Bush: We Need To Stay In Iraq to Protect Oil Fields
Bush: We Need To Stay In Iraq to Protect Oil Fields
It’s not breaking news that, in response to protests and plummeting polls, President Bush and company have launched a frenzied PR campaign to defend the war in Iraq. And it’s equally unsurprising that, to make the case, the president employs the soaring rhetoric of freedom and responsibility, or, as he did last week, praises the sacrifices of American families. But in comments yesterday at California’s North Island Naval Air Station, Bush rolled out a new rationale for why we should stay in Iraq:
If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks; they’d seize oil fields to fund their ambitions; they could recruit more terrorists by claiming an historic victory over the United States and our coalition.
In other words, Bush publicly acknowledged (for the first time, according to the Boston Globe) what many had already feared: he believes we need to stay the course, in part, maintain control of oil supplies in the country.
Points for honesty?
Extreme Home Makeover: Iraq Edition
Yesterday’s NYT had a peculiar but fascinating story about the growth of reality television in Iraq. It turns out that while constitutional democracy is proving somewhat difficult to export, this signature facet of American Culture is thriving.
The Times piece focuses on a show called “Materials and Labor,†a home repair program run by the publisher of the respectable Azzaman newspaper, and inspired by the likes of “This Old House” and “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.” In other words, it’s just like reality television in America! Well, except for that small Iraqi twist:
Since its start, the show has financed the repair of six homes. Two of those were destroyed by car bombs, two during the detonation of munitions by American soldiers, one by American armor and the sixth by an American airstrike.
…
[“Materials and Labor†writer Majid] Samarraie said each episode, by showing the ravages of war and the callousness of politicians, serves as a critique of the Americans and the Iraqi government.
You know your occupation is going badly when it takes a reality television show to clean up the debris.
Pat Robertson Isn’t Very Sorry
After a less than enthusiastic response to his suggestion that America should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (the editorial pages of virtually every major newspaper in the country condemned him yeserday morning), Robertson claimed that his comments were “misinterpreted.†Now that this has been shown to be blatantly untrue, Robertson has apologized. Sort of. At least that’s what you’d think if you read the headlines this morning:
The New York Times: “Broadcaster Offers Apology for Calling for Assassinationâ€
USA Today: “Robertson issues a denial, then an apologyâ€
The Wall Street Journal: “Robertson Apologizes For Chavez Remarksâ€
The Washington Post: “Robertson Apologizes for Calling for Assassinationâ€
The LA Times: “Robertson Apologizes for Chavez Remarksâ€
But what the papers fail to note (or note only in passing), is that Robertson’s apology statement (read the whole thing) concluded with an argument that attempts to shore up his original call for assassination:
The brilliant Protestant theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lived under the hellish conditions of Nazi Germany, is reported to have said:
“If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can’t, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.â€
On the strength of this reasoning, Bonhoeffer decided to lend his support to those in Germany who had joined together in an attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer was imprisoned and killed by the Nazis, but his example deserves our respect and consideration today.
There are many who disagree with my comments, and I respect their opinions. There are others who think that stopping a dictator is the appropriate course of action.
This contradicts his apology. Indeed, Robertson seems to be raising the stakes: he cites as an analogy a “brilliant” man who tried to kill Hitler, believing it to be the Christian thing to do.
Still, I’m sure Robertson will clarify his comments. Again. For the third time.
Bush: Less Popular Than Nixon During Watergate
Via Atrios, an American Research Group poll released today shows that George Bush has dropped to staggering new lows:
George W. Bush’s overall job approval ratings have dropped from a month ago even as Americans who approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president are turning more optimistic about their personal financial situations according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush’s handling of the economy, 33% approve and 62% disapprove.
Among Americans registered to vote, 38% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 56% disapprove, and 36% approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 60% disapprove.
For a little perspective, recall that Richard Nixon’s approval rating in the summer of 1973 (when the Watergate scandal was in full swing) was 39%.
Compared to Bush, that’s downright sunny.
Cheney on Iraq: Clarity in its Last Throes
Yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney was on hand at the National Convention of the Military Order of the Purple Heart to talk about Iraq. The speech was full of the usual pabulum and dishonesty about the conflict, and there were even some bad jokes (“at ease, please,†he jestingly opens his remarks)—strange, coming from a serial draft-dodger.
