Monday, April 17, 2006

"We gave him our best military advice..."


At least one retired General doesn't believe that Rumsfeld should be fired. After hearing all week the complaints of several former Generals involved in the planning process for war in Iraq, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard B. Myers had this to say yesterday on ABC's This Week:

"We gave him our best military advice and I think that's what we're obligated to do," Myers said on "This Week" on ABC. "If we don't do that, we should be shot."

A half-dozen retired generals have called for Rumsfeld's ouster, citing mistakes in the conduct of the war in Iraq. Some have suggested that intimidation by Rumsfeld kept military leaders quiet even when they thought policies were flawed.

"You'd have to believe that everybody in the chain of command is intimidated, and I don't believe that," Myers said. He added that Rumsfeld allowed "tremendous access" for presenting arguments.

"In our system, when it's all said and done ... the civilians make the decisions," he said. "And we live by those decisions."

Funny post title of the day

The weekend's winner is Paul Mirengoff at Powerline with these thoughts about Andrew Sullivan.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Friday, April 14, 2006

Larry Kudlow's "Boom"

We’re in an American boom and I cannot understand why there is so much pessimism.

So claimed Larry Kudlow yesterday. I wonder as well, but from a different viewpoint.

Working in advertising exposes one to the vagaries of the business cycle. In good times, it's a great living; in bad times it's one of the most difficult industries there is.

It's a well-known truism that ad dollars are the first thing to go away when the economy turns south and the last thing to come back once fortunes are reversed. When you look at the raw economic numbers right now, we're very far from "gone south." So where's the money?

Given the reality of advertising's place in the corporate food chain, it's not a difficult question to answer, it's all about the lag. Unemployment is down to 4.7% yet my largest telecom advertiser has restructured their ad buy for 2006 and allocated zero corporate dollars for our market. Our other largest telecom client has reduced spending in their markets for '06 substantially--nearly 45% from year-to-year in our case.

The money is there, it's a matter of finding it.

No orders

Tom Maguire at JustOneMinute turned in another look at Plame-gate filings earlier in the week. I would have written this yesterday were I not so busy feeling awful.

On the heels of his embarrassing correction, it seems that Fitzgerald now finds himself under serious pressure from the defense to open the floodgates of information:

The press had a great time taking a Fitzgerald comment out of context - in making a banal point about the difficulty of delivering documents with the objective of proving a negative, Fitzgerald wrote that "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson." (Here, for example, is the Tuesday Times pretending that Fitzgerald was claiming to have an overwhelming case demonstrating a conspiracy.)

One hopes that Mr. Fitzgerald enjoyed his headlines - now, if the defense is successful in using all that press attention as additional leverage, he gets to deliver the documents he was trying to retain.

Fitz has insinuated the broader of the left's talking points on this issue--that Wilson was targeted by the Administration by virtue of his outspoken opposition and his wife's outing was a deliberate act--for some time now. Meanwhile, Libby and his team have turned up the pressure by announcing that there were no orders--standing or otherwise--from on high to leak Plame's name to the press. Additionally, the defense is asking for--in the most detail to date--for Fitzgerald's documentation as to Plame's standing as a covert officer, among other things.

Byron York over at NRO wrote a piece on that tidbit yesterday. I found this little blurb over at the Corner actually more revealing:

I have a story up on the latest in the CIA leak case, in which Lewis Libby says that neither President Bush, Vice President Cheney nor anyone else instructed him to discuss Valerie Plame Wilson with reporters. That's news. But what is perhaps bigger news is not explicitly stated anywhere in the legal papers, and that is that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald appears to be losing control of the case.

Since indicting Libby on perjury and obstruction of justice charges last year, Fitzgerald has said that he wants to keep the case narrowly confined to the question of whether Libby lied to the grand jury and obstructed the investigation. But actually trying the case -- and we're just in the discovery stage now -- has forced Fitzgerald to put forward a theory of Libby's motive and to try to place Libby's actions in the larger context of an alleged White House plot to punish Joseph Wilson. And doing that has forced Fitzgerald to open the whole pre-war intelligence can of worms and to argue at length about the White House's effort to rebut the arguments of critics like Wilson, which is not specifically part of the charges against Libby.

Yet even as he has fallen into the trap of widening his arguments to include the Bush case for war, making the case seem more and more like a political prosecution, Fitzgerald is still refusing to hand over evidence to Libby -- for example, documents relating to whether Valerie Wilson's CIA status was classified or not -- on the grounds that Libby does not need such evidence to defend himself against the narrow perjury and obstruction charges. So on the one hand, Fitzgerald is increasingly bringing the big picture into the case, and on the other he is desperately trying to keep the case tightly focused on the little picture. It's not going to work. Either through his own errors, or his own lack of insight, or perhaps just the impossible nature of the case, Fitzgerald is moving himself into an untenable position. And the case is really just starting.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if this case actually sees the light of day, that many a screaming-meemie on the left who has been waiting impatiently for Karl Rove's frog-marching is going to be unpleasantly surprised by where things go.

Tired

Tired of coughing. Really tired of that. Coughed non-stop yesterday from about four in the afternoon until bedtime at 10:30. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but it certainly didn't feel like it.

Tired of not sleeping. Really, really tired of this. Haven't had a restful nights sleep in a week.

Why? See "Tired of coughing"...

Inside Joke Vent of The Day

I strongly encourage you to end or never begin patronage at any of the following retail eyewear outlets:

  • LensCrafters
  • Sunglass Hut
  • Pearle Vision
  • Target Optical
  • Sears Optical
  • BJ's Optical Shop
  • Macy's Optical

Have a nice day.

Thursday, April 13, 2006

The Elephant in the Room

Swells of questions resurface about every six months regarding why Donald Rumsfeld is still our Secrtary of Defense. While I personally respect Rumsfeld, believe he is doing what he thinks is right, etc. you can't argue with... errrrr ...results. He should be gone. Long gone.

The Drez addresses the latest swell and turns the question on its head to great effect:

Question to Rummy-supporters: how can this kind of criticism be ignored? Why should Rummy still be the Secretary of Defense?

Looking lousy

On Tuesday night, I caught a part of Bryant Gumbel's newest episode of REAL Sports before going to bed. The story I caught focused on alleged mismanagement of the Jockey Guild by former Guild President L. Wayne Gertmenian:

In the sport of horse racing, a jockey without medical insurance is the equivalent of a NASCAR driver without a seatbelt. Yet for the men and women who ride 1,200-pound thoroughbreds, a helmet is often the only coverage they have. This is problematic in a sport where serious injuries are always possible, but finding fault has been difficult. Jockey Guild members have accused the association's embattled ex-president, Wayne Gertmanian, of mismanaging funds. But Gertmanian has countered that the blame lies elsewhere. Bryant Gumbel investigates this troubling situation, as jockeys struggle to pay their medical bills and gain the representation of their guild's highest office.

Gertmenian is a former member of the Nixon Administration and currently a Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University. In fact, my professor of Economics in 2000 while moving through the MBA program.

An engaging storyteller, he is a fine teacher and expert at involving people he's working with and recognized negotiations expert. If the REAL Sports report is taken at face value, he's also a world-class manipulator.

The segment highlights the involvement of Gertmenian's family members and long-time friends in the Guild, and includes some very unflattering video of the Doctor before a Congressional committee. All of which runs counter to my personal experience with the man, but I'm not in a position to really know at the moment.

I went to bed very perplexed by the entire thing and not certain what to think.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

1 out of 10

10%. Not a particularly impressive percentage. Particularly if you're playing basketball or baseball, even football as 10% is a pitifully horrible completion percentage (unless you're Ryan Leaf).

But it struck me as an interesting number in the context I heard it today. Heard it proclaimed on the radio today, so must confess I'm unsure of it's accuracy or origin. The factoid goes something like this: 1 out of every 10 people born in Mexico, alive today is residing in the United States; legally or otherwise.

Startling to say the least if it's true.

The Pattern

The Washington Post today ran this “blockbuster” piece from Joby Warrick. Ed Morrisey digs deep and has an analysis of his own:

So where's the issue? It turns out that the minority report was the correct analysis after all, of course, but at the time Bush spoke it was just that -- a minority report. To put it in advertising terms, two out of three inspectors agreed that the trailers were part of Saddam's WMD effort. The Pentagon relied on that majority opinion, as did the administration, and no one can argue that doing so constituted either an intent to deceive or even an unreasonable decision at the time.

