April 18, 2003 PERMALINK
Who Loves The UN?
The Majority of Americans
(posted April 18 12:45 AM ET)
(minor edit April 18 2:45 PM ET)
If you've been coming here regularly in the last several days, you know LiberalOasis has been prodding Dems to loudly support an UN-led reconstruction. (See here, here and here.)
In case you thought LO was nuts to suggest that would be politically smart, check out this April 16 W. Post poll:
Who [do] you think should be in charge of...
...helping establish a new government in Iraq?
UN -- 55%
US -- 39%
...awarding contracts to companies for rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq?
UN -- 51%
US -- 41%
Of course, "Majority Supports UN-Led Reconstruction" is not today's W. Post headline.
Buried at the bottom of the story:
Americans remain divided on how big a role the United Nations should play in postwar Iraq.
Somehow, a 16-point spread constitutes "divided." (Wasn't Dubya still a "popular President" when he drifted into the mid-50s?)
But just because the W. Post ignores the story doesn't mean the Dems should.
Party leaders and prez candidates should be taking Howard Dean's lead.
He continues to relentlessly stress multilateralism as a campaign theme, publishing an op-ed yesterday for Common Dreams, and alerting potential supporters and blogs to it via email.
(The piece was, in part, a response to this Common Dreams piece criticizing Dean on foreign policy, which was, from LO's perspective, an overly alarmist response to this Boston Globe story. We link, you decide.)
Similarly, party leaders and prez candidates should be mercilessly pounding Bush on reconstruction contracts going to his corporate comrades, the latest one to Bechtel.
The Dems in Congress that have been admirably pressing this issue are mostly backbenchers, no one in the top leadership positions.
The only presidential candidate touching it is Joe Lieberman, who co-sponsored the "Sunshine in Iraq Reconstruction Contracting Act of 2003" along with Sens. Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd.
But he's holding back and not attacking Bush directly.
He is rightly concerned about a noncompetitive process leading to expensive contracts, but hitting Bush on conflicts of interest is where the blood will be drawn.
A majority of people is already supportive of letting the UN handle the contract process.
That's why flogging stories like Bechtel will help put Bush in the minority.
QUICK HIT
On Tuesday, LO said Bush's "ratings slide should begin today" as he began to talk again about excessive tax cuts.
On Wednesday, in the W. Post poll, Bush's approval dropped 3 points.
April 17, 2003 PERMALINK
Look Busy
(posted April 17 1 AM ET)
... though Bush bravely trumpets the promises of a new world order abroad and takes bold steps to bring it about, his top aides blithely admit they have no agenda at home for the next two years...
...Asked recently what Bush has left to do at home, [Chief of Staff John] Sununu replied with a smile, "Not that much."
-- Time, 1/7/91
White House officials believe it may not be necessary for them to win passage of many domestic policies for Bush to win reelection next year...
...[A senior Bush] aide said, Bush will benefit from merely demonstrating that, unlike his father, he has a "busy agenda," even if it does not pass.
-- Washington Post, 4/14/03
Attention Democratic presidential candidates: the attack lines write themselves.
Here's one. "The George Bush Agenda: Look Busy." Steal it. Please.
This is far more than a cheap shot. This speaks to the entire Bush family philosophy.
Nothing has changed. Neither Bush felt that there was anything the President can do to help the economy.
They have the basic laissez faire attitude. Sit back and let the corporate honchos do their magic.
And if a few folks have to get laid off along the way, so be it.
(Even if they're getting laid off at the plant where the President is scheduled to speak about the economy. Fire that advance team!)
There's only one difference between the two Administrations.
Bush I's Sununu must have thought you could get away with saying what you really believe.
Bush II's Karl Rove knows you gotta fake it.
Now, someone on the team got cocky and said something he or she shouldn't have.
That's called a mistake. And when your opponent makes a mistake, it is your duty to make your opponent pay for it.
"Look Busy" should be in everyone's stump speech until the media simply cannot ignore it.
