Month: October 2004

That’s the approval rating for the president in the new NYT/CBS poll. And the wrong-track number is now at 59 percent. Yes, the poll shows a tie for president. But these underlying numbers must be very worrying for the White House. On the other hand, if the public thinks things are this bad and still aren’t breaking decisively for Kerry, what does that say about the challenger? I think we’d all prefer different choices, wouldn’t we? But this is the one we’ve got.

“Things were stirred up far more than they should have been. We did not seal the borders because we did not have enough troops to do that, and that brought in terrorists.” – Jay Garner, the Bush administration’s first civilian administrator in Iraq. So both Garner and Bremer have now publicly faulted what was obvious very early on. The rest of the Michael Gordon piece makes you want to weep: because of the promise in Iraq that was lost, because of a noble, vital war undermined by arrogance and incompetence.

It does strike me as astounding that in four debates lasting six hours, the horrors of Abu Ghraib were never mentioned. Remember when we were reeling from the images? They remain the most spectacular public relations debacle for this country at war since Vietnam. And we know the underlying reasons for the abuse and torture: the prison was drastically under-manned and incompetently managed, the Pentagon had given mixed signals on what constituted torture, the CPA had no idea that it might be dealing with an insurgency and was dragging in all sorts of innocents to extract intelligence in a ham-handed manner. Although the administration has clearly done all it can to stymie Congressional investigations, it has become clear that responsibility for the chaos ultimately stops at Rumsfeld’s desk. No, it wasn’t a systematic policy. It was a function of what wasn’t done, rather than what was done – and, in that, it remains a symbol of everything that has gone so wrong in Iraq. Bush, of course, barely mentioned it at the time. He has no ability to stare harsh reality in the face – especially if it means reflection on himself and his administration. As with everything else on his watch, he was not responsible. In fact, no one was responsible except for those literally caught on camera raping, murdering and abusing prisoners in the care of the United States. And so his silence in the debates is not surprising. But Kerry’s is – and reveals a worrying lack of courage. Kerry is afraid that criticizing Abu Ghraib will make him look like a war critic, or anti-American, or somehow responsible for weakening morale. Vietnam hovers over him. It shouldn’t. What happened was unforgivable negligence and evil, a horrendous blow to American moral standing – as well as simply an outrage on a human and moral level. It didn’t affect Iraqis’ views: they tragically already believed we were as bad as these images portrayed. But it was a fatal blow to domestic morale. I haven’t fully recovered from it in my pro-war heart. I couldn’t believe America could do this. I still wince at the memory. But what I still remember was Dick Cheney’s response to criticism of Rumsfeld at the time. “Get off his case,” he harrumphed. Even after such a blow to the very core of the meaning of America, Cheney was contemptuous of holding anyone in his circle accountable. It says it all, doesn’t it?

I have to say I’m worried about the lack of a flu vaccine this year. I’m one of those people with compromised immune systems who really need to get a shot and who won’t this year because … well, I’ve been trying to figure that out. It seems to me pretty obvious that the country’s response to flu should not be dependent on one company in Britain. The Bush administration, of course, denies it’s responsible. Surprise! But their defense struck me as weak:

Health and Human Services spokesman Bill Pierce pointed out that last year, Congress only appropriated $50 million of $100 million that the administration had asked for to help companies switch to better and more efficient ways of making influenza vaccine, a process that takes months and hundreds of millions of specially raised chicken eggs.

Hmmm. And which party controls Congress? They sure don’t mind spending billions on anything else they can find. There were warnings, we are told. But the administration didn’t heed them. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? And doesn’t it also increase your confidence that the Bushies are on top of our response to a terrorist-deployed viral outbreak?

DRUM ON DREZNER: Dan Drezner who is leaning toward Kerry is still worried that Kerry’s record makes him a bad bet for confronting Jihadist terror in the future. Kevin Drum has a response well worth reading. Money quote:

[O]bsessing over Kerry’s entire 30-year public history is probably unproductive. After all, before 9/11 George Bush and his advisors had little concern for terrorism and expressed frequent contempt for things like nation building and democracy promotion. Does that affect how we feel about Bush today?
It shouldn’t, because we accept that 9/11 fundamentally changed his view of the world. We judge Bush by how he’s reacted after 9/11, not by his advisors’ long records before taking office – and I’d argue that we should do the same with Kerry rather than raking over nuclear freeze minutiae and Gulf War votes from over a decade ago. Obviously Kerry’s past illuminates his character to some degree, but a lot changed on 9/11 and I suspect that ancient history is a poor guide to his view of how to react to the post-9/11 world.

