Bush Greets the German Shepherd

Pope Benedict XVI arrived in Washington today, with the unprecedented honor of a presidential airport greeting. This was a nice gesture by Bush, and shows how respect for the pontiff crosses all kinds of denominational and political lines.

B16 made a little news before the plane even touched down by telling reporters he was "deeply ashamed" at the clergy sexual abuse scandal. I think it was a heartfelt statement, and may have the added bonus of disarming some of the people who were determined to make that awful scandal the centerpiece of the entire visit.

There is a lot of speculation in the blogosphere on what the Pope will say about this or that problem. Everyone wants him to validate their pet issue. I liked what Archbishop Sambi, the nuncio to the U.S., had to say in a TV interview. He suggested - in a kind and loving way - that rather than tell the Pope what we want him to say, we should listen to whatever he thinks needs to be said. Sounds like good advice.

In that spirit, I intend to watch the various events on TV and pray that much good comes from the next few days. EWTN will, naturally, have extensive coverage. If you watch/read the mainstream media, remember to deduct about 50 IQ points from whatever they say about the Catholic Church and religion in general.

Huckabee's Cross

Mike Huckabee's Christmas commercial (video) outraged both secularists and some Christians. I don't have a problem with politicians wishing the public a Merry Christmas or, as Huckabee did, talking about how Christ is too often missing from the season. Huckabee is a preacher and it's fine for him to let people know what is important to him.

However there comes a point when the religious imagery goes too far. The bookshelf/Cross that appears behind Huckabee in the ad may have been coincidental. The way the camera pans across the room makes me wonder, though. Peggy Noonan says these things don't happen by accident.

In 1989 there was an uproar about this "artistic" photograph of a Crucifix immersed in a jar of urine, at taxpayer expense no less. It was a blasphemous outrage. I'm not sure that dropping the Cross into a political campaign, however subtly, is a great deal more appropriate.

Be that as it may, Noonan's column mentions something else that I thought was interesting.

In an interview this week with David Brody of CBN, Huckabee said people everywhere were coming to him and saying, "We are claiming Isaiah 54 for you, that the weapons formed against you will not prosper."

This language calls to mind the "Name it and Claim it" theology of certain fundamentalists like Kenneth Copeland. Sometimes it is called the "Positive Confession" or "Word of Faith" movement. These people believe that God wants us to be healthy, wealthy and successful. In their view, if we simply pray hard and show our faith God will give us what we ask for. Those who are poor and sick obviously don't have enough faith.

Needless to say, I don't accept this view. Does Huckabee? I don't know, but he's the one who brought it up. At the very least it's an odd choice of words. It's also an odd interpretation of Isaiah 54, in which the prophet describes "New Zion," the restored and glorified Israel. If, in fact, some of Huckabee's supporters are "claiming" this chapter for him, they seem to be equating their candidate with God's Chosen People. Maybe they don't mean it that way, but the implication is inescapable.

They might want to read the whole chapter, too. The line about weapons is in verse 17. Back up a little to verse 4, where we read "You will forget the shame of your youth." This is not politically helpful. What part of Huckabee's youth was shameful, and why did he forget it? Inquiring minds want to know.

While I still support Ron Paul, I was initially open to Huckabee. Some bloggers I greatly respect like The Catholic Knight are pushing for him. He may be the best available option, all things considered. Yet as I learn more, I still can't muster much enthusiasm for Huckabee. The most I can say is that he seems sincere in his faith and is on the right side of the life and social issues.

In other words, Huckabee is essentially George W. Bush without the pedigree: a big-government conservative who wants to save the world. If you liked Bush, you'll love Huckabee.

Think I'm wrong? Leave a comment and tell me why.

Panic in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Police and soldiers emboldened by state of emergency powers swept up hundreds of activists and opposition members on Sunday, dragged away protesters shouting "Shame on you!", and turned government buildings into barbed-wire compounds. [full coverage at Yahoo!]

It is difficult to overstate how much the U.S. strategy in the Middle East depends on Pakistan. That's why this is a very serious situation any way you look at it. It will be difficult for the Bush Administration to continue arguing that its goals are freedom and democracy for all if it allows Musharraf to become even more blatantly dictatorial than he already was. Reports indicate that the government has shut down all independent media, arrested the Supreme Court's chief justice, and suspended the Constitution. These aren't minor steps.

