Month: September 2012

Live-Chatting “The Democrats’ Reagan” Newsweek Cover Story

A new study from human rights researchers at NYU and Stanford explores the effects of the US drone warfare on Pakistani civilians. Joshua Hersh explains:

The study, which was released on Tuesday, relies on some 130 interviews with civilians living in the regions of northern Pakistan where targeted drone strikes have been most frequent. Working with the activist group Reprieve, the team of professors have added to the growing body of literature that argues, contrary to Obama administration claims, that numerous civilians have been killed, and many more traumatized, by the drone strike program.

"Drones hover 24 hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles and public spaces without warning," the report said. "Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves."

Relying on data compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the study's authors say that between 2,562 and 3,325 people have been killed in U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan since June 2004, and between 474 and 881 of them were civilians.

Basically, one out of every four victims is a civilian. With family. And friends. I understand how hard it is to target with "surgical" accuracy and I don't doubt that we do our best. But those numbers, in so far as we can judge them, go over the "just war" line for me. Pre-emptive warfare with one in four fatalities as civilians does not fit in my book. I can see the logic. We have strafed the ranks of al Qaeda more effectively than ever before. And we're getting out soon enough, mercifully. And while I urged a quicker withdrawal and against the Obama surge, I saw the logic behind the counter-terror strategy. But we may live with its consequences for a while. And they may be worse than we think.

Friedersdorf goes through the harrowing first-person accounts. We tend to think of a drone attack as a one-off event; we don't understand that they are a permanent aerial siege for everyone within range. This study helped me understand that aspect of the drone war better, and why its costs – as well as its benefits – are real:

Safdar Dawar, who leads an organization of tribal journalists, gave a superb description of what life is like for every innocent person in North Waziristan: "If I am walking in the market, I have this fear that maybe the person walking next to me is going to be a target of the drone. If I'm shopping, I'm really careful and scared. If I'm standing on the road and there is a car parked next to me, I never know if that is going to be the target. Maybe they will target the car in front of me or behind me. Even in mosques, if we're praying, we're worried that maybe one person who is standing with us praying is wanted. So, wherever we are, we have this fear of drones."

Jerome Taylor zooms in on another element of the report:

[A]n increasingly common tactic now being used in America's covert drone wars [is] the "double-tap" strike. More and more, while the overall frequency of strikes has fallen since a Nato attack in 2011 killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and strained US-Pakistan relations, initial strikes are now followed up by further missiles in a tactic which lawyers and campaigners say is killing an even greater number of civilians. The tactic has cast such a shadow of fear over strike zones that rescuers often wait for hours before daring to visit the scene of an attack.

Greenwald calls the study "vitally important" and says it once again exposes the myths of the drone warfare program:

As I've argued before, the worst of these myths is the journalistic mimicry of the term "militants" to describe drone victims even when those outlets have no idea who was killed or whether that term is accurate (indeed, the term itself is almost as ill-defined as "terrorist"). This media practice became particularly inexcusable after the New York Times revealed in May that "Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants."

Read through previous Dish coverage on the morality of drone warfare here.

(Photo: A US 'Predator' drone passes overhead at a forward operating base near Kandahar on January 1, 2009. By Joel Saget/AFP/Getty Images.)

"This last thing, where he was going on about the 47 percent who are dependent on government, is hard to swallow. I think I’m part of the 47 percent he is talking about. But I don’t want to be dependent on the government,” – Kenneth Myers, a Republican who lives in Mansfield, Ohio, and is unemployed.

The one-minute ad above is the Romney campaign's response to the fundraiser tape fallout, deploying a drastically different tone from most of the campaigns ads and with Romney himself making the direct appeal to voters. Note how he repeats the word compassion and tries to draw a much more gentle contrast between himself and Obama.

The trouble is: the instant transformation might make things worse. Voters could look at this and say "This is just another sales technique. He'll try anything." The ideological shape-shifter becomes a human shape-shifter. He actually underlines the difference between his snide, callow remarks about half of Americans at a big fundraiser … and this new Mr Rogers version. Roger Ailes would have planned this media image from January on. But the GOP base had their chance, and Jon Huntsman got nowhere. The whole thing reinforces my conviction that this is a party in a near death spiral.

They cling to bromides from 1979, trying to repeat the unrepeatable in utterly different circumstances. Both Romney and Ryan live in bubbles – among mega-money-men and life-long Rand-groupies – utterly alien to most Americans. This is a riveting moment: a party nearing the edge of what could be a psychic break. By which I mean:

Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired reality testing; that is, they are unable to distinguish personal subjective experience from the reality of the external world.

Wow: the covers for Andrew Sullivan’s last three Newsweek stories on Obama, put together, are really ….. somethingis.gd/aSoMOC — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 24, 2012

A reader dissents in a way:

This is a story more properly written after Obama wins a second term – writing it now is putting the cart way before the horse, in terms of substance. So running it now is obviously nothing more than partisan hagiography – an attempt to boost Obama’s standing in advance of the election. All I can say is: Thanks!

