Ehrlich family values: cash over kids
Well, they're just kids of legal immigrants, so who cares. From a June 15, 2005 letter to the parents of about 4,000 children in Maryland who currently receive Medicaid:

Dear Medical Assistance Recipient:

You are currently receiving Medical Assistance benefits from the State of Maryland. Your category of assistance is for aliens under 19 years old with a permanent legal resident status who have not been in the United States for at least 5 years as a permanent legal resident. This category of Medical Assistance is funded with all State dollars. The State’s budget, which takes effect on July 1, 2005, has no funding for this category of Medical Assistance. Therefore, your Medical Assistance eligibility will end as of June 30, 2005. ...

Via Steve Hill and the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute's Maryland Policy Blog. According to Hill, this isn't some desperate cost-cutting measure born of dire necessity; the measure saves $5.5 million dollars -- when the state is ending FY 2005 tonight with a surplus of about $200 million. And that's not all. Hill notes an article in the Baltimore Sun that reports:

Earlier this year, legislators attempted to restore $1.5 million to cover pregnant women, but Ehrlich spokesman Henry Falwall said yesterday that the administration has not decided whether to comply with the request - which was written into the state budget.

Hill summarizes:

Just to be clear -- the money IS IN THE BUDGET. The governor hasn't decided yet whether or not he wants to spend it to give pre-natal care to about a thousand low-income pregnant women. Just what we need, another 1,000 kids a year with no pre-natal care.

The Maryland for Health Care organization (a different organization, not affiliated with the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute) is looking for people to take action and send Governor Ehrlich a message about this. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:15:00 AM -- |    

 
This not just in: Cooper ID'd Libby in Plame case?
Remember Valerie Plame's outing by Robert Novak and "senior administration officials"? It seems like that got lost in the shuffle following the Supreme Court decision agreeing that two reporters -- Matthew Cooper of TIME and Judith Miller of the New York Times -- must reveal sources who spoke with them in connection with the story. But Daniel Radosh forwards an interesting e-mail by one Susan Stabley (South Florida Business Journal) to the Poynter.org/Romenesko journalists forum*:

I don't understand why, in all the recent articles about Miller-Cooper-Novak and the Plame case, no one states the name of the leaker. The man who revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, at least, according to Cooper.

Cooper was the speaker at the recent** SPJ awards in South Florida. He told a room full of reporters that he revealed his source -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney -- after Libby released him from his obligation to protect his identity. The Washington Post reported the identity of Cooper's source -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney -- in August 2004. Cooper told us at the SPJ event that his current legal crisis had to do with a follow-up subpoena from investigators who were fishing for all his notes. (emphasis added)

I.e., not with the Libby information per se. The Post article (August 25, 2004) seems not to have got much attention in the blogosphere at the time. The usual Plame go-to bloggers -- Mark A. R. Kleiman and Tom Maguire -- didn't mention it as far as I can tell. (Maguire was all excited about nailing Kerry with Viet Nam stuff at the time, so that may explain it in his case.) From Carol Leonnig's report:

Officials at Time said Cooper, who had been threatened with jail time for refusing to respond to a grand jury subpoena, gave a deposition Monday about his conversations with a single anonymous source -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Cheney -- after Libby waived Cooper's responsibility to keep their conversations on the topic confidential. Time officials said Libby was the only source of Cooper's that special counsel prosecutors asked about.

I still can't figure out this story. Is Special Counsel Fitzgerald inappropriately delaying charges against Libby? Or is the case for an Espionage Act violation too weak as it stands now with Libby, and Fitzgerald wants to get someone else to testify against Libby by charging them -- and needs Cooper's and Miller's notes for that?

I'd rather get to the bottom of the Plame case than insist Cooper and Miller never see the inside of a jail cell. So if/when it comes to that, I disagree with William Safire's Wednesday op-ed plea to let his Judith go. But Cooper's reluctance to divulge his notes may be because he feels he's not protecting an Espionage Act violator, but a secondary source who had nothing to do with the outing. Other than, perhaps, knowing that outing was intentional -- a requirement for a conviction, if I understand that correctly.