No one can argue that, of course, but the Post and the media in general. Instead of simply reporting that the Pentagon didn't have consensus on this issue and that the minority report wound up being the most accurate, Joby Warrick turns the story into a Geraldo Rivera my-life-is-actually-in-danger type of journalism that substitutes cheap sensationalism for accuracy. Prior to informing the readers of the existence of two separate analyses that contradicted the report supplied by the leakers, Warrick enthralls us with a paragraph stating how none of the leakers will identify themselves for fear of retribution and a colorful epithet that the leakers considered the trailers "sand toilet[s]".

There’s more, but for my money that’s the center of the universe on this issue. In my experience debating the left about the “non-existent” WMD’s, a discussion of conflicting analysis is inevitable.

In this case, the DIA team differed from the preliminary CIA report on these trailers. In other situations, the State Department differed with CIA and so on. In any such circumstance, left-leaners nearly always reach one conclusion:

The fact that a dissenting opinion exists is proof enough that the Administration's take was wrong. Not only wrong, but illegitimate and only reachable with an agenda of war in Iraq.

When you look at the many incorrect interpretations of data on Iraq, you do indeed see a pattern in the Administration's judgment; they nearly always took the worst-case. Many times, such as with the bio-labs, a preponderance of available evidence made it appear that such was the prudent choice.

To most, if not all, on the left that I've been (un)fortunate enough to discuss this with, that is the taking-off point for the most tried-and-true criticism of President Bush on Iraq, that he lied.

To believe that however, one must assign motives that aren't clear and, up to now--if ever they will be--proven. I hear the words of the President, I hear the explanations and I take him at his word that he was viewing the situation through new prism, one that put 9/11 in the backdrop of every discussion, every contemplation of national security risks. Maybe it's just because I do as well.

But we know many on the left don't buy that either.

The other side of the coin

Yesterday I railed on President Bush and placed some context around my ill-fated vote for John Forbes Kerry. I asserted that he was the best of bad options.

Perhaps I was wrong.

Oxblog's David Adesnik deconstructs Kerry's Sunday performance on Meet The Press and the Gore-like realities faced by the man who once laughably reported for duty.

Here's a bite-sized knockwurst to get you started:

SEN. KERRY: Tim, it’s unconscionable that any young American is dying because Iraqis, five months after an election, are dithering and squabbling and cannot find the ability to compromise and come together in a democracy. Our kids didn’t die for that. Our kids didn’t go over there to do that. Our soldiers have done their job. They’ve given them several elections, three elections. They’ve given them a government, the opportunity to have a government.

Unconscionable? Kerry seems to believe that it was fully conscionable for young Americans to die throughout the first thirty months of the occupation, during which three elections were held. Yet somehow, it has become unconscionable for our servicemen and -women to die now that the formation of a government based on those elections is taking longer than expected. "The opportunity to have a government." For a long time now, it has been plausible to argue that Iraqis had their opportunity and wasted it. But if Kerry believes the three elections were valuable enough to fight for, how can he advocate walking away if Iraqis won't meet his forty-day deadline?The only way we made the elections work -- with more voters and fewer attacks on each polling day -- was by waging an unrelenting war against the insurgents for almost three years. None of the political progress in Iraq has come quickly or easily. How can Kerry insist that now it should?

Feeling my age

Went to the doctor yesterday. I'd had a physical scheduled for a month, well before this cold-from-hell got me.

The good news? I'm alive; my labwork is good, the diabetes is under good control, blood-pressure and cholesterol are okay.

The bad news? By virtue of my last birthday, I'm now a member of the "Who's yer daddy!," club.

Gloom, Despair and Agony on Me!

The US economy isn't just producing jobs these days, it's also producing good jobs. Alongside the ads for jobs handling a cash register or a spatula are these new opportunities:

In St. Louis, AFB International is enlisting both technicians, paid $30,000 to $40,000, and PhD scientists, offered $80,000 to $100,000, in its quest for the perfect pet food.

In Delaware, Honeywell plans to hire people at $40,000 to $100,000 to work in a data-storage center.


In southern California, some of the latest openings involve working on the railroad, for $35,000 to $70,000 a year. Union Pacific plans to add 2,000 employees altogether.

These reports in the past month symbolize a welcome trend during an economic expansion that at first offered only tepid job gains, both in quantity and quality.

"Deep, dark depression, excessive misery!"

This good news about the breadth of job creation comes against a backdrop of labor-market anxiety that has persisted despite the economy's solid overall footing. Competition from imported goods, the threat of outsourcing services abroad, and a controversial influx of illegal laborers are just some of the forces that make many workers worried about their future.

Creating good jobs - the kinds that can keep American living standards rising - appears likely to remain a challenge. But the current employment picture at least indicates movement in a positive direction. "We're creating lots of all kinds of jobs, across many industries, occupations, and pay scales," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. But he adds: "If your skill sets are rusty, or at the low end of the skill range, you're going to have a tougher time."

The economy added 211,000 jobs in March, according to a Labor Department report Friday - a solid showing about on par with expectations. The unemployment rate fell a notch, to 4.7 percent.

The new jobs still include plenty at the low end: An analysis by Merrill Lynch finds that some 40 percent of the net gain in March came in two areas known for low pay: retail services and leisure/hospitality, which includes restaurants.

But this is just part of a broader tapestry. Management and professional occupations are employing 1.2 million more people this month than a year ago - or about 1 in 3 new jobs in America. This is the highest-paying of five broad categories tracked by the Labor Department. Not all of them are CEOs or engineers, but the median paycheck for full-time workers in this category is $937 a week, far above the US median of $651.

The construction industry continues to hammer out more than its share of new jobs. It accounts for about 6.4 percent of US jobs, but has provided 14.4 percent of the past year's job growth. The quality of construction jobs is mixed - often offering higher hourly pay than the US median but with lower benefits.

Even the manufacturing sector, which has long offered blue-collar workers a measure of middle-class prosperity, appears to be stabilizing after a period of heavy job losses. Despite downsizing in the automotive industry, 175,000 more people are employed in production occupations today than a year ago.

"As this recovery gets under way, professional services have begun adding jobs fairly broadly," says Jared Bernstein, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in Washington.

EPI tracks the weighting of higher- versus lower-paying jobs that are being added to the economy. For much of the current expansion, which began at the end of 2001, that indicator has been negative.


In the past year, however, it has turned positive, meaning that the new jobs in the economy are the kind that tend to pull average wages up, not down.

"If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all!"

Beyond professional services, one example may be construction. The housing market is cooling, but commercial building is heating up.

"More of the work will be in nonresidential construction," predicts Michael Carliner, an economist at the National Association of Home Builders. That could mean demand for higher skills, such as equipment operation, that boost pay.

The question, however, is how much of today's strengthening labor market represents cyclical trends, rather than long-term gains.

At this point, perhaps midway into an expansion phase, it's not unusual to see the job mix improve and pay to rise in new and existing jobs alike. "I would expect wages and compensation to increase faster," says Rae Hederman of the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.
How long that pattern lasts will depend in some measure on the Federal Reserve, which is now trying to decide whether to raise interest rates further. Setting rates too high, some experts warn, could slow the economy and dampen job growth.


The labor market's gains are beginning to take on the shape of a barbell, with growth weighted heavily at the two ends of the pay scale. During the current expansion, the bulk of new jobs have come in either the highest-paid of five broad occupational categories - management and professional - or the lowest-paid, services. Together the two sectors now account for more than half of all jobs. (The other three major categories are sales and office work, construction and natural resources, and production/transportation.)

The economy's overall share of jobs with strong pay and benefits has failed to grow during the past quarter century, even though workers today have higher skills and more technology to make them productive, says John Schmitt, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal research institute in Washington. That's a break with the past, he says, when "wages typically tracked closely with productivity."

"Gloom, Despair and Agony on Me!"

Another Economics lesson

But she's right:

Oprah Winfrey is a rich woman – and she's got no problem with that.

