NYTimes to McCain: Dude, You Can't Write

Forgetting for a second that McCain probably didn't write the thing himself, let's take a look at that Iraq policy op-ed of his that the NY Times refused to publish, in a move that has our favorite libertarian Frances Martel up in arms.

I’m not a John McCain fan by any means, but what glorified liberal rag The New York Times did to him and his editorial today crossed boundaries of objectivity and decency that should not have been crossed.

I think there's another answer, and it's this: McCain, or his speechwriter surrogate, submitted a genuinely unpublishable piece. Take a look for yourself over at the Drudge Report, which I commend for bringing this issue to light--not because I care about self-referential analysis of old media by new media, but because this op-ed is seriously educational, in a bad way.

Full disclosure: I think the surge worked. I thought it would, and I'm glad we did it. I do think we should think about eventually leaving a country we had no business in in the first place. But none of this has anything to do with why McCain's piece was rejected. I doubt it would have been accepted by the Crimson. It's a thinly-disguised attack ad, a shallow and partisan rhetorical stream. Case in point: It mentions Obama ten times. Ten. I'm excluding pronouns. (Examples, and much, much, much more, after the jump...)

Read more »

264 Pages

Evaluating the Surge

I'm back from across the border! I've got some new organisms living in my stomach and some new insights on  the immigration debate, but those will come soon.  

First things first,  here's a  scathing portrayal of just how, and why, the Surge is failing miserably, by Patrick Cockburn, a brilliant British journalist for The Guardian. 

Surge? Remember that thing Bush made a huge deal out of, and we all protested, then everyone sort of forgot about ? (what's it called in current CNN parlance? "Iraq fatigue" among the general public? Pathetic. I'm sure the Iraqis are a hell of a lot more fatigued than we are.)  Anyway, the surge (surprise surprise) is still going on, still not working.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2841425.ece 

If you read one thing this summer--

--make it David Rees' essay tearing Michael Ignatieff apart.

Ignatieff, for those who don't know him, is the sanctimonious douche who used to pontificate at the K-school's Carr Center for Human Rights about how awesome the Iraq War was, and then left to make an abortive foray into Canadian politics; David Rees is the Get Your War On guy. So the essay goes about like you'd expect. Here's a sample:

Ignatieff:

We might test judgment by asking, on the issue of Iraq, who best anticipated how events turned out. But many of those who correctly anticipated catastrophe did so not by exercising judgment but by indulging in ideology. They opposed the invasion because they believed the president was only after the oil or because they believed America is always and in every situation wrong.

Rees:

"Always and in every situation wrong?" Come on, we all like it when America wins at the Olympics, right? I bet even Ward Churchill had a crush on Mary Lou Retton, back in the day. Good thing they didn't make a baby together, though! Wow! That would have been an intense baby-- unlimited negative energy vs. unlimited positive energy and all that! For real, though: You anti-war people have got to admit, Ignatieff has you nailed. You dumb-asses who were right about everything for the wrong reasons, instead of wrong about everything for the right reasons. You lose.

Ignatieff:

An intellectual's responsibility for his ideas is to follow their consequences wherever they may lead. A politician's responsibility is to master those consequences and prevent them from doing harm.

Rees:

Right off the bat, he's saying: "It was right for me to support the Iraq war when I was an academic, because academics live in outer space on Planet Zinfandel, and play with ideas all day. But now, as a politician in a country that opposed the war, I'll admit I screwed up, because politicians must deign to harness the wild mares of whimsy to the ox-cart of cold, calculated reality." So, although his judgments were objectively wrong, they were contextually appropriate. Sweet! You've been totally 0wn3d by Michael Ignatieff! And so have all those dead Iraqis.

Ignatieff:

The people who truly showed good judgment on Iraq predicted the consequences that actually ensued but also rightly evaluated the motives that led to the action. They did not necessarily possess more knowledge than the rest of us. They labored, as everyone did, with the same faulty intelligence and lack of knowledge of Iraq's fissured sectarian history. What they didn't do was take wishes for reality. They didn't suppose, as President Bush did, that because they believed in the integrity of their own motives everyone else in the region would believe in it, too. They didn't suppose that a free state could arise on the foundations of 35 years of police terror. They didn't suppose that America had the power to shape political outcomes in a faraway country of which most Americans knew little. They didn't believe that because America defended human rights and freedom in Bosnia and Kosovo it had to be doing so in Iraq. They avoided all these mistakes.

