America's Might

Just a brief thought about American military might. I can't recall if I've written this recently, so forgive me for repeating myself...

The non-Styx Claim: I've read many people claim that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have emboldened our enemies because it demonstrates that the US is not all-powerful and that sustained guerrilla warfare will undermine the American resolve. The conclusion of these pundits is that the wars have weakened the culture of intimidation that the U.S. needs to maintain in order to scare the world into loving us. Or something like that.

The Styx Response: OK, here's the deal. We need to make a distinction between the way that idiots think and the way that our enemies/allies think. Idiots will believe propaganda, myths, and won't read newspapers. Generally speaking, idiots aren't powerful and don't run countries - this is especially true for autocracies whose leadership are often cruel, canny mobsters. Alas, it's possible that democracies can elect idiots - and this happened to us back in 2004 with Bush (because, it bears repeating, Bush lost the election in 2000, although because he got very close some could say that it matters - and, sadly, this *is* something I repeat over and over and never ask forgiveness despite my polite request at the beginning of this post).

So, yeah, GWBush and his ilk were idiots and did not actually pay attention to the real facts (e.g. they believed there were no difference between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq). And this had real consequences. But generally this is not true and it's wise to behave as if the other countries of the world are led by people who endeavor to know real facts and to plan consequences accordingly. And, I'd posit, the more powerful the country, the more likely the leaders are to know the true facts.

OK, that's my ground-rule to analyzing the above claim about the current two wars.

My conclusion is that the wise, fact-loving countries still fear the United States' might, possibly at the same level they did before these two wars. Why?

(1) We still have enormous numbers of nuclear weapons and as such can destroy every country in the world. This is not the Styx getting all jingo on you and posturing for the mirror, this is part of how the other nations see us. We can destroy them all - many of them without a serious counter-strike.

(2) While #1 is known and cited, the next point is the same one but for conventional forces. I claimed here that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were botched, but I misspoke: the war part of those wars went well, it's the recovery and reconstruction that was botched. This is a big difference, especially if you are an enemy of the U.S. We had the power then, and have the power now, to utterly and unilaterally destroy a foreign government. If we as a nation weren't so moral as to be concerned with rebuilding, if all we wanted to do was destroy another nation, then our wars were successes!

Please remember that: from the standpoint of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, they are no longer in power. And that matters a lot for our enemies. You can ask why we haven't done that more often (e.g. to Cuba, since the fall of the Soviet Union) and I assume it's to maintain the general ability of US military supremacy (which I define, in part, as our ability to act unilaterally).

So the botchedness is from the position of 'nation building' not fear and destruction - which is the whole argument of the above idiots.

(3) While we are definitely hurting because of the two wars - all war is expensive - we haven't raised taxes nor called a draft. As such, from our enemies standpoint, we are running the wars rather easily. Unlike Vietnam, Korea, and especially WWII, these two wars have had comparatively little impact on everyday American lives. Yeah, you know that already, but just apply it logically to the above question: if we know it, other countries know it (because the knowledge is freely available). And even though our economy is in the dumps now, and while I think extricating from Iraq will help alleviate the dumpitude, the one didn't directly cause the other.

(4) Related to point #3 is that just as we are not sacrificing too much to run these wars, our enemies know that if we wanted to we could thus gear up to fight even more wars. Granted, most experts claim that we are at our military's limit right now. The Iraq surge before and the new Afghanistan surge have stretched us to the utmost. But that's within our volunteer-army sacrifice-less guidelines of no draft and no tax. I'm not denying the enormous sacrifices of our military - including the hapless sods who joined the guard many years ago and were thrust by Bush-Cheney into unagreed commitments and stop-loss madness. All true.

But the country hasn't sacrificed for the two wars because Bush-Cheney were trying to steal them. They didn't want us to question how and why the wars were being fought. We were sold lies about Iraq and 9/11, and since we didn't have to pay up front, Congress and the GOP were able to ignore the consequences. This is why the wars are so hated now: because the lies have been exposed.

But were we to face a true existential threat then that would change. So, quiz, based on what I've said above: if the American people were convinced that the only way to stop Iran from becoming a rogue nuclear state hell-bent on destroying America with nukes, then would we be able to fight that third war?