Speaking in Baltimore on Monday at a fundraiser for Beth Tfiloh Dahan Community School, Winfrey told the audience, "I have lots of things, like all these Manolo Blahniks. I have all that and I think it's great. I'm not one of those people like, 'Well, we must renounce ourselves.' No, I have a closet full of shoes and it's a good thing." Winfrey, 52, who is reportedly worth more than $1 billion, said she doesn't feel guilty about her wealth. "I was coming back from Africa on one of my trips," she said. "I had taken one of my wealthy friends with me. She said, 'Don't you just feel guilty? Don't you just feel terrible?' I said, 'No, I don't. I do not know how me being destitute is going to help them,'..."

Has she been reading?

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Just when you thought it was safe

Yes. More Wilson.

NRO's Byron York on a move today by Patrick Fitzgerald. Apparently he's filed a correction with Judge Reggie Walton. That would of course mean that something in response to Libby's request that became last week's story du jour was wrong.

So what exactly is going on? To Byron:

An embarrassing move this afternoon from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In his now-famous court filing in which he said that former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby testified that he had been authorized to leak portions of the then-classified National Intelligence Estimate, Fitzgerald wrote, "Defendant understood that he was to tell [New York Times reporter Judith] Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

That sentence led a number of reporters and commentators to suggest that, beyond the issue of the leak itself, the administration was lying about the NIE, because the African uranium segment was not in fact among the NIE's key judgments. For example, in a front page story on Sunday, the Washington Post reported:

At Cheney's instruction, Libby testified, he told Miller that the uranium story was a "key judgment" of the intelligence estimate, a term of art indicating there was consensus on a question of central importance.

In fact, the alleged effort to buy uranium was not among the estimate's key judgments, which were identified by a headline and bold type and set out in bullet form in the first five pages of the 96-page document.

A few hours ago, however, Fitzgerald sent a letter to judge Reggie Walton, asking to correct his filing. The letter reads:

We are writing to correct a sentence from the Government's Response to Defendant's Third Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on April 5, 2006. The sentence, which is the second sentence of the second paragraph on page 23, reads, 'Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." That sentence should read, "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

Never mind.

Whoops.

To pass the time

Movies make sick-days move a little faster. Two that have helped me out the last couple of days.

Is it just me?

Or is this an absurd statement: Nifong stopped short of confirming the defense assessment of the DNA results, but said the case would not be hampered by a lack of DNA evidence.

"It doesn't mean nothing happened," Nifong said at a public forum at North Carolina Central University, where the 27-year-old alleged victim is a student. "It just means nothing was left behind."

This comes in the wake of yesterday's announcement that none of the Duke University lacrosse players whose DNA was tested in relation to the alleged rape of woman at an on-campus party on March 13th.

How exactly Mr. Nifong expects to prove that the woman was raped at the party escapes me. No evidence, short of eyewitness testimony exists that could prove it.

Isn't it more likely that whatever happened, happened somewhere else?

If Nifong turns out to be right, then I say good for him. His persistence will have paid off and this crime will be prosecuted, as it should be.

I just wonder though if no DNA was left behind, aren't the odds better that it wasn't any one of the tested athletes?

One black woman's opinion on the news of no matches.

Sick

And tired. Tired of not being able to breath. Really tired of coughing. Really, really, really tired of not being able to sleep!

Anybody got some home-remedy suggestions for beating a bad cold?

Much Ado About Nothing, Verse 3000

CNN's David Ensor does the best job I have seen of netting us out on Patrick Fitzgerald's "revelations" last week. Unfortunately, I've seen no one else in the MSM really tackle this in such uncertain terms.

What the most recent document and the one that we're talking about here is the government's response to the defendant, Mr. Libby's request for an effort to get these documents out. And in it -- and I'm going to quote here -- the government says that "the vice president thought" -- Vice President Cheney -- "thought that it was very important for the key judgments of the NIE" -- and that's the National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- "to come out."

"The defendant further testified that he had first advised the vice president that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller" -- that would be Judy Miller of The New York Times -- "because of the classified nature of the NIE. The defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized the defendant to discuss the relevant portions of the NIE."


So what's involved here, Jim, is that this document from the government says that the vice president informed Mr. Libby that the president himself had authorized Mr. Libby to leak certain information or give out certain information that came out of this document, this National Intelligence Estimate, on what the intelligence community thought Iraq had in the way of weapons of mass destruction.

So, it had nothing to do with Valerie Plame-Wilson's name. It was simply about this matter of intelligence in the lead-up to the war.

And in that matter, the president, according to this document, authorized Mr. Libby to give out some information to Judy Miller.

And by the way, he is legally entitled to do so.

If the president decides to declassify information, he has that legal right. So, it's not about a law being broken here, and it's not about Valerie Plame-Wilson's name. But it does show us the first evidence that the president himself wanted some of this information put out in the media. (...)

And, you know, after all, the -- Ambassador Wilson -- [former] Ambassador [Joseph] Wilson being Valerie Plame-Wilson's husband -- had put out a piece [a July 2003 editorial in The New York Times] in which he said -- in which he attacked the administration for suggesting Iraq was going after uranium in Africa.


The administration wanted to highlight certain parts of this until-then-classified document that suggested that Iraq was aggressively pursuing some aspects of a nuclear weapons program, was looking for ways of getting uranium.

And so, they wanted to have that evidence out there to help their case in the run-up to war. Selective leaking authorized at the highest level, that's -- I'm afraid that is business as usual in Washington. It's been practiced by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Of course, a savvy and capable political operation would have long-since defeated this silliness. Three more years.

To Sum Up

I leave you with the words of Daniel Drezner in responding to Seymour Hersh's Iran Warplan "scoop:"

Quoting Hersh:

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

Drezner Response:

I think I'm at the point where I don't want any more legacies from the Bush administration.

Three more years

Andrew got it right when he penned these words:

What worries me is that we have almost three more years. If we face a confrontation or a crisis, this president will not be able to carry Americans with him. Our enemies will take comfort from this. Which is why re-electing him was such a terrible risk.

Which is why I voted for John Forbes Kerry in the last election, knowing full well that he wasn't the answer, just the lesser of evils at a time of profound consequence. Far too few conservatives and foreign policy wonks saw the writing on the wall back in February of 2004. Thus, as time marches on you read more and more of too-little, too-late conversions like this one from NRO's George Conway

I voted for President Bush twice, and contributed to his campaign twice, but held my nose when I did it the second time. I don't consider myself a Republican any longer. Thanks to this Administration and the Republicans in Congress, the Republican Party today is the party of pork-barrel spending, Congressional corruption — and, I know folks on this web site don't want to hear it, but deep down they know it's true — foreign and military policy incompetence. Frankly, speaking of incompetence, I think this Administration is the most politically and substantively inept that the nation has had in over a quarter of a century. The good news about it, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's almost over.

But it's not. There are three more years. Three more years of challenges and threats. Three more years of postponing the great national dialogue on America's role in the world. Three more years of draining the GOP of credibility and vitality.

It sucks.

Spot on

...and scary.

Monday, April 10, 2006

Likely or unlikely: "Normal Contingency Planning"

Much ado over Uncle Sy's incredible grasp of the obvious--that governments plan for all kinds of things, likely and unlikely as any of them might be. Why do we go through such commotions every time Uncle Sy puts pen to paper?

The President explains today a bit of what his mindset is: President Bush said Monday that force is not necessarily required to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon, and he dismissed reports of plans for a military attack against Tehran as "wild speculation."

Bush said his goal is to keep the Iranians from having the capability or the knowledge to have a nuclear weapon.

"I know we're here in Washington (where) prevention means force," Bush said during an appearance at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. "It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy."

Bush and other administration officials have said repeatedly that the military option is on the table, and White House officials acknowledge "normal" military planning is under way. Several reports published over the weekend said the administration was studying options for military strikes, and an account in The New Yorker magazine raised the possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites.

Later, Scott McLellan gets to the heart of the entire situation:

White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to confirm or deny The New Yorker report. "Those who are seeking to draw broad conclusions based on normal military contingency planning are misinformed or not knowledgeable about the administration's thinking," he said.

"Normal Contingency Planning." Plans such as this exist, and always will. Cold War? We had plans under various scenarios to engage the Soviets in a shooting war.

There was even a recently de-classified military plan for the invasion of Canada.