You’re so welcome! I’m going to tackle this and other dissents in a live-chat today at 1.30 pm right here on the Dish. But meanwhile, let ’em rip. Another:

I don’t disagree in broad strokes, and I know you were imagining outcomes rather than predicting them.  But let me quickly raise four things that I think your article does not address: 1. In terms of “legacy” items, Obama is not ever going to get a major immigration deal done. 

That issue is too “emotional” (to be charitable) for the GOP, and they are not going to let Obama, the first African American President, strike such a major legislative deal because they know it would, in your own words, make Obama a “Latino idol overnight.”   Nixon could go to China, but Obama can not go to Mexico.  The GOP will wait for a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio to milk whatever political benefits are there.  But not before then.  (Wanna bet $10 thousand dollars?)

2. Republicans will not experience a “reevaluation” after this election (and certainly not after a Romney loss) that will lead to a sensible, Bowles-Simpson “grand bargain.”  Something big will happen because how the stars are aligned in terms of the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the sequestration cuts, the next impending debt ceiling vote, the ever-present threat to shut down the federal government, etc.  But this will be chaotic, tumultuous and dangerous, and (I predict) the real measure of the entire Obama two-term presidency. 

Why?  Because the national debt is not a “problem” that Republicans are struggling to address (see, e.g., further tax cuts and increased defense spending).  As you know full well, the debt was purposefully and candidly created by Republicans as a rhetorical tool and (yes) a fiscal dilemma to exploit as a vehicle to achieve ideological goals – elimination of EPA, reduction of SEC and IRS, opposition to SS and Medicare, etc.   The national debt is something to exploit, not to resolve.  Republicans are not going to suddenly get “responsible” on the debt when they have spent so long creating that debt to achieve their goals. (And I am not being partisan about this.  They have been open about this “starve the beast” strategy for 30 years.  Why are people pretending otherwise?)

3. The other unspoken word is “austerity.”  Consistent with the above, your essay and other postings have focused on resolving the “debt problem.”  However, going into the “fiscal cliff” talks, Obama will have to be focused on a larger fight – one addressed by Paul Krugman.  It is a fight about “austerity” and Keynesian economics.  In the short term, Obama needs spending, stimulus, infrastructure, and state aid for hiring teachers, cops, nurses, and firemen (stuff we always did in the past).  Republicans know this.  In addition to other threats (e.g., a national debt default), Republicans are going to use every such “austerity” pressure point to extract concessions on tax rates and revenues. 

Again, Obama has a massive fight in front of him and it will be a defining event for him.  I know I will have neither, but for me: I want the Democrats’ FDR, not the Democrats’ Reagan.  You already have the Democrats’ Reagan with Clinton.  If nothing else, let’s allow ourselves to imagine larger than Clinton or Reagan, no?

4. Last point:  if Obama wins a legislative majority (or in the midterms), he needs to push through some government reform.  Get rid of the hostage-taking debt ceiling.  Reform the Senate filibuster (e.g., make these old coots actually show up with a sleeping cot and commit to their position).  Get rid of faux “Senate sessions” that don’t allow recess appointments.

You know, I realize as I write this that I am not looking for the next Reagan.  I am looking for a fighter against the “Reagan legacy.”  That’s the core difference between us.  It’s an honest disagreement, but give me the next Truman, the next FDR, or even the next Clinton.  But for God’s sake … don’t give me Obama as the next Reagan.  Let’s not aim that low.

Another:

A quick thought after reading your piece: There is an elephant in the room and for some reason it seems to exist in a world apart from our current politics. It was never mentioned in your article, and I have heard so little about it during this election season that I’m becoming increasingly afraid for my future, as well as the future of any human who plans to live longer than, say, another decade or so.

Climate change has irreparably changed our planet. Even if we completely stop producing greenhouse gasses today, there is so much CO2 built up in the atmosphere that temperatures will continue to rise for at least half a century. Our oceans are rising, sources of fresh water are melting away, droughts are causing food price spikes, and outbreaks of invasive species are endangering humans and destroying our native ecosystems. And as you noted yesterday, we just finished the 36th August in a row to be hotter than the 20th century average. I sure as hell hope Obama gets a bipartisan debt deal, because the price tag of beating back this unfolding catastrophe is going to be monumental.

Eli Lake reports:

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya. Nonetheless, it took until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge that the Benghazi assault was a terrorist attack. 

Nick Gillespie believes the delay was political:

Using “The Innocence of Muslims” as the proximate cause for a spontaneous attack – as opposed to a cover for an attack on September 11 (of all dates, for christ’s sake) minimizes the adminstration’s responsibility for screwup after screwup. Hey, it’s not American policy that’s causing the problem, it’s thoughtless YouTube provocateurs that are stirring up anti-American hatred in the Middle East.