Neocons and other war hawks will argue that this is just the price we have to pay to win the War on Terror. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. The people of Pakistan just have to grin and bear it until we get around to liberating them, too. Therefore, the U.S. must do whatever it takes to prop up the Musharraf regime and prevent Muslim extremists from taking over Pakistan. He's an SOB but at least he's our SOB. Steven Taylor isn't buying it.

The real irony here is not that there aren’t real problems associated with Muslim extremism in Pakistan, there most assuredly are. Indeed, it was elements of the Pakistani intelligence apparatus that helped the Taliban establish itself in Afghanistan. And yes, there are clearly jihadist elements in Pakistan. However, the notion that a strong dictatorship will make this situation better is problematic.

At a minimum, if authoritarian rule was the elixir that cured the world of jihadism, it would have been wiped out some time ago. Or have we not noticed that this type of extremist thinking and actions was conceived, gestated and born in the context of mostly secular authoritarianism in the Middle East and Central Asia? A “strong hand” is not some automatic fix. Indeed, such strong hands often inspire further radicalism. No doubt, for example, these “preventive arrests” will inspire the opposition to greater ties and sympathies with extremists, not diminish them. In simple terms, if the opposition wishes to continue its fight, and Musharraf is shutting down existing political mechanisms to do so, what choice will they have but to deepen their connections to radicalized elements in Pakistani politics?

It may be that the immediate crisis will subside, but the best case is that the U.S. now faces a very uncertain long-term problem in Pakistan. Keep in mind that, unlike Iran, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Now imagine a radical Islamist regime taking power there. All of a sudden Iraq and Iran will be the least of our worries.

Reluctant Diplomats

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 — Career Foreign Service officers at the State Department reacted angrily at a town hall meeting on Wednesday to the possibility that they might be forced to go to Iraq, putting senior Bush administration officials on the defensive.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced just a few days earlier that the State Department would require some diplomats to serve at the American Embassy in Baghdad or on reconstruction teams in some of the country’s volatile provinces. Only those who can cite compelling reasons, like medical problems or extreme personal hardship, will be exempt from disciplinary action, including dismissal, if they turn down the assignment. [NY Times via Darth Beckman]

This is a strange story. On one level, it is easy to say that people at the State Department should stop whining and do their jobs. It's not like they're being asked walk through mine fields. They'll live in Bagdad's fortified Green Zone and be protected by Blackwater, the best security money can buy. Diplomats live in much better, safer conditions than most of the soldiers and Marines who are deployed to Iraq.

On the other hand, I wonder why this is suddenly a problem now. The world is full of places where it is not particularly safe to be an American diplomat, yet so far as I can tell it has not been necessary to threaten foreign service officers with termination to make them go anywhere else but Iraq. Why is this?

If, as we are told, the "surge" is working, violence in Iraq is falling and political reconciliation among the factions is right around the corner, you would think the State Department people would be pushing each other out of the way to get over there. Claiming a piece of the forthcoming great victory ought to be a good career move. This is not happening.

One would think that diplomats have a high degree of knowledge about the real situation in Bagdad. The reactions we see in this story suggest that the State Department rank and file is not optimistic. They could be wrong, of course. I sincerely hope so. Or, they may know some things that the rest of us don't.

Judging from the reports, Secretary Rice seems fully prepared to follow through on and replace anyone in the Foreign Service who refuses assignment to Iraq. From the Bush Administration's point of view this might not be an entirely bad thing. They would then get to re-populate the State Department's career ranks with people of their own choosing who would be more likely to share Bush's attitude toward diplomacy. This would make it that much harder for the next Administration to change course from the direction Bush has been going.

If in fact there are job openings at the State Department soon, it will be a golden opportunity for some people. Personally I am not interested. If I were, say, someone with a Ph.D. in political science who loves his country, fully supports current U.S. military operations around the world, and enjoys defending his positions vigorously, I might look into it. Then again, I might not.

