Category: Politics

Even if you don’t think George W. Bush deserves blame for cutting federal funds allocated to reinforce and repair levees that may or may not have prevented the inundation of New Orleans, how does his response pre- and post-disaster measure up?

What if, for instance, there had been no storm but instead rumors of a terrorist plot to blow holes into New Orleans levees had reached the ears of federal officials last weekend? Would the terror alert level have been elevated? Is that all the administration would have done? Would Bush have hunkered down on his ranch, gone back to Washington, or continued his campaign against Social Security? Would that have been an appropriate response to the imminent devastation of a city of one-and-a-half million people, the possible deaths of hundreds or thousands of people, and the economic nightmare to follow? The greater New Orleans area had a civilian work force of over 600,000; anything that was a threat to the livelihoods of that many people should have been of some concern.

Then, in the face of an actual disaster, he wasn’t exactly quick to leap into action. He’s spent two days trying to tie his Iraq war onto the coattails of World War II and to foist off his dead dog of a Social Security plan, when the destruction of New Orleans, Biloxi, and much of the Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana coastal regions is going to be exceeded on his watch as an economic catastrophe only by the Iraq war.

If anyone’s wondering what to expect when terrorists strike the US again, your answer’s in the photos above and below.

George McGovern, from his 1972 presidential campaign commercial “Change”:

McGOVERN: He’s continuing the bombing not to get our men out of prison but to keep General Thieu in power. And that’s a price I’m not willing to pay. Let me just add one thing. One of the great problems that we’ve had in the leadership of this country is that we have had too many people that were unwilling to change their mind when they got new evidence. They, they were afraid they’d lose face and so they wouldn’t change. Now, I think we need a president who isn’t afraid to say, “I’m gonna change my mind. I made a mistake.” And sometimes you ought to be able to say to the people, “This is not going to be popular, but this is what we’re gonna have to do to save our country.”

You have to make those hard decisions.

Rich Lowry at NRO’s “The Corner” defends Jonah Goldberg’s stupid remarks about the people riding out Hurricane Katrina in the Superdome:

SUPERDOME [Rich Lowry]
Personally, I thought the Jonah Superdome riff was funny and clearly was poking fun at the media frenzy around Katrina at a time when it seemed especially over-blown.

“Over-blown.” Pretty funny. Of course, it’s always funny when hurricanes blow ashore. What could possibly happen?

Matt Yglesias (mentioned in another fantastic post by Digby) claims that Vietnam proved that the “domino theory” was correct. Perhaps he ought to get out his history books and brush up.

He hinges his post on the statement that “Pro-Soviet regimes took over not only South Vietnam, but Laos, Cambodia, and Burma.”

Laos and Cambodia were both destabilized as a result of the lengthy Vietnam War.

Both American and Vietnamese forces entered landlocked Laos. It was ripe for picking off by the Chinese or the Vietnamese by the time the war in Vietnam ended. The Vietnamese nationalists had sponsored the Pathet Lao against the French colonial occupation since the 1950s.

Cambodia was so brutalized by its fate in the war that its monarchy fell to the Khmer Rouge, who were Chinese-influenced. The Vietnamese were able to extend their influence into that country by invading and installing their own regime.

Even after the devastation of forty years of war, Vietnam’s population was several times larger than Cambodia or Laos combined, something that made it easier for them to dominate the other countries.

Myanmar/Burma was ruled from 1962 by a military dictator. He didn’t leave power until 1988. Myanmar is still under military rule.

So what are we left with for the Southeast Asian domino theory? Two countries with small populations that neighbored Vietnam, were directly involved in the conflict, and whose governments were in disarray because of their involvement with the war, were invaded by their more populous neighbor. The third country in the example was ruled by the same person for 13 years before and 13 years after the fall of Saigon, and his former subordinates still run the country.

When you base a theory on faulty information, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. Or perhaps dominos.

In Sen Trent Lott’s (R-MS) followup to his memoir Herding Cats: A Life in Politics, he discusses in detail his relationship with Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), the man he mentored, who then took his position as Senate Majority Leader.

Via First Draft, an article on IrelandOnline has Henry Kissinger expressing concern about the division of public opinion over the Iraq War, comparing it to Vietnam. If anyone’s qualified to make Vietnam War analogies, I guess you’d have to put Kissinger right up there.

What drew my attention was this quote:

If a radical government emerges in Baghdad or if any part of Iraq becomes what Afghanistan used to be, a training ground for terrorists, then this will be a catastrophe for the Islamic world and for Europe… reluctant as they may be to admit it, and eventually for us.

I’m trying to figure out what “reluctant … to admit it” means. I thought Europe and the Islamic world were concerned before the war started that it would be a catastrophe. Isn’t that why they were against it?

My Iraq analogy for the day:

If you went to a doctor and he told you you needed surgery but the rest of the doctors in the hospital said they thought maybe they should run some more tests, then your doctor botched the surgery and told you later that maybe you didn’t need the procedure after all, would trust him to handle the fix to the problem? Or even to define what the problem was?