QUICK HIT
Tax Cut Follies Part 3
When we last left "Tax Cut Follies" back in March...
LiberalOasis argued that even though Dems risked getting their fingerprints on the economy by backing a $350B tax cut in Senate, whatever came out of House-Senate conference would be bigger, and Dems could keep their hands clean by rejecting it.
That all may still happen, but the story has gotten much more complicated, though still good for Dems.
To get the full complement of insider scuttlebutt, read these from The Note, W. Post, W. Times, Scripps Howard and everyone's favorite whore, Howard Fineman.
For LO's purposes, the key thing is the fight between a $350B cut and a $550B cut is not seen as D vs. R, but R vs. R, thanks to those wacky "Daschle Republicans" -- Sens. George Voinovich and Olympia Snowe.
Since this is being portrayed as a GOP infight, whatever the final number is, and no matter what damage the additional tax cut does to the economy, Dems will most likely be able to escape blame.
An earlier report had indicated those two Senators would vote for whatever came out of conference, leaving LiberalOasis, for one, to believe they wouldn't get in Bush's way in the end.
Now it is clear that Voinovich and Snowe have no plans to cave quickly.
There's still plenty of time for those two to crack under WH pressure. Moderate GOPers are not always so steely.
But they blindsided Bush good last week, making the final outcome a lot less certain.
April 16, 2003 PERMALINK
Rocky Reconstruction
Plus, Where The Dems Stand
(posted April 16 1:15 AM ET)
Salon's Michelle Goldberg reminds us that the alliances and rivalries among Iraqi factions are complex and convoluted, which leads to a complex and convoluted reconstruction.
Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria reminds us that democracy often needs to be slow-cooked, not flash-fried. Iraq's fragile mosaic of religion and ethnicity could easily shatter if things are rushed.
In fact, a large chunk has already broken off.
The biggest Shiite faction boycotted and protested yesterday's kickoff US-led meeting of Iraqi leaders on establishing a post-war government.
(UPDATE Apr. 16 10:15 AM ET -- Though at least no protestors were killed, unlike in Mosul)
One report claims the US directly excluded another Shiite group.
None of this bodes well.
Both Zakaria and Goldberg bolster the case for a strong UN role to ensure legitimacy (Zakaria overtly, Goldberg more roundabout, as she also airs complaints about the UN from certain Iraqi factions).
Last week, LiberalOasis argued the Dems should make an UN-led reconstruction their stated position.
So what are the Dem presidential candidates saying?
Only one, Howard Dean, has a reconstruction plan posted on his or her campaign web site.
Dean's plan is firmly multilateral.
It calls for "A NATO-led coalition" to "maintain order and guarantee disarmament" and an interim authority handled by "an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council."
(One downside: Dean's call for democratic transition within "18 to 24 months" may artificially rush things.)
A recent email fundraising appeal from Dean's campaign manager also stressed multilateralism:
Will we be unilateralist America, following the Bush Doctrine?
Or will we be a more multilateral America with a foreign policy that reflects the American values of hope, liberty, and freedom?
Will we have a foreign policy that replaces ideology with thought--that speaks the truth to the American people, and takes a principled yet pragmatic approach to working with the community of nations?
What about the other candidates?
Sen. John Edwards laid out a solid vision in a Senate floor speech last week.
(Oddly, it's up on his Senate web page, but not his campaign site).
Though he was pro-war, he wants to position himself as multilateral, not in lockstep with Dubya:
... the United States cannot do this alone. It would be a huge mistake if the reconstruction of Iraq were an "American-only" effort.
The United Nations must play a central role...through active engagement in reconstruction, humanitarian relief and civil administration.
In addition, we should be working with our NATO allies...in providing security assistance, and we should seek help from our friends in the European Union. Finally, we need to work with regional partners like Turkey and Jordan...
A robust multilateral approach to this problem will not just increase the likelihood of success.
It also will allow us to share the burden of the reconstruction costs...And it will help create a free Iraqi government with legitimacy...