=====
* Forum entries don't have individual URL's; the e-mail is dated 6/28/2005, 1:05:20 PM.
** The event was on June 11, 2005, according to the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) South Florida Chapter web site.

UPDATE, 6/30: The New York Times reports that TIME is handing over Cooper's notes. I'm crossing my fingers that some good will come of this.
UPDATE, EDIT 7/1: Mark A. R. Kleiman has updated his post about this news (which links to this post). If I recall his earlier post correctly, the update amounts to leaving open the question whether Libby was actually "ID'd" by Cooper as the Novak leaker. While I think my original title is a reasonable interpretation of what may have happened, it probably won't do as a statement of fact -- Libby, too, might have been just a background source for a story on the Plame leak. On the other hand, I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that Cooper had been leaked the same Plame information that Novak was, so if prosecutors didn't ask him about anyone else but Libby, that seems to point to Libby. But both Kleiman and Radosh were smart to frame their post titles as questions, and I'm revising my post title as well by adding a question mark.
UPDATE, 7/2: The new Newsweek story ("The Rove Factor?", by Michael Isikoff) linking Cooper's notes to Karl Rove has this about Cooper's testimony last year:

Cooper agreed to discuss his contact with Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, after Libby gave him permission to do so. But Cooper drew the line when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked about other sources. (emphasis added)

This contradicts what Leonnig reported in the 8/25/2004 Washington Post article: "Time officials said Libby was the only source of Cooper's that special counsel prosecutors asked about." Either Isikoff got it wrong, Leonnig got it wrong, or those Time officials "got it wrong." Right now I'm leaning to door number 3. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:45:00 AM -- |    

 
Reading the Fort Bragg tea leaves
Two reactions to the Bush Fort Bragg speech glean a little more value from the speech than I was able to.

First, Jim Henley pointed out that Bush said "we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave" -- which, if sincere, raises the question why we're building such permanent-looking bases in Iraq. Henley suggests this might be about "splitting the nationalist wing of the insurgency from the jihadist (international) elements."

Second, Billmon noticed the frequent use of the phrase "terrorists and insurgents" instead of just "terrorists" (via e-Robin). Like Henley, he suggests it's connected to the reported negotiations with some of the Sunni insurgents; by starting to make the rhetorical distinction, it' easier to sell those negotiations -- and whatever concessions are ultimately made. Remember, after all: we don't negotiate with terrorists. (And yes, this might amount to a more nuanced view of the Iraqis fighting against U.S. forces than I gave Bush credit for.) posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:44:00 PM -- |    

 
Bush's speech at Fort Bragg: a scorecard
On Sunday, Suzanne Nossel (DemocracyArsenal, via Stygius) provided a checklist for Bush's speech on the Iraq situation at Fort Bragg. I'm going to use it as I read that speech, now available at the White House web site. Once I'm done, I'll see how Ms. Nossel evaluated the speech.

1. Willingness to Face Reality about Conditions on the Ground
The mere fact of giving the speech ensured there would be some kind of nod in this direction, and there was: "The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying — and the suffering is real...." There was no insulting talk of "last throes," either. Bush would later paint too rosy a picture of the current positives (Iraqi military training), but he didn't underrate the negatives. Grade: B

2. Honest Appraisal of the Iraqi Security Forces
Bush didn't argue this is a short-term push before we turn things over to a rebuilt Iraqi security apparatus, but he did pump up the impression of those Iraqi forces: "Today Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions" ... like silently hating their American colleagues. The Washington Post article Nossel cites makes clear to its readers what our Commander in Chief would not to his people: the Iraqi forces are still a paper tiger. Grade: F

3. A Characterization of the Insurgency
To judge by Bush's speech, they're practically all Al Qaeda terrorists. Indeed, that is the primary mission in Iraq: "Our mission in Iraq is clear. We're hunting down the terrorists." True, he leaves himself wiggle room: "Some of the violence ... is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq..." But mainly, it's terrorists, terrorists, terrorists. I don't doubt many of them are non-Iraqis, but based on reports like this one, I do doubt most of them are, or that most of them aspire to jihad glory beyond Iraq someday. Listening to Bush, you'd think they all did. Grade: D

