November 14, 2003 PERMALINK
Democracy, Interrupted
(posted Nov. 14 12:45 AM ET)
As noted here previously, conspiracies are not as easy to execute as you may think.
For example, the Bushies didnât try to plant WMD in Iraq.
Instead, they spun flimsy evidence and tried to change the subject to democracy.
On the other hand, they are trying to install a ãfriendlyä government in Iraq.
Itâs just a lot harder than it looks.
If they didnât care who runs Iraq, and if they really trusted the Iraqi people with self-determination, this would be pretty simple.
The top Shiite cleric, in a country thatâs majority Shiite, wants a national election to choose constitutional convention delegates, who would then establish a form of government that the people want.
So why argue? You wanted to bring them democracy. They want democracy. Done and done.
Is it fair to be worried about such a set-up resulting in an oppressive Shiite theocracy? Not really.
The recent Gallup analysis of a poll of Baghdad residents (posted at the occupation authorityâs website, arenât these Bushies supposed to hate polls?) shows a rejection of Iranian and Taliban styles of government.
Gallup says the clear winners are ãeither a multiparty parliamentary democracy, or a system based on the Islamic concept of shura (whereby leaders work through a process of consultation and public consensus).ä
Of course, to let the Iraqis themselves make that call cuts out of the action a little guy named George W. Bush.
So you have to get a little creative.
Part of being creative is keeping your true intentions close to the vest.
So close, that most of the major media couldnât agree what the plan is.
The NY Times made it sound like only one plan was being hammered out:
The American plan to hold elections has yet to be worked out in detail.
Administration officials said that voter rolls could be put together for an election in 2004 of some kind of representative body that would, in turn, select an interim government and write a new constitution.
A second round of elections would follow the guidelines in that constitution.
That sounds nice and inoffensive.
So did the W. Post report, though it said two plans were being brought to the Governing Council to be discussed:
One option broadly calls for a national election to choose a new council to write Iraq's first democratic constitution and possibly select a new leadership.
The other proposes the creation first of a reconstituted provisional government that would rule while a constitution is drafted and then conduct elections for a permanent government.
The prime difference is the sequence of events; both options seek to create a formula for transition that will be accepted as a product of Iraqi preferences, not U.S. dictates.
See, each plan is just as nice as the other! Iraqis get democracy either way!
But wait -- the AP said something a wee bit different:
One of the major problems facing the council is how to choose delegates to a convention to draft a new constitution·
[Viceroy Paul] Bremer and others·prefer a "partial election" ÷ with appointed committees in Iraq's 18 provinces inviting legal scholars, tribal sheiks and other dignitaries and then let them elect delegates to the convention.
Hmmm. ãAppointed committeesä that handpick another committee that arbitrarily chooses yet another committee which then writes a constitution ö that donât sound like democracy at all.
And yesterdayâs Wall Street Journal most likely hit it right on the head:
It is unclear how the new government would be chosen, but ideas being considered include holding elections by direct popular vote, a caucus of Iraqi notables, or a mixture of the two, [a US] official said.
The caucus idea appears to be a way to insure a continuing role for·Ahmed Chalabi, who is a favorite of top officials in the Pentagon.
Aaah yes. We wouldnât want to leave any Chalabi behind.
Just because, despite the hype, he hasnât shown any ability to attract popular Iraqi support, doesnât mean he isnât the kind of guy the Bushies can do ãbidnessä with.
But just as itâs not so easy to plant WMD, itâs not so easy to simply install an exile (read: outsider) like Chalabi as president.
Thereâs always politics. Thereâs always a need for at least some legitimacy, or else you risk popular rebellion.
So if you want to keep Chalabi in the game, you need a little creativity.
Even if it means falling a bit short on your stated Bill Safire-approved goal of ãIraqi democracyä.
(UPDATE Nov. 14 8:30 AM ET -- Additional insight on this point from this NYT op-ed by Reuel Marc Gerecht.)
*** Share your thoughts at The LiberalOasis Soapbox ***
November 13, 2003 PERMALINK
The Smash 'n' Vote Plan
(posted Nov. 13 1:30 AM ET)
I think weâre going keep getting hit until we smash Îem. And weâre going to smash Îem pretty soon.