Given the "near impossible" nature of the task, calling it a foregone conclusion strikes me as a leap. Just because plans exist, doesn't make their implementation imminent.

Frankly, if a government didn't have such planning routinely going on, it would be derelict in it's primary obligation to keep it's citizens safe.

Career killers

I'm home from work today. Whatever this is, it's kicking my butt and hasn't let me get a good nights sleep since Friday.

Laying around the house and channel surfing, I found this. Tom is lucky his career didn't end right there.

Why are we even talking about this?

The National Geographic Society unveiled on Thursday a text purported to be the 'Gospel of Judas'. As the Philadelphia Inquirer puts it, "An intriguing tale, but it lacks the ring of Gospel truth."

Read the whole story, as it presents views of Christians from different denominations both skeptical and favorable towards the claims in the book. Then read some background on the Gnostics.

Amazing that some people have forgotten, or just never bothered to learn, the history of the Church. This is nothing new.

More on Drought Management

Last month's storms in and around Phoenix have not ameliorated the state's water problem much. If anything, they've only prevented a bleaker situation from developing:

A dismal snow season will leave Arizona's rivers flowing at nearly record-low levels this spring, choking off water to reservoirs and rural communities that rely on shallow wells.

Runoff into most rivers will fall below 30 percent of normal, according to hydrologists. The Salt River near Roosevelt is forecast to receive barely 20 percent of its expected snowmelt, and the Little Colorado River near Woodruff could wind up with just 7 percent of its normal runoff.

The picture would have been grimmer still without the rain and snow from a series of March storms, which will likely keep this winter from going into the books as the driest on record. It could still end as the second- or third-driest on some rivers.


Runoff from high-country snow provides Arizona rivers with as much as 70 percent of their annual flow, which means if there is no snow, some of those rivers will shrink to a trickle or less by the start of summer.

Valley water sources are in good condition despite the dry winter. Heavy rain and snow in early 2005 filled in-state reservoirs, and the Colorado River system is expected to receive normal runoff for a second year.

But farmers as close as Pinal County will face tight irrigation supplies, and some mountain communities are already anticipating possible shortages.

Then again, it's a desert.

The CEO Analogy

Jason Zengerle makes an interesting, but in my humble opinion very flawed analogy:

But what if the CEO of a publicly-traded company is bringing home flat-screen TVs and stereos from his stores without paying for them? Wouldn't that be considered stealing? Wouldn't the company's board and shareholders have reason to be upset? Or does Bush consider the United States and its government to be his own little Five and Dime, to be operated any way he sees fit?

As one of the commenters notes: The powers of the executive branch are vested in 1 person, the president. Among those powers is the power to declassify information, which President Bush did in this matter. End of story.

Now, one can criticize a presidential decision, just as one can criticize a Congressional law passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause, or a judicial decision made persuant to a court's Article 3 powers. But it's constitutionally ignorant to suggest the president's decision is somehow illegitimate.

For the analogy to work, said CEO has to work in an environment where he is granted, fundamentally, total control over his firms product. Where do I go to find that job?

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Worth a gander

Joe Klein isn't one of my favorites and he's a hopeless liberal hack, but I thought this piece on leadership, politics and the preseidency was worth posting. Here's the gist:

"We're going to meet the voters where they are," Shrum had told me early in the Kerry campaign, which sounded innocent enough—but what he really meant was, We're going to follow our polling numbers and focus groups. We're going to emphasize the things that voters think are important. In fact, Shrum had it completely wrong. Presidential campaigns are not about "meeting the voters where they are." They are about leadership and character. Mark Mellman, Kerry's lead pollster, figured that out too late. "If you asked people what they were most interested in, they would say jobs, education and health care," he later said. "But they thought the President should be interested in national security."

Another Year, another Reason

It's one year later and yet not much is different.

Senility strikes?

Helen Thomas accuses Senator McCain of morphing into a George W. Bush-like "right-wing" conservative. No, really.

In his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain is moving to the right.

The Arizona Republican, who failed to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, is the most visible Republican on television, outside the White House, and seems to never pass up an opportunity to appear on Sunday talk shows.

All this appears to be part of his effort to transform his image as a maverick independent so that he can make his pitch to the conservative Republican base that will vote in the party's primaries and caucuses two years hence.


She does make an argument, but I've got to wonder...in a week that saw McCain royally piss off the conservative base on immigration, how can she say this with a straight-face?

Though I must say, this from the Breitbart report linked at Right Wing News does bolster her case: President Bush praised the lawmakers' efforts, noting the details were unfinished, and encouraged them "to work hard and get the bill done." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he had been assured the president supports the emerging measure.

Perhaps he is on the same page as the President. It's just not a very ultra-right-wing one.

Flashback

"Wow, man!":

The Bush administration announced plans last week to beef up the nation's nuclear arsenal, while at the same time retiring older nuclear weapons, many of which have been around for decades. This is like a flashback to the 1970s.

Administration officials say the proposal would consolidate the nation's plutonium supply at a single location, thus making it easier to defend against terrorist attack.

We wonder if it has occurred to President Bush and his advisors that, if the United States got rid of its nuclear arsenal completely, or even greatly reduced it, terrorists would have one less reason to attack this country and its citizens.


Flashback is a good word for it. Is it ever a good idea to trust entirely in the intentions of people sworn to kill you as a means of self-defense?

One more Honor


Four silos dedicated to the US Missile Defense System at Vandenberg AFB will be formally renamed on Monday in honor of former President Ronald Reagan:

The Pentagon will formally dedicate missile defense facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base as the “Ronald W. Reagan Missile Defense Site” during a ceremony Monday.

Former First Lady Nancy Reagan will unveil a bust and plaque in honor of the late president at a site overlooking the missile defense complex on North Base.

Also expected to attend are Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, former California governor and U.S. senator Pete Wilson, and Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

Air Force Lt. General Henry “Trey” Obering, Missile Defense Agency director, announced the plan to honor the 40th president “for his commitment to advance the development of missile defense technologies to protect and defend the United States, its deployed forces and our allies and friends from ballistic missile attack,” the military said in a statement.

During his term as president, Reagan noted the lack of a system to protect the United States and implored scientists and engineers to devise a method to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles before they could hit American targets.

Which begs the question--since I drive right by the base on my way to work--how much will this foul up traffic on a Monday morning!?

A useful index of thoughts on the Missile Defense concept is available here.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

More Wilson-fest

It's getting to be too much Joe, but there's just been so much commentary the last couple of days. Tom Bevan at RCP Blog highlights additional facts that fall on the President's side. From yesterday--

Here is a clip from Josh Gerstein's report in the New York Sun:

A Republican attorney and former prosecutor, Joseph DiGenova, blasted Democrats and the press for describing Mr. Bush's alleged actions as an instruction to "leak."

"This was not a leak. This was an authorized disclosure," the ex-prosecutor said.

Mr. DiGenova said the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald has not brought any charge in connection with the release of the intelligence estimate shows Mr. Bush and his subordinates acted legally.

"If Pat Fitzgerald, a guy who gloms onto every illegal and unethical thing he can, thought he could sink his teeth into this, he would have," Mr. DiGenova said.

Still, the former prosecutor said the White House made a "tactical error" by providing the information to Ms. Miller at a hotel.

"I never understood why they didn't bring the best possible person to the podium at the White House and just rip Joe Wilson to shreds," Mr. DiGenova said.

Indeed. Not that it would have been difficult. For whatever reason they didn't want to. How much grief would we all have been spared over the last nearly-three-years?

He can't help himself

I'm starting to feel bad for Tom Maguire. JustOneMinute has been running point on Plame-gate from the right since day one. The ridiculousness that he's waded through over the last 2-1/2 years would overwhelm most of us I imagine.

Soldiering on, he gives us yet another dose today:

In my casual observation, leaks in Washington are intended to promote or attack agendas or individuals. The President, be he Nixon, Clinton, or, in this case, Bush, would prefer to see his Administration function as a unified team and resolve their personal and policy disputes through proper channels rather than through the press. The President wants everyone on the same page, and he wants that page to be his - leaks that do not promote THE PRESIDENT'S AGENDA are what a President doesn't like.

