Month: December 2009

Larison questions Reihan's including Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) as part of it::

The trouble with Chaffetz’s brand of “antiwar” stance is that he conceives of a “withdrawal” from Afghanistan being a prelude to the perpetual use of air strikes and targeted assassinations. His alternative of “going big” and eliminating strict rules of engagement is a pose of “freeing” the military from constraints that the top commanders themselves insist on having to give their mission the best chance of success. Barring the deployment of an even larger force with few constraints on how they operate, Chaffetz advocates a “withdrawal” from Afghanistan that will be as non-interventionist as Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. In this approach, we will reserve the right to launch attacks on their territory with impunity whenever we wish, but otherwise we will wash our hands of the place and the consequences of our actions.

James Joyner doesn't expect the tea party movement to join forces with Code Pink any time soon: 

What strikes me as far, far more likely is that Iraq and Afghanistan will once again remind us of the limits of American power and cause Republicans to be more skeptical of future wars, both in terms of intervening to begin with and in setting realistic war aims.

The result wouldn’t be a significant Republican Dove movement — even on the Left, true pacifists are a fringe in America — but a much more traditional Realist bent.   As Andrew Sullivan wrote nearly three years ago, those people dominated the Republican Party until quite recently.

Tehran Bureau is rounding up videos from today. The website translates the above as: "Dictator, Dictator, this is your last warning! The Green Movement is ready to rise!" Enduring America's extensive collection is here and here. Scott Lucas notes something interesting:

[D]emonstrators in clips in our videos have been waving Iranian flags stripped of the Islamic “coat of arms” in the centre.

The Green Movement is radicalizing. It's beocming less Islamic, less a movement to restore the Islamic revolution and more one to destroy it. Whether this will hurt or help them I don't know. But Trita Parsi is edging toward a more confrontational stance on human rights as well:

The green movement — which represents a force for moderation in the

country — is turning increasingly skeptical about US intentions.

While opinions differ within the movement as to the wisdom of US-Iran diplomacy at this time, the neglect of human rights fuels pre-existing suspicions about the objectives of American diplomacy. That is, the fear that the US is solely interested in reaching a nuclear deal and may be willing to sacrifice the Iranian people's aspirations in the process.

Looking at Iran solely from a nuclear prism proved disastrous for the Bush administration. The Obama administration will fare no better. It needs to swiftly reinvigorate its human rights approach to Iran and begin giving significant prominence to this issue.

Look: it's from Rasmussen. When a less ideological polling outfit replicates the data, the Dish will comment.

Ezra Klein made a graph from a recent Vanity Fair poll. The question: "Could you confidently explain what exactly the public option is to someone who didn’t know?" The gap is worrying, but the Dish is forced to agree with this commenter:

Hitch continues his exploration of the life and work of Sarah Palin.

A reader writes:

You are asking repeatedly why Adam Bellow wouldn't have done some elementary fact checking of her book. I believe this reflects your viewpoint and bias – derived from academia and journalism – real journalism. I believe that you may not understand the nitty gritty of shafting someone politically.

I have thought about your question: Why wouldn't an editor find the errors in Palin's book and fix them? In the political world, when someone is a "rogue", the fastest way to marginalise them is to allow them to destroy their own credibility. Give them enough rope to hang themselves. I would ask the question: Is that what Adam Bellow has done?

He considers the "zealots" to be "a different species altogether" and says he and others "hold the zealots at arm's length". Having been in politics my whole life, and having buried plenty of bodies, or at least held the light while others did it… and having been involved in various ideological and political purges, the Palin book editing questions tinkled a few obsidian bells from the darker side of politics as I've seen it practiced.  I offer the following quotes from Adam Bellow on Becoming a Conservative.

"Brock had actually put his finger on something here, something that distinguished me and other New York conservatives from the zealous "movement" types down in Washington. New York conservatives – especially the branch called "neocons," to which I belong – are a particularly diffident bunch. We instinctively hold the zealots at arm's length, regarding them as not just a different branch of the movement but a different species altogether. And for those liberals who are dreading the descent of thousands of Republicans this week, it may be comforting to know that we conservatives are dreading it, too.. But there is yet another reason for our reluctance to embrace the assumed equivalence of "conservative" and "Republican" – one that's firmly rooted in our identity as New Yorkers, and that has to do with our dislike of intellectual conformity and with our emphasis on ideas over politics."

In the quite riveting comments section on the best review of Going Rogue on the web, the following reader presents some basic conclusions about the ethics history of Palin. It's worth remembering since in the blizzard of charge and counter-charge, we can forget what we actually already know:

All of the following can be found and verified simply by googling: 1) Ms. Palin was found to have misused state funds for family travel expenses and was required to pay back $6,800 to the state. (Not addressed but probably more troubling ethically is the fact that Ms. Palin went back and amended travel expense reports to appear in compliance.)

2) Ms. Palin was found to have misused per diems on the amount of $17,000 and was required to pay back taxes of an unspecified amount including fines.

3) Ms. Palin’s Alaska Fund Trust was found to NOT be in compliance with the law. It was recommended that she dissolve the trust to stay in compliance (Or quit so that she could retain the money for herself?).

4) Ms. Palin was found guilty of abuse of power and ethics charges by the Branchflower investigation, a bipartisan (10 Republicans/4 Democrats) Senate investigation. Later, nine of her minions, including her husband, were cited for Contempt for failing to respond to the Senate investigation’s subpoena. Her attorney general, Talis Colberg, who gave her minions the advice that it was optional to obey the subpoena resigned in disgrace.

5) The most expensive ethics charge against Ms. Palin she filed on herself, the Personnel Board investigation of Troopergate which supposedly “exonerated” Ms. Palin.

In contrast to the Senate investigation, the Personnel Board consists of three people who are appointed by the governor (she appointed one herself) and can be removed by the governor. This report was also seriously flawed in many aspects, the most important was that a question of perjury (either by the governor or Mr. Moneghan) was never pursued.

6) A case which is currently ongoing involves Ms. Palin’s failure to recognize the Juneteenth celebration. Last August, a charge of state bribery against Palin was added to that case. I don’t know the status of the case but here is a link from last August:

7) There may be other ethics charges still pending but they may never come to the public’s awareness because the Personnel Board doesn’t have to make them public. In fact, the information on the AFT was leaked to the public who may have never known otherwise that her trust was illegal according to state law.

“Settling” and “dismissing” an ethics charge mean two different things ethically…..a difference that Ms. Palin and her fans apparently have trouble discriminating. BTW….Ms. Palin herself was responsible for putting in place these ethics laws and told Alaskans to “hold her accountable.” Why did she feel victimized when they took her at her word? Very troubling.

Another glimpse from Iowa:

Stan Millage of Sioux City began waiting in line at 4:30 a.m. to get his book signed. "She's a down to earth person who will fight against the government," Millage said. "I can see her out there fishing with the guys. Plus, she's hot."

Hyderabad, India, 4.20 pm