Man, this here book meme just keeps going around and round yet nobody ever tags me. I read books! Just saying….
UPDATE: Whining gets results — woo! Answers coming later.
Declassified NIE Shows Cheney and Bush Misled Americans
The National Intelligence Estimate — “the most authoritative document[] that the intelligence community produces” — was delivered to President Bush and Vice President Cheney in April 2006. It was declassified today. Here’s a key excerpt:
The Iraq conflict has become the ’cause celebre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.
President Bush, August 21 2006:
[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2006/09/Bush_hornets.320.240.flv]
Vice President Cheney, September 10, 2006:
[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2006/09/cheney_buy.320.240.flv]
Transcripts: Read more
If We Win, We Win (also: ponies)
Today’s moronic rightwing talking point is that we should ignore the overwhelming majority of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that the White House was so eager to cover up (see declassified excerpts here) as a partisan plot undertaken by the notorious left-wingers at the CIA, while simultaneously citing the NIE’s conclusion that “Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight” as a decisive refutation of Democratic views on Iraq.
Seriously, people, think before you open your mouths and crack open your laptops.
Does anyone — anyone — on the right genuinely believe that those of us who favor withdrawal from Iraq do so because we don’t think it would be a good idea to turn the country into a shining success? Of course we don’t think that. We favor withdrawal because we don’t believe that indefinite continuation of an open-ended military presence in Iraq is likely to generate success. The country has been doing this for three and a half years now and things aren’t improving; they’re getting worse. Nobody disputes the desirability of success; we dispute the notion that continuing to do the same things that aren’t working now, and weren’t working one year ago, and weren’t working two years ago, are going to magically start working if we give it another year.
Bush releases declassified version
of the April National Intelligence Estimate. “The Iraq conflict has become the ’cause celebre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.” Read the whole thing HERE.
To Punt, Or Not To Punt?
My college roommate and I have long held, without rigorous empirical evidence, that NFL coaches punt way too often. This week’s Tuesday Morning Quarterback makes that case and even backs it with some non-trivial evidence derived from a 2005 David Romer paper. This is by no means an airtight argument, but it’s sound enough — i.e., certainly worthy of more than 3 percent credence — that really someone or other ought to think outside the box and give it a try.
Let me also say that Easterbrook doesn’t even throw on to the pile one of the considerations in favor of a much more aggressive fourth down strategy — it would make defending third down situations harder. One major structural advantage the offense has is, of course, that the defense doesn’t know what play the offense is going to run. In certain circumstances, though, you can get a pretty good guess. Third down situations, in particular, get fairly predictable. If you need short yardage, you’re goign to run; if you need long yardage, you’re going to pass. If, however, you plan on going for it on fourth down and the other team knows you’re going to go for it then everything gets much harder to predict.
Sen. Inhofe: Stop Obsessing Over Hockey Sticks — They will be Obsolete Soon Enough
Some in Congress still obsess and rant over whether or not parts of Europe were as warm as today several hundred years ago — the trumped up hockey-stick controversy, which the recent National Academy of Sciences Report should have put to rest, and that RealClimate.org has debunked repeatedly.
But while Congress obsesses and delays, the entire planet keeps warming up, and NASA keeps relating the news. By 2050, not only will no one remember the hockey-stick controversy, many people won’t even be using hockey sticks anymore outdoors – it will just be too darn hot.
This is clear from the Cliff Notes version of “Global Temperature Change,” by James Hansen et al: NASA’s press release. NASA reprints and explains one of the key figures from the article that appears in the current Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
“Because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels seen in the last 12,000 years. This color-coded map shows average temperatures from 2001-2005 compared to a base period of temperatures from 1951-1980. Dark red indicates the greatest warming and purple indicates the greatest cooling.Click image to enlarge.”
Now imagine those kind of temperature changes added to current temperatures by 2050, and then doubled or tripled by 2100. Hockey sticks will probably become featured items on Antiques Road Show.