He has been generally consistent in recent media interviews, though in an interview with USA Today, he flinched a bit:
[Edwards] expressed the view that "if we could get the U.N. involved as much as possible, that would be a very good thing."
[But] Edwards ducked a question about the precise nature of U.N. involvement, saying, "I don't draw any clear lines on that."
(The Des Moines Register appears to have misstated Edwards' position.)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich also supports a strong UN role.
From the Des Moines Register:
[Kucinich] said he would like the United Nations to oversee reconstruction but he doubts that will happen.
"What I do advocate is that we involve the U.N. in the plans for governance in Iraq. Those plans should not be managed by the Department of Defense. That would confirm the Iraqis' fears," said Kucinich.
Those three are the best of the lot on this issue.
Most of the rest seem improperly content just hanging back for the moment.
Sens. Bob Graham and John Kerry, and Rep. Dick Gephardt, are offering relatively vague statements on the subject.
(Graham, in particular, seems a little too preoccupied with blowing up Syria.)
Rev. Al Sharpton and Amb. Carol Moseley Braun inexplicably didn't respond to a reporter's request to talk about their reconstruction position.
Those five appear to be taking the textbook strategy of refusing to be critical until something bad happens and its time to pile on.
Some may say that's politically smart, But, at minimum, it's uninspiring -- if not politically foolish in the long run.
Sen. Joe Lieberman has staked out a position, though it's mostly wrong.
He's standing with Dubya on the big UN question.
We have earned the right to play the most significant role in helping the Iraqis regain control of their country.
(Dean rebuts this nicely: "It's not about earning the right to do anything, It's in the best interest of the United States not to try to run Iraq by ourselves.")
But Lieberman is willing to criticize Dubya on the implementation.
They have said they would have an American civilian administrator...
There is a danger that we will look, not only to the Iraqis, but to the rest of the Arab world, like occupiers -- not like the liberators we really are.
So what would I prefer? That we find an experienced public administrator from an Arab country to be the (interim) civilian administrator of Iraq.
What would LiberalOasis prefer? That the party speaks in one loud, clear, multilateral voice on reconstruction.
It won't happen, not today at least.
Just another reminder that the Dems will have a difficult time appearing strong and organized until a nominee is effectively selected.
QUICK HIT
A word of caution from one cynical Iraqi about the multitude of competing factions:
After the war, we discover we have so many parties in Iraq. They are all seeking power, but they are not doing it for the Iraqi people.
April 15, 2003 PERMALINK
Is Bush's Poll Party Over
Before It's Even Begun?
(posted April 15 12:15 AM ET)
Congratulations, George Bush! Your war not only boosted the ratings of Fox News, but your own as well.
But the party won't last long. In fact, the ratings slide should begin today.
Why? Dubya is going to be talking about the economy for the rest of the week.
(Well, the rest of Bush's work week.
After all that hard work watching the war on TV, Bush needs to make up for lost time at the ranch.)
The poll drop should be relatively swift.
While Dubya got a decent bounce into the low 70s, his approval is less than Daddy's post-war high of 89%.
And his re-elect numbers remain soft, just barely over 50% in three recent polls. That should fall back into minority territory in no time.
What Bush Inc. continually fails to comprehend is that just talking about the economy isn't enough.
They're still flogging the same plan that they pushed back in January.
Even though this is the same plan that has been mauled in the Senate.
Even though this is the same plan that contributed to the last Bush poll skid.
The Bushies appear fated to suffer the words of Richard Nixon again.
From the spring of 1991, quoted in the Newsweek book "Quest For The Presidency 1992":
Bush will be defeated when he comes up for reelection...
...Popularity from foreign-policy accomplishments is fleeting. If the economy is bad in the fall, he will be defeated -- and the economy will be bad.
[emphasis original]
April 14, 2003 PERMALINK
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown
A weekly feature of LiberalOasis
(posted April 14 1 AM ET)
Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld had a reassuring message yesterday about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Don't worry, we'll get to it. It's on the to-do list. But we can't do much right away.