Potemkin Press Conference

I just saw Shep Smith report this story on Fox News this evening, and I see Texas Fred and MikeVotes are already all over it. More publicity will follow. It's too good to ignore.

Earlier this week FEMA held a press conference about its response to the California fires. For some reason they did it on short notice and no actual reporters were present. FEMA hacks therefore populated the briefing room with their own staffers posing as reporters. To no great surprise, they lobbed a variety of softball questions at Vice Admiral Harvey E. Johnson, the agency's deputy director.

FEMA has now apologized and the White House says it knew nothing about it beforehand and did not condome FEMA's deception. That's probably true; only FEMA could do something so boneheaded. Did they actually think the real news media wouldn't wonder who all those newcomers were?

This will probably blow up into a big deal and give FEMA yet another black eye. For all of Bill Clinton's faults, his man James Lee Witt kept FEMA running like clockwork. I don't get why Bush can't do likewise.

A Useless Appendage?

What does the human appendix have to do with Iraq, interrogations, and the U.S. Constitution? Quite a lot, it turns out.

Submitted for your fascination: Doctors just now think they have come up with the function of the appendix.

In a similarly fascinating story, the American executive branch just now claims it knows the function of the Geneva Conventions.

Which explanation do you want first?

Read the rest.

Two Georges on Torture

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner] ... I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country," - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775.


“I have put this program in place for a reason, and that is to better protect the American people... and when we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we’re going to detain them, and you bet we’re going to question them, because the American people expect us to find out information — actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That’s our job.” - George W. Bush, Oct 5, 2007



[Hat tip: Darth Beckman]

State Secrets

The Supreme Court has terminated a lawsuit that alleges the CIA kidnapped and tortured a German man in a case of mistaken identity. The facts of the case are actually not as interesting as the grounds for its dismissal. The Bush Administration argues that allowed the suit to proceed would risk the exposure of important national secrets. There is legal precedent for this argument:

The state secrets privilege arose from a 1953 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the executive branch to keep secret, even from the court, details about a military plane's fatal crash.

Three widows sued to get the accident report after their husbands died aboard a B-29 bomber, but the Air Force refused to release it claiming that the plane was on a secret mission to test new equipment. The high court accepted the argument, but when the report was released decades later there was nothing in it about a secret mission or equipment.

This appears to be a legal principle that is, quite literally, built on lies. There was nothing to protect in the 1953 case. The government simply made up a story that was not true.

Whether the case at hand has any merit, I don't know. That's why we have courts - courts that are quite capable of protecting sensitive information from public view when necessary. It would be nice if we could simply trust the Bush Administration not to use this privilege to hide its crimes and mistakes. Any takers?

Saudis Release Terror Suspects

Here is a disturbing story. The U.S. recently transferred 55 suspected terrorists, all of them Saudi Arabian citizens, from the Guantanamo Bay facility and gave them back to Saudi authorities to be kept in prison there. Presumably the U.S. government received assurances that the prisoners would be kept securely locked up.

It seems that the Saudis have “temporarily” released all 55 to spend a Muslim holiday with their families. Furthermore, each prisoner was given $2,600 with which to celebrate. They are supposed to return to custody and eventually stand trial. We’ll see. I think there is reason to be dubious.

Now there are two possibilities here. Either:

• Our so-called allies, the Saudis, think it is well and good to let dangerous terrorists out to roam the streets, creating who knows what kind of problems, and the Bush Administration let itself be duped once again; or
• These 55 prisoners are actually not dangerous terrorists - as we are often told the residents of Guantanamo must be - and were being held by the U.S. under false or incorrect charges.

Neither scenario is particularly comforting.

Hat tip: Born at the Crest of the Empire

American Torture

Mark Shea unloads on the Rubber House Right, its supporters and defenders, in a long and colorfully illustrated post today.

It is a painful thing to face and I don't enjoy it any more than you do. But the facts are really quite plain. The reality is Abu Ghraib was not an isolated event. We have been torturing people in other facilities. What happened at Abu Ghraib was that some morons who loved their work thought it would be fun to take pictures and those pictures shocked the world. Naturally, the Bush Administration could not say, "Yeah! We support that!" Of *course* they repudiated it and made sure the lackeys got punished in order to distance the Administration from the awful press.