In that context, when the President authorizes a leak, it is intended to promote his agenda, and is not problematic. Such a leak does *not* signify a divided Administration, and is simply a time-honored news management technique.

Duh.

I now resign my (hopefully temporary) Chairmanship at The Department of the Obvious.

He even manages to use the word 'bifurcated' a bit later on in talking about Scott Shane's NY Times by-line today.

[sarcasm] Again, I feel bad for the man when I ponder what he's endured, but am at the same time oh-so-thankful that there is one out there willing to endure the schlock so I dont' have to! [/sarcasm]

Flying the Flag


Flying over the flag, actually.

Friday, April 07, 2006

On the road to Nowhere

The Senate voted against its own immigration bill this morning:

Agreement over a highly touted Senate compromise on illegal immigration fell apart Friday as lawmakers lashed out at each over who was to blame for the present impasse over the bill.
Senators said their work on the controversial issue would now be postponed until after Congress returns from the two-week recess.


Normally I’d complain about how the Republican majority is inept at accomplishing anything, but this bill was so bad I’m more than happy to see it die a thousand deaths in the Senate.

"Misunderstanding by Innuendo"


This picture being an example of precisely that. The headline shown here has nothing to do with what’s reported in the story.

The San Luis Obispo Tribune ran that headline about a story that they weren’t actually running. So what gives? Austin Bay offered an interesting perspective on this phenomenon yesterday:

The sudden press flap over Scooter Libby’s alleged “revelation” that President Bush declassified intelligence information related to Iraq is silly but all too predictable. The entire flap relies on mixing terms and “misunderstanding by innuendo” — a technique of demagoguery, not journalism. The flap is yet more evidence that the national press is more interested in playing “gotcha” with the Bush Administration than reporting the news.

Presidents and vice-presidents can declassify information based on their own good (or bad) judgment. That is a privilege and responsibility of the office. Their authority is near-absolute. Disseminating unclassified information isn’t a crime — no matter the technique used. The information can be disseminated at a press conference, in a press release, in a speech, or — yes– via leak. (UPDATE: Background links I should have included in the original post– though the president’s power in the sphere is common knowledge. The president is at the top of the Classification Authority hierarchy– he holds the ultimate clasification/declassification power. The vice-president is granted authority from the president. See this link to the relevant executive order regarding the vie-president. And I just found this article by Byron York which details the estension of presidential powers to the vice-president. York’s article emphasizes the formal codification of the vice-president’s classification powers, which is a change from past administrations.)

Reporters thrive on “leaks” because a leak usually means “scoop.” A leak can also mean “spin” but that’s an understood aspect of Washington’s political carnival. However, leaking properly declassified material isn’t a crime. Leaking classified material is illegal– and so is publishing classified material in a press release.

So what’s the story here? That someone who worked in the White House selectively passed properly declassified material to the press? That’s not a scandal; that’s Beltway business as usual. I’d love to hear that reported– it’s not news per se, but it would be refreshingly open and honest media analysis.

However, the breathless excitement with which MSNBC (during the 3 PM CDT hour) broke this story certainly suggested scandal. An hour later the mood had calmed a bit; even so a rather smug Chris Matthews asked his attorney guest why Scooter Libby would “finger the President?” Dick Sauber (Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper’s lawyer) responded that Libby was probably trying to cover for himself. Sauber stressed that he did not know why but was making an educated guess. That’s reasonable speculation on Sauber’s part. (Sauber also said that this newly released information appears to undermine Libby’s claim that he was “too busy” to remember exactly what he said and to whom he said it during the “Plame affair.”) But the bottom line is the president can declassify information. “Finger” is a push word, stoked with criminal innuendo —but Bush was not engaged in a criminal act. Questioning Bush’s judgment is perfectly appropriate, but accusation of crime or lies is unwarranted. (As it is, the information in question came from the National Intelligence Estimate. The NIE information didn’t have anything to do with the Plame case.)

The updates are even more illuminating:

UPDATE: CNN is exploring another angle: that the White House is “hypocritical” because it has come down hard on leaks. But a word is missing in this accusation: “unauthorized.” The White House has indeed come down hard on anyone leaking classified information. The White House has also been tough on executive branch employees who pass information via unauthorized leaks. The president wants to control the dissemination of information and has made that clear. The information released today said that what Libby leaked as declassified and authorized — but try getting that clear on atv squawk show where the game is gotcha. The hypocrisy allegation, unlike the criminal innuendo, is certainly within rational bounds.

UPDATE 2: Hat-tip Captain’s Qaurters. Here’s the NY Sun article that started the press flap. The article strikes me as factual and straight-forward. I’m watching MSNBC again and the network is interviewing a man who says Bush has a political vulnerability on this issue but no legal vulnerability. Okay, I’ve written that. So the flap is the story? I think that’s the case –again, we’ve demagoguery, not journalism.

UPDATE 3: A quick refresher course in the Plame affair. Why be interested in Ambassador Wilson’s wife? According to the White House, she recommended that her husband be selected to make the trip to Niger. If that’s the case Plame wasn’t merely a wife– she was professionally involved.

Don’t buy it? Take another peek at the picture…

Police Chief Authorized Arrests

Cliff May wrote a good post at the Corner today dissecting the news yesterday about the President’s authorization of Cheney and Libby to release portions of the 2002 NIE:

Again, as established, it’s in the job description of the President to decide what will remain classified (secret) and what will be de-classified and released to the press and public.

But it also should be noted that whatever “secrets” Libby revealed to NY Times reporter Judy Miller were not considered by Miller to be newsworthy enough even to write a story about.
Why not? Suppose for example, that Libby “revealed” the section of the 2002 NIE saying that most agencies of the intelligence community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.


He would be releasing what had been a “secret” – a problem if he made that decision on his own; not a problem if he was authorized to do so by the POTUS or VPOTUS.

Why would Judy not have considered that worth a story? Because everyone following this issue already knew that. All Libby would have been adding is the fact that most domestic intelligence agencies concurred.

An important point frequently misrepresented in this debate: Those intelligence analysts that did not concur did not quite disagree either. That is, they were not saying, “No! Saddam has destroyed his WMD and has not been reconstituting his nuclear programs! We know that! We have proof!” Rather, they believed there was insufficient hard data on which to base a firm conclusion either way. And they were correct. Because the CIA had no good human intelligence (why that came about is another issue), analyses were based on speculation and conjecture. Unfortunately, policy makers often have to make consequential decisions based on such sketchy information.

I wish the critics could get that last point through their thick heads; decisions made about Iraq were not made with 100% surety and never could be. It doesn’t exist in the world of intelligence analysis.

I can’t recall how many hundreds of times I’ve heard a derivative of the argument he mentioned and try hard as you might, it’s difficult--near impossible—to convince someone that the fact that there was disagreement among intelligence analysts and their competing agencies simply means there was disagreement.

Frankly, they’d be better off attacking the inertia that dragged the Conventional Wisdom about Hussein’s programs through the decision making process.

Defamation of Character

With a hat tip to the Corner, we present you with a discussion on the character (or lack thereof; you decide) of one Joe Wilson:

It's always good to see another liberal come to the realization that Joe Wilson is a buffoon. From Mark Kleiman (via Andrew Sullivan):

I've mostly laid off Joseph Wilson, not wanting to let the issue of his (execrable) character interfere with the question of who outed his wife as a covert CIA officer. But this from Daily Kos:

You know when they first started trying to come up with a way to discredit me, which we now know started in March of 2003, they went through the old standbys. "He's had 3 wives, he's a womanizer, he's done drugs." But then they realized they couldn't use those because I've never actually denied them. I mean I'm the first to admit that, unlike Ken Mehlman and David Dreier, I really like women.


is simply intolerable. (I'd hope the report was libelous if it weren't written by an obviously infatuated Kossack with the handle "tlh lib.") The whole entry makes it sound likely that Wilson is now completely drunk on the sound of his own voice. I was glad to see one commenter call Wilson on his completely gratuitous gay-baiting. No one bothered to complain about Wilson's expressed desire to punch Zalmay Khalilzad in the face.

And of course there is the well-proved fact that he is a liar.

Read the comments as well; it’s an interesting exchange between a couple of almost-but-not-quite Kos kids and what appears to be a relatively reasonable defender of the President’s position on this. The back and forth is nothing if not entertaining.

