"A sort of chemotherapy"
In his Newsweek article "The View from the Top," former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson proposes a "new compact" between Americans and their government. The terms:

Americans have every right to expect competence and honesty about risks and mistakes and failures. Yet Americans, in turn, must understand that in a war where deception is the weapon and goal of the enemy, every mistake is not a lie; every failure is not a conspiracy. And the worst failure would be a timid foreign policy that allows terrible threats to emerge.

Well, sure, not every Bush administration mistake and failure is a lie or a conspiracy -- just way too many of them. But meanwhile, go ahead, the "bull in the china shop" approach seems to be working really well. From Roy Edroso's response:

In other words, you have a right to your expectations, and we have a right to do whatever we want without your goddamn belly-aching. This is a "new compact," indeed, as applied to the citizens of a Republic, though it is familiar enough to conscripts, battered children, and such like.

Gerson concludes that not only might Americans have to reluctantly shoulder outsized risks and take chances in confronting the terror menace -- it's a necessity:

The response of many Americans to all of this is ... up in the air. And, unfortunately, the demands of history may just be beginning, requiring more engagement, more sacrifice, more promotion of democracy, more foreign assistance to raise failed states where dangers gather. Setting out this case will fall to presidents of both parties, in calm and crisis—and making it will always be difficult in a weary hour. But necessity, in the end, makes a stronger argument than the finest rhetoric. And from London to Lebanon, history is proving that peace is not a natural state; it is achieved by a struggle of uncertain duration. In that struggle, the cynical, the world-weary, the risk-averse will not inherit the earth.

On to Teheran -- do it for peace, it'll do 'em good no matter how long it takes. Edroso comments:

We are no longer encouraged to celebrate our infinite possibilities, but ordered to accept our lack of choices. And democracy is not a gift with which America is blessed, but a sort of chemotherapy that America must wearily roam the earth administering to other nations.

I'm a New York City smart-aleck, yet I think more highly of this country than the Republicans do! I never thought I'd say this without irony, but I really think they've lost their patriotism.

Yeah, well, Edroso obviously thinks too much. Go read the whole thing. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:15:00 PM -- |    

 
Meltdown


Via Carpetbagger Report, MSNBC's Joe Scarbrough frames the question with Bush's "long history of public gaffes," asking "But is that evidence that the president is stupid? Or just inarticulate? Take a look... and decide for yourself." Much of the ten minute segment ran with the subtitle "Is Bush an 'Idiot'?"

It's not just the well placed GOP apologists who are whispering that the emperor has no clothes. From a poll done by MyDD in California's 50th Congressional District -- a Republican stronghold that nearly went Democratic in a special election earlier this year:

• 63% of Republican voters believe that Bush has made some or a lot of mistakes in Iraq. 24% of Republican voters believe that Bush has made ‘a lot of mistakes in Iraq’, and another 39% believe that Bush has made ‘some mistakes in Iraq’.
• 34% of Republican voters believe that Bush has definitely or probably not told the truth about the situation in Iraq. 14% believe that Bush has ‘definitely’ not told the truth about the situation in Iraq, and another 20% believe that Bush has ‘probably’ not told the truth about the situation in Iraq.
• 34% of Republican voters believe that Bush should probably or definitely be held accountable for the situation in Iraq. 19% of Republican voters believe that Bush should ‘definitely’ be held accountable, and 15% believe he should ‘probably’ be held accountable.
• 48% of Republican voters believe that the Democratic Party is likely to hold Bush accountable for mistakes in Iraq, versus only 19% who believe that the Republican Party is likely to hold Bush accountable.

Accountability -- what a concept! What is it? How does it work? John Yoo once spoke with the New Yorker's Jane Mayer about accountability, or the lack thereof, for the administration torture and detention policies he helped devise:

[Yoo] went on to suggest that President Bush’s victory in the 2004 election, along with the relatively mild challenge to Gonzales mounted by the Democrats in Congress, was "proof that the debate is over." He said, "The issue is dying out. The public has had its referendum."

Looks like he thought there'd be just one of those referendums.

=====
UPDATE, EDIT, 8/17: Oops. I left a truncated version of this post up last night, thinking it was returned to "draft" form you see now.
UPDATE, 8/26: Some of what the video above shows is arguably just word-manglin', although some of what it shows is the real genuinely idiotic deal. For more of the latter, see Fred Kaplan, Slate, 8/21: What a moronic press conference!
UPDATE, 8/31: Seriously.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:03:00 AM -- |    

 
"Welcome to America," George
So (1) Senator George Allen told an Indian-American filming him "Welcome to America," and repeatedly called him a "macaca", (2) "macaque" or macaca are both a kind of monkey and a racial epithet among white supremacists, particularly French-speaking ones, for Africans and Arabs, and (3) it's not far-fetched Senator Allen would know that: his mother immigrated from French Tunisia,* and his siblings reportedly say he takes more after her than his famous football coach father.