But the reality is that after Abu Ghraib, the Administration labored--intensely--to make sure that the abusive techniques used at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere would remain part of what the President calls his "tools" for fighting the War on Terror. You can read all about it here.

The White House response has been, I must be blunt, to lie through its teeth in the knowledge that it has broad support from a people that don't want to look too closely at what we are doing. Indeed, past polls have shown that Catholics have a higher rate of support for torture than the general population.

The lie is simple and plain: President Bush continue to look us in the eye and say “This government does not torture people.”

But the reality is, it does. Bush made certain of this by loading the Justice Department with toadies who gave him what he wanted:

In two separate legal opinions written in 2005, the Justice Department authorized the C.I.A. to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Note that word "including". This is not an exhaustive list. Much of the degrading stuff you saw at Abu Ghraib isn't even life-threatening, so it falls well below the threshhold of "torture" for this Administration's Justice Department, as far as we can tell. And when we speak of "simulated drowning" or what our Vice President lightly laughs off as "dunking" we are looking at prima facie evidence of the Administration's careful mendacity. [Source]

You must read the whole thing. The doubletalk we get from Bush defenders about this is astonishing. It boils down to "Torture is fine. We don't torture." Which is it? If there's nothing wrong with torture, why all the gymnastics denying that the U.S. does it? This bunch can't even keep its lies straight.

In the combox at Mark's post, someone asked a chilling question: is there any example any time in history of a government that tortured its enemies but not, eventually, its own citizens as well?

Thoughts on Hypocrisy

A few days ago Rod Dreher noted something from a recent press interview of Jenna Bush, the president's daughter. It seems that in 2006 Jenna and her boyfriend (now fiance) Henry went on a camping trip. Upon being told of the plans, the president asked his daughter, "Do you have two tents?"

Rod's post quickly drew comments from people saying the president, who had his share of youthful indiscretions, is a hypocrite for saying such a thing. To me, this attitude is very strange. In our culture hypocrisy seems to have become the only unforgivable sin. Yet at the same time, it is something we are all guilty of in one way or the other. I wrote the following a few weeks ago in reaction the the arrest of Senator Larry Craig:

It is entirely possible to simultaneously a) believe that a certain behavior is immoral, and b) be unable to resist one's own urges to engage in that same behavior. As much as we struggle to do good, every single day we still do things we know to be wrong. To be human is to be a hypocrite. The fact that we are often unable to live up to the standard does not mean that no standard exists. MORE

I think when people make charges of hypocrisy, often what they are really saying is "I don't like that rule." But in fact, the existence of a moral principle and the ability of individuals to follow that principle are entirely different subjects. Neither effects the other.

For example, I know that I should not eat an entire quart of Blue Bell Cookies & Cream ice cream at one time. It is not good for my health, it is wasteful of my family's money, and it sets a bad example for others. I should not do it. It's wrong. Yet I have, on many occasions, done this thing that I know to be wrong. I'm pretty sure I will do it again at some point. Am I a hypocrite about ice cream? Sounds like it. But that does not change the fact that too much ice cream is bad for me. I could simply deny the negative effects of ice cream and eat a quart of it every day. Then I would not be a hypocrite. I would, however, pay a heavy price in other ways.

Now, back to the Bush family situation. Like many of us Baby Boomers, George W. Bush did dangerous, unwise, and sometimes illegal things in his youth. What does this have to do with the way we bring up our own children?

One approach is to presume that we as parents have no moral authority to tell our own offspring not to do these things, because we did them ourselves. The result is kids with no restraint who quite naturally go wild. If they don't come to some kind of harm, they will go on to produce another generation that is even worse. This isn't good, but at least you, the parent, won't be a hypocrite. Congratulations. I'm sure your hypocrisy-free conscience will help you feel better when you visit your kids in prison, or put flowers on their graves.

The other approach is to recognize, with the benefit of maturity, the harm that we caused ourselves and others when we were young, and then help our kids avoid the same mistakes. Is it hypocrisy? Yes. Is it the best thing for our children? Yes.

