In the Arena

Pearl Harbor Day

I’ve just emerged after a week in Afghanistan, traveling through the country–especially in the volatile south–with a military delegation from NATO. I’ll have a lot more to say about that in the print edition of the magazine this week. But it’s hard not to be both impressed and depressed by the effort. Impressed by the serious new thinking about the struggle and the sacrifices being made by U.S. troops and some of our allies–during my two days in Regional Command-South, three Canadians and two Danish soldiers were killed in action, and two British soldiers were severely wounded. It is also difficult not to be infuriated, once again, by the lethal strategic carelessness of the Bush Administration’s Afghanistan policy, its lack of attention to detail, its coddling of an “ally”–Pakistan–that harbors the terrorists killing our troops and of another “ally,” President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, whose corrupt administration seems as concerned about reaping the profits of the poppy harvest as it does about protecting and providing services for its people. But don’t get me started…as I said, more to come. 

For the moment, though, I’m hopeful that the Obama Administration will prove far more responsible–and attentive–to the difficult situations in Afghanistan, Iraq and all the other places where our troops will be serving dusty, dangerous holidays this month. Another excellent sign–a moment of high symbolism and justice–comes today with the announcement of retired General Eric Shinseki as the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Shinseki, you will recall, was the Army Chief of Staff who warned that Donald Rumsfeld was underestimating the troops needed and the difficulty of the struggle to come in Iraq. For that, he was humiliated by Rumsfeld and, especially, by Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and forced to retire from the military.

It should give none of us great pleasure that Shinseki has now been called back into service to administer the system that is too full of the casualties of Bush and Rumsfeld’s folly. It is hard not to be infuriated by the loss of life and limb that the Bush Administration caused with its arrogance. But it is good to know that General Shinseki–a man whose past service honors the wounded he will now serve–will be part of the new Administration, and especially good to know that Barack Obama has the wisdom and sensitivity to understand how important this appointment is, symbolically and practically, to those who wear the uniform on this anniversary of the second most deadly attack on our nation.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Obama to Submit His Budget to Congress on Monday

    President Barack Obama is pressing for investments in infrastructure while relying on familiar tax increases on the wealthy and corporations to claim progress on the federal deficit in his upcoming budget.

    Romney: I Was A 'Severely Conservative' GovernorHuffPost Politics

    Robert F. Bukaty / AP

    With Saturday Victories, Romney Retakes Control of the GOP Narrative

    Mitt Romney, the perpetually questioned front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, had a rough week. Three embarrassing losses to Rick Santorum in Tuesday’s non-binding contests led to questions about Romney’s conservative bona fides just in time for GOP activists, gathering at their annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, to collectively grumble about it. But in two narrow, largely symbolic victories on Saturday, Romney reclaimed the headlines. Never mind the details. He was winning again.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Few have gotten such bad treatment, or rather no treatment, than the vets. Used and discarded. Shameful and hopefully General Shinseki can make a difference.

  • James, Los Angeles

    Looking forward to reading more about your trip to Afghanistan, Joe. You’ve confirmed my growing pessimism about the situation over there. What exactly *is* the mission? To hang on until democracy “takes root”? I don’t see any sort of real effort to accomplish that in political terms.
    .
    The vets I know are ecstatic about Shinseki’s nomination. Couldn’t be happier.
    .
    Have a safe remainder of your trip, Joe.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Shinseki spoke truth to power. In public.
    .
    Now if he’ll put Taguba in charge of a task force in charge of interrogation policy, I’ll be pretty much convinced that Obama recognizes the deep, corrosive damage done by Bush.

  • gysgt213

    “War May Easy” Norman Solomon.
    .
    http://www.warmadeeasythemovie.org/

  • plukasiak

    I find it difficult to give credence to critics of Karzai’s corrupt administration when they supported the unilateral invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the first place. Those of us who saw Bush for what he was from Day One actually opposed the invasion of Afghanistan and warned specifically about the dangers of allying ourselves with the drug-funded warlords that the media romanticised as The Northern Alliance.

