is more important than grating on your neighbor. But where is it? We're so plugged into our Blackberries and Ricky Lake that we can't possible aspire to be the Second Greatest Generation at a time when that's the least we should be aspiring to.

For as Wiestelier concludes:

And the sadder truth is that most Americans live as if 9/11 did not happen—basically, we’re all still shopping as before. And even the president wants us to stay the same. Once again, this blessed country is weirdly detached from its own historical situation.

Damn he's right.

Who Cares

Yesterday, Kevin Drum reviewed the most recent document(s) alleging a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the 1990’s. His bottom-line analysis? “Who cares.”

Who cares?!

Exactly…Drum is the guy who, back in his days as a somewhat-well-known California blogger at Calpundit, told us that Bill Burkett was a credible critic of the President’s National Guard service.

Who cares indeed.

Scoreboard

Funny goings on in the center- and far-left blogosphere tonight. Jason Zengerle blogging at TNR's blog posted this about the big-mouths at Daily Kos:

But more often than not, these liberal bloggers (especially Kos) act like they already have taken over the world--writing manifestoes, issuing threats, and engaging in all sorts of chest-thumping behavior. But, like I said, their batting average is still a big fat zero.

A bit later Zengerle posts again, noting that certain folks are unhappy with his analysis:

Kevin Drum and Laura Turner are taking issue with my post about liberal bloggers' latest losing campaign. Specifically, both object to my notion that Ciro Rodriguez's defeat is a defeat for Kos et al's "ideology of winnerism." Turner writes:

Doesn't Zengerle posit there might be, like, a reason the blogs launched themselves behind Rodriguez that might have to do with ideology, in the sense that Cueller is (and he really is) a very bad Democrat? If Kos and Atrios just wanted a win for somebody with a D behind his name, they probably would have stayed out of Texas-28, which already gurantees such an outcome given that the GOP doesn't even run candidates in the district (somehow the Republican revolution never took hold there). The blogs took a chance on the underdog Rodriguez. Isn't that the opposite of a blind Democratic "winnerism"?

To wit, Zengerle's reply leaves me thinking that my own take on Kos and his minions is pretty much spot on:

In fact, the liberal bloggers' involvement in the Cuellar-Rodriguez race--sparked as it was by a hug--struck me as an exercise in juvenile pique. Which is their right, of course, except these very same bloggers are constantly claiming they aren't juvenile or fevered and are in fact cold-blooded tacticians and strategic grandmasters. But is it really all that strategically smart to enter a campaign (about which you know virtually nothing) a mere month before election day? Aren't you basically setting yourself up for failure? Isn't it even possible that you risk helping the other guy by creating a backlash (a la all the Orange-hatted, out-of-state Dean volunteers who ticked off Iowa voters)?

Now, in the wake of Rodriguez's defeat, these bloggers are talking about how they drew a line in the sand and sent a message, etc., etc. One of them, Chris Bowers at MyDD, is even proclaiming, "If Cuellar makes fewer appearances with Bush, then we will have succeeded." And some success that will be!

Again, I don't dispute that, on the merits, Rodriguez wasn't a better candidate than Cuellar. I just think that the blogosphere's involvement in the race was indicative of the scattershot, emotional, sometimes almost counterproductive approach it takes to politics. Drum, while acknowledging the liberal bloggers' terrible batting average, notes that "Rome wasn't built in a day." True enough. But, Kos et al's grand pronouncements to the contrary, I don't think that they're building Rome.

It's one of the biggest echo-chambers going. Frankly, I think they're deluded; their endorsements haven't succeeded in helping a single Democrat into power in 4+ years.

Scoreboard, Markos.



P.S. I'll be adding The Plank to the blogroll. Good stuff, Maynard!

In Search of the Beef

Without naming names, certain posters on this blog have a fairly negative view of Arizona Senator John McCain. Others, like myself, have more mixed emotions bordering on positive. But that's one of the great things about MyDogs. Yeah, you've got a couple of conservatives but we each have our own viewpoints and there are clear areas of disagreement. You've also got a couple of National League West baseball fans. It just so happens that one of us roots for the reigning National League West champions and the other roots for those scum-sucking Trolley Dodgers. So it's anything but an echo chamber here.