This seems to be what Bush was telling his daughter: sharing a tent with a young man to whom you are not yet fully committed in marriage can be harmful in a variety of ways. By this time she was probably old enough to make her own decisions, but there is nothing wrong with a father offering advice to his daughter - at any age.

Is George W. Bush 100% successful as a parent? Apparently not, if some of the stories about his daughters are true. On the other hand, I don't know any parents who are perfect. I'm sure not. We all just do the best we can, regardless of what may be in our past. The alternative is to set our kids adrift without a moral compass. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.

The Thinking Look

I sincerely hope Barack Obama is not our next president. Peggy Noonan probably feels the same way, but she does find one appealing quality in him. From her column today:

Barack Obama has a great thinking look. I mean the look he gets on his face when he's thinking, not the look he presents in debate, where they all control their faces knowing they may be in the reaction shot and fearing they'll look shrewd and clever, as opposed to open and strong. I mean the look he gets in an interview or conversation when he's listening and not conscious of his expression. It's a very present look. He seems more in the moment than handling the moment. I've noticed this the past few months, since he entered the national stage. I wonder if I'm watching him more closely than his fellow Democrats are.

Mr. Obama often seems to be thinking when he speaks, too, and this comes somehow as a relief, in comparison, say, to Hillary Clinton and President Bush, both of whom often seem to be trying to remember the answer they'd agreed upon with staff. What's the phrase we use about education? Hit Search Function. Hit Open. Right-click. "Equity in education is essential, Tim . . ."

You get the impression Mr. Obama trusts himself to think, as if something good might happen if he does. What a concept. Anyway, I've started to lean forward a little when he talks.

READ THE REST

Bill Clinton Makes Sense

Now there is a headline I never expected to type. Still, I must give credit where credit is due. On the matter of torture, or "enhanced interrogation techniques," or whatever you wish to call it, Bill sounded remarkably intelligent and thoughtful when he appeared on Meet The Press last Sunday.

The subject came up because a few days earlier Tim Russert had trapped Hillary Clinton in a presidential debate by quoting what Bill had said about torture in the past [Video here]. He had said that the U.S. should normally not use torture but there should be provision for the president or other officials to grant exceptions in extreme situations - the "ticking bomb" scenario.

Bill has since changed his mind. Now he doesn't think there should be any exceptions in the law. Here's his latest:

... I think America’s policy should be to oppose torture, to honor the Geneva Conventions for several reasons. One is, it’s almost always counterproductive. If you beat somebody up, they’ll tell you what they want to hear. Two is, it, it really hurts us in the rest of the world and helps to recruit other terrorists. And thirdly, it makes our own people vulnerable to torture.

You know, there’s a one in a million chance that you might be alone somewhere, and you’re Jack Bauer on “24.” That’s the Jack Bauer example, right? It happens every season with Jack Bauer, but to—in the real world it doesn’t happen very much. If you have a policy which legitimizes this, it’s a slippery slope and you get in the kind of trouble we’ve been in here with Abu Ghraib, with Guantanamo, with lots of other examples.

And I’m not even sure what I said is right now. I think what happens is the honest truth is that Tim Russert, Bill Clinton, people filming this show, if we were the Jack Bauer person and it was six hours to the bomb or whatever, you don’t know what you would do, and you have to—but I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror—I mean to torture, and that if you’re the Jack Bauer person, you’ll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences. And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth. I think there are a lot of areas in life where you don’t. But I, I loved how she handled this whole thing. I guess you want to show the rest now.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but not [have a] formal exception.

MR. CLINTON: Yeah, I don’t think you should now. The more I think about it, and the more I have seen that, if you have any kind of formal exception, people just drive a truck through it, and they’ll say “Well, I thought it was covered by the exception.” I think, I think it’s better not to have one. And if you happen to be the actor in that moment which, as far as I know, has not occurred in my experience or President Bush’s experience since we’ve been really dealing with this terror, but I—you actually had the Jack Bauer moment, we call it, I think you should be prepared to live with the consequences. And yet, ironically, if you look at the show, every time they get the president to approve something, the president gets in trouble, the country gets in trouble. And when Bauer goes out there on his own and is prepared to live with the consequences, it always seems to work better. [Full transcript]

It is entirely possible Bill will change his mind again, and there is no guarantee his wife will think this way if she becomes president. Nevertheless, for now he has a far more reasonable and realistic torture policy than any candidate of either party has taken, other than Ron Paul.