First of all, I need to deal with the cynics who would say: the American people won't believe the threat because of the lies of Cheney and Iraq.
The Styx says: if the threat were credibly stated, and if it were real, then our government would be able to prove the claim without the smoke and mirrors Bush needed to employ to dupe Congress/the Press. So for the purpose of this quiz, the threat is credible and believed.

So the idiots would say: we cannot fight a third war because we're stretched thin!

The Styx would say: of course we could fight a third war. We fought World War II in three major theaters (1. Europe (North Africa to Italy to France), 2. Pacific (Australia to Indonesia to Philippines to Japan), 3. India-China-Burma). We did so because of a draft and rationing at home. And we can do so again if existentially threatened.

Last point: many wags try to compare the current U.S. position/empire to the Romans or the UK. I'd refute the comparisons with two facts: the US is both an isolated island 'empire' (like UK) but with a huge land-size and natural resources. We run contiguously from coast-to-coast. Our borders are with a wussy frozen North and a chaotic developing nation to the South. Running an empire from England was always a stretch because they lacked the internal national resources to conduct their wars; the same for Rome, except they had major border issues as well. We don't. More anon if needed.

To review/conclude: our allies know that we're still the strongest around. Our enemies, because they're run (usually) by intelligent fact-loving despots who want to maintain a hold on their seized wealth, also know that. Our paramount strength has not been undermined by our two wars because (a) we still have the most nukes, (b) we have shown we can act unilaterally and while we may botch nation building we're awesome at government destruction, (c) we're running our wars without a draft or raised taxes, and (d) if we wanted to tax and draft, we'd be even more destructive.

First pic from here, second from here, third pic from the Wiki.

Pres. Obama Address on Afghanistan

I didn't get to see it last night, but I just watched it on C-SPAN (here's a transcript).

It was a good and important speech. I'll say it again: I am so glad he's president. And that's in the positive direction, not just compared to Bush, McCain, and Palin. He's sober, intelligent, and clear in his thoughts and goals. He speaks to me (the American people) as if I were his intelligent partner in leadership, not some rube to be duped.

Pic from CBS News.

Miscellaneous from My Files, part 1

I'm dedicating today to writing & blogging so here's some stuff from my unsorted inbox, basically brief links/commentaries:

1. Sept 9 2008; from Huffy herself, inventing a great image, Sarah Palin as a Trojan Moose.
   
   
2. Sept 10 2008; Why Obama will actually beat the poll numbers, because of his incredible ground game. And see here.
   
   
3. From the Atlantic, the GOP dirty trick machine of 2004.
   
   
4. Sept 11 2008, from the NYTimes, about vote suppression/dirty tricks in 2008 Mississippi.
   
   
5. Sept 10 2008, from McClatchy [the best single news organization in the world, IMHO], about how the U.S. is in similar danger from al Qaida in 2008 as we were in 2001.
   
   
6. Sept 11 2008, the Washpost describing an underhanded smearing tactic by McCain.
   
   
7. From Salon, how CBS capitulated in 2004 and did not show a documentary about the Bush Administration lies about the Iraq War.
   
   
8. Sept 13 2008, from Digby, more about voter suppression.
   
   
9. Good New Yorker humor about Palin.
   
   
10. Excellent piece by Ezra Klein about the problem with political reporting. Shorter EK: "I think one aspect of the modern press that doesn't get enough attention -- either among folks in the media or folks critiquing it -- is the transition from the fundamental scarcity being information to information being in abundance and the fundamental scarcity being mediation." It's especially sweet because his target is the fatuous Marc Ambinder - who over this election season has been twisting himself into pretzels to be 'even-handed' first with Hillary and now with McCain. His only value comes from his stature allowing him to receive equal opportunity leaks from all camps. Otherwise, he's a dolt.

Backpost: Abuse of Women in the Military

From 3/17/07. I had the link and the embedded quote.

This article from the NYTimes Sunday magazine is an investigation of the horrific state of abuse of women by the military. Note that armies have been abusing women for millenia (see the first subject in parshat, Ki Teitzei), but new wrinkle for 2007 is that the victims are also wearing uniforms.