That said, I think even Paul will have to tip his hat to Senator McCain's actions in his recent spat with Democratic golden-boy Barack Obama. It seems that Obama disingenuously implied that McCain was attempting to slow-down the generation of new lobbying reform legislation through the creation of a bipartisan working group, rather than simply going ahead and drafting the legislation. Of course, I come from the school that thinks it would probably be prudent to take some time to study a rather complex issue (especially with almost daily revelations emerging in the Abramoff scandal) as opposed to simply drafting a quick-fix that will make the daily newscycle. Moreover, if Obama were open to a reality check, he'd probably learn that McCain has been beating the drum on ethics-, lobbying- and campaign reform for years, so the notion that he would try to de-rail it is beyond ludicrous. In fact, it's so ludicrous one might even interpret Obama's statements as grandstanding.

Apparently, that's how McCain interpreted them. Look how he responded!

"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. . . . "I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss . . . "I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness."

Beautiful. And completely on-point. McCain has now become the first Republican to openly attack Obama. Republicans historically have a tough time going on the political offensive against minority and female opponents due to sensitivity to age-old monolithic shibboleths about conservative anti-minority / anti-women orientations. But kudos to McCain for being the first out of the box to take on Obama. Because ever since Product Obama (TM) was launched to the fawning crowds at the Democratic Convention and the almost-universal, mesmerized sighs of network anchors, I've been asking a basic question: Where's the Beef? Yes, Obama is an intelligent and attractive man with an impressive personal history. Yes, he comes-across as even-tempered, moderate and even conciliatory at times. I can see why the Democrats are so excited about him, even if their rationale ("He's African American. And he's so well-spoken.") borders on hypocrisy given their past attacks on Republican minority candidates like Alan Keyes, Colin Powell and JC Watts. That's all fine and good. But what does Obama stand for? What does he believe in? What's his program? For what cause will he go to the mats, even if he risks being unpopular? In other words, it's clear that Obama is packaged and primed for prime-time but is he a true leader? And does he have any solutions?

Attacking Obama's grandstanding is a prudent move by McCain, because to this point no one has challenged the freshman Senator from Illinois. No one has so much as raised the point as to whether the King is actually wearing any clothes. Obama potentially presents a formidable opponent for Republicans in 2008 and / or 2012. Now is a good time to see what he's made of. It will be interesting in the days ahead to see how Obama responds and what, if any substantive progress he generates in the Senate.

Brief Media Scrum Interlude on Able Danger

Although your favorite primate will continue to bang the drum on the real lessons of Able Danger, it is also important to get the history surrounding 9/11 right. And while I am not much for blaming Clinton or Bush or Tenet or anyone else because I subscribe to the belief that the failures of 9/11 belong to each and every one of us, it should be noted that the Able Danger revelations do give us reason to question our assumptions about the record of events surrounding 9/11. In addition to The Wall, Jamie Gorelick's role on the 9/11 Commission and failure to testify, the testimonies of Richard Clarke and Phillip Zellikow, as well as the Sandy Berger snafu, Able Danger may also give us reason to re-open the Mohammad Atta meeting in Prague case files. The implications of possibly placing Atta in Prague for a meeting with an Iraqi intelligence official (which the Czechs still maintain happened and which the MSM and 9/11 Commission completely discount) would be far-reaching.

Captain's Quarter's, which has been all over the Able Danger story, filed a missive on the Atta angle which includes this analysis

If Able Danger supports Czech intelligence, which at the moment remains just speculation, it will prove tremendously explosive. The ramifications will affect not just the careers of the Commissioners and their staff, but a deliberate attempt to suppress Able Danger might well result in criminal prosecution. It will also force a recalculation of the war in Iraq and its place in the war on terror. The involvement of Jamie Gorelick on the Commission will once again cause people to ask why such a conflict of interest was allowed to occur -- only this time, Congress won't be able to avoid the answers. Congress needs to hold public hearings to get to the bottom of these questions. The deliberate deceptions of the 9/11 Commission this week has set off alarms about their motives and preconceptions which may have seriously perverted our knowledge of 9/11 and the forces which stood behind the attacks -- by far the most complicated and well-coordinated al-Qaeda operation, before or since.