4. A Rejection of Partisanship
A specific repudiation of Karl Rove's comments last week? None that I could see.I was prepared to give a B or a C if he merely mouthed bromides like "across the aisle" or "we may differ." Wasn't counting on that, though. Grade: F

5. A Commitment to Stronger Support for U.S. Troops
I think AmericaSupportsYou.mil is not exactly what Nossel had in mind here. Cookies and e-mails for the troops don't make up for paltry benefits or endless tours of duty. Still, it's all many of us can do, hence the link. Grade: D

6. A Plan to Buttress Flagging Military Recruitment Efforts
Bush didn't provide a plan so much as a sales pitch: "no higher calling" than a military career. As John Derbyshire pointed out in a rare off-key note over at The Chorus Corner, elites in this country don't buy into this. At least there was no mention of a draft, either. Grade: C

7. A Plan for Victory
Ironically, Bush seems to be touting many of the same things Kerry was before the election: Get international help. Train Iraqi troops. Get international help. Plus: Stay the Course. Under No Circumstances: Raise Troop Levels. I don't disagree with any of it; I hope Bush succeeds with all of it. But hope is not a plan. What was needed here was a re-evaluation of "victory" in light of the many failures so far: no WMD, Abu Ghraib, lack of international support, lack of security for Iraqis, especially those on our side. We didn't get it. Grade: D

8. An Honest Assessment of Why Iraq Matters
As Nossel put it, "The notion that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq to avoid fighting them at home was spurious when Bush first said it." But Bush repeated the claim tonight, and then relied on his military echo chamber to reinforce the message.

There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq -- who is also senior commander at this base -- General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said: "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."

There was no real acknowledgement that the American presence is also a recruitment tool for terrorists -- which would lead to all kinds of apparently unwanted results, such as minimizing contact or drawing down troops.

Nossel wrote, "Bush needs to explain why Iraq now matters on its own terms." He didn't. To Bush, Iraq is mainly a front in the war on terror. To be fair, Bush also sells it as an investment in whatever fruits democracy will yield to Iraqis and to us when this fighting is over years from now. I'm not sure they'll feel they owe us much allegiance by then. Grade: F

Overall Grade: D

Let's see what Ms. Nossel said... looks like she's generally more charitable in her post-speech scorecard (A-, B, C, B, D, D, F, D). She gives Bush higher marks for honestly appraising the Iraqi security forces, but still noted that "his somber assessment overstated the facts." She also discerned some rejection of partisanship -- but mainly in that he didn't stoop to Rove-like rhetoric himself; I set the bar a little higher than that. On the other hand, Nossel didn't give Bush the gentleman's C I did for not hinting at a draft.

An interesting exercise, I think. Check out Nossel's site, "Democracy Arsenal." It features some fairly clear-eyed analysis of Iraq and military affairs from what seems to be a skeptical, left-of-center perspective. I'll be dropping in more often. Thanks again to Stygius for the tip. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:20:00 AM -- |    

 
Phillip Carter off to Iraq
Phillip Carter, of "Intel Dump," who is one of the best, most knowledgeable writers on military affairs out there, will be deploying with the 101st Airborne in Iraq soon. Carter:

I'm scheduled to report for active duty in a little under 3 weeks to Fort Campbell, Kentucky. After some period of pre-deployment training and preparation, I will deploy with my unit to Iraq.

Good luck, Phil. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:00:00 PM -- |    

 
Re Mr. Rove's remarks
The discussion below must be followed, I think, with a reference to Mr. Karl Rove's remarks at a New York Conservative Party fundraiser in New York last week:

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.

Such wholesale contempt for his opposition, and such abuse of the 9/11 attacks for political gain are not (pace Paperwight*) a mere political smokescreen for deflecting (a wholly necessary) discussion and investigation of issues raised by the "Downing Street Memo" and subsequent revelations.