-- Mort Kondracke, Fox News, 11/12/03
A new, top-secret CIA report from Iraq warns that growing numbers of Iraqis are concluding the U.S.-led coalition can be defeated and are supporting the insurgents·
·The report, one official said, warned that aggressive U.S. counterinsurgency tactics could induce more Iraqis to join the guerrilla campaign·
-- Philadelphia Inquirer, 11/12/03
Which advice do you think Dubya is going to take?
Operation Iron Hammer is in the house, if thatâs any indication. (A "major combat operation," perhaps?)
On one level, you canât expect soldiers to not shoot back when they are essentially being shot at.
But on another, if youâre not dealing with a discrete and finite opposition, then they canât be smashed.
New attackers ö foreign terrorists, and as the CIA says, domestic insurgents ö will keep coming so long as there is a US target to attack.
In fairness to the Bushies, they seem to sort of get that, as indicated by their moves to get Iraqis in control of their country.
Of course, the establishment of the Governing Council was already supposed to signal that Iraqis were running the country. That didnât quite work.
The new plan appears to have elements of the right idea: getting some actual elections to happen, conveniently before Bushâs next election.
(The NY Times and W. Post reports differ on what the plan is, and how formed it is. And what devils in the details there may be isnât clear yet.)
But before any election can happen, the violence looks like itâll escalate.
A ãsmashä military strategy would likely make it escalate even more.
Conducting an election in the midst of that wonât be so simple.
And the wishful thinking, ãre-electionä friendly timetable may not be so easy to keep.
*** Share your thoughts at The LiberalOasis Soapbox ***
November 12, 2003 PERMALINK
Kerry's Better Off
And So Are We
(posted Nov. 11 11:45 PM ET)
Sen. John Kerry may be taking some lumps after two staffers resigned following the firing of Kerryâs campaign manager Jim Jordan.
But heâs better off without them, and anyone else who may follow them out of the door.
Why? Because winning campaigns need die-hard, hard-working loyalists, not selfish, short-sighted careerists.
LiberalOasis canât know enough about the inner-workings of the Kerry campaign to know whether Jordan should have been let go.
And who cares anyway? No one is going to cast a vote for or against Kerry based on his staffing decisions.
(One expects the media to make too much of such things, but for the NY Times to make the Jordan firing front page news was particularly ridiculous.
And NBC Nightly News, which has offered little in substantive primary coverage, went out of its way last night to say the campaign ãappears to be in chaos.ä
Hell, write a letter to both and demand real coverage of issues that does readers a service.)
Apparently, some Kerry staffers think they know better, and handled the situation by anonymously disparaging Kerry on petty matters to the AP and NY Times.
Which shows that they are not committed to their candidate.
The media will interpret that as reflecting poorly on Kerry, but more likely, it reflects poorly on this strain of self-defeating Beltway Dem.
The kind that prefers to give blind quotes to the media about how screwed the Dems are, instead of giving private constructive criticism and as much sweat as possible to the party.
The kind that signs up for a campaign because it looks like a meal ticket to the White House, not because they believe in the candidate.
Clearly, too many of them reside in the Kerry campaign. Otherwise, there wouldnât be so many stories leaked about staff troubles.
Sure, Kerry will suffer short-term problems from the walkout, since the media will focus more on internal churning and less on Kerryâs substance.
And it could drag out if more walkouts follow, as the AP hints.
And itâs true that thereâs not a lot of time left to deal with organizational setbacks, as Daily Kos notes.
But heâs more likely to have a leaner, meaner, more focused campaign once the deadweight is gone.
He wonât get bogged down coming up with a new strategy after the turnover. He already has one: beat up Howard Dean mercilessly.
May not be novel, may be unseemly at times. And even if he knocks off Dean, some other ãabove the frayä candidate may be the beneficiary.
But is any other Dean rival (except Dick Gephardt in Iowa) doing anything proactive to change the ãDean-as-frontrunnerä dynamic and salvage their candidacies?
Make no mistake, his battle is still an uphill one.
However, if Kerry comes back and wins, weâll all be better off when he goes up against Bush without the quitters -- the guys who donât put their candidate first.
*** Share your thoughts at The LiberalOasis Soapbox ***
November 11, 2003 PERMALINK
Freedom's Just Another Word For "What WMD?"
