My Little Pony
General David Petraeus was the trick pony.
George W. Bush was the wonder dog.
What a show.
I watched the former for a couple of hours earlier this week. I missed the latter when he came out barking Thursday night on national TV. I was stuck in a meeting during the President’s speech but probably wouldn’t have tuned in if I could have. What would have been the point?
This week’s little stage show was all pre-scripted and all too predictable — and the entire cast performed just as expected.
Bravo.
The all-powerful and completely discredited Commander-in-Chief could hardly come out once again center-stage and endorse a war that has become catastophic. Instead, his uniformed underling commits moral suicide and against a painted backdrop of charts and graphs and through a haze of twisted rhetoric tells us not to believe our lyin’ eyes — nor those of the GAO, nor of anyone else. Civil war, shmivel war, there’s demonstrable, verifiable progress amidst the smoking ruins of Iraq and six, nine, ninety months from now….? Well, who knows, because anyway, we were told, the good General hasn’t had the time to focus on whether or not this war makes America safer or not. Mere details, my friends.
The Prez waits a day and then gets behind a TelePrompTer and offers support to the plan that his own subordinate has unveiled. He gets the sweep of the last sixty years of history all wrong, comparing Iraq to Korea but, alas, who cares as we are rolling back Al Qaeda even though we originally went after the WMD. Mere details, my friends.
In the august halls of Congress, Republicans force a smile and reconcile themselves to six more months of defending the indefensible knowing full well they risk political extinction with each passing day. Not much they can do about it either.
The Democrats harrumph and posture and vow to impose deadlines that will be fillibustered or vetoed. But again, why should they care? They have little to lose, knowing that the longer the war stretches into the campaign cycle, the better it is for them. They have just as few of their own kids fighting and dying in Iraq as do their Republican colleagues. They throw their hands into the air and shrug. “Whaddaya want us to do anyway, bud? We ain’t got the 60 votes,” they say in explaining their impotence.
True enough. But all they need is 50 to stop funding the war. Fifty votes and two balls.
It seems to me, after this past dismal week (a four day long insult to the collective national intellect), the debate on the war Iraq is actually over. The administration has made it abundantly clear that it’s not going to budge. The vast majority of congressional Republicans have signed on for the ride. The Democrats’ yammering about non-binding resolutions and imaginary benchmarks and fungible dates has become part of the white noise.
Not much more to talk about. The only question left is who will actually move now to stop the war?
P.S. On this subject, and only in the most vaguely-related way, could My Brilliant Daughter bring a smile to this face with her latest post. (Warning: adult content!).
September 13th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
he Democrats harrumph and posture and vow to impose deadlines that will be fillibustered or vetoed. But again, why should they care? They have little to lose, knowing that the longer the war stretches into the campaign cycle, the better it is for them.
It may be good for them in the short term, but really, is it really so great for the Democrats when the war drags on into a (presumed) new Democratic administration, and that president gets the unpleasant duty of pulling the plug on this whole adventure?
September 14th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Not only stop funding the war!
Shut down the government!
Filibuster
September 14th, 2007 at 12:54 am
For Bush being such an idiot, he seems to have outmaneuvered the anti-war “movement” on every level. The democrats are elected to the majority and there are now 30,000 more troops in Iraq. So much for the democrats– they just their ass handed to them on a plate.
Over the next year the liberal-left will spend immense amount time and resources on getting a democratic president elected. Here’s news to the liberal-left, the democrats won’t withdraw the troops, anyways not until 1. they are forced to or 2. they get a compliant Iraqi regime, which looks to be years away from happening.
The US ruling class will not let Iraq be up for grabs or let the larger region devolve into chaos (if they can help it) because it’s the most important energy resource in the world. The war is really for oil, it’s a capitalist war and it needs to be opposed on those grounds. Forget the democrats.
September 14th, 2007 at 7:19 am
“it’s a capitalist war and it needs to be opposed on those grounds”
Why didn’t anybody think of that before ? Sounds like a formula for not “getting your ass handed to you on a plate” to me !
September 14th, 2007 at 7:23 am
However the phrasing was, Drydock is right.
Do you know of any other motive?