Read the whole article ("The Women's War" by Sara Corbett) yet this quote gives a taste of the horror: "Despite fighting wars in two far-off countries, the Bush administration recently announced that while it will increase V.A. health-care financing by 9 percent for 2008, it has proposed consecutive cuts of about $1.8 billion for 2009 and 2010."

Goldblog: Ketziot & Abu Ghraib

I've rapidly changed my opinion about Jeffrey Goldberg. When I read his pieces in the New Yorker, he sounded like just another American leftist against Israel. But then I found out that he actually lived in Israel and served in the IDF - which is way better than what I've done. So his Zionist bona-fides are greater than mine and as such, I allow him his left-wing opinions. I say 'allow' and not 'agree' because I can still think he's wrong - but since he's paid his dues and comes to his opinions from real experience, he's an "Israeli" voice in my mind, and not a Diaspora Jew.

That said, read his post about comparing his IDF service as a prison guard in Ketziot to the reports about Abu Ghraib. Here's the first few lines to whet your appetite. How Ketziot Never Could Have Prepared Me for Abu Ghraib:

When Sy Hersh first told me about Abu Ghraib, I could not understand him, and not merely because he begins sentences in the middle of sentences. This was a problem of cognition. I had long ago built a template in my mind about these sorts of issues, and the story Sy was telling me did not fit.

This template was something I devised in the 1991, when I was a military policeman at the Ketziot Military Prison Camp in the Negev Desert of Israel. I had moved to Israel at the age of 20. I was drafted, and after many strange and discomfiting turns, I found myself in Ketziot, where I didn't want to be, for several reasons, including a) it's very hot in the Negev and I have the melanin of a Finn; b) I was raised as a socialist Zionist, which meant that I was a Jewish nationalist who opposed the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; c) the job itself, which was to maintain order in a prison holding 6,000 Palestinians, most of whom would kill me if given a chance. This is not to say that I wouldn't die for Israel. I just didn't want to die enforcing an occupation I thought morally and politically dubious.

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-06.

McCain Hates War?

This canard - McCain Hates War - is going to be repeated a lot. So, to push back early, I bring the words/analysis of Matt Yglesias of Atlantic, back from March:

nothing about the fact that John McCain (allegedly) "hates war" should blind us to the fact that McCain loves advocating for the initiation of wars. McCain has a healthy understanding of what war means -- healthier than my own or than George W. Bush's -- but also a radically unsound understanding of how international relations works. To most people, war is horrible but sometimes necessary. To McCain, war is horrible but frequently necessary.

But, read his whole post for the proofs.

Obituary: General William E. Odom, 75

I found out from Yglesias that William E. Odom, 75; Military Adviser to 2 Administrations died over the weekend. I came across Odom from an interview he gave in February 2007 which I blogged about here. Odom was a highly respected military analyst who set about to destroy the Bush administration - and general GOP - concepts about war, and specifically about Iraq and Iran. Read the interview and you will realize that we just lost a great American.

Pic from here.

Diplomacy, Appeasement, GOP Credibility

I was on the road for Appeasement-Gate (or Bush-Knesset-gate), when Bush accused strawmen of appeasing dictators, just like bad people did back in the 30s with Hitler. (Oh, funny side-point, turns out Prescott Bush, the president's Senator grandfather, was one of those appeasers... heh). Anyway, in the past 8 years, Bush has shown either to mean exactly what his words sound like or to be a complete liar, whichever happens to be worst at the time. That is not a joke. When he sounds like he's saying something good, he's lying ("heckuva job", "we don't torture") and when it sounds bad, it is bad.

Bush's comments at the Knesset were OBVIOUSLY referring to Obama and the Democrats in general. Duh. Duh duh duh. And the Press understood it too, which is an uncommon admission, given their slavish acceptance of every lie uttered by the Bush administration so far (cf. Iraq war, Iran, torture, civil liberties, the attorney firing).

Yeah, some bullet-heads are still claiming that Obama overreacted, but they're the same people who believe that Bush is the reincarnation of King Arthur and Richard "First Crusade" Lionheart, so whatever.

McCain, gotta love him, is so maverick-y that he immediately followed Bush's lead. That'll show 'em how independent you are John! You mavericky mavericking maverick, you.