    And lets not forget that well before the morally “questionable” use of “detention” and “enhanced interrogation techniques” we saw one of the greatest acts of immorality in warfare since WWII — the use of “daisy cutters” against human targets. Any questions regarding the character of the people running the country should have been answered by that atrocity, but finding anyone in the American media who cared is a nearly impossible task.

  • bitterpill8

    Gen Shinseki’s nomination is very good news – and a telling rejoinder to the Bush-Dumbsfeld nonsense. One can only wish Gen Shinseki the best as he does his duty. Take care, Joe. One question: Does Afghanistan fit a standard definition of a nation state?

  • kathy

    Joe – I’m especially interested in your take on Karzai’s corruption. Was this necessary for him to stay in power and maintain stability? Or would it have been possible for him to stay in power without corruption. I guess I’m wondering whether we’ve been better off with a corrupt Karzai than we would have been with any other realistic alternatives.
    .
    What everybody’s said on Shinseki. Symbolism is important. This is Obama’s version of in-your-face change, delivered after retaining Gates, which softens the blow. But the message is clear. Think of how different the response would have been if he’d announced this appointment first.

  • http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/profile.php?id=1191832308&ref=name Shakespeare in GA

    Each day I find myself more and more gratified at the smart, competent people Obama is nominating for various posts in his Cabinet and elsewhere. And then I find myself stunned that I’m so gratified. Isn’t this what our presidents are supposed to do? How have we gotten to the point where we are shocked at well-thought-out decisions from our leaders? Let’s hope this is the beginning of an era where we demand similar competence from future administrations.

  • wvng

    jay ; Now if he’ll put Taguba in charge of a task force in charge of interrogation policy, I’ll be pretty much convinced that Obama recognizes the deep, corrosive damage done by Bush.
    .
    Similarly, I hope he puts David Iglesias in charge of a task force rooting out corruption in the DOJ. And David Swift in charge of a similar task force on abuses in the military justice program:
    .
    Assigned to defend a Guantánamo detainee, jag lawyer Charles Swift joined up with legal scholar Neal Katyal and sued the president and secretary of defense over the new military-tribunal system. With their 2006 Supreme Court victory overridden by the Republican Congress, and Swift’s navy career at an end, they are fighting on.
    .
    Put the repubs who proved they put the Constitution and country first in charge of investigating those who did not.

  • wvng

    Rich’s column The Brightest Are Not Always the Best today is an important read.

  • beccabyrd

    WW2 trivia- The RAF found out that they had bombed not a German airstrip with a fleet of aircraft sitting around, but a bunch of “planes” made out of lumber. A bomb-wasting decoy.

    So the next night, the RAF dropped wooden bombs on the decoy.

    I read this in The Nightmare Years 1930- 1940 by William L Shirer (war correspondent extraordinaire). He told the story more compellingly than me so read the book. It’s fascinating.

  • plukasiak

    my how easily we’re distracted by bright shiny objects — and Shinseki at Veteran’s Affairs is the quintessential “bright shiny object”. Secretary of VA is not an important policy position, and Shinseki’s appointment is practically irrelevant in terms of what we can expect from an Obama administration…. its all “symbolism” with almost no substance.

    Shinseki at Defense would be significant. Shinseki at Vet Affairs is merely a bauble.

  • sevenoaks07

    Kathy, pluk: I have some doubts about Aghanistan as a country or nation. My own reading of 18th and 19thC Asia suggests that Afghanistan is a collection of tribal entities that have had to become a nation state simply to fill the space between Iran, Pakistan and the “north”. It is about as artificial a nation state as one can find in parts of Africa post the Scramble (The Congo being a classic example). So, Karzai is a chieftan and not much more. His power lay in his ability to hand out cash and jobs. (See Bush/Cheney and no-bid). Trying to prop up Karzai is a complete waste of time.

  • sevenoaks07

    Amendment: For Pakistan read India and the “uncontrollable” North West frontier provinces before 1947.