What Clinton says about exceptions is absolutely true: give them an inch and they'll take a mile. That universal principle is the reason we have a Constitution that is not easily changed. President Bush, on the other hand, sought to grant blanket immunity for those who torture prisoners, all the while denying that they do any such thing - a claim we cannot verify since he steadfastly refuses to define what he means by "torture."

With such power in hand, it should be no surprise that some agents of the government will abuse it. Mr. Bush says we should just trust him, similar to the way we trusted him about Iraq having nuclear and chemical weapons. Sorry, sir. I won't be fooled twice. On this one, your predecessor is a lot closer to the right. You might want to listen to him.

Related posts:
Tortured Logic
Colin Powell on Guantanamo
Petraeus on Battlefield Ethics
Adventures in Fog
Defining Torture

Strange Place To Make A Stand

President Bush promises to veto expansion of children’s health care program.

I don’t doubt for a minute that the Democrats are using this issue to score political points. If they really want to make health care affordable, they can start with reining in the trial lawyers whose frivolous lawsuits force physicians to spend half their income on liability insurance and order all kinds of needless tests. Of course they won't, because the trial lawyers are among their biggest contributors.

Nonetheless, this is a strange place for Bush to suddenly draw the line. How many spending bills has he vetoed in the last seven years? None. Zero. For six years the GOP-controlled Congress spent money like drunken sailors and handed out billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, who also happen to be major donors to Republican campaigns. Bush signed off on all of it. He especially liked the vastly more expensive prescription drug benefit for retirees. (The fact that senior citizens vote, while children do not, had nothing to do with this dichotomy, of course.) Bridges to nowhere and $900 hammers also received the president's signature.

The SCHIP spending bill Bush now intends to veto costs $35 billion. Not chump change, but it’s a drop in the bucket for our Brobdingnagian federal government. Along comes a bill to provide health care for children of the poor, though, and the White House decides we just can't afford it. Are there better ways to help poor kids? Of course. There is good reason to veto this bill. But why this one and none of the others?

The fact that the Bush Administration allowed itself to be backed into this corner is a sign of remarkable, almost unprecedented political blindness. The Democrats will bring it up again, and force Bush to veto it again, probably several more times in the next year. George W. Bush will now go down in history as the president who was willing to spend any amount of the taxpayer’s money on anything for anyone – except health care for kids. Some legacy.

It will be a long time before any GOP candidate will again be able to convince the nation that he represents the party of fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile the Democrats will have loads of fun portraying Republicans as greedy, heartless Scrooges who hate poor kids. I'm not so sure they will be wrong.

Any Republican who still supports this president needs to have his head examined. Bush's arrogance and stupidity have destroyed your party as a viable force for change. Congratulations. Get ready for a long time in the wilderness.

Ignoring the Troops

You may recall the scandal that erupted last spring when news emerged that wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center were living in neglected squalor. A media furor ensued, generals were relieved, the Secretary of the Army resigned, and officials from the president on down promised the situation would be quickly resolved.

Guess what: six months later, it seems very little has been done.

A government report being released today concludes that wounded warriors are still getting the runaround from the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs despite big promises of change after last February’s revelations about scandalous conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, says delays for disability payments still average 177 days — nearly six months — with no indication that dramatic improvement is in the offing. The GAO also found continuing frustrations and shortfalls in care for the increasing number of military returnees from Iraq.

“Delayed decisions, confusing policies, and the perception that DOD and VA disability ratings result in inequitable outcomes have eroded the credibility of the system,” the GAO says in testimony to be released on Capitol Hill today. “Thus, it is imperative that DOD and VA take prompt steps to address fundamental system weaknesses.” MORE

Six months, on an issue that allegedly has the highest priority and promises directly from the president, and nothing happens. This is beyond incompetence. It is evil. When the news came out, the Bush Administration could plausibly claim it didn't know how bad things were for disabled veterans. I was not so sure, but gave them the benefit of the doubt. They no longer deserve that benefit.