What I wonder is why ANYBODY believes that the GOP knows what it's doing with foreign policy anymore. Seriously. The concept that diplomacy=appeasement has resonance only if you are 6 years old and are presently in a schoolyard. Outside of that puerile universe, diplomacy is how actual real life occurs. I'd go so far as to say that the bright-shining-line between childish and adult personality is the recognition that life is about compromise and negotiation and not about violence and absolutes.

Bush is a big baby, this is clear. He is a bully and a spoiled brat. Bully proof comes from how he treats those out of power; spoiled brattishness has been amply shown with his recent comments about nobly giving up golf in recognition of the sacrifice of the thousands of casualties from his foolish war.

McCain is following along because he doesn't actually appear to possess leadership qualities. Yeah, maybe when he was in the military, but in the Senate? That's the downside of being a maverick: unless you can translate your rebellion into a movement, then you're just a troublemaker, a noisemaker, not a leader.

Why is diplomacy not appeasement. Here's a good summary by Matt Yglesias:

The problem here is that, once again, we see hawks not understanding what diplomacy is. But think of diplomacy as a kind of bargaining. Like you might do at a yard sale or something. Diplomacy doesn't exist at one end of a spectrum of coercive measures -- we try war, we try sanctions, we try diplomacy -- any more than bargaining operates on a smooth continuum with robbery. The point of bargaining with a vendor is to see whether or not it's possible to find mutually acceptable terms that improve both parties' positions. In terms of diplomacy with Iran, the idea isn't that Obama's steely gaze would force concessions out of the Iranians, the idea is that we might be able to give Iran something Iran deems more valuable than weapons-grade nuclear material, and in exchange we would get verifiable disarmament.

The "something" here would presumably be some form of security assurances plus an accommodation to Iranian interests in Iraq, along with Teheran and Washington laying out a pathway to gradual normalization of relations in exchange for an end to Iranian support for terrorism and Palestinian rejectionist groups. Would it be possible to strike such a deal? Maybe, maybe not. But the purpose of a negotiating session would be to find out by attempting to do the bargaining rather than having five more years of back-and-forth blog posts speculating about the possibility. The general theory of diplomacy is that rational actors should, through negotiations, be able to achieve positive-sum settlements rather than negative-sum conflicts. It's always possible that your would-be negotiating partner will prove irrational (as George W. Bush did when he rejected Iranian peace overtures several years back) and the process will fail, but it's worth attempting in good faith.

And just in case Yglesias is too much of a squishy leftie to truly understand things, here are two recent examples of (sane) Republicans who agree, Sen. Specter (from Yglesias) and James Baker III (from Sullivan):





Summaries: Specter is asking Sec of Defense Gates why Bush is calling negotiation appeasement when negotiation is normal, logical, and sensible. Specter assails the Bush perspective and hopes Gates can talk some sense into the President.

Baker is even more clear; he says that a strong leader talks to enemies. He himself travelled to Syria 15 times, on Bush Sr's request, to get Syria to recognize Israel and on the 16th trip Syria agreed to negotiate at the Madrid Peace Talks. Baker, while an anti-Semite GOP running-dog, is also from the time when the GOP were considered competent. Not any more; Baker (and Specter) are as slimy as Obama. Only Bush and McCain know what to do!

Why I Don't Read/Watch Iraq News

Pundits and associated bottom-dwellers have decried Americans' lack of interest in stories about Iraq. The Mainstream Media know of the lack of interest and comply by scaling back their stories about Iraq. The pundits (usually liberal ones) claim that because the horrific violence is no longer in our eyeballs every day that means we Americans are being fooled about how bad Iraq is.

Wrong.

I can't speak for my fellow Americans (unlike other pundits/bloggers/Hillaries), but I can talk about why I can't read/watch any news about Iraq.

Because I'm bitter about the war. Yeah, the magic word, 'bitter.' Obama said that blue-collar voters are bitter about their economic fate but have realized that Washington won't do anything about it. So they rely on things they do care about. And that's how I feel about Iraq.

The war is a terrible, horrible, failure. It can't get better. The House of Representatives is on board to end the war, the Senate is deadlocked (for why, see here), and the executive branch is hell-bent-for-leather to do whatever it wants. The war will not end before January 21, 2009 (and then, only if Obama wins).

So because the war won't end, and because it's so freakin' obvious except for solipsistic partisans that the war is hopeless, there's nothing nothing nothing I can do about it.