Rees:

Yeah, you're right, they did. Do you know why? Because they're not retarded.

Just go read it all. You'll thank me later.

At Least It's Something

I can't write at length, because I'm in Canada and my internet connection is borderline useless. You think your dialup is slow? You ain't seen nothing. I'm pretty sure every packet of data this computer receives is being read and relayed individually by a beehive-haired switchboard operator named Mavis. (Hi, Mavis!) Ah, summer.

But I do want to offer some consolation amid the smoking heap of worthlessness that is our Democratic Congress. Yes, we blatantly capitulated on Iraq timetables, handing the president yet another blank check to send soldiers into the meat grinder; yes, Harry Reid sounds like a buffoon on the radio saying we're going to "continue pushing" or whatever it is, even though we've already done everything but hand the president our balls on a silver platter; and yes, the White House is suddenly NOW considering a plan to seriously cut deployment, which if effected would give them political cover to take credit for ending the war and kneecap Democrats' whole 2008 election effort. These are not exactly good developments. In fact, one could reasonably argue that we have been played like a goddamn fiddle.

HOWEVER. There is another story: you may not have heard, but we raised the minimum wage. Tucked into the bottom of that voluminous Iraq bill was a provision hiking the federal minimum wage by $2.10/hr, to $7.25, which affects 5.6 million people in 22 states. We've been fighting for this for a long time; while it sucks to attain it under these circumstances, the fact is that Democrats helped a lot of people this week. For the first time in 10 years, our workers are going to get some relief. Naturally behind the Iraq thing it's not getting a lot of press, but then the good stuff never does.

So give a little credit to our friends in Washington. Sure, they might be a bunch of spineless cockstains, but they're our spineless cockstains and they're working their hearts out for the good of the American people -- finally, with concrete results. This is progress.

--

Hope everyone's exams went well, and congrats to our departing seniors. Keep reading Dem Apples over the summer; if it's anything like last year, we'll be updating just sporadically enough that new posts will be a pleasant surprise. Also expect them to be even more irrelevant and poorly-conceived than usual, if that's possible. (By August it'll probably just be nudie pics.) Happy Memorial Day!

Con-Sarn It

Fascinating numbers out of the latest Gallup poll -- they break down people's opinions on the war (mistake vs. not mistake) by age bracket. I have bolded the parts that grabbed me:

Did the United States make a mistake in sending troops to Iraq?

By age:

18-29 Yes - 56% No - 41%
30-39 Yes - 48% No - 50%
40-49 Yes - 52% No - 47%
50-59 Yes - 61% No - 38%
60-69 Yes - 62% No - 37%
70-79 Yes - 70% No - 28%
80+ Yes - 69% No - 26%

Holy shit. This is telling on a couple of levels. First, Attaturk of Rising Hegemon hits the nail right on the head in pointing out that the only age groups which still significantly support the war -- 30-49, basically -- "have no real recollection of Vietnam, and boy does it show." Absolutely. These are people whose formative experiences came in the late 1970s or the 1980s, just past the problems of the 60s and of Vietnam, but before the end of the Cold War and the Great Mellowing that ensued... no, this is the Reagan Generation, whose heyday was bookended by disco on one side and hair-metal on the other, and whose understanding of the world centered around Godless Communism and SDI Defense. These are people whose experience of military conflict boiled down to this:

Do not underestimate the colossal mental deadening that happened in the 1980s. You had to shut off your critical faculties just to survive the fashion, for chrissake, let alone the music. It produced a race of drones, incapable of thinking for themselves or grasping any kind of subtleties. These people still exist, having emerged in a sort of shell-shock; you see them today numbly mowing suburban lawns, mumbling to themselves, their hair gelled and their skin tan behind their hideous Ray-Bans. They still get their news off of shit TV or perhaps listen to Rush Limbaugh, and have no deeper comprehension of today's issues than their infant children. ("Global warming? But it's cold outside! Ha ha ha!") Their interest in anything does not extend beyond themselves and their immediate surroundings. They respond well to "Head On! Apply Directly To The Forehead" commercials. In other words, they are perfect Bush supporters.

