High Horeshit
In this issue of the Washington Post, "paleo-conservative" George Will
attempts to revitalize the underpinnings of his beloved conservative movement. It's no wonder that he feels the need to offer this up after over six years of conservative policy in action: the whole project is a total failure.
Gaze upon this:
Conservatism embraces President Kennedy's exhortation to "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country," and adds: You serve your country by embracing a spacious and expanding sphere of life for which your country is not responsible.
The last bit added is void of any meaning at all. Here he hijacks one of the most famous statements by a Democratic president and turns it into slurry. So, you serve your country for things you'll never be responsible for? Huh?
Here is the core of a conservative appeal, without dwelling on "social issues" that should be, as much as possible, left to "moral federalism" -- debates within the states.
They never are though. George would like these issues to be state issues during presidential election cycles, and they might be if the religious Right hadn't taken over the base of the Republican party. And there's the rub; the core mantle of conservatism can never fail. Not in George's eyes. It's just been implemented badly. Slice away the offensive parts, and it's beautiful.
On foreign policy, conservatism begins, and very nearly ends, by eschewing abroad the fatal conceit that has been liberalism's undoing domestically -- hubris about controlling what cannot, and should not, be controlled.
If we're to believe this last bit, we have to completely forget George W. Bush's doctrine of preventative war, and the administration's vision that we
could control what couldn't controlled. To be fair, Mr. Will could be describing what he believes is the high-minded version of conservative philosophy, but to find any of it believable, we need to pretend George W. Bush and his movement never called themselves "conservatives". It's beyond ridiculous.
Digby has written the definitive core axiom at work here:
"'Conservative' is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives' good graces. Until they aren't. At which point they are liberals."
Update: Greg Anrig over at TPM Cafe gives Will's article the full treatment,
here.
"Torture Betrays Us..."
This from two former officers:
Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.
They write in the
Washington Post:
...We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.
And, this is quite a slam on our current president:
The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.
Steve Benan
comments:
Josh Marshall adds, “The legacy of this imagination is frightening to behold, its philosophy of force and violence, its lawlessness.”
There are 613 days left in Bush’s presidency. That several of his would-be GOP successors share his twisted values is depressing. That Republican audiences applaud these values is beyond painful.
Kevin Drum
adds:
I don't write much about torture these days because the whole subject just makes me ill. I know that's a lousy excuse. I'm sorry. But if I'd tuned in to Tuesday's Republican debate and heard the crowd hooting and hollering as the candidates played "can you top this" over who was most willing to take up the mantle of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, I probably would have lost it. It's not just that it's depraved, it's demagogic, and it's depressing, but also that it's dimwitted. Macho talk about torture may be a great applause line on the right-wing rubber chicken circuit, but it does nothing to make us safer.
It's a really important piece.
Go check it out.
White Man Loses His Mind
That would be Lou Dobbs of CNN on his broadcast tonight over news that the Democratically controlled Congress and the President just might find some consensus on an immigration bill.
Watching it was quite something to behold. He was definitely tweeking. If and when the proposed bill passes, watch for a full meltdown. He also reported on the fact that the minority population had reached 100 million, and will soon be rising.
Lou's message is pretty clear: a Brown America is really unwelcome on his watch.
The only flavor you can get of the show remains
here.
Here's a sample question for Lou: Given that Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists were arrested at the Canadian border in 1999, stopping the planned attack to blow up LAX, why aren't we pushing for a wall between the U.S. and Canada?
Leaving Iraq
What will Iraq look like if American troops start pulling out? There's plenty of talk about doing just that, but almost no discussion about what it would mean to the people of that destroyed country. Mort Kondrake (
Roll Call) provides us a
glimpse into what it might look like, and I'm surprised he actually wrote this in a column for publication:
Roll Call executive editor and Fox News contributor Mort Kondracke writes today that if President Bush’s escalation policy doesn’t work, his Plan B should be “winning dirty,” which involves “accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious.”