Hatred led to bittness. Bitterness led to this 'knowing apathy.' I don't avoid the news because I don't care, I avoid the news because I care so very much, and can't do anything about it, that to avoid bursting my ulcer every day, I need to avoid the news.

Mukasey

I read all over the news and the liberal blogs that the Democrats surrendered again by allowing Mukasey to be Attorney General. See Sunday's Frank Rich, and the NYTimes editorials. Schumer, especially, is criticized for capitulating and blah blah blah.

Alas, this is another case of poor analysis and poor priorities. Read Schumer's op-ed on why he voted for Mukasey. Everything he says is plausible and reasonable. Here's the summary:

1. Chuck Schumer (CS) sympathizes with those who want to reject Mukasey over his bad answers.

2. But Bush has threatened that if Mukasey is rejected, there won't be another nominee. Rather a low-level staffer, who has not gone though Senate review, would be acting attorney general until Bush leaves office:

Should we reject Judge Mukasey, President Bush has said he would install an acting, caretaker attorney general who could serve for the rest of his term without the advice and consent of the Senate. To accept such an unaccountable attorney general, I believe, would be to surrender the department to the extreme ideology of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington. All the work we did to pressure Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign would be undone in a moment.

3. Mukasey has said that if the Senate passes a law to clarify the waterboarding issue, Makesey will abide by it, even against the Unitary Executive horse-manure shoveled by Bush & Co.:

On Friday, he personally made clear to me that if the law were in place, the president would have no legal authority to ignore it — not even under some theory of inherent authority granted by Article II of the Constitution, as Vice President Cheney might argue. Nor would the president be able to evade a clear pronouncement on the subject from the courts. Judge Mukasey also pledged to enforce such a law.

4. Schumer felt that rebuilding the Justice department was far more of a serious issue than the ambiguity about waterboarding, especially given the Senate's ability to clarify issues with an actual law.

Yes, it's terribly disturbing that Mukasey isn't up-front about waterboarding as torture, but is the Senate's job to (a) prevent an otherwise important cabinet officer over that issue or (b) to actually make a law saying that waterboarding is torture. Just to remind you viewers at home, the Senate is part of Congress which - until the GOP took both houses over - is the body that makes the laws that govern the executive branch.

Schumer's points are correct: while torture needs to be rejected (and it's unbelievable that we're even talking about it as ambiguous - thank you Bush voters!) it's WAAAAAAY more important to actually clean up the Justice Department. Why? Because of (a) warrant-less wiretaps and (b) the vote-suppression tactics perpetrated by Karl Christian Rove and Alberto Gonzales.

In fact, any partisan Democrat should want Mukasey over some DOJ hack because until the DOJ is cleaned up, there's no way we can trust our own US elections to be held safely... yet another think we need to thank Bush voters for.

Oh, and why was the vote done so swiftly (midnight Thursday)? According to the TPM it's because Sen. Reid made a deal with the GOP:

According to sources inside and outside the Democratic leadership, Harry Reid allowed a vote on Mukasey because in exchange the Republican leadership agreed to allow a vote on the big Defense Appropriations Bill, which contains $459 billion in military spending but doesn't fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And because the Times and other mush-heads don't understand what Reid did, I'll explain. Mukasey was supposed to be a cake-walk for the GOP. Because of Democratic opposition - which still wasn't enough to prevent his confirmation - Reid was able to pass a bill that funded the military WITHOUT FUNDING THE CRAZY WAR.

Reid triumphed; Schumer chose the lesser of the two evils that have been forced upon us by the scumbag Bush crew. And, yet, the Democrats are blamed for rolling over and playing dead.

Why doesn't the GOP get such bad press for all the crap they do? To be honest, because of the liberal bias in newspapers: the journalists *expect* the GOP to be scumbags.

Celebrities vs. Pundits vs. Journalists

I am cleaning up my hard-drive and I saw an old clip (at least June 2006) of a Charlie Rose interview with George Clooney. Rose spoke about how Clooney challenged Bill O'Reilly to a debate. It's a weird combination of talking heads and it reminds me of a standard Right-Wing talking point: that celebrities have no right and/or no place to be commenting on political matters.