(posted Nov. 11 12:15 AM ET)
NY Times' Bill Safire said yesterday that everyone should read Dubyaâs Thursday speech defining US foreign policy as ãa forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.ä
So LiberalOasis did. Itâs pretty good, as far as speeches go.
Safire warned against summarizing it, but here goes:
1. Freedom good. Dictators bad.
2. Spreading freedom is hard.
3. But God is on our side.
According to another NYT report, many in the Middle East were decidedly unimpressed, dismissing it as ãempty rhetoricä for ãdomestic consumption.ä
But on that score, the speech is a giant failure.
Realizing that casualties will continue to mount, the Bushies want the public to think the mission is important enough to justify it.
Instead, the media has been stepping up (some could say, catching up) and scrutinizing the flimsy arguments that led us to this mission.
Newsweekâs cover story this week was about ãthe inside story of how Vice President Cheney bought into shady assumptions and helped persuade a nation to invade Iraq.ä
On Sunday, Hearst Newspapers, one those regional operations that is supposed to help the Bushies skirt the ãfilterä, nailed Don Rumsfeld on lying about his past statements that Iraqis would ãwelcomeä the US.
In addition, while Bush warned of the consequences of ãthe failure of Iraqi democracyä, recent reports show that it is he who is currently failing, with his handpicked Governing Council falling apart.
And Viceroy Paul Bremer and Iraq Stabilization Group chief Condi Rice weighed in yesterday with their own less cheery assessments.
All that is outweighing the ãfreedomä vision right now.
And itâs not just the bad news that gets in Bushâs way.
Itâs that the ãfreedomä argument comes across domestically as a belated excuse for the war, a futile attempt to explain away the WMD embarrassment.
Having said all that, it does us liberals no good to disparage the Bush vision of a free Middle East.
His sincerity? Sure. His competence? Absolutely.
But liberty, freedom and democracy are liberal principles, and for the good of global society, we cannot cede such principles to those whose motives are less noble.
Plus, as a practical argument, true enfranchisement is only way to win hearts and minds and eradicate the threat of terrorism. (See LO interview with "Al-Qaeda" author Jason Burke.)
But as Bushâs attempt to unilaterally impose ãdemocracyä at gunpoint unravels, the question that we will need to put to him is:
If you really believed in credible democracy for Iraq, why didnât you just let the UN handle it?
QUICK HIT
You May Have Won?
In case you missed it, check out NBC Nightly News' report of a bizarre and shady telemarketing scheme by Rep. Tom DeLay for GOP fundraising.
*** Share your thoughts at The LiberalOasis Soapbox ***
November 10, 2003 PERMALINK
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown
A weekly feature of LiberalOasis
(posted Nov. 10 1 AM ET)
Most everyone angling to be the anti-Howard Dean hit the shows yesterday, as Dean news in the Sunday papers swirled in the background.
Both the NY Times and W. Post essentially christened Dean a survivor of the confederate gaffe, noting his forgoing of campaign spending caps and big union nods.
While a Des Moines Register poll dealt Dean a setback, gave a boost to Dick Gephardt, and a lesser boost to John Kerry.
LiberalOasis noted on Friday that one national and one NH poll, both taken as the flag flap unfolded, showed Dean making gains, indicating little damage done.
A second national poll by Newsweek, taken Thursday and Friday, says the same: Dean rising 3 to 16% to move out of a first-place tie with Wes Clark.
The big ãbutä is the Iowa poll.
Taken Sun.-Wed. in the midst of the controversy, the poll had Dean drop 3 (since July) to 20%, Gephardt up 6 to 27% and first place, and Kerry at a respectable third place with 15%.
Although Dean can take considerable solace in that the poll showed his favorables high, and his supporters more committed to him and more likely to vote.
Plus, the impact of his expected AFSCME endorsement, a big union in IA, is not yet factored in.
So, with Dean still considered the guy to beat, he loomed large in the Sunday interviews with Kerry (CBSâ Face The Nation), John Edwards (NBCâs Meet The Press), and Gephardt (CNNâs Late Edition).
While they all are willing to go negative on Dean, Kerry is by far playing the roughest (perhaps because as a fellow Yankee with a secure Senate seat, he is the least likely to be a Dean VP choice.)