September 14th, 2007 at 8:04 am
All of this yammering about why “the Democrats” don’t just stop funding the war is as cogent as asking why Independent Bernie Sanders doesn’t just round up 49 bi-partisan anti-war votes against the war and block funding. I mean, all he’d need to do that is two balls. Right ?
Here’s the deal – the Democrats only have a dozen Senators who’ve been willing to date to vote against funding. That might possibly increase to close to two dozen after the latest round of bullshit from Bush and Petraeus – which would amount to 40-50 metaphorical balls. But the Democrats are obviously split on how far they’ll go to end the war. They’re split for the also obvious reason: although a majority of Americans want to see a withdrawal begin, no one can predict how a move to simply block all military funding – which is what “defunding the war” would constitute – would play out in public opinion. I believe it’s the risk worth taking and that the dozen Democrats who have to date voted against funding are doing the right thing. But it’s idiotic to “yammer” as though the votes to accomplish this are sittiing there for the picking or that it’s not controversial or risky from a political perspective, which boils down to a “majority-public-opinion perspective”, like it or not. (Let the “shill” brickbats begin, because I actually try to explain the political reality rather than whine and stamp my feet about it.)
This is a no-brainer, but the “white noise” and tell-me-something-we-all-already-know yammering about the Senate Democrats not being able to find “two balls” between all 49 of them continues – I guess because it’s a satisfying masturbatory substitute for actually doing anything to try to make the Democrat’s kinda-sorta-majority stronger in will as well as in numbers. (‘Cuz, you know, it’s a capitalist war and the Democrats are capitalists and/or eunuchs and there’s-not-a-dimes-worth-of-difference and stuff like that.)
September 14th, 2007 at 8:37 am
“Do you know of any other motive?”
Actually, I can think of about a half-dozen. At the risk of being called an anti-Semite, I believe that an ideological affinity for the Zionist right-wing had more to do with the actual machinations within the administration that created the conditions for this war than “oil” or generic “capitalism”. Oil companies would have been more than happy to deal with Saddam for Iraqi oil. Why did Cheney oppose the sanctions when he was with Halliburton? They don’t give a shit. All they need is “access”, not “control”. And, frankly, even when “access” becomes limited, they make even more money via price increases. It’s not 1945. (The oil companies will also make plenty of money long after “peak oil” and as “green energy” comes online because they’re going to be first in line with the R&D for replacing themselves as predominantly oil companies. Sorry about that.)
The biggest benefit to capitalists has been two-fold, neither of which has much of anything to do with capitalism as a mode of production. One is the insiders ripping off taxpayers via government contracts. The other benefit is to the oil companies, not via “control” of Iraqi oil, but by the war limiting Iraqi oil production and pushing up oil prices. The oil companies will make their money one way or another. I’ll go so far as to say that at this point most “capitalists” who aren’t crackpot ideologues or military contractors want nothing more than to see the Iraq war end because the overall impact on the economy is negative. I would bet that at this point, the crazy quilt regional politics that Iraq has made worse are making the oil guys a bit nervous, if they do stop to take a breather from counting their money.
The folks who are keeping the war going are the professional “hegemonists” who fetishize American power. These folks are paid, if one wants to be reductionist, to legitimate the global dominance of American capitalism, but they operate in a realm of ideas and “conventional wisdom” that has taken on a life of its own – and in some cases like Iraq they can actually conjure “hegemonic” or “strategic” foriegn policy goals that don’t make any sense in generic “capitalist” terms.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Marc you got the number wron. Its “41″. That is the number that sustains a filibuster. All the Dems have to do is refuse to vote on ANY appropriations bill that doesn’t include a timetable for withdrawal. Bush may be a “Unitary Executive” but not even the Federalist Society has yet proclaimed that he can spend monies not appropriated by Congress.
I realize that would entail some risk. It is certain to lead to charges in the media that They’re “not supporting the Troops” which will, of course, be the GOP battle cry. And consider headlines this morning (“Bush will withdraw level of troops” – he’s just going back to pre-surge numbers and not till next summer) it will require real salesmanship and message control. And a set of you- know-whats.
But I think the public is ready for action and wants to see a more assertive Congress. The CNN/Gallup poll showed that they think Congress and not the Decider is on the right track and has the better idea on Iraq. And let us not forget Iran.
So its “41″ – there thats easy isn’t it?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Budget bills cannot be filibustered.