Why should anybody care about what Jane Fonda, Robert Redford, Susan Sarandon, Al Franken, Rosie O'Donnell, or George Clooney have to say about politics.

On one side, I agree. I think actors are, for the most part, vain and stupid. The job requires vanity as part of it's skill set and there's no reason to believe an actor is any more intelligent than a person engaged in any other type of physical profession. I don't think athletes are presumed to be intelligent, and acting is just another form of athletics.

Comedians are generally pretty intelligent (it's a brutal business), so maybe they should be able to offer their political views. But then the second aspect of the Right Wing Point is: these people are famous for making people laugh, what expertise, experience, training, or skills do they have that would allow them to offer political positions?

Here's where I differ from my Right Wing brethren. Cuz, uh, what expertise does any specific journalist have that would allow them to offer *their* opinions about politics. When a journalist does actual journalism - ya know, find out facts and report them accurately - then I will give them credit for being a specific and separate profession. [This is holding aside the fact that journalists, by and large, seem to be unintelligent, conceited, and as a group not very good at what they are supposed to be doing; exhibit A: the lead up to Operation Iraqi SNAFU]

But what in the world is the difference between a pundit - a talking head who offers his/her opinions about politics - and an actor? Opinions are opinions. And when you recognize that the 'pundits' are themselves in the entertainment business, then you realize that the reason why the Right Wingers don't like celebrities talking about politics is because the real celebrities (e.g. Clooney) are more believeable and convincing than the Right Wing celebrities (e.g. O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter).

Turkey, Israel and American Power

Whenever I worry about the fiasco in Iraq and what it means for the standing of America in the world, I need to remember things like the current situation between Turkey and Kurdistan. Kurdish terrorists have attacked and killed a number of Turkish troops. And the U.S. has asked Turkey not to move their army into Kurdistan (a.k.a. North Iraq)... and Turkey is complying! Whoa. Even though Turkey could tell the U.S. to take a flying leap, they ain't, probably because it's not worth it to get on the wrong side of America in an armed conflict, no matter who you are. And even if we won't go after Turkey militarily, we're still mighty enough that a country will think twice about defending itself when America asks them to.

It reminds me of Israel in the first Gulf War. Israel was getting shot at and America asked them not to respond... and Israel complied. And, to some extent, the Second Lebanon War was the same thing (except that Dick Cheney - high on paint thinner - told Israel to just go ahead and pound Lebanon).

Cheney in 1994

Many people are linking to this clip of an April 15 1994 American Enterprise Institute interview with then ex-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney about what a war in Iraq would wreak.


Editor and Publisher, gives this transcript (but you should also see the clip if you have not done so):

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

Analysis
People have wondered - what could have happened to Cheney. If he was 100% correct back then, why was he a moron now? Some have suggested that he changed; either 9/11 profoundly shook up his mental state, making bold irrational moves seem acceptable, or its a physical change - parts of his brain have been destroyed through micro-strokes.

Both answers are possible but I think overstate the case. I don't think he has changed at all. His speech pattern is the same in 1994 as it was in the 2000/2004 VP debates and this great interview from Nov 4 1976 when he was Chief of Staff to Pres. Ford and was beaten by (gag) Jim E. Carter.



I claim that Cheney, the unhinged greed-hound hasn't changed at all. What changed from 1994 and 2000-2007 are two things:

1. In 1994 he was defending a decision he already had made. He was trying to explain the war policies of his employer, Bush Sr. That administration didn't go into Iraq, so he'll do his Cheney Act - using his calm, reasonable, authoritative voice and his steadfast gaze - to defend his behavior as the only smart rational thing to do. I believe that had Bush Sr. decided to attack Iraq then Cheney would say the same things he's saying today.

2. However, one still needs to ask why Bush Sr. didn't go into Iraq and why Cheney in 1994 was saying things that we now know are correct. My theory is that the fact that Bush Sr. was a major loser (proof: Quayle), his war staff was obviously talented. The decision to not go into Iraq was probably made by smart people (like Powell) and Bush Sr. listened to them (possibly, also, since he himself had been in a war he didn't think it was all playtime cowboys and Indians unlike his draft-dodger son). Cheney was the same but the rationale was being provided by someone else.