They may be that as well. But they are even more important than that. Rove's comments are a serious and vicious slander of liberals, the left, and of democratic debate itself that deserve anger and contempt in their own right. They are yet another big lie -- and this time, they are about me. I take them personally, I will not forgive them, I will not accept an apology for them. And I assume they come from the top.

I personally yield to no one in my utter enmity and hostility to those who perpetrated the atrocities of that day, and to the benighted beliefs and ideologies that guided them.

But that doesn't mean how to fight back and what to preserve are not fit subjects for debate. Karl Rove's comments -- and by extension, George W. Bush's thinking -- suggest that we are very close to institutionalizing 9/11 as a defeat for American democracy, and as a tool for enforcing lockstep public opinion on how to defend what's left. With typical Rovian chutzpah, 9/11 is supposedly a symbol of liberal ineffectualness -- even though it was the extremist Republicans' darling who flitted hither and yon like a scared butterfly in the aftermath, who ignored direct warnings about the impending attack, whose top defense priority prior to 9/11 was to waste billions on missile defense.

It seems it wasn't just buildings and peoples' lives that went up in smoke that day, it was respect for real democracy itself -- and by the leaders of the victims' own country, who seem to think it a luxury in easy times, rather than a principle forever.

We live in dangerous times, and not all of our weakened democracy's enemies live beyond our borders. Some, in my opinion, have White House passes. And you have to assume they have their boss's blessing.


=====
* But see also this post.
UPDATE, 6/28: A "Take it to Karl" blog features lots of soldiers, sailors, and airmen, including Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom vets, who are none too pleased with Mr. Rove's recent comments, either. Via Stryker at "digitalwarfighter." (note edited to be more descriptive, 6/28)
UPDATE, 5/14/07: image link fixed. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:50:00 AM -- |    

 
Define terrorist; show your work
In a couple of recent posts, Stygius proposed a kind of mental doctrine he says should inform all progressive/liberal national security thinking:

1. There are a group of fanatic killers who want to kill as many Americans as they can; and,
2. Dead terrorists can't kill Americans.

In the second post, which should be taken as the more definitive statement, Stygius elaborates on what he does and doesn't mean with what might be called the "Stygius doctrine":

Hopefully, readers see that I’m talking about sentiments about right actions; about practical values. Thus, this is not a "Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out!" sentiment. I fully acknowledge and embrace the notion that there can be conditions where killing terrorists can be impractical, or imprudent. That is why I’m talking about "appropriateness" and a broad, multi-faceted calculus of values. Rather, I'm asking skeptical progressives to accept the idea that there can be and are conditions where terrorists can be legitimately fought and killed.

I certainly accept that being prepared to fight to kill is a necessary part of dealing with any mortal foe. I think most people, even "skeptical progressives," do. You enumerate the possibilities, and prepare yourself for them -- as Hamlet concludes, "the readiness is all."

My critique of Stygius' doctrine isn't so much to quarrel with it as to say the house is only half built. One problem is in the vague concept of 'terrorist'; I'm not trying to be sarcastic when I say that they don't come clearly labeled.

Unlike in a classic war, we can not be sure we know who the practitioners of terrorism are, much (much, much) less who are potential terrorists, and less yet what to do about these not-yet-terrorists. We have further problems with the term itself. Not long after 9/11, I tried my hand at defining "terrorism". I decided that it was the self-appointed, unaccountable nature of terrorism that was its crucially dangerous and reprehensible feature. If so, it would seem obvious how not to fight against it.

I've grown a little wary of my own early certainties about the "war on terror," yet I also know I still feel the incandescent anger I felt after 9/11. Then, "war" seemed right and just. Now, maybe it is still the best word, but the question is whether incandescent anger, shrewd moderation, or some judicious mixture thereof best serves us in protecting ourselves and our society against our foes.