People who think that now that the US has messed up Iraq (and who don’t have some other reason for thinking the US should maintain a presence there) that we have to “fix” what we broke for the poor Iraqis are deluding themselves.

Congress is in Republican control for at least another seventeen months. It’ll be three-and-a-half years before a Democrat could potentially move into the White House. Staying in Iraq means the same people who started the war there and who have mishandled the occupation for two-plus years will be in charge of

• deciding what strategies to employ against the insurgency,
• controlling reconstruction of water, sanitation, and power,
• overseeing military supply contracts,
• guiding the Iraqi government,
• deciding what in Iraq is and isn’t a threat to US security,
• and maintaining the safety of the Iraqi people

just as they have been since March 2003. I suppose, if you think they’ve been doing a good job, you might be inclined to let them keep practicing. But apparently, people like Joe Biden and his ilk think that another seventeen months (at a minimum) of Bush in charge is a small price for the Iraqis and the military to pay in order for them to look strong.

The war in Iraq was predicated on protecting the US from attack by nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction. The mission statement on Cindy Sheehan’s Meet with Cindy site states (emphasis added):

Our mission is to persuade President Bush to meet with Cindy Sheehan and answer her questions about why the war that took her son’s life was started and why it is being continued.

I’m all for Ms. Sheehan’s getting up in the nose of George W. Bush. I don’t think he could answer her questions even if he deigned to meet with her.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of Democrats–even some who can string more than three words together without resorting to that whipped-dog whine W affects when he’s having trouble remembering how to end a sentence–who couldn’t do that, either.

This exchange is from Meet the Press yesterday, with guest host Andrea Mitchell talking to Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):

MS. MITCHELL: Let me show you a recent poll of how the American people now view the situation in Iraq. The CNN-Gallup Poll says that only 34 percent now feel that it has made us safer. Fifty-seven percent feels it’s made us less safer. The president in his radio speech yesterday said that we’re fighting this war in Iraq as part of a global war on terror and we’re fighting there so we don’t have to fight them at home. Is the homeland safer because of the war in Iraq?

SEN. BIDEN: We’re all better off Saddam is gone, but I–this is an example once again where the American people are brighter than their leaders, they’re smarter than their leaders. They understand fully that what’s happened is it has become a training ground. There’s actually some evidence when I was there back in–Memorial Day that not only are these jihadists coming in and fighting and getting trained on the job, that they’re also after being trained being exported to Europe and other parts of the world. So the fact of the matter is we have not become safer from terrorists as a consequence of this, but the irony is unless we now finish the job, we will be considerably less safe than we were before and that’s why we must stay in order to try to put a government in place that has the capacity to, in fact, secure its own country.

Biden doesn’t explain how “the homeland is safer because of the war in Iraq,” a war that he supported. He doesn’t explain how “We’re all better off Saddam is gone,” which just seems ludicrous given that we’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars just to destabilize a broken-down Third World country. He evades the question and moves on to his “finish the job” speech.

I don’t think Biden should be doing Bush’s job for him explaining why the war was started–I don’t really think he can. But so long as he and others in the Democratic leadership continue to say anything but an unequivocal “No” to the question Mitchell posed, they’ve got the same looming credibility problem on the war that Bush has. And that’s not going to get any better by the 2006 elections.

The 2008 race is over, so far as I’m concerned.

Hey, it’s not my opinion, it’s what actually came out of his mouth.

In a Cox News Service story by Ken Herman that I couldn’t find anywhere but the Waco Tribune-Herald, W is quoted defending his decision not to meet with Cindy Sheehan:

Bush defends ignoring protest

By Ken Herman Cox News Service
Sunday, August 14, 2005

CRAWFORD, Texas – President Bush, noting that lots of people want to talk to the president and “it’s also important for me to go on with my life,” on Saturday defended his decision not to meet with the grieving mom of a soldier killed in Iraq.

Bush said he is aware of the anti-war sentiments of Cindy Sheehan and others who have joined her protest near the Bush ranch.

“But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there’s somebody who has got something to say to the president, that’s part of the job,” Bush said on the ranch. “And I think it’s important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say.”

“But,” he added, “I think it’s also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life.”

The comments came prior to a bike ride on the ranch with journalists and aides. It also came as the crowd of protesters grew in support of Sheehan, the California mother who came here Aug. 6 demanding to talk to Bush about the death of her son Casey. Sheehan arrived earlier in the week with about a half dozen supporters. As of Saturday there were about 300 anti-war protestors and approximately 100 people supporting the Bush administration.

Sheehan is seeking a justification for the war, as well as her son’s death.

“I don’t want comfort from him,” she said Friday. “I want answers. I want the truth.”

You have to wonder what he’s like when he’s unbalanced.

There is more to the article at the link.