See here.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Randy, that’s a BUDGET bill. An APPROPRIATIONS bill can certainly be filibustered. And its the later that lets the dough flow.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:53 am
True, but the best impact to block funding IMHO would be to leave it out of FY 2008 as opposed to simply trying to block appropriations measures.
That’s where the problem lies.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:02 am
“It’s a capitalist war and it needs to be opposed on those grounds.”
Didn’t Warren Beatty say that in “Reds”?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Pretty close. That John Reed! What a kidder!
September 14th, 2007 at 11:05 am
True Randy but the point is the Dems don’t need 60 – or 50 – votes to stop the war and bring the troops home. That is an excuse they make because they fear being branded as not supporting the troops.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Yes John Reed (Warren Beatty) rightfully considered the first world war a capitalist war. Most wars of this century have been such.
Reg-
Not at all an AntiSemite, I think that is a partial explanation. In many ways, its ass-backwards. Yes, the ideological affinity was definitely there, and if one is not a materialist historically, that will take precedence. My own view is that the superstructural economic factor – primarily controlling regional resources, is not only the explanatory factor for the Iraq war, but the reason that “a loyal Ulster” (Churchhill’s word for Israel) was allowed to exist in the region in the first place.
I honestly believe as well that it is a lot easier to blame the Israel Lobby than to look at teh economic forces that allow the Lobby to be strong. I read and finished Walt and Mearshiemer’s book in the last three days – and it was excellent, but being conservative realists, tehy not only ignore – but deny – the influence of capital.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Oil companies would have been happy…
itsn ot about individual firms in individual sectors – it is abotu the strongest capitalsit state controlling a swing oil extraction country as a demonstration of force against future competitors and to control the world’s oil supply, to compete with China, and to a lesser extent India and the EU. Whenever one comes up with a maerialist explanation for a historical affair, idealists (meaning people who believe ideas have primacy over material factors) say this or that sector would have preferred the opposite route. But the system itself, organically needs to control the region.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:28 am
If one thinks that capitalism is about access and not control, then why – according to a friend, and form what I’ve read, is a good half of intelligence service activity between Europe, China and the States industrial espoionage?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Hey, clearly fair minded writers like Marc Cooper are there waiting to make sure the Dems get a fair shake and the issues on the war stay clear. So what’s the risk?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Sometimes this blog is like a time machine. I feel like a I’ve been zapped into 1937 CUNY dormroom rap session.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I get to be Seymour Melman.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Sure, but only if I’m Gertrude Himmelfarb.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Bob Williams said …
Sometimes this blog is like a time machine. I feel like a I’ve been zapped into 1937 CUNY dormroom rap session.
************************
To me it’s more like two weeks before Super Bowl Sunday and all the sport commentators are giving their analysis of the big game. And in the end, the results of the game are in no way influenced by all the commentator analysis.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
yeah sure, Sarcastic Sieb, whatever you say. Do you have any more “brilliant” insights?
: )
September 14th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Re: CCNY and the “Battle of the Alcoves”:
Who wants to be Irving Kristol?
September 14th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
And under the heading of “Duh!?” last night FOX News was the only outlet not to carry the Democratic Party Response by Sen Jack Reed (D-RI). Yeah, right, “Fair and Balanced”!
And some people here wonder why the Dems – with prodding from the blogs – chose not to have a presidential debate there.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Melman’s the only one who didn’t at all move right.
September 14th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
You forgot Irving Howe jc.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Irving Howe did move right, at least towards an accomodation with US foreign policy, however mildly critical.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Tough times, Jcummings. Who did you support, Truman or Wallace?
September 14th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Here’s another way that Marc’s “51″ makes sense:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Course this would require courage so forget it.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
A little more of my brilliant insight into the war in Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAFaOXkLag
September 14th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
That digby idea’s a good one…the most creative concrete suggestion in the midst of an obvious impasse over maximal defunding I’ve seen yet – and, as they say, it has all of the right “optics”.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
The first part of Marc’s post is nonsense, and I know that he will respect my view on this when he sees the light.
What’s so strange or unacceptable about an administration defending its policies by marshalling its leaders and presenting the policies in the best light? There certainly are plenty of other people to show it in the worse light, and both sides do it.