But Cheney wasn’t there to talk up an imminent victory, or to discuss the last throes of the insurgency. He was there to claim that we have clarity: “Our mission in Iraq is clear,†Cheney tells the crowd. And again, in closing: “We will not relent in this effort, because we have the clearest possible understanding of what is at stake.â€
Last Month, General George Casey, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, told reporters that large-scale troop withdrawals could start as early as next spring. Then, just last Monday, we learned that a troop increase can be expected in the short term. Three days later, President Bush said no decision had yet been made on whether troop levels would increase or decrease. Just yesterday, we learn that 700 new troops will be dispatched to Iraq.
Ah, very clear. Everyone on the same page?
Mo’ Money, Mo’ Lobbying
Jack Abramoff may have been indicted on criminal charges, but big-time lobbyists don’t seem to be losing any influence. A survey released yesterday by the Hill found that lobbyists are on pace to set new records for revenue this year:
Though conventional wisdom holds that election years typically see a decline in lobbying expenditures as party strategists and supporters move beyond the Beltway to the hinterland, lobbying spending actually grew last year. Spending grew to $2.14 billion in 2004, a 7 percent increase over 2003, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.
The growth trend seems like[ly] to continue.
That survey, taken alongside a study by the Center for Public Integrity, paints a startling picture of how powerful lobbyists have become. The CPI found that, at the state level, lobbyists (all 38,000 of them) spent almost 1 billion dollars in 2004. For a sense of comparison, that’s five lobbyists and $130,000 for every state legislator in the country.
It’s a lot of lobbying, in other words. And those numbers don’t even speak to the intense lobbying that takes place every week on Capitol Hill.
No, the ridiculously pork-laden energy bill and highways bill speak to that.
Nothing Personal, Just Release The Documents
Nothing Personal, Just Release The Documents
It was another disappointing week for those who want a complete picture of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. On Monday, the Reagan Presidential Library released 5,300 pages relating to Roberts’s service as a lawyer in the Reagan administration, but withheld 478. Just today, the Reagan Library (along with the National Archives) released an additional 38,000 pages of documents, but withheld nearly 2,000 more.
It’s a bit difficult to understand why. In both cases, the claim was that the documents fall under exemptions to the federal Freedom of Information Act. But it’s rarely explained which exemptions are used: of the original 478 pages withheld, 459 were said to fall under privacy exemptions (specifically, sections 6 and 7C). And while it’s hard to find a breakdown of the FOIA exemptions cited for the documents withheld today, we do know that privacy exemptions played a part.
But the administration has stated over and over and over again that John Roberts is a man who keeps his private life separate from his public roles: because he’s such a lawyer’s lawyer, they say, we shouldn’t think that his public actions give us insight into his private life. Scott McLellan summed it up best, when asked about the Roberts memos: “I think there’s a distinction between advocating on behalf of a client and someone’s personal views.â€
But if Roberts is so good at separating public and private, why are we expected to believe that releasing these documents would violate his personal privacy? (Senator Leahy has expressed similar skepticism on this point.) Given what they’ve said, administration officials owe us an explanation of why, specifically, these documents deserve the privacy exemption.
The Nazi Analogy is Wrong, Unless You’re James Dobson
The Nazi Analogy is Wrong, Unless You’re James Dobson
When Senator Dick Durbin likened detainee treatment at Guantanamo Bay to that of Nazi prison camps and Soviet Gulags, conservatives were quick to attack. Scott McClellan called Durbin’s remarks “reprehensible,†while Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, said they were “grossly unfair and hurtful.â€
Eventually, Durbin tearfully apologized for his comments. And why not, right? The Nazi analogy might work at a high school debate tournament, but it isn’t appropriate (or effective) at the level of national politics.
That is, unless you’re James Dobson, founder of the uber-conservative Focus on the Family. In that case, you can say whatever the heck you want. Just last week, Dobson compared Senator Bill Frist’s surprising stance on stem cell research (which he supports) to the Nazis’ disgusting WWII medical experiments.
“The Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind,” he said on his radio show last week, in reference to Frist’s stand.” He continued: “there’s a higher order of ethics here.”
This is especially interesting because Dobson helped Tony Perkins–the same one that criticized Dick Durbin–organize the recent Justice Sunday II rally, and then spoke at the event. Interestingly, Perkins is yet to demand an apology from Dobson.