[...]
"Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency. There likely will be ethnic cleansing, atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows."
First off, let's leave out the whole "winning" vs. "losing" talk; It's completely counterproductive to the current discussion. Mort is actually on to something here. What he's describing here is the dirty little secret about Iraq that in more polite circles dare not be mentioned: this outcome is inevitable. Folks on the Left may be appalled, but the situation is so bad there, there are no good options left. The only options left involve the killings of massive numbers of people, and sadly, most of them will be civilians. Here's Kevin Drum on
Al Qaeda in Iraq:
...namely that the fastest way to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is probably for us to leave and let the Iraqis do it themselves. Republicans don't want to acknowledge this for the obvious reason: they want to stay in Iraq and this doesn't help their cause. Democrats, I suspect, also don't want to talk too much about this, but for a different reason: because it tacitly condones the reason the Iraqis can do a better job than us of stamping out AQI. It's not just that Iraqis know their own neighborhoods better than us (though that's part of it), but that when it comes to exterminating AQI Iraqis would almost certainly be far more brutal about it than Americans. That's not really a subject anyone wants to bring up in polite company. But that doesn't make it any less true. If we leave Iraq, the country is unlikely in the extreme to become an al-Qaeda haven. Partly this is because it's rage at the American presence itself that provides a big part of the fuel for AQI's growth. Our withdrawal would eliminate that source of rage and devastate AQI's ability to continue its recruiting. Partly it's because, as we're seeing in Anbar province right now, even Sunni extremists don't like AQI. Left to their own devices they'll kill off AQI jihadists in order to protect their own tribal turf. And partly it's because once we withdraw, non-Kurdish Iraq will be free to finish its inevitable transition into a Shiite theocracy — a transition that's sadly unavoidable whether we stay or not. Yes, this transition will be bloody, but in the end Iraq will almost certainly be composed of the Kurdish north, which has no use for al-Qaeda; the remaining Sunni sheikhs, who also have no use for al-Qaeda; and the victorious Shiite central government itself, which likewise has no use for murderous Sunni jihadists on its soil. Between the three of them, AQI isn't likely to last a year.
Of all the reasons for staying in Iraq, a desire to finish off AQI is by far the least convincing. It's our presence that largely keeps AQI going, and our withdrawal is the surest way to ensure their demise. It won't happen without a lot of bloodshed, but it will happen.
Trust me, the people that advocated for this war never gave a shit about the Iraqi people in the first place, and the war's detractors need to come to terms with just how bad the situation has become. Thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people, are going to die. Sorry, that's the bottom line whether we stay or go. Civil Wars only end when on side loses, and the American occupation of Iraq will only delay that resolution.
Much missed was this tidbit from David Ignatius' Washington Post column that appeared on Wednesday, May the 9th. In the context of U.S. - Saudi relations,
Ignatius wrote:
The ferment in the region is driven partly by the perception that U.S. troops are on the way out, no matter what the Bush administration says. To dampen such speculation, Bush is said to have told the Saudis that America will not withdraw from Iraq during his presidency. "That gives us 18 months to plan," said one Saudi source.
The Failure of Conservatism
The absolute repudiation of the ideology of Conservatism is one of my mental hobby-horses, and while I certainly don't write about it enough, a group called
Take America Back actually held an entire conference on just that subject. Joy.
They've posted a debate between Robert Kuttner and William Kristol arguing "Can Conservatives be Trusted to Govern",
here. Quick answer: if they had any interest in governing, they might care, and therefore be good at it, otherwise, not so much. I thought Kuttner handily won the debate, but that's partially due to how much material he had to work with. As he pointed out, when George W. Bush was elected, the conservative movement had reached it's zenith. They had six years to enact all their pet projects, and the result was near-complete failure.
One thing I found interesting is Kristol's behavior; he's always much more contrite and thoughtful in settings like these. On Fox News Sunday he presents himself as the quasi media administration guy, chock full of his false bravado tough talk bullshit. I give him credit for showing up in such a hostile environment though; good for him.