Falwell Refuses To Apologize For Lucifer Attack, Swears To Repeat It ‘Over And Over Again’
Appearing on MSNBC today, Rev. Jerry Falwell responded to criticism of his recent attack comparing Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) to Lucifer. Asked whether his remarks were disrespectful, Falwell said, “I do not.” MSNBC’s anchor then asked, “So I take this to mean that will you not be apologizing to Hillary Clinton?” Falwell answered, “No, I will say it over and over again.” Falwell said it was clear his comments were tongue-in-cheek “because there’s no way that Lucifer’s going to run [for president].” Watch it:
[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2006/09/falwellclinton.320.240.flv]
Full transcript: Read more
Who Gets The Blame?
Dan Drezner literally wrote the book on economic sanctions, so I don’t dismiss his opinion lightly, but his optimism about the prospect that a gasoline embargo on Iran will produce the desired results strikes me as off-base:
That said, rejecting the gasoline embargo strikes me as a huge mistake. Iran is also not like North Korea in that there’s actually a middle class in Tehran and environs that like their cheap gasoline very much, thank you. I concede that the possibility of a nationalist backlash is there — but just because Ahmadinejad is painting the conflict as a civilizational one does not mean that Iranians are buying it. There’s a decent possibility that of a lot of Iranians taking out their economic frustrations against Ahmadinejad’s government — especially after Iran’s government spends so much on Hezbollah.
I mean, I dunno, let’s think about it. You’re sitting in Teheran, and all of a sudden western nations — nations that have nuclear weapons — impose a gasoline embargo and your financial situation goes to shit. These nuclear-armed western powers say the embargo will be lifted as soon as your government disavows uranium enrichment. Your government says they’ll disavow uranium enrichment in the context of a regional nuclear-free zone — i.e., Israel gives up its nuclear weapons. Israel, of course, won’t do that and the nuclear-armed gasoline-embargoing western powers won’t lean on Israel to do it. Do you blame Teheran, or do you blame Washington, London, and Paris? In principle, it could go either way, but I think that you only need to have very mild anti-Israel sentiments for this to look like the West imposing an unfair double-standard on the nation and people of Iran. Obviously, it’s not going to look like that to Americans, but I have a hard time imagining that the “blame Iran first” interpretation of the situation is going to gain a lot of Iranian adherents.
Another secret Iraq report.
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, today disclosed the existence of a second classified National Intelligence Estimate “that gives a grim assessment of the situation in Iraq, and called for it to be shared with the American public — before the November elections.” TPM Muckraker has details.
Bush Administration’s Pre-9/11 Focus Was Missile Defense, Not Terrorism
In her interview with the New York Post, Condoleezza Rice falsely claimed that President Bush’s pre-9/11 anti-terror efforts were “at least as aggressive” as President Clinton’s. In fact, the 9-11 Commission disputes that account. While the Bush administration should have been preparing for a potential terrorist attack, it was instead focused on developing a costly missile defense system. Here are the facts:
Clarke Handed Over Plan To “Roll Back” Al Qaeda. “The terrorism briefing [in the White House Situation Room in Jan. 2001] was delivered by Richard Clarke … [S]enior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations…say that Clarke had a set of proposals to ‘roll back’ al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, ‘Response to al Qaeda: Roll back.’ Clarke’s proposals called for the ‘breakup’ of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel.” [Time, 8/4/02]
Bush Said “Most Urgent Threat” Was Ballistic Missiles. In a speech on May 1, 2001, Bush said, “Unlike the Cold War, today’s most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.” [Bush, 5/1/01]
Bush’s Priorities Did Not Include Al Qaeda. “After his first meeting with NATO heads of state in Brussels in June 2001, Bush outlined the five top defense issues discussed with the closest U.S. allies. Missile defense was at the top of the list, followed by developing a NATO relationship with Russia, working in common purpose with Europe, increased defense spending in NATO countries, and enlarging the alliance to include former East European countries. The only reference to extremists was in Macedonia, where Bush said regional forces were seeking to subvert a new democracy.” [Washington Post, 4/1/04]