If you think otherwise, then the next time there is some protest for whatever stupid liberal cause, see if they drag out people for both sides to be fair or just present their own case as best that they can. Yeah, like MoveOn.org would have a follow-up ad refuting their first one.
On the second part, you know full well that the Democrats are not going to do anything to stop the war with an election in progress and with that being their biggest issue. Heck if the Democrats actually solved problems then they wouldn’t have anything to run on the next year.
Poverty? We’re against it and will fight for it every election-but, don’t expect us to end it. Racism? Same. Immigration? Lip service. Taxes? We’ll punish the rich to ease your envy. War? Stir it up and keep it going. Terrorism? Oh, don’t mention that, because people trust the Republicans on this and not the Democrats.
What a bunch of liars and deceivers, and most of the people whom they fool are the ones who need the most help and who will never be free and independent as long as the Democrats talk rather than solve.
How can anyone vote for those lying Democrats who put themselves above their country?
Hillary Clinton is going to get the Democratic nomination and everyone of you who plans on voting for her should hide your heads in shame.
I’m finished.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
jcummings – we’re not going to really agree on the “capitalism” question, but my graf about “fetishizing American hegemony” is essentially an attempt to recognize that there’s not a simple materialist explanation for such events in terms of “capitalist self-interest” and that even things with clear material roots (i.e. the very presence of U.S. imperial power in the Middle East) can take on, for lack of a better phrase, “a life of their own” that ceases to have a rational connect to a purely material “cost/benefit” assessment. History is littered with projects – probably ultimately even capitalism as we’ve known it – that fell victim to their own hubristic assumptions and over-reach. I think in some smaller way this has clearly happened with the pro-Iraq war crowd.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
“Fair and Balanced” Media – take 14028
When John Kerry botched that “Joke” the media were all over him. Suggesting that a decorated war hero would be “anti-Troop.”
John Boehner says the dead are a “small price” and, aside from some Dems and (to his credit) John McCain, no one outthere in the MSM is making a big deal of this.
I’ve heard it said that is because the Narrative is that liberals hate the troops so Kerry fit in.
Maybe that’s not bias. But it sure as hell is lazy or has no one in the media noticed how the GOP screws the troops or the vets when it comes to money?
But that would get in the way of a good story. . .
September 14th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
No, Boehner didn’t say, that “the dead are a ‘small price.’” I saw Kerry’s post in Huffington. Just another misleading smear from the Democrats. Look at the context. What can be rightly assumed is that what price we pay now more than offsets the many more lives that we would lose later. Are you people stupid or just deceitful? Never mind. It’s both.
September 14th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
I voted for George Bush am I am damn proud to be a Republican and would never vote for a Clinton.
September 14th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Jcummings:
Above, you wrote that most wars of this century were capitalist wars. Which were not?
September 14th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
For clarification I don’t think oil companies were particularly interested in the war. I do think that the idea of militarily dominating this important energy region was appealing to the neo-cons. I think some right wing zionists and war profiteers played a more minor but not insignificant role in lobbying for this war.
I never thought the democrats were going to defund the war. At this point in history, like I mentioned above, a total withdraw that would allow for Iraq and possible the wider region up for grabs, something the US ruling class I would mildly speculate isn’t about to let happen.
Putting immense amount of time and energy into supporting the democrats by the anti-war movement has been pretty much a failure. Perhaps a more radical strategy would have failed also, but we will never really know.
Anyways I got to go back to work so forgive me for any bad grammer and spelling.
September 14th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Not even my parents were born yet, but I’d of supported Wallace without a doubt.
I think there is always a core material reason in fetishizing hegemony. Why be hegemon without the riches?
September 14th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
reg – I don’t disagree with anything you say, I just stipulate that any of these permutations and lives-of-their-own could not exist without the underlying material superstructure.
September 14th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I think Stan Goff has the right ideas for the antiwar movement, easily findable for anyone with interest.
September 14th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
September 14th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
In reply to Chimpy McBush Haliburton Hitler’s State of the Quagmire Address, Democrats had their best shot ever at offering an alternative vision for American security. A safe majority of Americans consider the Iraq war a mistake and Bush either malign or incompetant.
However, the same unerring genius for political defeat that earns our Democrat-controlled Congress lower approval ratings than the Snickering Simian himself was deployed, yet again, to hand Foriegn Policy and Defense to the Republicans for years to come, no matter who gets elected President.