Not be missed though, is writer and historian Rick Perlstein's posts on Republican primary politics. I've been contemplating a long post on the Wall Street Journal's resident shitmouth John Fund, but let's have Rick start us off,
here:
Writes John Fund: "The general election may be a year and a half away but the Democratic National Committee has already released its opposition research packet on the three leading GOP contenders -- just in time for reporters covering tonight's Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library in Los Angeles."
He seems confused by the the way Democrats argue about their opponents - baffled, apparently, that it focuses merely on, you know, why they'd be bad presidents.
He concludes: "for real, substantive dirt on the Republican candidates, we'll have to depend on the GOP candidates to do their own opposition research."
What's going on here?
Allow me to explain. Character assassination, sabotage, and deception and subterfuge are not incidental to conservative politics but central to it. To them, politics without such things doesn't even feel like...politics. Catch them in a relaxed moment, and they freely admit it - with relish.
One thing that was pointed out, but never quite stated in this way is, just how the Conservative Shitty Government Feedback Loop works: Get elected on a "clean up" Washington agenda, appoint completely incompetent people to head top governmental agencies, when these agencies fail, blame the government for being unable to get anything done, have right-wing gas bags state that government never does any good at all, and then elect more idiots who can't govern.
As for the rest, Perlstein drops some nice stuff in the rest of that
post.
California Republicans
Ah, a special breed they are.
"Duke" Cunningham,
Jerry Lewis,
Gary Miller, and what? Who's this? Oh! It's none other than John Doolittle! Josh Marshall gives us a
peak into his little world:
Important to keep in mind, of course, that Doolittle is a serial bamboozler of the most egregious sort. And perhaps he's arguing that FBI raids are actually a new congressional fad like frisbees or the Macarena. But I'm curious whether he knows something here or just more blowing smoke.
The TPM Gang has all the
dirt you could wish for on this guy. I'm just thankful my last name ain't Doolittle. No offense meant for all the Doolittle's of the world, but...whatever. Nevermind.
Bloggy blog blog
I'm a terrible blogger. Why? I don't post news thingys with commentary as often as I should.
For your daily Bloggy Goodness, please go visit
The Carpetbagger Report. Although I would imagine the proprietor of said blog may object, it comes with the official Marble Composition Seal of Approval.
It won't be the last time I've been called a disappointment.
Oh yeah, if you would look some insight into how laughably stupid bloggers on the Right are, please visit the Boys over at
Sadly, No!
From The Wires...
From the AP:
JONESTOWN, Virginia. - At a ceremonial luncheon today, Vice President Richard B. Cheney struck England's Queen Elizabeth II in the face today, breaking her jaw and sending her to Jonestown's Augusta Medical Center with a slight concussion. In a similar incident, Cheney hurled an empty wooden barrel at his wife, Lynne, crushing her left leg. Mrs. Cheney was also sent to the hospital with a collapsed femoral artery. Both women were listed in stable condition, but were held overnight for observation.
The Vice President stated that both women were "matriarchal cunts" that had haunted him for decades, and that he had been biding his time for the attack until he had both of them in the same place at the same time. He also stated that "the uppity niggers" that were included in the Jonestown presentation for the Queen had upset him greatly, but that given his knowledge of Virginia Common Law, he knew he could fell the two aging women without consequence. Unfortunately for the Vice President, he had no knowledge that an attack on African Americans in Virginia bears no legal consequences either.
Cost of The Iraq War
...broken down by the cost to each state (via Daily Kos),
here.
What I found striking is how much more us blue-staters are paying for the war than tax payers from red states. For example, here are Idaho's numbers:
24 killed
220 wounded
$1 billion
and here are Connecticut's:
24 killed
205 wounded
$9.2 billion
Of course, blue states pay much more into the Treasury than red/southern states anyway.