Here's Rummy on Meet The Press:
Oh, clearly, it's on the priority list to be done.
[But] it's not the kind of thing you spend much time doing when you're in a war and you're trying to win the war and stop the violence and stop the killing...
...And there will be exploitation of possible sites, in an orderly way, as soon as the environment is sufficiently permissive.
And on Face The Nation:
...if we can find the right people who will tell us where they've located them, then that's the way we're going to find them.
Inspectors didn't find them and certainly we're not going to find them.
It's not like a treasure hunt when you run around and dig down and see if there's a tunnel some place.
You've got to find the people who dug the tunnels, the people who've worked in those operations.
What's with the blase attitude?
Remember, the entire justification for this war is not just that Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear weapon materials and programs.
But that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, and we couldn't take the chance of Al Qaeda getting WMD.
Now, just for fun, let's assume everything the Bushies has ever said is true.
The weapons that can kill tens of thousands in a flash remain in Iraq. The vast majority of the "deck of cards" is still at large. Al Qaeda operatives, of course, are at large too.
With mass chaos the order of the day, wouldn't you want to pull out all stops to make sure that not one vial got into Osama's hands?
Instead, Rummy sounds like an underling making excuses to his boss why he can't meet a deadline -- there's nothing I can do until so-and-so returns my call.
In reality, there are three possible scenarios regarding WMD.
1. Significant WMD are hidden in Iraq.
2. No WMD are hidden in Iraq.
3. There are WMD in Iraq. But, in the words of Gary Hart, "not many, [and] they'll be highly degraded and not deliverable."
If the Bushies really thought Scenario #1 was likely, one would sense a little more urgency on their part.
But (heaven forefend!) if this whole disarmament thing was a ruse -- Scenarios #2 and #3 -- the Bushies need only to worry about the politics.
And the politics can be taken care of by exaggerating the importance of what weapons are found, or by planting the weapons themselves in case none are found.
(Yes, discussing the planting of evidence is arguing conspiracy. And conspiracy arguments are weak.
But Bush is so far out on a limb here, there is just no way he would ever face the public and admit the US couldn't find any weapons.)
This issue was touched upon by all five shows, but generally in softball form, such as "Are you still convinced we will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?"
What no host asked Rummy -- or Gen. Tommy Franks, who appeared on three shows -- is if they're worried about Al Qaeda snatching up WMD during the chaos? And if so, what is being done to prevent it?
QUICK HITS
All Hail Chalabi
MTP's Tim Russert and CNN Late Edition's Wolf Blitzer carried the Pentagon's water yesterday in their interviews with Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress.
As LiberalOasis and others discussed last week, Chalabi is highly controversial and has no grassroots Iraqi support. Nevertheless, the Pentagon is helping him jockey for power in post-war Iraq.
Russert and Blitzer both interviewed Chalabi without any hint of his tenuous, polarizing political standing.
Furthermore, Russert interviewed no other Iraqi leaders. Blitzer talked with Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, but it was by phone, in the third hour of Late Edition.
Overall, both interviews gave the impression that Chalabi is the most important post-war Iraqi leader, which is certainly the impression that he and the Pentagon want to cultivate.
Best Exchange of the Day
From Face The Nation:
TOM FRIEDMAN: You know the French Foreign Minister today said that the time is not right for the United States to put pressure on Syria, by accusing it of aiding Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime.
Do these guys piss you off?
RUMSFELD: The French?
FRIEDMAN: Yeah.
RUMSFELD: Oh goodness. I think I'll leave diplomacy to Secretary Powell.
FRIEDMAN: Why start now?
BEST OF THE BLOG LAST WEEK
Soundbitten also is asking what's up with the WMD?
Terminus takes on PATRIOT II
Body and Soul says Iraq has become the conservative vision of paradise
Buzzflash digs up some good dirt on the Baseball Hall of Fame vs. Sarandon-Robbins controversy