You can go on YouTube and see it for yourself.
Senator Jack Reed offers the Democratic alternative strategy for American security by:
1. arguing that our misbegotten war in Iraq detracts from hunting down OBL and:
2. assuring us that Democrats are more competent and qualified than Republicans are to protect us against “Al Queda and other terrorist groups.”
We are also assured that Democratic policy “addresses” “regional issues.”
And that is the sum total of Democratic nuance and subtlety on the subject of terrorism, world security, the Mid-East, the International Security System and American defense.
As rhetoric of a certain sort, that “and other terrorist groups” coming out of the side of Reed’s mouth can’t be improved upon, but the genius of proposing to address “regional issues” opens up a whole new way of thinking: that there is this like this region that has issues.
September 15th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Chimpy-McBush-Haliburton-Hitler the Snickering Simian in his State of the Quagmire Address?
Ack! Too many competing images.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:25 am
“And that is the sum total of Democratic nuance and subtlety on the subject of terrorism, world security, the Mid-East, the International Security System and American defense.”
Sum total? Obviously math is not your forte, Samuel. It was one man’s statement, cut down to fit into the time constraints. That you would expand that to a “sum total” is a beautifully unwitting acknowledgement of how badly you have to botch the math to make your worldview add up.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Like I said before, the choice isn’t between withdrawal or “staying the course” to a possible future victory.
The choice is between withdrawing hastily in the same catastrophically underplanned, domestic-politics-driven way we entered the war in the first place OR agree to face facts and begin a more orderly withdrawal now.
As for strategy, the silver bullet the Democrats seem unwilling to shoot here is framing the Iraq war as part of the bigger geopolitical picture. And by bigger, I mean the total geopolitical picture.
China is a legitmate long-term threat to U.S. interests. At the moment, however, it’s not a significant military threat, but it’s developing into one and it really could go either way. The simplest math of heading for 2 billion in population with an economy growing 10 percent a year, governed exclusively by communists should tell all that the potential threat is very, very serious.
The Democrats can look–and be–tough on national security by pulling the country out of its pathological perma-war mentality that insists on inflating bin Laden’s tiny band of freaks into a global rival for influence.
The big picture is that bin Laden must be handled for what he is: an annoying pustule that needs regular attention, but not surgery. He is a threat to public safety, not national security. That is a simple fact and the Democrats could show it, tell it and lead the country into a more sustainable, credible, realistic foreign policy focused on real, substantial, long-term threats by serious global competitors such as China.
We know bin Ladenism contains the seeds of its own destruction. It’s literally a suicidal ideology that divides and, more than any other movement in recent history, requires extreme desperation as fuel for expansion.
Left alone, we can be sure that radical Islam would reach its suicidal conclusion. It may take a long time, but every alternative to igoring it takes a long time as well. The only way radical Islam can possibly survive is in a world where all rival civil institutions are destroyed.
To the extent that we can prevent the destruction of civil institutions, we can prevent radical Islam.
Unfortunately, the Democrats seem locked in a paradigm where tough equals more military solutions and diplomacy equals weakness. Incredibly, the seem poised to lose again in 2008 and while I hate to see my country hurt that way, it would be a richly deserved defeat.
September 15th, 2007 at 6:55 am
China is a threat to US hegemony, not at all US security.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:40 am
jc you’re aware, I’m sure, that Wallace repudiated his “Progressive” buddies and supported Ike in 1952.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Sorry Woody, but the Boehner was asked on CNN about the US dead and wounded and he said it was a small price. He’s also made statements since making that point. But I’ll give you props for spin!
September 15th, 2007 at 10:40 am
As did IF Stone (Ike was more dovish than Truman)
September 15th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Ah the Boehner! The gift that keeps on giving! Now that CNN (thanks to prodding from the blogs) is on his “small price” comment the newest response from the House Minority Leader is this: Those mean Dems are picking on me because they want a US defeat in Iraq!
WAH!
September 15th, 2007 at 11:10 am
What can be rightly assumed is that what price we pay now more than offsets the many more lives that we would lose later. Are you people stupid or just deceitful? Never mind. It’s both.
He said what he said. It’s there for posterity.