Good point. Bush in 2000 was adamantly against nation-building, paid little attention to terrorism as a threat, and wanted to spend less on the military than Gore. Should he be held to account for that today? Not really. So why should Kerry?

Damned if I know. Chris Suellentrop, however, does his bit to explain the vagaries.

REPUBLICANS AGAINST GAY-BAITING: So far, no quotes at all revealing Republican commentators condemning gay-baiting before the Mary Cheney flap. Hmmm. But, hey, I’m still open to late-comers. Meanwhile, here’s another more specific challenge. Stanley Kurtz and Maggie Gallagher have long said that they’re not anti-gay, they just believe that civil marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. They have also said that they are not opposed to domestic partnerships or civil unions – as long as they maintain a clear second-class status and do not challenge heterosexual privilege. So what do Gallagher and Kurtz say about the various state constitutional amendments now up for the vote? What do they say about Louisiana’s recently passed amendment? These amendments go far further than keeping civil marriage exclusively heterosexual. They also ban domestic partnerships, civil unions, or indeed any civil relationship between two gay men or lesbians. Here’s Ohio’s amendment language:

This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

The campaign, as Michelle Goldberg points out, has been so viciously homophobic in its rhetoric and intent and the measure so sweeping in its gutting of gay rights that even the Republican governor has come out against it. But will Gallagher and Kurtz? I’m holding my breath.

UPDATE: Here’s Michelle Malkin complaining about the RNC flier. Her complaint, however, is not an actual criticism of gay-baiting. She focuses on the ludicrous Bible-banning tactic. Close and encouraging – but no cigar.

The only reasonable response to the Bush administration’s non-existent war-planning is outrage, mixed with incomprehension. Here’s the latest evidence of their negligence. Money quote:

“The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace in Iraq is real and serious,” warned an Army War College report that was completed in February 2003, a month before the invasion. Without an “overwhelming” effort to prepare for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the report warned: “The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years, a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America’s own making.”
A half-dozen intelligence reports also warned that American troops could face significant postwar resistance. This foot-high stack of material was distributed at White House meetings of Bush’s top foreign policy advisers, but there’s no evidence that anyone ever acted on it.
“It was disseminated. And ignored,” said a former senior intelligence official.

What I simply don’t understand is the silence of so many who supported this war about the appalling amateurism with which it has been conducted. I guess they think Kerry would be worse and are therefore hiding their criticism in public. But everything I hear in private is damning – even among the neocons. The question we have to ask is: if the Bush people screwed up Iraq this badly, how do we trust them in any future military operation? But that’s a question the neocons refuse to ask.

A BLEG: We’ve been inundated these past few days by Republicans bemoaning John Kerry’s alleged gay-baiting in this campaign. Bob Novak, Bill Kristol, Bill Safire (whose appalling column today I’ve just done fisking), the entire NRO crew, and on and on. They’ve referred to Kerry’s comments in clear and bold terms: “indecent,” “shameless,” “outrageous.” I have a simple question. Does anyone have a single leading Republican voice objecting to Republican Senate candidate Jim DeMint’s statement that gays should be barred from teaching in public schools? Has any leading conservative criticized the RNC flier claiming that a vote for Kerry would mean banning the Bible and forcing gay marriage on the entire country? Has any leading conservative columnist criticized some of the anti-marriage state amendments because of their vast scope and banning of any protections for gay couples? I noticed that Jay Nordlinger did object to Alan Keyes’ description of Mary Cheney as a selfish hedonist. But did Kristol? Or anyone else? The Cheneys ignored it. I’m just trying to be fair here. I’m relieved that Bill Kristol cares so deeply about not demonizing gays. I’d just like to hear of a single instance in which he has said such a thing before. That would get to the core of his sincerity, would it not? Or his sickeningly shameless opportunism. I promise to publish in full any such previous Republican comments, bemoaning other Republicans’ gay-baiting in this campaign. So send ’em in.

“I’m not sure why, but after following your blog and others for many weeks, the latest attack from Alan Keyes just sent me over the edge. I just feel compelled to respond to the fundamental foolishness of this so-called “argument”. If his concern is the inevitability of accidental incest happening to children raised by gay parents because “[i]f you are masked from your knowing your biological parents, you are in danger of encountering brothers and sisters you have no knowledge of,” then why is it Keyes is not railing against the evils of adoption (which I’m sure the Pro-Life Republican constituency would just love)? Why is he not calling for a ban on all artificial insemination (especially from anonymous donors)? Does anyone believe for a second that gay marriage (which barely exists anywhere in the world, and that for only months now) is a primary driver behind these practices, which clearly are how this supposed risk would be introduced?”