Here's the truth: when Bush Administration officials, including Bush himself, say they care about the troops, they are lying. They do not care. If they did, disabled soldiers would not be waiting 177 days to get paid. The president can fix this overnight if he wishes. He obviously has other priorities.

Conservatives For Hillary

I used to think that Hillary Clinton had the proverbial snowball's chance of ever living in the White House again. Now, I'm not so sure. What changed? People on the right, seeing the dismal selection candidates the GOP is offering for 2008, are starting to make their peace with the idea of President Clinton. Andrew Sullivan explains why:

The conservative Washington Establishment is swooning for Hillary for a reason. The reason is an accommodation with what they see as the next source of power (surprise!); and the desire to see George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq legitimated and extended by a Democratic president (genuine surprise). Hillary is Bush's ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy. They are not that dissimilar after all: both come from royal families, who have divvied up the White House for the past couple of decades. They may oppose one another; but they respect each other as equals in the neo-monarchy that is the current presidency.

Keep in mind, Hillary doesn't need every single conservative in order to win the general election. All she has to do is peel off enough of them to make a couple of closely-divided states like New Mexico and Ohio swing back into the Democratic column. It's not impossible. (I'm assuming, of course, that she will get the Democratic nomination, but that is looking more inevitable all the time.)

I think back to the odd pairing of former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton in relief efforts following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and Katrina in 2005. They seemed to get along very well and the two are now close friends, by all accounts. So I think there is something to the "royalty" theme Sullivan mentions. If Hillary is elected in 2008, we will have 24 and possibly 28 years of continuous Oval Office occupation by people named Bush and Clinton. Mark Shea thinks partisans on both sides will get what they deserve:

It will be an exquisitely just comeuppance for all the consequentialists on both sides of the aisle if Hillary is elected (as Bush seems to be telegraphing) and she winds up embracing Mr. Bush's War. All the whores on both sides of the aisle who have loathed one of them and praised the other (while making every excuse in the book for their prostitution of basic principles of natural law in the name of their respective ideologies) will get the last full measure of betrayal from each of them as they walk off, hand in hand, having given us a state fully committed to salvation through leviathan by any means necessary *and* to the sacrament of abortion. Hillary will be the perfect Bush legacy. A classic example of the system doing what we designed it to do, not what we want it to do.

A Surge of Headlines

Mike at Born at the Crest of the Empire has this interesting, if somewhat confusing, roundup of newspaper headlines. All are, theoretically, referring to the same events.

AP: Bush preserves big troop level in Iraq

Reuters: Bush agrees to limited troop cuts in Iraq

AFP: Bush orders partial Iraq pull-out, citing 'measure of success'

USAToday: Bush: Continue U.S. presence in Iraq

NYTimes: Success Allows Gradual Troop Cuts, Bush Says

WaPo: Bush Tells Nation He Will Begin 'Surge' Rollback

LATimes: President redefines the U.S. objective in Iraq

CNN: 'Come together' on Iraq war, Bush urges

McClatchy: New Iraq plan recalls strategies past

You must read this "fact check" article on the President's speech from the Washington Post. Rod Dreher does a good job dismantling the White House lines, too. Professor Taylor of Poliblog has another four part post mortem.

You have to hand it to the Bush team. They've played Surge Politics very, very well. Having guaranteed that U.S. forces will stay in Iraq for the next generation, they are now turning attention to Iran. The Bush Jihad is just getting started.

We're In Iraq To Stay

With this week’s reports to Congress by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, the Bush Administration appears to have bought itself some more time in Iraq. As a result, the withdrawal - if there is to be one - will almost certainly happen under the next president. There will be some token redeployments next year, but these will at best return the U.S. presence to its pre-surge levels.

We were told this week that violence in parts of Iraq has fallen as a result of the increased U.S. military presence. This is wonderful news. However, what reason do we have to think the prior trends will not resume once the Americans leave? Violence will most certainly return unless the Iraqis decide in mass to become religiously tolerant, politically diverse, and economically altruistic. That hardly seems likely, at least not in the near future.