No matter how much the bastard son of Yosemite Sam and Ross Perot wants to spin this otherwise, it was callous. Even John McCain said that he should retract it.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Even if one accepted the financial aspect of it – as Boehner’s post-facto ass-covering seems to be making, that’s idiotic as well. The total spent so far is in excess of $500 billion and the end is nowhere in sight.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Actually Randy Boehner was given that out but he said “no”, he meant the troops. What a putz!
September 15th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Richard,
His spokesperson made this statement:
It’s all here: http://tinyurl.com/25lrta
I haven’t seen anything that indicates he reiterated that he meant the troops, just his CYA statements like the one above.
September 15th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Well Forget Boehner. We’ve got a better one. Dave Rye says Yance Grey, one of the NCO’s who wrote that oped and was killed last week was “too Dumb” to write it!
Rye is a GOP shill and radio guy in Missoula.
Cross these guys and they get touchy!
September 15th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
And America’s favorite father-son necon war mongers are at it again. Those wacky Kagans – authors of the “Surge” – have a piece in the WEEKLY STANDARD opposing the Webb Ammenment.
Sen Jim Webb (D-VA) – a decorated Marine Vet of Vietnam – has a proposal that would require the DOD to keep personnel stateside at least as long as their deployments overseas. This is designed to reduce the wear and tear on the troops and their families from multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Too much paperwork for the Pentagon, say the Kagans (proud members of the “101st Fighting Keyboardists” – none of whom have worn the uniform – natch!) and would tie up the Army and Marine Corps keeping track of each individual. Besides, sayeth one of them – if they want to come home its easy: Win the war! Hey, why didn’t the troops think of that?
September 15th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Honestly, the idea that the Dems are afraid of being labeled “Anti-Troop” by these clowns surpasses understanding. Just let Webb and Murtha (and Kerry and Reed (D-RI and a WEst Pointer) and Joe Sestak (That’s ADMIRAL Joe Sestak) and Murphy and on and on . . .) carry the fight. And compare and contrast to the GOP draft didgers from the Pres and VP on down to the Boehner!
September 15th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Since he’s a Republican, I’m inclined to believe Boehner meant monetary investment when he talked about the “sacrifice.” Only problem with that is that they haven’t seen fit to actually sacrifice anything by raising taxes to actually fund their war.
In other news. albeit off-topic, Alan Greenspan apparently considers George W. Bush the most ignorant, irresponsible President among those he served as regards fiscal policies and Clinton the best informed and most focused on problem solving. What the hell do the remaining conservatives in the tank still see in the guy and why the hell are conservatives who actually care about traditional conservative issues like fiscal policy so antagonistic to Clinton(s) ? Never have been able to comprehend this.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Rupert Murdoch sure prefers Clinton.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I’ve been meaning to write about Greenspan. It really takes nerve on his part to dis the GOP now after all the damage he did as Fed Chair. Maestro! What ajoke!
September 15th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
“China is a threat to US hegemony, not at all US security.”
At the moment, China is poses a credible threat to neither. But who would assume the world will stay that way?
A billion and a half people in an economy growing 10 percent a year lead by a “communist” autocracy. Do the math and you’ll immediately see how such a country by dint of that alone poses a potential threat.
At the moment, the commercial interests of our two countries are too intertwined and China’s leadership has created a growth paradigm where their survival at the top depends almost exclusively on delivering economic growth, not on delivering macho-insecurity salve via military aggression.
But China’s growth will slow. When that happens, the leadership isn’t simply going to give up, swear growth will return eventually and have elections. Instead, it may will turn to the formula of military aggression to gain domestic political leverage, stoke short-term growth and maintain power.
China is also engaged in a worldwide competition to secure access to energy, metals ore and other key resources. At the moment, it’s relying on aid and mutually beneficial business agreements to secure them, but we can be confident that some of these agreements will go south when the governments that made them are overthrown or try to prevent their overthrow (see Venezuela).
Will China stand by idly when these relationships fail, or will it rely on military power and gepolitical entanglement to maintain them?
The U.S. relationship with China is surely a positive one, on balance, at the moment. Keeping it that way won’t be easy and the U.S. needs to concentrate maximum diplomatic and military resources to this issue, not to bombing out tiny, poorly armed, poorly funded, divided bands of suicidal religious freaks.
September 15th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
I imagine when China starts really needing room resources, they’ll take Siberia. Fortunately for them, Russia is a demographically doomed nation, anyway.