Great point. Actually, I think adoption does logically violate the worldview of Keyes. If civil marriage is to be kept exclusively heterosexual because only a hetero couple can have biological kids, then why is civil marriage still allowed for those who adopt kids? Or those who are infertile? Or those who have no intent to have children? The anti-gay right have never answered these obvious questions. If your argument is based on biological nature, then adoption violates the most natural instinct of all: to protect your own genes. If the anti-gay right were motivated by reason, this would occur to them. But they’re not; and so it hasn’t.

Here’s a fascinating quote from Mark McKinnon, Bush’s media expert. Asked if he ever challenged Bush in argument or debate, here’s what McKinnon said: “‘Ah, yeah, sure.’ Then he paused, and laughed. ‘I prefer for others to go into the propeller first.'” And people wonder why Bush doesn’t get good advice or keeps making mistakes. And if it’s this bad now, can you imagine what he’ll be like if he gets a second term?

Kerry has a ten-point lead among likely voters under 30. But the most interesting finding is the following:

A full third (34 percent) of all young voters expect a draft to be enacted as a result of the war on Iraq, with expectations skewing higher among the youngest voters (44 percent of 18 to 21-year-olds).

For the record, I cannot possibly see how the Bush administration can achieve its global objectives without a big increase in military troop levels or a draft. But, of course, the relationship between what we need and what this administration is prepared to provide is, to put it kindly, a tenuous one.

NOW, INCEST: Alan Keyes goes on the attack again, saying children of gay parents will live in families where “incest becomes inevitable.” I await the outrage of Matthew Dowd, Lynne Cheney, Bill Kristol, Bill Safire, Mort Kondracke, Maureen Dowd, and on and on. Oh, wait. It’s only if you say a positive thing about gay people that you’re a homophobe. (Hat tip: Blueline.)

THE HOCKEY STICK LIVES! Crooked Timber blog has already tried to debunk the claims of the global warming piece I linked to earlier today. Hey, we believe in empiricism on this blog. We’re not the Bush administration. Make your own mind up.

ANOTHER CASE FOR BUSH: My friend and colleague Sarah Baxter says she’s a proud liberal voting for Bush – entirely on the war and Kerry’s insufficient cojones and intellect to wage it well. I understand her point entirely. But notice that even this pro-Bush piece concedes something the Bush people never will:

I’m bitterly disappointed by the way Bush has botched the post-war situation. The neoconservatives with the ear of the president wilfully underestimated Iraqi nationalist sentiments. I feel horribly ashamed about the degrading behaviour of American guards at Abu Ghraib prison. I am not alone, however, in both hating the mess and preferring Bush over Kerry as president.

I admire Sarah’s intellectual honesty. To look squarely at this administration’s spectacular errors and still prefer Bush to Kerry – is an honest position. Alas, it implies that Bush is capable of understanding, let alone correcting error, or that re-election won’t only entrench his own sense of infallibility.

Belgravia Dispatch makes a powerful argument. I’ll respond in detail soon. I should say that, despite the assertions of others to the contrary, I haven’t endorsed Kerry – and the fact that I haven’t, after my dismay at the staggering mis-steps of this administration, is an indication of how troubling I find his record in foreign policy. I take all Greg’s points in this regard.

TEAM AMERICA – FUCK YEAH: Parker and Stone are now indisputably the comic geniuses of their generation. The point of the movie is not nihilism – it’s sanity. Sanity against the moronic ra-ra pro-Americanism of many in the Bush camp, who seem blind to any empirical evidence, prudence, or skepticism in their attempt to protect us from Jihadist terror; and sanity against the moronic Sontagian left that fails to see any danger in the first place (except that from president Bush, of course). I doubt if Alec Baldwyn, or Arec Bardwyn as Kim Jong Il calls him, will ever recover from this brilliant skewering. Or the dumb-as-a-post Matt Damon. Or Hans Brix. The scene between the Swedish do-gooder and the little NoKo nutjob should be mandatory in every introductory class for international relations. I nearly bust a gut in the movie theater, to the consternation of the hairy one and a couple of companions. But then I’m a sucker for “r” and “l” jokes and I was brought up on “Thunderbirds.” The song, “Everyone has AIDS,” deserves to win an Oscar. And I say that as someone just a couple hundred T-cells away from AIDS. Fuck yeah.

MORE INCOMPETENCE: The evidence of how the administration has screwed up the management of the war in Iraq continues to mount.