The latest American strategy of empowering local leaders, which was turned to in frustration after the central government proved dysfunctional, will probably create problems of a different kind. By installing multiple power centers with varying self-interests, there will now be a kind of feudal system of independent city-states with little incentive to cooperate for the common good.

Victory is still possible in Iraq, we are told. But exactly what is "victory?" No one can answer that question. The furious debates about the various statistics and benchmarks ought to tell you something: no one knows whether we are winning or losing this war. And if no one knows, then it will likely never end.

"Trust General Petraeus," the White House says. Fine, except that the same White House wants us to ignore General Pace, General Casey, Admiral Fallon, Secretary Gates, the GAO, former Secretary Baker and the entire Iraq Study Commission - all of whom offered radically different recommendations to the President.

Why is it we are supposed to trust this one expert while ignoring all others? Simple: the President has already made up his mind that there will be no troop reductions. The fact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are, by law, supposed to be the president's primary military advisors is conveniently forgotten because the JCS will not offer the advice the president wants to hear. General Petraeus is, apparently, willing to be a scapegoat for Bush, so it is his opinion that we are told is most important. Everything else is just political maneuvering.

Bottom line: the U.S. is in Iraq to stay. There is no exit strategy. The Democrats are unable to force a policy change on Bush, so the train will keep on going. Where the tracks will take us, no one knows, but we're all aboard for the ride. The troops shovel coal into the engines while the rest of us relax in the lounge. Nonetheless, we are all going the same place.

A little advice: fasten your seat belt.

Two Quotes

"We're kicking ass."

-President Bush on Iraq, speaking to Australian Deputy PM Mark Vaile

"Pride goeth before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."

-Proverbs 16:18

Let's Declare War on Futility

The month of September will be pivotal to the future of U.S. operations in Iraq, with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker scheduled to report on the success (or lack thereof) of the troop-surge plan. Both sides are already hard at work to spin things in their direction.

We can safely assume, no matter what the reports say, that the president will not give an inch in the direction of withdrawing troops. We can also safely assume that the Congressional opponents of the war will continue to call for withdrawal, notwithstanding the contents of the Petraeus and Crocker reports. At this point it appears that the Democrats do not have the means to force their will on this issue. This suggest that, after much sound and fury, not much will change.

The mantra of pro-war forces is that they just need "more time." More time is probably what they will get, but is it really time going to help? Maybe, maybe not. It could actually hurt. Consider this:

When the United States struck Afghanistan in 2001, "there were probably 3,000 core Al Qaeda operatives," says Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School. "We killed or captured about 1,000; about 1,000 more ended up in distant parts of the world. And about 1,000 ended up in Waziristan. But the great terror university in Afghanistan is gone; they've relied on the Web since. They haven't had the hands-on instruction and the bonding of the camps. That's resulted in low-skill levels. Their tradecraft is really much poorer.".

The danger now, says Arquilla, is that the longer the Iraq War goes on, the more skilled the new generations of jihadists will become. "They're getting re-educated," he says. "The first generation of Al Qaeda came through the [Afghan] camps. The second generation are those who've logged on [to Islamist Web sites]. The next generation will be those who have come through the crucible of Iraq. Eventually, their level of skill is going to be greater than the skill of the original generation." SOURCE

I find this argument compelling because the U.S. government has a long history, in its grand plans, of creating outcomes that are the opposite of what was intended. LBJ declared war on poverty. Did we get less poverty? No, we have more of it. Nixon declared war on drugs. Is there less drug abuse now? No, there is more of it. Other examples abound.

So it is not a stretch to think that George W. Bush's war on terror may produce more terrorism rather than less. It is hard to see how it serves U.S. interests to provide live-fair training and recruiting incentives for our enemies. Given that the poverty and drug wars are still with us, there seems to be little chance this one will end soon, either.

Hat tip: Born at the Crest

UPDATE 9/3/07: I edited the text above to say that the War on Drugs was launched by Nixon, not Reagan. Also, here is a nice article by Paul Farrell of MarketWatch.com about the connection between drugs, terrorism, and borders.