Bush and the Draft

In the last election-cycle, we heard a lot from Democrats about how George W. Bush had a secret plan to address waning recrtuitment numbers by re-instituting the military draft after the election. John Kerry alluded to it. Charles Rangel guaranteed it. Ted Kennedy suggested it was likely.

While recruiting numbers remain low and manpower requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan remain high, we are now eight months into Bush's second term and the only folks who have placed a neo-draft plan on the table are Fritz Hollings and my Congressman, Democrat Charles Rangel.

Despite the objections of Secretary Rumsfeld and the JCS, Democrats have been beating the draft drum for a long time in order to score political points. Of course, they hope that the American public has forgotten all about the reasons why we did away with the draft in the first place. But by way of Virginia Postrel, The Economics Journal takes us back to the heady days of 1966-67 when it seemed like anything, even putting an end to the draft, was possible. And as a consequence, learn why the return of a draft is unlikely:

One of the first empirical studies of the economics of the draft and of ending the draft was done by Walter Oi (1967a, 1967b), an economics professor then at the University of Washington and later at the University of Rochester’s Graduate School of Management. In his study published in the Sol Tax volume (Oi 1967b), Oi distinguished clearly between the budgetary cost of military manpower and the economic cost. Oi granted the obvious, that a military of given size could be obtained with a lower budgetary cost if the government used the threat of force to get people to join--that is, used the draft. But, he noted, the hidden cost of this was the loss of well-being among draftees and draft-induced volunteers. Using some empirical methods that were sophisticated for their day, Oi estimated the loss to draftees and draft-induced volunteers and found it quite high--between $826 million and $1.134 billion. While this number might seem low today, Oi’s data were in mid-1960s dollars. Inflation-adjusted to 2005, the losses would be $4.8 billion to $6.6 billion.

Additionally, it's rather instructive to learn how the young Rumsfeld and Kennedy felt about the issue during the 1960s.

In December 1966, various prominent and less-prominent academics, politicians, and activists were invited to a four-day conference at the University of Chicago. Papers were commissioned and the people who wrote them gave summaries, after which the discussion was open to all. Fortunately, the discussion was transcribed. The papers and discussions appear in the Sol Tax volume referenced earlier, which came out the following year. The invitees included two young anti-draft Congressmen, Robert Kastenmeier (D-Wisconsin) and Donald Rumsfeld (R-Illinois), and one pro-draft Senator, Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts).

In the name of realism

Steven Spielberg got smart. All those guys you see running around NY with M-16s are the real deal:

They've hunted down terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposed rebels in Bosnia and battled warlords in Somalia. Now, 10th Mountain Division troops are facing off against Martian invaders - with no less than the fate of the Earth in the balance.

The soldiers were called on by Steven Spielberg, who picked Fort Drum troops to star in his remake of the H.G. Wells classic "War of the Worlds."

Like most of us 'little-people' would be, they're pretty excited about it if these two are to be believed: Spc. Kenneth Wright, of Bakersfield, Calif., and Staff Sgt. Aaron Dewitt, of Perrysville, Ohio, agreed that it was a chance for America's soldiers to get some added recognition. But for the time being, they prefer to soak up their celebrity status.

"It's been a whirlwind to be part of it. My mom didn't believe me at first when I told her I met Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg and Dakota Fanning," said Wright. "

Now she's stoked about it. Everybody in my family is going to go see me ... I mean the movie."

Why? In a word, realism: "Spielberg wanted real soldiers to make the scenes more authentic. He was quite impressed. You don't get any more Army than the 10th Mountain Division," said Lt. Col. Paul Fitzpatrick, the post's public affairs officer. "This is a reward to soldiers who have been among our best, and it's a way to showcase the American military."

That and it's a hoot...for the film crew and the soldiers both.