CNN has gotten into hot water with the administration for airing portions of Stevens’ journal in which he discusses rotten security for him and the American mission in Libya (a State Department official has called this act of journalism “disgusting”). But even assuming the “Innocence” was the cause of the attack on the consulate, that doesn’t exonerate American incompetence in protecting its people there.

Agreed on the last point. But one should also take into account the fog of the post-Qaddafi state, where militias roam, and confusion can rein – and the legitimate need for a government not to credit al Qaeda until absolutely certain. But that there was some rather deft politicking about something that really should not be exploited politically is a black mark. Romney’s sins are often of commission; Obama’s of omission. Speaking of which, is climate change even on the agenda of the next administration in any serious way? You wouldn’t know so from the campaign.

"A new Mitt Romney–sporting a previously hidden sense of humor, showing a new sure-footedness in foreign policy, and facing a surprisingly gaffe-prone President Obama who seemed thrown off balance by growing global chaos, exceeded expectations at last night's debate…" – a future Romney-come-back media story line, predicted by Bob Wright.

Dina Martina is currently performing at the Laurie Beechman Theater in NYC through the 30th. Details here:

DINA MARTINA: AMPLE WATTAGE, like all of Martina’s surreal shows, is a nearly indescribable night of unique entertainment that assaults the senses like no other show. Perhaps the best description of Dina comes from a glowing review in Seattle’s famed alternative weekly The Stranger: “Her voice sounds like a cat having an epileptic fit on a chalkboard, her body moves like two pigs fighting their way out of a sleeping bag, and her face looks like the collision of a Maybelline truck with a Shoney’s buffet. But Dina redefines what it means to be a star.”

Buy tickets here. I’m a hardcore fan – and saw her show eleven separate times this year in Ptown (and it’s the same show with only minor tweaks every night). Dan Savage was her lighting man in her early Seattle shows.

That is the current “now-cast” in Nate Silver’s model if the election were held today. Romney’s odds in late August peaked at 37 percent. So his odds of winning have been reduced by 90 percent in less than a month. We wait for Obama’s convention bounce to subside –  and it bounces up once again. Now, Silver knows that there will be – surely – a regression to the polarized meme. His November 6 forecast gives Romney a 20.3 percent chance of winning. But the latest data from Florida and Ohio are just devastating. Ohio has probably gone for good, barring some dramatic shift. Here’s the poll of polls for Florida since June:

That’s with heightened sensitivity and includes Rasmussen. But even if you smooth it out as much as you can, Obama’s lead is solid. In Florida he is now polling higher than at any point this year and is well past the 50 percent mark. And this:

In the Florida poll, among the those who say they are “definitely” going to vote, more respondents identified themselves as Democrats (36 percent) than those who identified themselves as Republicans (27 percent); independents were 33 percent. The Florida poll found that Mr. Obama holds nearly a 20-point lead among women, while Mr. Romney’s edge among men is about 3 points.

I don’t think that Romney can buy this kind of shift back with casino money or Rovian slanders against a more popular man. He has to persuade those voters back. The debates are his last chance. But if Obama is seen as winning them – and the argument he has to make is simply more popular in specifics than Romney’s – I can see this race breaking even more open.

We have found that Romney in general loses votes the more he opens his mouth in public and private (two categories fast merging). He’s lost the core terms of this campaign (it’s now a choice, not a referendum), he has lost the specifics (the vagueness of his tax plan is indeed a red flag), he is insisting you can cut the debt by cutting taxes for the very rich like him, then calls half the country deadbeats, leading to ads like this:

This might be getting close to over, mightn’t it?

Why not just make up shit to insinuate that Obama is asleep at the wheel on terrorism (where his four-year record makes Cheney’s eight years look pathetic)? David Karpf sighs:

Take a look at the latest “fact check” post by Glenn Kessler.  Washington Post opinion columnist Marc Thiessen commissioned a study by his business partners at the conservative Government Accountability Institute.  They then made up the statistic for him that President Obama has “skipped half of his intelligence briefings.”  Thiessen put it in his column, failing to disclose the relationship.  Karl Rove’s American Crossroads SuperPAC then featured this in their newest ad, citing “Marc Thiessen, Washington Post” as a third-party validator of the “fact.”

Kessler the fact-checker looks into the claim and finds no evidence for it — it’s based on the number of days that Obama, after reading his daily briefing, asks for an in-person follow-up.  There are no “skipped meetings.”  Nonetheless, Thiessen gets to respond with his own bogus messaging on the Washington Post‘s opinion pages, likely spurring the right wing message machine further.

Pareene points out that Thiessen is a repeat offender. Will Sommer is amused by the Pinocchios arms race. I remain staggered that someone who is such a partisan operator, poisonous propagandist and supporter of war crimes (if America commits them) was rewarded in the Washington village with a sinecure at the WaPo. The man justifying Cheneyism – the most disastrous period in US foreign policy since Vietnam – gets a step up the Washington media ladder, which, happily, now leads nowhere and increasingly means nothing.