Kerry went after Dean from several angles. For example:
-- Howard Dean has absolutely zero, no foreign policy, military or national security experience·We need a person who can stand up to George Bush on the national security issue, and I can do it.
-- Howard Dean wants to raise taxes on middle-class Americans. I don't.
-- I don't want to get rid of [the] child tax credit for middle-income families raising their children. Howard Dean wants to.
While Dean supporters would certainly take issue with the spin, all of that is in bounds (if Bushesque).
What wasnât in bounds was when Kerry sought to score some more points on the confederate flag issue by seriously mischaracterized Deanâs words.
Kerry said:
Only a few months ago, Howard Dean said he thought the flying of the Confederate flag in the South was a statesâ rights issue.
I've never believed it's a states' rights issue.
Using the loaded ãstatesâ rightsä language of course makes Dean sound like a tacit supporter of the flag.
But this is what Dean said back in January on CNN, regarding flying the flag on state government grounds in South Carolina:
I don't like it, but it's not for somebody from out of the state to fix that problem. That's an in-state problem.
Which of course, is technically true. Only South Carolinians can pass a law to get the flag off their state grounds.
But after taking a little heat, Dean sought to make clear he was no fan of the flag a couple of weeks later while in SC:
I don't think you can have symbols like that be flown on the Statehouse.
If someone wants to fly that from their house, that's their private business. But I just don't see how that fits into state government.
Kerry wasnât quite lying, but he wasnât telling the full story and taking the high road either.
Edwards didnât spend much time on Dean in his hour on MTP, but seemed to get more mileage out of what he said than Kerry did.
His criticisms got picked up on the AP wire, whereas the multitude of Kerryâs attacks were ignored in favor of his acknowledgment that he may join Dean and opt-out of public financing.
However, unlike Kerry, who made a broad, blistering argument that Dean would make a bad president, Edwardsâ criticisms were few and more narrowly focused.
For example, he revisited his dispute with Deanâs comment about wooing voters with confederate flags:
·itâs like saying to any group of voters, including voters in the South:
"You know, you donât know whatâs best for you. We know whatâs best for you. Even though you donât understand that weâre better for you, weâre going to come and make sure you understand it..."
Thereâs an elitism and a condescension associated with that attitude thatâs enormously dangerous to us.
Not a wet kiss to be sure, but far from questioning Deanâs qualifications for the job.
Edwards is surely playing to win, but it also sounds like he doesnât want to go so far that he would end up burning a bridge.
And positioning himself as the Voice of the New South, as he did on MTP, could make him an attractive VP for anyone (if he can manage to win a few states).
Meanwhile Gephardt had a lower-profile perch on CNNâs Late Edition, and stuck to his Iowa game plan:
If we're going to beat George Bush, we've got to have a candidate who can provide real contrast.
Howard Dean, on the other hand, agrees with George Bush on Medicare cuts.
He agreed with the Republicans back in 1995, when we were fighting for our lives and the Republicans were shutting the government down·
·And·we don't agree on trade. I've been the leader in fighting for fair trade.
Howard Dean was for the NAFTA agreement. He was for the China agreement.
That's no way to change our trade policy.
This line of attack isnât doing much damage to Dean in most of the country.
But it does seem to have given Gephardt a slight edge in IA, where caucusgoers are heavily skewed to the elderly and the unionized.
The open question: is the attack potent enough to counter Deanâs money advantage, committed supporters, and infusion of AFSCME support?
Remember, all these guys whose strategies begin after IA and NH donât have much of a prayer unless Gephardt can win IA and deny Dean the Big Mo of a deuce leading up to the Feb. 3 contests.
QUICK HIT
Now It Snows
Last Sunday, LO wondered why Bush didnât send his Treasury or Commerce Secretaries to talk up the new GDP number.
This Sunday, after a few more decent economic numbers were released, Treasuryâs John Snow was finally sent out.
But he only popped up on the two lowest rated shows: Fox News Sunday and CNNâs Late Edition.
Was this intentional, because the Bushies donât think Snow is good enough on TV to handle the big boys?
Or did they try to book him on more shows and were rebuffed by nonplussed producers more interested in the Dem race and Iraq?
Whatever the answer, the Administration's limited presence made Bush unable yesterday to disseminate the loud, clear message on the economy they surely would have preferred.
*** Share your thoughts at The LiberalOasis Soapbox ***