Home sick

I gave it the good fight, but have come home early. Not enough sleep coupled with severe medicine head is not a recipe for high-level productivity at work.

Revisited

I noticed this the other day as I checked in on visitors to My Dogs but didn't think twice about it. Then this morning while working on things while simultaneously wishing I was asleep, I visited Charmaine Yeost at Reasoned Audacity.

A couple of days back, Charmaine revisited something I wrote in the wake of the Terri Schaivo ordeal last spring:

When I wrote earlier about Terri's plight, (here) my point was that suffering is unintelligible from a secular worldview. Without an eternal perspective, why bother with pain, difficulty, and troubles, if a quick fix or a way out is available?

But if suffering doesn't make sense to the secular, this brings us right back to Paul's original question: What's a Christian to do?

Because I'm a political scientist, I've spent my entire adult life thinking about this question . . .

The Schiavo case is, of course, intrinsically important. Terri lost her life in the political struggle. However, the battle over her life highlights a portentous political reality: the divide between the religious and the secular is growing, and the ramifications of that in our communal life will become ever more apparent.


This was the elephant in the room throughout the public debate over Terri's ordeal. There were some liberals on her side -- it was fascinating to watch David Boies (Bush v. Gore) argue in favor of reinserting her feeding tube.

Still, things really do get dicey when one of the toughest theological questions we've got -- the orgin of evil, the purpose of suffering -- is situated right at the heart of a political question.

Sadly, after the furor over Terri's situation died down, I stopped pondering the question. It's been one that I have some unique experience with in my own life. For me, the question is settled by virtue of my own trials; I've been through the desert with God's help and I understand that there are events and times that we will simply not understand.

As for the unbelieving world, my original question still stands: What are we to do that will effectively communicate God's presence and love and purpose when they look at a situation that makes no logical sense?

Charmaine suggests it's a matter of finding the right "voice": So what do we do? We've got to be wise. And wisdom requires searching out the right people to talk when the need arises. You have to have standing to talk about suffering. That's one reason I quoted Joe Ford -- the young Harvard junior who has cerebral palsy -- in my post about Terri.

Another one is Joni Eareckson Tada. Joni's been in a wheelchair for some thirty years. . . and she is easily one of the most beautiful women I've ever met. I once had the opportunity to work on a project with her -- she is positively radiant.

The story of Joni Eareckson Tada is well-known in Christian circles and is one of great encouragement and testifies to the power of Grace. Charmaine is right in that Joni is a voice that speaks authentically to the issue of suffering and pain in life. Her's is a voice that offers hope.

As I've written this though, I'm struck by the realization that Charmaine's thoughts raise: I have a story that offers hope for unbelievers also. Many believers do.

I sit here more than slightly ashamed that in the many years since my own walk through the desert that I've stopped telling the story of God's sustaining power, grace and strength in the face of struggle.

Hangover

I woke yesterday morning after a very fitful night's sleep. As I lay awake just before the alarm was set to go off, it dawned on me that I've not slept well all week and most likely a result of the recent change to Daylight Savings Time.

Were I an ambitious author of fiction, such might motivate me to try my hand at a 21st century updating of Dante. In my particularly quirky vision of Hell, there would be a special place for the men who felt compelled to make DST the law of the land. Their punishment would be only slightly less grievous than that meted out to the inventor of those plastic produce bags at the grocery store that you can never open...

Insomnia

It's 2:50 AM Friday morning and I'm wide awake. Have been for about an hour.

I've been sick for the better part of the week and for whatever reason this cold/sinus thing I've got going has been especially bothering me for the last couple of days. Tonight it's woken me up and won't let me get back to sleep.

Let's see if I can accomplish anything productive...

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Why I read blogs

'Cause bloggers--most good ones--have expertise and knowledge that many a "journalist" does not. Case in point, read Slate's chief political correspondent today:

Now we learn that the president himself is a leaker. We've always known that the commander-in-chief's distaste for leaking didn't stop it from happening (as it has in every administration), but this is the first time we appear to have direct evidence that Bush had his hand on the siphon.

Bush didn't authorize Libby to say anything about Valerie Plame, but when the leader of the free world says go ahead take a joy ride with classified information, can we be surprised that Libby or Karl Rove then went further?

1) What was released from the NIE was not classified as much of it later appeared with redaction for public consumption.

2) The President, as chief executive, can release what information he sees fit to release. When you have the authority to release it, it isn't a leak.

Not-New Revelations

The latest in the Plame affair announced today with grand headlines (“Libby says Bush Authorized Leaks”) give the appearance of being not only new but meaningful. Any reading, close or otherwise, however reveals that they are really neither:

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff has testified that President Bush authorized him to disclose the contents of a highly classified intelligence assessment to the media to defend the Bush administration's decision to go to war with Iraq, according to papers filed in federal court on Wednesday by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case.

Journalist-blogger Tom Maguire (who is the one-stop-shop for this stuff from the Right-worldview) at JustOneMinute has not one, but two posts on the subject since late yesterday. He makes the obvious points in the first:

However, as Mr. Gerstein noted, and as the excerpt printed by Mr. Sullivan makes clear, we *don't know* what Cheney and Bush discussed before Bush authorized the partial disclosure of the NIE. President Bush may have been vitally interested specifically in discrediting Joe Wilson; he may not have heard the name, and simply authorized the disclosure to help with the White House side of the press coverage. That said, Bush's involvement preceded the July 8 meeting with Judy Miller, (p. 19/20 of .pdf), which is not great news.

So, was "Bush Nailed" for helping with a White House PR pushback?

As I’ve noted before, politics is a contact sport and is it truly unreasonable to think that the President would authorize and/or aid an effort to push-back against what was believed then and proven afterwards to be a fabricated argument on the part of Joe Wilson? Most critics of the Administration on this issue are forced to assign motive to the WH actions because, as Maguire makes clear, we don’t know at this point what Cheney, Bush, Rove or any others thought at the time.

This last point is taken up in Maguire’s post from this morning:

Architects sometimes refer to "negative space" as important in creating a desired effect - an area devoid of architectural details can enhance a larger effect.

Or amongst fans of detective fiction, there is the famous incident of the non-barking dog in the night-time - it was what did *not* happen that was important.

Today there is good blogospheric buzz about a new filing (39 page .pdf) by Special Counsel Fitzgerald in the Plame investigation. There is an overheated reaction to the news of President Bush's involvement, but for our current purposes it is what Fitzgerald does not say that is interesting.

Here is the passage on Bush that prompted such excitement:

"Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out," Mr. Fitzgerald wrote.

Mr. Libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed Mr. Cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. However, according to the vice presidential aide, Mr. Cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from Mr. Bush. "Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.

Nothing illegal or untoward is alleged. Fitzgerald did talk to Bush and Cheney together, and if he had a different story from them, this would have been the time to note it.

I leave you, again through the magic of the internet, with Sim’s thoughts on this newest ‘revelation’:

The leak of Plame's name was ILLEGAL. But today's news does nothing to shed light on that subject. It only deals with the NIE…and is thus not new(s).

Status Report

Sorry I've been MIA, but work has been the primary culprit. I've got a big presentation due soon and I've been overworked and under-sleeped. Ahhh, the life of a consultant is so glamorous. More on this situation later.

Helen is home from the hospital and she is doing much better. She seems to have regained much strength and is on top of her game. Thanks to all those who reached out and those who prayed for her recovery. There have been some new developments on that front which are positive but maddening. More to come.

Students of History

Iraqi insurgents apparently know their history. As outrage over the video of Somali’s dragging the bodies of Sgts. Shugart and Gordon through the streets of Mogadishu forced a queasy Clinton Administration—long on rhetoric and short on staying-power—to ultimately withdraw from the country, so it seems the Shura Council of Mujahedeen in Iraq hope to apply similar pressure in Iraq after this incident:


A video posted on the Internet Wednesday in the name of an extremist group claimed to show Iraqi insurgents dragging the burning body of a U.S. pilot on the ground after the crash of an Apache helicopter.

Parts of the video were blurry, and the face of the man being dragged was not shown. His clothes were so tattered it was impossible to tell if he was wearing an American military uniform.

