Month: April 2007

“Outputs”

We have another Bush Orwellianism: "outputs", as opposed to "outcomes," in Iraq. Money NYT quote:

If lawmakers remain in Baghdad, said one senior American official who did not want to be identified because he was discussing internal White House deliberations, ‘we’ll have some outputs then." He added, "That’s different from having outcomes," drawing a distinction between a sign of activity and a sign of success, which could take considerably longer.

So the bar for the Iraqis keeps getting, yes, lower. Now the president is telling us not to expect any measurable progress by September – no actual "outcomes."  Instead, we are to look for "activity." Did Maliki shave this morning? Did Sadr take his afternoon walk? I guess this might be another device to lower expectations – lower them? – but it’s essentially a statement that we have no reason to believe that the current strategy can do anything serious to affect the entire country – but that we’re staying with it anyway. By September, there will be a reckoning. My guess is that September is the moment that a critical part of the Congressional Republican party abandons this war. Bush needs a miracle to avoid that. And it appears he isn’t expecting one.

Quote for the Day

"Under the protective canopy of the no-fly zone — actually it was also called the "you-fly-you-die zone’ — an embryonic free Iraq had a chance to grow. I was among those who thought and believed and argued that this example could, and should, be extended to the rest of the country; the cause became a consuming thing in my life. To describe the resulting shambles as a disappointment or a failure or even a defeat would be the weakest statement I could possibly make: it feels more like a sick, choking nightmare of betrayal from which there can be no awakening" – Christopher Hitchens on Iraq. And yet Kurdistan endures. Long may it do so.

Byrne and Bees

I didn’t mean to endorse all his views on the disappearing bees by my one-liner. I just couldn’t resist a pun. This reader does actually make sense:

Real scientists are looking at a pathogen right now, although they still don’t know what’s up.  He’s letting his (quite unscientific) biases against genetically modified food guide him to conclusions that confirm his preconceptions. There is no data right now suggesting GM crops have anything to do with this, and only crazed anti-GM ideologues will tell you otherwise.

Also, his Einstein quote is most likely made up, which makes sense, seeing as he was a physicist and not a biologist.

The GOP and Civil Unions

The New Hampshire development has been very revealing about where the parties now stand. Remember that when the Republican leadership favored the Federal Marriage Amendment, they said they did not necessarily oppose civil unions. They were lying, of course. All the anti-marriage amendments are designed to strip gay couples of any secure legal footing under the law. The Christianists are not fighting for the semantics of the word "marriage". They are fighting to ensure that gay couples are kept inferior under the law – because, well, they believe our relationships are inferior. Giuliani believes his three marriages qualify him to deny gay couples equality under the law. Ryan Sager exploses the grim truth:

This New Hampshire civil union bill has forced all of the major candidates — the Big Three in each party — to take public positions. And the somewhat surprising result is that all three Democrats support it and all three Republicans oppose it. This is surprising because the Republican primary field is supposedly so socially liberal. And it may well be. But Messrs. Giuliani and McCain seem to have decided that that’s not going to fly in the GOP primary.

It’s not a crazy calculation. But when your images are A) straight talker and B) take-no-prisoners tough guy, it’s hard to reconcile with such clear pandering.