September 15th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
China is certainly a threat to US hegemony, but I don’t tihnk they aspire to be a hegemon, rather, like just about everyone else, myself included, would like to see a multipolar world. (Canada is often most independent in such situations of playing powers off of each other)
You are right abotu commercial interests, but if – and probably when – the US economy hits the skids, China may need to diversify, and indeed, with its far bigger (and like it or not, more positive) influence in the developing
September 15th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
(hit send) – continues..
You are right abotu commercial interests, to a degree it is a mexican standoff, but if – and probably when – the US economy hits the skids, China may need to diversify, and indeed, with its far bigger (and like it or not, more positive)image and influence- “soft power” in the developing world, and strong and growing ties to traditional US allies, it may well be willing to let the T-bonds fall where they may.
I don’t see the disaster you foresee in Venezuela. In fact I see the opposite – and let’s not forget that with Iran and even the Saudis, and even Israel, China has good relations. Canada’s trading relationsihp is even with both countries.
I can’t believe someone like BB who has been a consistent Anti-Imperialist, suddenly is a Sinophobe. The last thing the US needs is to concnetrate any resources but a big fat kiss for keeping them afloat – onto China.
September 15th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Quote(s) of the Day: “General David Petraeus was the trick pony. George W. Bush was the wonder dog. What a show.”…
by matttbastard
Have been uber-busy this past week and haven’t done nearly as much reading as I usually would, so I initially missed this spot-on post by Marc Cooper re: this past week’s Congressional Kabuki. Worth reading in its entirety,…
September 15th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
[...] week and haven’t done nearly as much reading as I usually would, so I initially missed this spot-on post by Marc Cooper re: this past week’s Congressional Kabuki. Worth reading in its entirety, but for me this is the money quote (after the fold): The Democrats [...]
September 16th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Tough talking Republican Senator Chuck Hagel on Iraq, I wonder if Bush hears him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K48ldrUeKqI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZCeUhLkGto
September 16th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Comparing Nixon’s Vietnam – Bush’s Iraq troop withdrawl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bx8MMwRPuU
September 16th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel on Bill Maher’s “Real Time”:
Maher: Isn’t a dirty trick on the American people when you send a military man out there to basically do a political sell-job?â€
Hagel: It’s not only a dirty trick, but it’s dishonest, it’s hypocritical, it’s dangerous and irresponsible. The fact is this is not Petraeus’ policy, it’s the Bush policy. The military is — certainly very clear in the Constitution — is subservient to the elected public officials of this country.. but to put our military in a position that this administration has put them in is just wrong, and it’s dangerous.â€
(Representing the “Republican wing of the Republican Party”, John McCain decided to channel “Coultergeist” in attacking critics of Petraeus, as well as assault the U.S. Constitution, with this thoughtful response: “MoveOn.org ought to be thrown out of this country.†What a scumbag… )
September 16th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I had never planned to become an expert at understanding what it takes to get legislation passed. To the extent that I have a comparative advantage, I’m pretty sure it lies elsewhere. I have to admit I’m confused about the number of votes that it takes to get something passed at this point. 41-50-60-67 [hike!] sounds like the QB calling plays. I’m not too swift on the intricacies of football, either.
Digby has a 57 vote solution going http://tinyurl.com/k4gs3 to which she credits Kleiman Iraq strategy for the Democrats http://tinyurl.com/2qy3m8
The counter-argument says that all these shenanigans will consume a lot of legislative time, and there is already a heavy congressional schedule. Of course, that could be just the “concern trolls” weighing in where they can. Seems like if you knew in advance that the back-and-forth ad nauseam was going to be the way things went, you could ‘automate’ it in such a way so that you didn’t wind up spending an unwarranted amount of time on the mechanics. Lob the ball over, do other stuff for a bit, when it comes back, it’s the same ball which has to go back to the same place, so swat it back at ‘em, and press on with other stuff. Seems like when it becomes clear that you aren’t going to break a sweat or get revved up over it, the other side might just decide you’re seriously not gonna budge and deal with it.