The video, posted by a group calling itself the Shura Council of Mujahedeen, claimed that its military wing had shot down the craft, which the U.S. military said went down Saturday.

Question is, at this point anyway, did it actually happen? According to US military sources, that is not completely clear: The U.S. military condemned the posting and said that although reports of a Web site video "suggest that terrorists removed part of a body from the crash site, the authenticity of the video cannot be confirmed."

"We are outraged that anyone would create and publish such a despicable video for public exposure," U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington said.

Such a thing depends for it’s effectiveness on a couple of things at least; first off of course, is it true? Secondly, what is the mood of America? What reactions can we expect from Americans about this?

American’s perceptions about world events, our place in that world and our vulnerabilities were very different 13 years ago. I personally don’t think that seeing such things today is the kind of tipping point that it was for President Clinton’s mission in Somalia.

The President has been resolute about Iraq from Day one and has routinely urged the nation to maintain that same sense of resoluteness on the issue. Early reaction, as limited as what I’ve seen today, doesn’t indicate people are getting riled up over this piece of jihadi propaganda.

Upside the Head...again

Sean at Myelectionanalysis.com wrote a post yesterday that dovetails nicely with a couple of things we've mentioned here in the last few days. Entitled simply "Numbers," it discusses the under-reported, virtually non-existent coverage of some interesting numbers (courtesy of the Brookings Institute) coming out of Iraq:

81, 76, 50, 49, 43, 25

What are these numbers? This week’s Powerball winners? A safe deposit combo? New numbers to torment those poor b*stards stranded on the island in Lost?

No, they’re the number of troops that have died in hostile actions in Iraq for each of the past six months. That last number represents the lowest level of troop deaths in a year, and second-lowest in two years.

But it must be that the insurgency is turning their assault on Iraqi military and police, who are increasingly taking up the slack, right?

215, 176, 193, 189, 158, 193 (and the three months before that were 304, 282, 233)

Okay, okay, so insurgents aren’t engaging us; they’re turning increasingly to car bombs then, right?

70, 70, 70, 68, 30, 30

Civilians then. They’re just garroting poor civilians.

527, 826, 532, 732, 950, 446 (upper bound, two months before that were 2489 and 1129).

My point here is not that everything is peachy in Iraq. It isn’t. My point isn’t that the insurgency is in its last throes. It isn’t. My point here isn’t even to argue that we’re winning. I’m at best cautiously-pessimistic-to-neutral about how things are going there.

My only point is that, at the very least, people who complain that good news coming out of Iraq gets shuttered by the press aren’t crazy. I’m a regular denizen of the right-leaning blogosphere (though I spend about half my daily routine with left-leaning sites), and I was unequivicolly shocked when I saw this. Completely the opposite of what I’d expected. My non-scientific sample of three friends, all of whom are considerably more bullish about the prospects in Iraq than I am, revealed three people similarly surprised by these numbers. I’m guessing if I polled people on this site regarding the direction those numbers were going, and people didn’t answer strategically (eg figure I was up to something from the question words), no one would predict any of those numbers were on a downward trend, or were even flat.

Again, my point isn’t that we’re winning. My only point is that if the data you’ve received left you completely surprised by these numbers, what does that really say about the completeness of the data you’ve received?

That is something I would encourage salvage to take a look at next time he feels the need to run his mouth over at Confederateyankee.

Likewise, the numbers dovetail nicely with this analysis at StrategyPage and highlights again the trends, not just the flashy stuff.

Holy Thunderclap Batman!

Today looks to be the first completely dry day in these parts in about a week. I knew I wasn't living in Seattle but I was beginning to wonder...

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Perky news

It's official. Katie Couric is now your official source for perky news at CBS. But will it matter?

A worthy companion

Back when I had the time, the inclination and--most importantly--the local "connection," I used to blog about Senator McCain. This is as fine a shot as anything I or many of my fellows at Blogs for McCain's Opponents ever produced:

Let me be blunt. McCain is a self-serving, opportunistic pig. He, like other open-borders, Americans-Are-Lazy politicians, is a man who has grown soft and fat and elitist in Washington, DC, and has developed an obvious contempt for the average working American. Not only does he not deserve to even think about being president, he should not be in the U.S. senate. He is an example of the opportunistic narcissists in Washington whose only concern is their own career as they do whatever they think it'll take to advance themselves.

I wonder, should they get word of it, if they'll offer Tammy an honorary spot in the Blogroll...

Rain, rain, go away!

More questions about people’s powers of prognostication…last week I mentioned the fact that Lake Cachuma was sitting pretty much at 100% capacity in anticipation of yet more spring storms:

A series of spring storms through the month of March raised concern here locally about needing to repeat last year’s spills. It appears though that will not be necessary…

Well, apparently both Mr. McCracken at the Bureau of Reclamation, which oversees operations at Cachuma’s Bradbury Dam and I were very much incorrect: Releases from Cachuma began at 8 p.m. Monday, but were being done slowly to minimize problems downstream, said Kate Rees, a general manager for the Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board.

Bradbury Dam, which forms Lake Cachuma, has a spillway elevation of 752.47 feet, and the reservoir's current elevation is 752.64 feet.

“Yes, we are spilling water, but the top of the dam is higher than the storage level and we let it out with a controlled release. We are trying to maintain 752.50 acre feet of water, so we have replenished all water supply and replenished our accounts for fishery purposes,” Rees said.

The release coupled with continuing rain has prompted a warning for Lompoc residents to stay away from the Santa Ynez river, especially in the low-lying areas where it approaches the Pacific Ocean:

Fire Department officials said they expected the river water level in and around Lompoc to rise to 12 feet by midnight Tuesday, which is three feet from its flood-stage level of 15 feet.

“My biggest concerns are the people being attracted to the river because of the large volumes of water,” said Fire Battalion Chief Stan Hart. “We want people to stay away from the banks. It's just a dangerous environment.”

The Fire Department also said flooding could occur in the lower elevations near the U.S. Penitentiary.

The warnings seemed to have caught local’s attention. At least one visitor today came via that search…

Background

In his enthralling The Cutter Incident: How America's First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis (Yale University Press), Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, tells the story of a genuine disaster caused by mass immunization—a disaster that was, however, embedded in an overall medical and scientific triumph: the elimination of polio from much of the world.

The incident was historically important not only because of the children damaged, but because it led to a legal ruling that subsequently inhibited pharmaceutical companies from developing and manufacturing vaccines. If America now routinely has a shortage of vaccines, it is in part the long-term consequence of the Cutter Incident.

An interesting bit of background information about vaccines and the legal system that sometimes works against the best health interests of…nearly everybody.

Good news...Bad news

Daniel Henninger a week-and-a-half ago noted the President’s PR dilemma:

When in our time people think of collapsed presidencies they often have in mind Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. For different reasons, both men broke. What Bill Clinton proved above all else is that no matter what the press, law and politics throw at you, the protective powers of the presidency are almost limitless--if you don't break. Mr. Bush's opponents, such as Democrats waving censure motions or blood-soaked front pages, had better get a grip: He isn't going to break. The Wheeling performance makes that clear.

Wheeling, however, also suggests both the promise and near-term peril for the Bush presidency. It was a signal event, but the print press largely ignored it. The Washington Post Thursday had no story; the New York Times and L.A. Times had minor accounts inside. The talk in fact broke no news in the traditional sense. But as in a presidential election, events that strike the print press as "nothing new" matter hugely in terms of public sentiment, that is, whose ideas win.


He comes out swinging and people notice the difference and pay attention. Only nobody knows he’s doing it because it doesn’t get covered.

So what’s the solution?

Upside the head

That’s what happens to this commenter at Confederateyankee:

Q: So if America is winning than

Why are there more terrorist attacks in Iraq than less?
Why can the insurgents strike at will in all parts of the country?
Why have more civilians been killed than ever before?
Why are the civilians arming themselves and forming militias?
Why are reconstruction projects running out of funds and running behind schedule?
Why isn’t the electric shortage eased?
Why does Iraq have to import oil?
Why is Bush requesting even more money for Iraq?
Why hasn’t the Iraqi army stepped up and American soldiers sent home?
Why do they have to shut the whole country down to have an election?
Why has the collation casualty rate stayed at a steady 2.3 killed a day for the last three years?Why has the Collation of the Willing gotten smaller rather than larger?
Why has the Coalition been flying supplies around the country rather than on the ground?
Why did you quantify your comment with “recent months”?
Do you think that your comment stands if you say years?