Ryan Lizza recently had a fascinating and disturbing profile of the senator in the New Republic. I'd already read that Allen was given to bizarre football metaphors serving to remind listeners of George Allen, Sr., and enhance the folksy Southern schtick that is Allen's trademark. But Rizza's account also revealed a racist bully with a cruel streak and delusions of honorary Southern roots -- the latter even though he actually grew up in California, and learned what he thinks he knows about the South from watching "Hee Haw." (Lizza also mentions Allen's mother in a couple of paragraphs; nothing there makes it implausible Allen learned his use of "the M-word" at her knee.)

Normally, watching this kind of career crash and burn would be pure entertainment -- a knave who thinks he's clever in a train wreck of his own design. But I was sobered by Lizza's observation that Allen had "emerged as the principal conservative alternative to John McCain in the early jockeying among 2008 Republican presidential candidates..." To think all it takes these days is being a Confederate poser who made his reputation in his adopted state by publicly opposing Martin Luther King Day -- and privately hanging a noose from an office plant.

A Washington Post editoral today quickly chastised the Senator for the incident, but ended with the Church Lady-style comment that "really, by mocking Mr. Sidarth, Senator George F. Allen demeaned only himself." He did a little more than that. He -- and his supporters who rewarded him with chuckles -- demeaned a state and a country that are both better than that with these racist, nativist put-downs. Let's help Jim Webb give him the Election Day thrashing he deserves.


=====
* French North Africa was arguably the real heart of Vichy France; I'm reminded of WWII correspondent AJ Liebling's comment to the effect that many upper class French North Africans "had not really collaborated with the Nazis; the Nazis had come along belatedly and collaborated with them."
NOTES: "racial epithet" reference--Jeffrey Feldman ("Frameshop"); "French Tunisia" reference--"Raising Kane".
posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:21:00 AM -- |    

 
Happy birthday, dear Social Security...

...happy birthday to you!

eRobin ("fact-esque") had the wonderful idea of celebrating Social Security's birthday with a week of posts on the subject. That's why she is she's not a highly paid Democratic Party consultant, I guess.

Today she has a look at a recent bloggingheads.tv exchange between Social Security advocate Josh Marshall and self-styled "Democratic MP" Mickey Kaus, who shares his delusions about trading it for universal health care. eRobin transcribes key parts of their discussion, and concludes:

The next time you hear someone talking about Social Security, tell them that it would be a better idea to fix Medicare Part D first and get some practice doing social spending right before we start destroying a program that has worked brilliantly for over seventy years.

I hope lots of people will join in eRobin's Social Security week. It's what we old-timers call a good old-fashioned "blogswarm"; we do sack races and egg tosses, cook a big ole kettle of chili, put out plenty of lemonade, and raise hell generally. Bring the young uns!


=====
NOTE: the graphic (done last year, obviously) is free for use by one and all; thanks "Heretik"!
posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:30:00 PM -- |    

 
MyrtleBeachOnline: William Haynes II is out
Unless you're from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, you may well have read it here first: the Circuit Court nomination of former Pentagon counsel William Haynes II has been scuttled. The Sun News outlet MyrtleBeachOnline.com reported yesterday:

After Congress adjourned for its summer recess last week, the Senate quietly returned to the White House the nomination of William J. 'Jim' Haynes to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I was strongly opposed to the Haynes nomination ("William Haynes II: not just no -- hell no") because of his role in approving illegal and immoral interrogation techniques at Guantanamo, reported in a Jane Mayer profile of Alberto Mora in the New Yorker earlier this year ("The Memo"). Haynes deception of colleagues like Mora and, even more seriously, Senators like Patrick Leahy opened a second major question about his fitness for higher judicial office.

The MyrtleBeachOnline article, by Sun News Washington Bureau correspondent James Rosen, is interesting to South Carolinians because their senator Lindsey Graham (R) reportedly had a lot to do with the Haynes defeat. Thus the title of the article ("Graham traced to nominee defeat"), and the (deniably) disapproving lead:

If the defeat of a high-profile judicial nominee by President Bush was probed like a homicide investigation, Sen. Lindsey Graham's fingerprints would be on the gun.

Rosen quickly moves to a South Carolina-centered analysis of the failed nomination:

Graham, a former military lawyer, is widely seen on Capitol Hill and beyond as the man most responsible for the Senate's failure to confirm Haynes. From his seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham expressed strong concerns about Haynes' fitness for the appellate court.

Graham's stand has earned the admiration of many military lawyers and other senior officers. But it angered conservative activists who have condemned Senate Democrats for refusing to allow up-or-down votes on Bush's controversial judicial nominations.