  • beccabyrd

    I’m afraid there are ever more regions of the world that could be considered “ungovernable”, Afghanistan, being one. Robert S Kaplan wrote a lot about this in The Coming Anarchy. The Atlantic article (precursor to book) from 1994 is prescient on a lot of levels. Lots of shambles in the works, folks.

  • sevenoaks07

    Our supply line to Afghanistan goes through Pakistan and one depot has been totalled yesterday. The loss of supplies and equipment is troubling. Just think about it: our supply line runs through Taliban-controlled territory; and we hope to win.

  • wvng

    7oaks, my brother was in the Peace Corps during the three years before the Soviet invasion and he describes a country that “worked” well enough, with an “understanding” between tribal leaders and the “central gov’t.” The question is whether a similar arrangement can be restored after the post-invasion horrors.

  • sevenoaks07

    wvng: you are spot on. The country tribal elders arrived at a modus-vivendi before the Russians took over. It was not ideal but it worked. Kabul maintained contact with other capitals. I remember those days: lots of hippies working their way through Iran, Afghanistan and down on to India via Pakistan. My brother actually drove all the way from Germany to Delhi to take up a job there at that time. How things have changed.

  • wvng

    7oaks. Yeah, and now they have warlords instead of elders. Warlords the bushies further enabled post invasion. Complicates things a lot.

  • textee

    What does the thoroughly unqualified, terrorist fraternizing, community organizer know about the United States military or military operations? Answer: Nothing. Joe Klein? Ditto. The hair-plugged buffoon, serial plagiarist and Soviet useful idiot (aka Joe Biden)? Double ditto.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    The biggest danger we face anywhere in the world is the difference between what we can physically accomplish and what we wish to accomplish. Even ‘realists’ like JK and the new administration who recognize that we need more tools than just weaponry to help make the world and ourselves safer, nevertheless seem to hold out this notion that the world is ours to form into our own image.
    While it may sound nice as a goal, as the saying goes “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy…”

  • rose83

    wvng, thanks for the link to Rich’s column. It’s very persuasive. One of the (many) problems Obama faces is that by choosing “the best and the brightest” economists – which seems like the sensible thing to do – he’s choosing from a weak profession. If immunologists working on a new vaccine made an error on the same scale as Rudin’s they would lose their colleagues’ respect. I was amazed by a Freakonomics blog post on the NY Times essentially saying we should listen to economists even though they have a poor record of predicting macroeconomic events. Can you imagine a biological scientist saying something similar? Honestly, how is that different from “scientists” who advocate intelligent design? If “the best and the brightest” economists keep making horrible mistakes, well then obviously they can only be sarcastically called “the best and the brightest.”

  • kathy

    Rose – wvng – haven’t read Rich’s column yet – will go do that. But this is a headline on MSNBC.com “Academic elites fill Obama’s roster
    Critics worry about insularity as Ivy League graduates crowd cabinet posts.” I’m not excited about our tearing these guys down because they went to elite schools. That’s the direction this will take, with only a little nudge.

  • wvng

    rose, but the Shinseki pick is pure brilliance (pluk notwithstanding). Best takes come from Fallows (and Joe as well, of course):
    .
    Karmic justice: Gen. Eric Shinseki
    .
    Bonus points for elegance in the Shinseki pick (updated)
    .
    kathy, lacking a better media with better self policing , I’m sure you are right.

  • kathy

    Have now read Rich’s column. There are significant differences, as well as similarities, between the two cabinets. Obama’s brought a lot of people with governing experience on board. They know they’re entering office with extraordinary difficulties ahead of them. Obama does not seem to have the personal hubris that Kennedy had. In fact, he really seems to be working to guard against the inevitable sycophantic bubble that surrounds presidents, by bringing in people who will not be averse to giving contrarian views. Kennedy was groomed to lead, and had, much as I loved him, a lot in common with GWB, in terms of the expectation that all the good things in life would come to him, and that he had a midas touch. Obama was born and raised in a very different world, and has a very different view of himself.
    .
    For all that Rich raises some cautionary flags, I think they could be raised about any new President. Surely, the fact that Obama’s hired bright people should not be seen as a detriment. Heckuva job Frankie.