Posted by: salvage at April 4, 2006 01:41 PM

A: I don't have time to do a complete response to Mr. Salvage, however, a few highlights:


(1) daily terrorist attacks in Iraq have been falling steadily for the past five months;
(2) despite an uptick in Civilian deaths following the shrine attack in Feb., Civilian death actually peaked during the Summer of 2005 and have fallen considerably since then;
(3) the Collation death rate for March was about 1.07 per day (if you include non-hostile deaths) if you count only deaths from hostile action the casualty rate for March was less than 1 per day and has been falling steadily since October; and
(4) insurgent attacks are effectively limited to three provinces in Iraq. Look it up.

Posted by: BMcBurney at April 4, 2006 02:10 PM

Ouch.

It's a bad day when...

You know it's a bad day when the new corporately mandated accounting policy pulls $400 off the top of your monthly commission.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

More reasons to hate Fantasy Baseball

If true, this is some disturbing stuff about LA Dodgers “Ace” Derek Lowe. Especially when it comes to the clubhouse culture.

Just say "No!"

There is a first time for everything. With a hat-tip to Instapundit, I found the first and only thing to date that I’ve appreciated at Salon:

Let's hear it for those on the left who dismiss a man they don't like by calling him "gay," and who take a woman down a couple of notches by throwing around the word "whore" and labeling her ugly, old and desperate. No wonder they hate Senor's Republican ties so much; Republicans are mean and intolerant people.

Some of the actual comments are included, in all their tolerant, conservative-loving glory. Be warned.

Scientific Consensus

George Will gives us the low-down on said consensus. Not quite what you would think though after last week's flurry of Global Warming scares:

While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

Maddening

Too many big men with too much talent.

Off the Beaten Path



Made a wrong turn on the way to my second appointment on Friday afternoon, only to find the Robert P. Straithern Historical Park and Museum in Simi Valley.

Replete with what appears to be a working windmill.

Monday, April 03, 2006

Just Demoted

With a hat tip to the Corner, here’s this little blurb about everybody’s favorite terrorist leader Abu-Musab Al Zarqawi getting busted…sort of:

Iraq's resistance has replaced Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as political head of the rebels, confining him to a military role, the son of Osama bin Laden's mentor told AFP Sunday in Jordan.

"The Iraqi resistance's high command asked Zarqawi to give up his political role and replaced him with an Iraqi, because of several mistakes he made," said Hudayf Azzam, who claims close contacts with the rebels.

"Zarqawi's role has been limited to military action," said Azzam, whose late father Abdallah Azzam was the mentor of bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda boss.

"Zarqawi bowed to the orders two weeks ago and was replaced by Iraqi national Abdullah bin Rashed al-Baghdadi," Azzam said.

Azzam, 35, whose father was known as the "prince of mujahedeens", said he regularly receives "credible information on the resistance in Iraq".

He said Zarqawi "made many political mistakes", including "the creation of an independent organisation, Al-Qaeda in Iraq".

"Zarqawi also took the liberty of speaking in the name of the Iraqi people and resistance, a role which belongs only to the Iraqis," Azzam said.

Making me wish that AQ was a bit more Soviet-like in the way it deals with bad leadership. A bit more Stalin-esque and perhaps everybody’s favorite Jordanian would finally get the bullet to the head he so richly deserves.

Trendlines

Yesterday, StrategyPage noted the contrast between headlines and trendlines:

What you see in the Iraq news, is not what you get. The news business demands startling headlines, to attract eyeballs. It's business, as the eyeballs are rented to advertisers to pay for it all. But the reality of the news is less startling, and consists of trends. These are the current trends in Iraq.

Read it and note that you didn’t see any of it in your local paper.

Where is the context?

Guest columnist James Murr wrote in Friday's Times about a chance encounter overseas:

My wife and I were shopping in a silver store in San Miguel de Cozumel while on vacation last month. While my wife was haggling in Spanish with a merchant about a silver dolphin, his partner approached me, and we began speaking in English.

He was very friendly, but he immediately turned the conversation to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.


"Why are you in Iraq?"

A harsh reality intruded upon this peaceful moment on the sunny island.

After pointing out the U.S.-sponsored wars in Central America during the 1980s, he focused on oil as the reason for invading Iraq. He briefly mentioned the CIA going after Venezuela because the president is not subservient to the U.S. He stated that everyone he knows is opposed to the occupation of Iraq.

The chance encounter reminded me that U.S. was approaching the end of three full years of the occupation of Iraq. The third-year anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq took place at 5:30 a.m. March 20, Baghdad time. Since the invasion, more than 2,300 of U.S. troops have been killed and over 18,000 wounded.

Murr continues on, making many of the anti-Bush "progressive" left's talking points on Iraq. He closes with:

This administration has been exposed in a series of lies that manufactured, fixed and invented reasons for the invasion and occupation. Every policy has been a disaster, an exercise in lawlessness, incompetence and corruption, including the ruthless employment of chemical weapons, torture, and kidnapping. This administration is amoral, and its totalitarian leaning should be of great concern to all citizens.

History teaches us that wars are always launched by rulers whipping up patriotism and nationalism to mask the underlying economic reasons.

Citizens never willingly embrace the death and destruction of war, but must be fooled into entering the killing fields, while their leaders watch from a safe and comfortable distance.

As the occupation grinds on without an end, the tragedy is compounded by more U.S. troops killed, more shattered families, more widows and orphans, more destruction, suffering and hate. The question that Cindy Sheehan wants to ask the president still remains valid: "What noble cause did my son die for?"

I would ask James, where is the context in his analysis? Where is the understanding that the US was paying a billion or two dollars a year with no end in sight to maintain the No-Fly zones in Iraq? Where is the acknowledgement that Sadaam--to what success remains not fully clear--was working at subverting the sanctions regime with help of America's (and the Left's most favorite) erstwhile allies via Oil for Food?

Despite what some might think, I have no problem with people disagreement over the wisdom of invading Iraq. Given the way these three years have gone and the multiple self-inflicted wounds we've endured, there are times to wonder about the wisdom of it all. What I don't suffer is talking points devoid of context. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and that includes Iraq.

Why no honest discussion of whether or not a shift in US foreign policy was warranted by the events of 9/11 and the nature of new threats to American security it embodied? How is it possible to make an argument against the Bush Doctrine without even a cursory mention of how and why it became policy?

Are flat declarations of lies, amoral criminality and totalitarian leanings enough? Not for my money.

Why no answers to these and other questions that can be analyzed and discussed?

Discussion of Iraq, even three plus years later is welcome--if not frustrating--and necessary. So is the context in which the decisions were made that became our current situation.

  • Better Living: Thoughts from Mark Daniels
  • Evangelical Outpost
  • One Hand Clapping
  • Camp Katrina
  • TPMCafe
  • Dodger Thoughts
  • Boy of Summer
  • Irish Pennants
  • tabletalk
  • Fire McCain
  • My Sandmen
  • Galley Slaves
  • Michelle Malkin
  • myelectionanalysis
  • Iraq the Model
  • Mystery Pollster
  • A Bellandean! God, Country, Heritage
  • Right Truth
  • The Fourth Rail
  • Counterterrorism Blog
  • Just One Minute
  • Broken Masterpieces
  • Kudlow's Money Politic$
  • Econopundit
  • Tapscott's Copy Desk
  • The Blue State Conservatives
  • Palousitics
  • Christian Conservative
  • Outside the Beltway
  • The Belmont Club
  • Froggy Ruminations
  • The Captain's Journal
  • Argghh!!!
  • Chickenhawk Express
  • Confederate Yankee
  • Reasoned Audacity
  • Taking Notes
  • ThisDamnBlog
  • Three Knockdown Rule
  • Dogwood Pundit
  • Dumb Looks Still Free
  • Unfettered Blather
  • Cut to the Chase
  • Alabama Improper
  • Austin Bay Blog
  • Michael Yon-Online
  • The Trump Blog
  • A Lettor of Apology
  • GM Fastlane Blog


  • Powered by Blogger

    Listed on BlogShares Who Links Here