But it wasn't just Graham -- Senate opposition to the Haynes nomination was unusually strong, by the admittedly tepid standards of that body. While Graham may or may not be "most responsible," Rosen acknowledges he may have had a little help:

This year, Democrats repeatedly vowed to filibuster Haynes' nomination. But it never reached the Senate floor because the Judiciary Committee failed to take a vote. With nine Republicans and seven Democrats on the panel, opposition from a single Republican was enough to stymie the nomination.

Thus Graham may face heat from his home state base both for his opposition to the Haynes nomination and for effectively letting Haynes become "filibuster-worthy" -- Graham was one of the so-called "gang of 14" pledging to participate in judicial filibusters only under "extraordinary circumstances."

A note of caution: while I have no reason to doubt Rosen's report, I've not yet found corroboration of this news in the Post, the Times, or other news outlets, nor at Human Rights First, the organization I usually check with for news of this sort. It may be that the quietness of the news was important to both the White House, Graham, and other players -- and it may be that the nomination can be quietly reactivated. So caveat emptor.

Still, if this pans out, make no mistake that it's both a heartening human rights victory and an encouraging precedent for opposing extremist judicial nominations in general. But also make no mistake that the real issues remain in play -- full, unconditional adherence to the Geneva Conventions and Article 3, and making the executive branch take that adherence seriously by not waiving the prospect of war crimes prosecution. The Senate in general (and Senator Graham in particular) do not deserve a pass on opposing administration efforts to rewrite our treaty obligations and the rule of law, whatever happens with Mr. Haynes. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:15:00 PM -- |    

 
Darfur ad followup
The full page ad mentioned here earlier -- Crawford reading material: Darfur ad, 8/3/06 -- ran in the Waco Tribune-Herald on as planned, and was accompanied by a news conference in Waco, Texas, covered by local news station KWTX. Reuter's Sue Pleming ("Activists ask Bush to do more to end Darfur crisis") reported on the 9th that State Department spokesman Sean McCormack commented on the situation in Darfur:

"People have lost their lives and that's concerning," McCormack said.

The ultimate solution is a political solution. But in terms of trying to reduce the levels of large-scale violence, you want to have that blue-helmeted (U.N.) force get in there, built on the AU (African Union) force that is there," he said.

Under-equipped and poorly funded African Union troops have been struggling to keep the peace in Darfur, a region about the size of France.

Sudan's government has refused to allow a U.N. force into Darfur despite calls by the African Union for such a turnover to take place on October 1. [...]

McCormack strongly rejected criticism the Bush administration was no longer focused on Darfur and said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had spoken recently to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan about the issue.

In addition, he said the State Department was pushing hard for Sudan to be the next item on the agenda at the U.N. Security Council, which is currently absorbed by the crisis in Lebanon.

But see also Bush remarks at his joint Monday 8/7 press conference with Condoleeza Rice in Crawford:

Q Thanks. Mr. President, officials have been quoted saying that the international force would not include U.S. troops. And I wonder if you can explain why that is? Is it because the military is already over-tasked? Is it because you're afraid that the U.S. doesn't have credibility in the region?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think -- first of all, there has been a history in Lebanon with U.S. troops. Secondly, I have said that if the international force would like some help with logistics and command and control, we'd be willing to offer logistics and command and control. There are some places where -- it's like Darfur, people say to me, why don't you commit U.S. troops to Darfur as part of an international peacekeeping. And the answer there is that those troops would be -- would create a sensation around the world that may not enable us to achieve our objective. And so when we commit troops, we commit troops for a specific reason, with the intent of achieving an objective. And I think command and control and logistical support is probably the best -- is the best use of U.S. forces.

Since when is "creating a sensation" such a big problem for Bush? Would even command and control and logistics support personnel have that effect? Are such forces "troops" in Bush's mind or not? Given the right wing allergy to "blue helmets," it's hard to see US forces putting them on any time soon.

I'll be pleased to be proven wrong, but it's not hard to read Bush's statement as "oh, by the way: Darfur? Forget it." Even just as command and control and logistical support -- and even though that might mean saving tens of thousands of Muslim lives. Now there's a mistake we must never make in our struggle of ideas with Islamofascism.

The Waco Tribune Herald published a "Plea for Darfur" editorial today:

...Bush, who has been among the strongest voices for aiding the innocents, needs to make a concerted effort toward deploying U.N. peacekeepers. Another necessary move is to appoint a special U.S. envoy to Sudan and to start showing its government that the civilized world is ready to engage in the name of mercy.

This is a great opportunity for the United States to be more than a superpower but again a true world leader.

For an introduction or reintroduction to the Darfur situation consider the "Online NewsHour" web news site "The Darfur Crisis"; Margaret Warner reported on the situation she witnessed in early May, including the incident of an interpreter being killed by refugees who believed he was a Sudanese spy. Despite that, the many indications of refugees organizing and planning their outreach to media figures like Warner seem to me among the few hopeful signs in the whole wretched situation. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:03:00 AM -- |