As we know, nobody has made Bush Sr. look quite as good as his reprobate loser son George Jr. This is the opposite of effective parenting; my job is to make sure my kids have a better life than I have had. The Bushes take the other parenting view, I guess.

Cheney could very well have not been in charge of decisions back in 1991. Either that or his crackpot idiocy was being routinely shot down by smarter people. Or even that Bush Sr. was not quite as much a milquetoast pushover as his son. Or even that almost every human in history has more of an interest in what is done in his name than George W. Bush. He seems to allow the most horrible things to be done in his name whether it's torturing American citizens or shotgunning puppies.

In any case, Cheney hasn't changed. He's always defending his behavior: in 1976 it was to make Ford look good, in 1994 Bush Sr, and 2000-2007 Bush Jr.

Wolfowitz in Trouble

OK, let me get this straight. Paul Wolfowitz, the neo-con know-nothing who was an architect of the debacle in Iraq was rewarded for his incompetence in the standard Bushie way: instead of a prison term and lifelong revulsion for his criminal bungling he was made president of the World Bank.

And because Paul is a brilliant political mastermind, instead of laying low - with a gasping realization that he has avoided the fate he richly deserves - he keeps doing dirty stupid things.

Yeah? Like what? Well, like this:

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz acknowledged Thursday that he erred in helping a close female friend get transferred to a high-paying job, and said he was sorry. […] At issue are the generous compensation and pay raises of a bank employee, Shaha Riza, who has dated Wolfowitz.

This shkutz-bag divorced his wife in 2001 and started dating Shaha Ali Riza - an employee at the world bank - and then when he needed to escape the Bush Administration he got a job in the (wait for it) World Bank! As president! And then he got his shiksa girlfriend a massive raise in a sinecure at the State Department ($193,590 per year, tax-exempt) while still being paid at the World Bank!

Oh, and Shaha's new boss? Liz Cheney. Cough cough cough,

To review: very bad, very dumb man who created our Iraq policy miraculously escapes punishment, lands cushy job, and screws that up in a sex/money scandal.

This would be funny if so many people weren't dying because of this man and his pals in power.

They've Known For Years!

Andrew Sullivan shows us this news story: "From the Washington Post, June 29, 2005 - buried on page A19:

The Bush administration disclosed yesterday that it had vastly underestimated the number of service personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and warned that the health care programs will be short at least $2.6 billion next year unless Congress approves additional funds.

Veterans Affairs budget documents projected that 23,553 veterans would return this year from Iraq and Afghanistan and seek medical treatment. However, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson told a Senate committee that the number has been revised upward to 103,000 for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. He said the original estimates were based on outdated assumptions from 2002."

Got that? The military alerted the government that they were going to need more money to help the soldiers. Who ran Congress back in '05?

Obama About Iraq in 2002

For those who are confused about Obama's record on opposition to the Iraq war - as opposed to Bill Clinton's claim that it's a fairy tale, see the video. Things to notice:

1. In 2002 he knew the difference between Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd (something that McCain still does not know)
   
   
2. He would have voted against the war resolution despite the obvious fact that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, but because he didn't want to give the administration a carte-blanche. Smart dude.

h/t: TPM. Backpost finished 4/10/08.

Drop Everything And Read This Link!

Oh baby. First a cast of characters. Hugh Hewitt is a right-wing Christianist blowhard. He started as a speechwriter for Nixon, worked for the DOJ under Reagan and gives Conservative and Christian litmus tests to his radio show guests. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, Hewitt has held real jobs, is well educated, and may actually know how to formulate a correct thought. Not recently, probably, but give the devil his due.

General William Odom was the head of the NSA under Reagan. He has been openly critical of the Iraq war and the warrantless-wiretaps of the current NSA.

Odom wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post where he called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Hewitt, needing to protect the hand that feeds him and the butter than adorns his bread, had Odom on his radio-show. Hewitt tried to slap Odom with the standard stupid talking points of the Fox-News/Cheney crapthink. Instead, Odom smacked Hewitt around so thoroughly that Hugh may actually be dead. Or he wishes he were.

Read the transcript. Read Every Word. Because if you oppose this corrupt government, the Iraq policy, the idiocy of the right-wing machine, then you can quote Odom over and over.