If there were any bit of legislation that I think it really behooves the Dems to get ugly about, this proposal of Webb’s (noted upthread) seems like the one to get nasty over. Especially, given the quote by Greenwald attributed to Fred Kagan, If troops want more time at home, Kagan says, there is an easy way to achieve that: “win the war we’re fighting.” . http://tinyurl.com/2axrh6 What kind of an a$$h*t is Kagan, anyway? I thought Conservatives were all about taking responsibility. Seems like there’s no entity that cannot be blamed for the difficulties in achieving this (yet identified) objective in Iraq, as long as it’s not the intelligentsia that got us in there in the first place.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
“What kind of an a$$h*t is Kagan, anyway?
Big ! Very, bery BIG !!!
September 16th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Don’t knock their family business!
September 16th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Maybe that’s the “neo” part of neo-conservatism.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Good one, cummings!
September 16th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
A hopeful note? http://tinyurl.com/28ejul
September 16th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I wondered when this was going to go whipping around the net. First ran into it a couple of days ago. Can’t remember where. Anyway…
For the conservative observer an Ann Althouse link: http://tinyurl.com/2amx5n
For the liberal observer a Firedoglake link: http://tinyurl.com/2eexdj
Personally, I don’t think this will cause as much of a stir as Larry Craig *if* it’s true.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Slow news day, apparently.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Well, before we more on, we should say..
Golly, Shock and Awe kills tens of thousands of Iraqis, millions are turned into refuges, the entire invasion turns out to be part of a long ago planed move to install perminant bases… but… the real outrage is some Iraqi war vet might have to look at some dirty arab with the wrong kind of scarf!
What an ugly, stupid, racist piece of garbage from the dingbat daughter.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I’ve been hearing that shit about Rice for years. I think the postmodern irony of having a Black Female Lesbian as the most poweful woman in the world, partially by virtue of people who hate Blacks, females and Lesbians, is pretty much the story of the human race.
There were “Well placed” rumours about her having an affair with a handsome yong Canadian politician. Do you really think that a story like that would be allowed to grow legs unless it was encouraged?
It is quite humorous, the whole thing. Black Lesbian oppresses the world.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Condi spread the rumor of shacking up with a lesbian so that no one would suspect her of being interested in a Democrat.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Good thought Woody, only problem is her “Friend” at Stanford is one of the more liberal people there. I think she’s so lefty that she findes the Dems to soft. Rather like MB and our genial host!
September 17th, 2007 at 9:21 am
LOTS I understand the Webb Ammendment looks like assured a place in bill – Jack Reed sounds like he’s got 60 votes. Problem is a Bush veto and there don’t seem to be 67 votes for overide. But as Klieman and Digby point out that works too. Keep sending it to him in following bills and put the onus on wrecking the Army and Marines on you-know-who while asking “Why does Bush hate the Troops?”
September 17th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
C’mon, let’s be honest. We know the homoerotic tendencies of the authoritarian right are legendary. The Greek, Roman, British and American Imperial culture has an intense propensity to fuse military might and homoerotic impulses. Sh!t, it seems Bush Jr. and Woody can only get an erection when they are surrounded by men in military uniforms.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
RLoC It’s looking hopeful. TPM reporting that three Republicans who voted against the measure last time are now considering backing it: Senators George Voinovich, Lisa Murkowski, and Elizabeth Dole. http://tinyurl.com/23jg6g
Further! Wonder of Wonders! My own Bush-Dog Senator is considering cutting off funds. Also, TPM. While in Iraq over the weekend, Salazar said, some service men and women told him that they wanted Congress to cut off funding. http://tinyurl.com/yw28pq
September 17th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
If any one is still reading this thread, Alan Greenspan just admitted the iraq war was for oil.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
September 17th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Yeah, drydock. I saw that quoted elsewhere earlier today. Then he came back and amended that it was essential that Saddam be removed to preserve the stability of the oil region for the world. As someone else noted, in between the first announcement and the second Greenspan must have awakened to find a horse head in bed with him.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:58 pm
pulos zewukapo gekma
cygu http://fy472262.qjgxyfh.net/sitemap12.html [url=http://fy472262.qjgxyfh.net/sitemap12.html ]rila[/url] muduv
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 am
femos lojaryza gokma
pima http://te35844.luos6rc.net/sitemap17.html [url=http://te35844.luos6rc.net/sitemap17.html ]dyty[/url] gyhyb
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 am
i just wanted to say that I love this site