I recall celebrating a Predator strike in 2002 on some terrorists -- I was led to believe, and have little reason to doubt -- in Yemen. Yet in the years since 9/11, I've grown so disillusioned with the directions American fighting and policy have taken, and the half-truths, quarter-truths, and one sixty-fourth truths offered in explanation, that I can wonder: was this strike, too, a publicity stunt or a necessary act? How sure are we -- whether "we" who had our finger on the button launching the missile, or we the people -- that those killed were part of al Qaeda, that they were involved in the USS Cole attack, and so forth? Will anyone with a critical mind ever get a chance to find out? I may have little reason to doubt the right thing was done, but in truth I have little reason to credit it either.

Whether such doubts are evidence of my liberalish lack of firm resolve, or of my government leading me down a primrose path one too many times is probably a matter of little importance to anyone but me. But if I'm not the only one with doubts, I think they illustrate one small price we, the people of the United States, pay for the unaccountable methods -- foreign and domestic, political and military -- that we've allowed in our name.

In his book "The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror," (Princeton University Press, 2004) Michael Ignatieff examines the issues of proper and effective self-defense by liberal democracies against terror attacks. In it, Ignatieff proposes that all responses to the challenge of terror attack campaigns be subject to four tests: the dignity test (does the response respect human dignity?), the conservative test (if the response calls for changes to our own system, are those changes really necessary?), the effectiveness test (will the response work?), and open adversarial review (is the response subject to institutional and/or public review and approval?) It seems to me that we are failing, or close to failing, on all four counts. Ignatieff asks,

If force must be the ultimate response to violence against a constitutional state, what is to keep state violence from becoming as unconstrained as the enemy it is seeking to destroy? The only answer is democracy and the obligation of justification that it imposes on those who use force in its name. [...]

The evil [of terrorism] does not consist in the resort to violence itself, since violence can be justified, as a last resort, in the face of oppression, occupation, or injustice. The evil consists in resorting to violence as a first resort, in order to make peaceful politics impossible.

We should not flirt with emulating that evil; we should make our war (when that is necessary) with terrorists the antithesis of theirs: transparent, subject to debate, principled. Fighting terrorists to the death -- even apocalyptic, undeterrable ones like those on 9/11 -- is a lesser evil only when their methods and outlook are clearly not adopted.

Stygius is a principled person, and I know he* does not support the excesses and 'look the other ways' of the Bush administration policies (plausibly deniable as such or not) at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere; his statements on his own blog and his frequent and welcome comments here underline that.

But I suspect many Bush administration people did not wake up on 9/12 knowing that's the direction they were headed. (I also suspect some did; but that many did not.) Regardless; our country's single-minded emphasis on a narrowly conceived national security and on death to our foes -- while ignoring every other principle -- has got us where we are now: in the mud, with far too much innocent blood on our hands, and far too much human indignity and injustice on our consciences. I dare not deny it: on my hands and on my conscience, too. Regarding his tests, Ignatieff writes:

If all this adds up to a series of constraints that tie the hands of our governments, so be it. It is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behnid its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does.

To be clear: there is a variety of terrorist that needs killing. To be equally clear: that's not all there is to it. Not if we want to keep our principles and country intact.


=====
* Or she, as the case may be. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:05:00 AM -- |    

 
Natalie Davis
Natalie Davis ("All Facts & Opinions") is packing it in:

At some point within the next week or so, I expect that after nearly 10 years, the project that started as the Grateful Dread BBS and evolved into the present AF&O/The Armchair Activist will shut down indefinitely, perhaps forever.

The rest of her post tells me this is the least of her concerns right now.

Natalie is pretty upset, or she'd know she's no failure. Personally, I've been challenged and inspired by her example over the years. I may come across as a bit more moderate than she is... or I may just be catching up with her.

She'll be missed while she's gone from the world of blogging, such as it is. But I can't imagine someone with her energy and skills will be down for long. I'll keep an eye out for opportunities for a writer/activist in the Baltimore (and perhaps DC?) area, and hope you will as well. If you know of something you think would work for her, leave a comment, or send me an e-mail. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:01:00 PM -- |