  • kathy

    Rose – Intelligent design is not scientific. Economics is a difficult, predictive science, and so not all predictions will be accurate. Not all meteological storms get predicted correctly, either, but that’s not a reason to stop listening to meteorologists. So what would you rather that Obama were doing?

  • rose83

    For all that Rich raises some cautionary flags, I think they could be raised about any new President. Surely, the fact that Obama’s hired bright people should not be seen as a detriment. Heckuva job Frankie.

    Kathy, I didn’t read it that way at all. (And I think the Shinseki pick is great, BTW.) His point is that these people may not be bright, since they made horrible mistakes. That’s pretty reasonable. Rich (like me) wants smart people on Obama’s economic team. He’s just pointing out that academic excellence, when coupled with a poor record, doesn’t necessarily equal “the best and the brightest.” Which relates to my point about the poor state of economics as an academic discipline. To use an exaggerated analogy, the best and brightest doctors were completely useless during the Black Death during the 14th century.

  • rose83

    Kathy, I just missed your 12:59pm post. Sure economics is a difficult science, but you didn’t have to be a genius to see the housing and derivatives collapse. Any reasonably well-informed person with a decent amount of common sense could see something like this coming. I think that was the point of Rich’s reference to the blogger.

    I don’t know what Obama should do. I’m glad I’m not the President! But I can’t fault Rich for pointing out possible problems. And my main point is that sometimes academic disciplines are, well, bad. It’s not just economics in the early 21st century. Obviously medicine in the 14th century is a famous example. Psychology when through a brief period where it was dominated by behaviorism and it was not very effective. Education has gone through bad periods – I’ve heard horror stories about New Math. Unfortunately, economics is apparently in a weak phase and we desperately need economic expertise. (Like the 14th century with medicine) So… what should Obama do? Again, I have no idea. Obviously giving people like Stiglitz more influence than people like Rubin and Geithner would be a good start. But he faces a really difficult dilemma. I think it’s possible this may be the most difficult Presidency since Lincoln’s. Which is why it’s so important people like Rich are pointing out potential problems – being in denial is not going to help anything.

  • wvng

    kathy and rose. I must admit, I wish (and still hope) that Obama had placed an economist who has been largely and publicly right about macro trends in his cabinet, or one layer down. People like Schiff and Roubini, who would not be afraid to call bull$hit but who also might not be the right people to lead the effort.
    .
    rose, I don’t think Rich’s point “is that these people may not be bright.” They all clearly are very bright. I would like to hear what each of them says about their policy mistakes of the past. If they, like Rubin, can’t see their errors then there is a stubbornness problem.

  • bitterpill8

    rose83: I recall that a CNN regular (whose name I cannot recall as I see little of the show nowadays) spending much of 2007 warning about the coming collapse of the mortgage market. She is familiar, and is still a regular. But she is no “star”. What she had was common sense and a gut instinct for knowing that some financial instruments were rotten to the core. I apologise for not being able to name her. She is on their regular money show.

  • rose83

    wvng, I read this as an indication that Rich doesn’t think they are necessarily that bright: He [Halberstam] noted that the book’s title had entered the language, but not quite as he had hoped. “It is often misused,” he wrote, “failing to carry the tone or irony that the original intended.”… Few seem to recall that the phrase, in its original coinage, was meant to strike a sardonic, not a flattering, note.

    About the cabinet choice, well of course I agree. But I was encouraged by Reich’s blog post that KT linked to yesterday. I don’t know if you read the long NY Times magazine “obamanomics” article (it’s great), but in it Obama mentions that he would have been inclined to agree with Reich more than Rubin in 92. So if he likes Reich, that’s a good sign. Anyway, I basically agreed with Amy Pehler/HRC on SNL last night: this is a great time to be traveling around the globe for photo-ops!

  • rose83

    bitterpill8, what I find difficult to understand is how anyone could have had a basic awareness of derivatives and NOT seen this coming. But I don’t know, maybe if I were making more than a hundred million dollars through a financial system/pyrimid scheme built on derivatives I could find a way to ignore the obvious warning signs.