But not to worry, we’re sure it’s just an oversight–any minute now, conservatives like Perkins will leap to Frist’s defense and demand an apology from Dobson. After all, to do otherwise might, to some observers, appear flagrantly inconsistent.
Any minute now. It’ll happen.
UPDATE: Hand Dr. Dobson a shovel and he’ll dig his holes a little deeper every time. In trying to clarify his outrageous comment, Dobson indignantly explained that he hadn’t equated stem cell research to the Nazis. He merely said it was “Nazi-esque.” Sheesh. (LISTEN HERE)
Bill Richardson and the Minutemen: Bordering on a Mistake
Bill Richardson and the Minutemen: Bordering on a Mistake
It should come as no surprise, especially after reading yesterday’s fawning LA Times profile, that New Mexico governor Bill Richardson is going to great lengths to gear up for a 2008 presidential bid. But it’s a bit surprising when the governor starts talking about one of his signature issues — immigration — in terms that contrast starkly with his record. On Friday, citing smuggling and crime, Richardson declared a “state of emergency†in four of New Mexico’s border counties and lambasted the federal government for failing to crack down on illegal immigrants. And, most disappointingly, Richardson asked to meet with Chris Simcox, the president of the volunteer vigilante group the Minutemen.
While crime and drug smuggling are no doubt serious concerns that need serious consideration, illegal immigration itself is a complex issue, as Richardson should know. Meeting with Simcox, and thus implicitly legitimating a radical fringe group like the Minutemen, fails to appreciate the nuances. After all, these are the same Minutemen that the border patrol has said “could cause more trouble than they preventâ€; the same Minutemen that the Aryan Nation homepage linked to (and called for “ALL ARYAN SOLDIERS†to join); the same Minutemen that, bizarrely, derided Condoleeza Rice as a “communistâ€; and the same Minutemen that spawned a host of imitators who carry firearms on patrol. This just isn’t a tough call: Richardson should not be meeting with them.
In 2003–when his presidential ambitions were considerably less public — Richardson told a rally of the “Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride†that “New Mexico is your home.†“Thank you for coming to Sante Fe,†Richardson swooned. “We will protect you. You have rights here.â€
That certainly isn’t what the Minutemen are saying, and Governor Richardson shouldn’t be encouraging them.
UPDATE: Media Matters reports that the WSJ has issued a retraction on the original claim that Bill Richardson had asked to meet with Minutemen President Chris Simcox. We regret having used the erroneous report, and apologize to Governor Richardson for the error.
On Iraq, the Difference a Day Makes at the NYT
On Iraq, the Difference a Day Makes at the NYT
This weekend, the New York Times carried two weirdly different front page pieces on the lives and living conditions of American soldiers in Iraq. First, there was Saturday’s report on all the wonderful amenities and cool gadgets that soldiers can find at Camp Liberty. With a carefree nod to “the occasional random mortar attack,†Kirk Semple chirpily describes life at a military base that “has the vague feel of a college campusâ€:
The soldiers live in trailers on a grid of neat gravel pathways, and the chow hall offers a vast selection of food and beverages, ethnic cuisine nights, an ice cream parlor and, occasionally, a live jazz combo. Camp Liberty, like many other bases, also has Internet cafes, an impressively stocked store, gymnasiums with modern equipment, air-conditioning everywhere and extracurricular activities like language and martial arts lessons.
Wow! Reading this article, you just might end up thinking that life in Iraq is pretty good-comfortable, even. But don’t pack your bags for Baghdad yet, because Sunday’s New York Times had another–and much less sanguine–front page story on Iraq. In harrowing detail, Michael Moss describes the recurring failure to provide amble body armor for thousands of American soldiers:
For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks by insurgents.
…
The effort to replace the armor began in May 2004, just months after the Pentagon finished supplying troops with the original plates - a process also plagued by delays. The officials disclosed the new armor effort Wednesday after questioning by The New York Times, and acknowledged that it would take several more months or longer to complete.
If you take the stories together, then it looks like American soldiers have no problem obtaining karate lessons, digital cameras, DVD and MP3 players, televisions, video games, laptops and live music, but still can’t get ahold of reinforced armor that might actually stop bullets.
Which do you think is more important?