I don't know why every Democrat in Congress doesn't quote this interview. Odom should be brought into the Senate to address every committee, every day, until Cheney, Bush, Rice et al. are hounded from office with fury.

Please, read, enjoy, and use.

What Did I Think About the Iraq War

Many of the center-left pundits who supported the Iraq war have come clean with apologies and explanations for why they made the mistakes they made (e.g. today's TNR by Beinart). Sure, some of the pundits will never admit an error, and I will take back some nasty things I've said about Hillary when she actually says the line "I was wrong to vote for the Iraq War," but most decent people have had to reckon with their mis-punditry.

So what about The Styx. Lord knows my reputation depends on either never being wrong, spinning data to make it sound like I'm always right, or dancing around errors by distracting ya'll with Onion & Simpson's quotes.

My clearest statement about the Iraq War comes from July 17, 2003 (found on the archaic archive):

The President Lied??!

I can't believe that this is a doubt in anyone's mind. The President needs to actually know what he's saying to be called a liar. Give the guy a break, plunging the country into war on false premises against nearly universal international opposition isn't nearly as bad as what Clinton did. If you recall, Clinton was almost impeached for lying about a heinous act of taste. It's not the same thing, people! You need to be blind and stupid to consider Bush Inc. as bad as Clinton.

Now, had we happened to find a scrap of WMD, or weren't getting our pasty white rumps kicked every single day in Iraq, then maybe we'd cut Bush some slack. As it is, we have descended into [text missing from original]

I was all for the war in Iraq. But not for any of the Bush reasons. And good thing too. I supported taking out a tyrant and for showing the world that the U.S. was as crazy as Israel (meaning that just as Israel will go into any place on the world, kick A and take names, so now America will too). Bush was for the war so he could look like a chief executive and not as a plundering, retrogressive misanthrope.

Maybe the tanking economy, the grotesque deficit, the abandoning of the State governments, and now the idiocy of our Iraq policy will show Americans that we need to kick these bums out.

To clarify the key line: "I was all for the war in Iraq. But not for any of the Bush reasons. And good thing too. I supported taking out a tyrant and for showing the world that the U.S. was as crazy as Israel" I was for the Iraq war even though I knew the president was lying and I strongly suspected there were no WMDs. I am on record (I have to search old emails, which may have been deleted) but I also claimed that when I saw that the Army 3rd Division was not allowed to leave Texas because Turkey refused to allow us entry to set up a camp, I knew the war was lost. If we were unable to bring enough troops in, we would lose.

Not that I'm a military genius; but I read the book and saw the movie "Black Hawk Down." Major military failures occur when the military isn't given enough material to factor in Murphy's Law. Small tactical forces are fine as long as everything goes as planned. But, as I learned from Bill Maudlin (among others), nothing goes to plan in war. When we couldn't move our troops in, yet we continued the attack nonetheless, I knew we were going to fail.

Stay Tuned for Death Death Death

Over the past few weeks there have been quite a few significant deaths that require my extensive scrutiny.

Dec 25 - James Brown
Dec 26 - Gerald Ford
Dec 30 - Saddam Hussein, yimach shemo
Jan 2 - Teddy Kollek.

Four kings: a godfather, a president, a tyrant, and a mayor. The Godfather of Soul and the King of Funk, The 38th President of the US, the tyrant of Iraq and the Butcher of Bahgdad, and Mayor of the greatest city the world has ever known.

{2009 Update: The picture is Gustave Dore's depiction of the River Styx... how appropriate for the blog!}

Silvestre Reyes in 2002

Found on TNR's The Plank: Silvestre Reyes during the October 2002 debate over Iraq:

Every one of us understands that we are a nation of laws, that we lead the world by example, that we have a great respect for process and to protect the rights of everyone. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly today rise in opposition against this resolution, because I think that the president has not made a case as to why Iraq and why attack Saddam Hussein. As a member of the Intelligence Committee I have asked consistently the questions to those that have come before us with information, I've said -- I've asked the question of what is the connection between 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam Hussein? None. What is the connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda? Very little, if any.

There were smart guys back then. Reyes is one person I've suggested to be a VP for Obama - Representative from Texas, Hispanic, decorated veteran, head of the House Intelligence Committee.

Backpost finished 4/10/08, 11:50 PM. Had just the link and the full quote. It speaks for itself.