(At this point I feel like a Dave Barry quote is in order. "Am I generalizing here? Yes, of course. But as is usually the case when I generalize, I do not care.")

Most of us young people understand fairly intuitively, I think, that these people are our enemy. Yuppies, and the like. Some of us are unfortunate enough to have them as our parents. (Me, I am blessed to have Baby Boomer parents, and the real kind -- Class of '72, with the sign-waving and the long hair and everything. Definitely outside the age bracket in question.) Inasmuch as they continue to blindly, stupidly support a blind, stupid political agenda, they cannot be tolerated; the yuppies MUST BE STOPPED.

----But there is a crucial second factor to be considered here -- the comparatively overwhelming opposition to the war among people 70 and up, normally a soundly conservative demographic. That's right, I'm talking about old folks. They can be very valuable to us.

First, to extend the war-experience frame, consider that everyone in this group experienced WWII (the youngest, this year's 70-year-olds, would have been 8 on V-J Day). I have no doubt that that would color their insights on military conflict, and it lends them great credibility.

Furthermore, this is the Greatest Generation, a group that for as long as we can remember has insisted that it knew the score, dammit, and it wasn't going to take guff from any young punk. That they have come down so firmly against Bush's war, even as he hews quite closely to their political agenda on other fronts, is a testament both to the quality of their judgment and the sheer transparency of Bush's presentation. Sure he might have fooled the yuppies and the dittoheads, and he might have temporarily fooled many of us impressionable youth or dispassionate Gen-Xers, but Grandpa knows better. After all, just because you're going deaf doesn't mean you can't smell bullshit.

There is much to be loved about the 70+ generation. They demonstrate an often-refreshing honesty ("Get a damn haircut, you look like a girl!"). They had fabulous music and fabulous movies. Not only are they capable of enjoying clogging--

--but they can enjoy it unironically. That is a monumental accomplishment.

My point is, we should appreciate our elders for what they are -- potentially valuable allies in the fight against conservatism. Picture Lisa and Abe Simpson on a tag team together; unstoppable. So if you're at home this summer, talk to your grandparents. See how they feel about the war in Iraq. (Also clogging.) You may be pleasantly surprised.

--UPDATE: As if on cue! Over at Daily Kos, meet 93-year-old Bruce, a lifelong Republican and WWII vet, who now refers to the President as "that Bush fellow" and has registered as a Democrat. An excellent sign.

The Senate prepares for a massive flip-flop?

Hillary Clinton has proposed a "reverse authorization" of the Iraq war, a proposition I find a bit strange, a bit redundant, and frankly a waste of time. Senators spend enough time and energy as it is harping on and/or defending what they or their colleagues did or didn't do. This measure will simply detract from a real, timely plan for withdrawal.

The bill would repeal the Senate's October 2002 vote to give Bush the go-ahead on Iraq, but it's unclear what implications this has for the President's action. According to the NYT, "Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result.The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve."

We do not need to a constitutional debate. We need to bring our troops home.

Strange also, that Clinton would propose this, as her 2002 authorizing vote has been an albatross around the neck of her campaign thus far. She still won't repudiate her vote (as John Edwards has) yet she wants the entire Senate to do just that?

Gates: Timetable = Good

Guess who dropped this refreshing gem:

"The debate in Congress ... has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited. The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact ... in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."

A) John Kerry

B) Nancy Pelosi

C) Jacques Chirac

or, D) Robert Gates, Bush's hand-picked Pentagon Czar.

If you guessed, D, you're correct! Bush's top military adviser recognizes the logic behind a planned, phased withdrawal. When will the rest of Washington and the punditocracy?

Flashback

Gavin at Sadly, No! pointed out yesterday that the archives of Right Wing News are "the greatest forgotten trove of comedy since they found all those lost Honeymooners episodes". Curious to test out his hypothesis, I donned my protective facemask and went digging in the conservative catacombs. The time: September 2002. After reading about fifteen posts on "the Saddam-loving left" and almost losing my nerve, suddenly a glimmering hint of stupid caught my eye... I had found this jewel:

As we get closer to hitting Iraq expect Turkey, France, & Russia among others to also publicly favor a strike on Iraq. (!!!!! -ed.)

Now a lot of people may not understand why these nations are going to back the US after spending the last few months so publicly disagreeing with us. The truth is that the leaders of these nations would prefer that we NOT hit Iraq. But on the other hand, they know that if we decide to invade Iraq, we're going to succeed.

Do these nations really want to be on the sidelines when Hussein goes down and his people are cheering their liberation in the streets? A lot of these countries have strong financial ties to the current Iraqi regime. Those ties could easily be broken if they're perceived as backing the wrong side in the war. For example, Hussein owes Russia billions of dollars. If Russia doesn't support the war and Hussein is overthrown, you could expect to see the new Iraqi regime declare those debts "invalid" with the behind the scenes support of the United States. But if Russia plays ball, the United States would insist that Russia be paid.

Amazing. We forget sometimes -- the sheer scale of the delusion this country suffered under. This particular writer even pawed at an analysis of complex international finance issues; yet that understanding, which in normal circumstances would suggest maybe we shouldn't bomb a country much of the world is invested in, was nevertheless subsumed by total war-euphoria. We automatically win and everything flows from there. Get thee behind me, logic! The extent of the unreality is best summarized this way:

I cannot imagine how anyone who has spent more than five minutes studying the situation in Iraq could possible (sic) believe Saddam doesn't have WMD.

Yeah, how could anyone believe that? What a silly thought!

It's instructive to see this stuff directly, so I encourage you to go over to Right Wing News or any of the older conservative blogs -- plus some of the liberal ones, for that matter -- to get an idea of how deeply fucked up everyone's thought processes were back then. And after you have a sense of the size of the thing, ponder this question:

What are we deluded about right now?

------------------------------------------

UNRELATED: Make sure to read Rami Sarafa and Deena Shakir's guest post at Cambridge Common, on the humanitarian cost of the Iraq war. Being so focused on the American political side, it's an angle we often don't think to consider.

Bush: Congress Has Right to End War

Check out this quote:

Asked at a recent news conference about congressional war powers, Bush seemed to suggest that while he disagrees with efforts to set a timetable for withdrawal, lawmakers are within their constitutional rights to do so. "The Congress is exercising its legitimate authority as it sees fit right now," Bush said. "I just disagree with their decision."

Note to conservative pundits: even Bush recognizes that Congress has the legitimate authority to end the war. Bush just disagrees about which Iraq policy is best. So, stop hiding your untenable war behind fantasy constitutional voodoo, and start discussing the actual issues facing our country and Iraq.

White House in La-La Land

Declassified Defense Department report confirms that Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda prior to the Iraq invasion. No shit, really? So the White House must be apologizing right now, no?

Uh, no.

"The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June. --WaPo 4/6

Natch.

Where did Cheney get his intelligence?

From the "Fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth," Doug Feith.

This all sounds so familiar; there's nothing new to say.

Filiblustering Baghdad

Pathetic maneuvering and stalling going on down in Washington today, in a remarkable effort by Senate Republicans to do absolutely nothing about the war. They're jumping off the crazy train that is administration foreign policy faster than you can say "surge", yet are refusing to debate any of the 4 proposed resolutions on Iraq currently on the table. I was genuinely moved by the outspoken criticism of the war by people such as John Warner (R-VA) but the current Senate stalemate has Warner effectively filibustering his own resolution.

Here's the traffic report-- it's way backed up down there: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500675_2.html

A Movie I'm Excited About

No, it's not Will Ferrell's ice-romp comedy Blades of Glory...

 

War Protest

Here are some photos from Saturday's protest in Washington DC. After a rally on the national mall, with speeches by Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon, among others, the march proceeded to ring the capitol building. There was no official head count, but estimates were a few hundred thousand. I've attended every major protest in Washington since the first one before the war in 2003, and this was by far the most diverse and populous crowd. The warm weather (yay global warming!) probably helped, but still it was heartening to see so many people. There were a lot of jokes along the lines of "where are all the congressmen?" and Bush's convenient meetings at Camp David, but the general sentiment was, what else can we do besides march?

March on DC!

Quick plug for this Saturday. Anyone remotely in the DC area owes it to themselves to come out. I know they say this every time, but it is supposed to be big. Call me an idealist, but the bigger the better, let's end this shit.

Join United for Peace and Justice in a massive march on Washington,
D.C., on Sat., January 27, to call on Congress to take immediate
action to end the war.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/