  • formerlyjames

    wvng, I found the Rich piece to be very interesting. As Halberstam had pointed out, his title has been misused in neglect of the irony he intended.
    .
    One thought that I had was that comparing JFK’s picks to Obama’s is off a little, because they didn’t demonstrate their full stupidity until after they had been inherited by LBJ. Whatever LBJ thought of them, he was stuck because of the cannonization of JFK after the assination. He couldn’t mess with Camelot. Obama’s picks are his own and he is free to do what he thinks best hereafter.

  • formerlyjames

    assassination. my fingers are faster than my brain.

  • henqiguai

    At least on the topic of economists and their poor showing in predicting some of the ‘issues’ in our current reality, I think we are suffering from a common misunderstanding of the primary activity of economic theory and practice. I would argue that it has been corrupted in recent times. Asking an economist to give accurate readings of current economic activity has always struck me as being akin to asking a climatologist to give a weather forecast for the upcoming week. Their standard tools, and focus, are inappropriate.

  • bitterpill8

    rose83: I have spent some time watching CNBC and think that a lot of the problems are there on full display. What are the interests of guests? What are the interests of the hosts? And why is there so little time for sceptics? I came away with the impression that talking down the market (and being critical of the experts on BS) was not a default position.On the contrary….

  • formerlyjames

    henq, there is some relativity and subjectivity to economics. The current economic problems seem to have originated with taking risks in financial markets, especially related to the mortgage industry and the spillover to the securities market. While the risks would be noted by most economists, I think, some would think the economic or social benefit to outweigh the risk. Others would not. In the current state of affairs, it seems obvious that those who would call for tighter regulation of risk to be the star economists.

  • kathy

    rose – I think there’s a positive benefit to some of these people having made mistakes (though I wouldn’t argue that we should run around looking for people who have made mistakes). If we find only people who have not made mistakes, we’re finding people who have been lucky in life or too timid. All of us make mistakes. In fact, this is a critical difference between Obama’s people and Kennedy’s, perhaps. These people have the benefit of some insight that comes with recovering from mistakes. Besides that, correct knowledge and prognostication is only part of the job. Obama himself, after all, didn’t have a ton of experience, but he convinced the majority that he’s a visionary leader. let’s hope they were right. I’m not so much arguing that these are wonderful picks as I’m just so effing tired of the “ooh he’s an elite academic. bad” syndrome. Nixon’s tape from this week is grandfather to a general theme that runs through the Republican party, and progressives have to find some way to reclaim the value of learning and intelligence.
    .
    The NYTimes has an article about Summers trying to redeem and re-educate himself after his Harvard experience.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07summers.html?hp

  • kathy

    Shinseki about to be announced at Obama news conference. CNN has live.

  • rose83

    Kathy, I basically agree. Except some mistakes are so bad and so recent that they should be carefully considered. This all just happened – they haven’t had much time to rethink their assumptions and intellectual approaches. And again, these were really bad and obvious errors.

    I understand what you’re saying about the anti-academic syndrome, but I think Rich is right that we are risk of overreacting to the Palin-style anti-intellectualism. There’s a long way between ridiculing academic excellence and assuming academic excellence proves intelligence and competence. We need to find that middle ground.

    Also, my criticisms of Obama’s economic team are based on the idea that we need to “reclaim the value of learning and intelligence.” IMO, that involves questioning so-called experts who made mistakes. Questioning and criticism are not just compatible with academic excellence, they are essential to academic excellence.

  • wvng

    kathy: I’m not so much arguing that these are wonderful picks as I’m just so effing tired of the “ooh he’s an elite academic. bad” syndrome. So much better to have Joe the Plumber and the Turkey Lady and the neo-Hooverites making decisions. Imagine the cast of characters in a McCain administration. Imagine the course of the national discussions right now. Tax cuts, big tax cuts, or the biggest tax cuts ever? And if you don’t like it you would be labeled a whiner.

  • wvng
  • kathy

    wvng & Rose. right. I guess I’d also like us to at least wait until these guys are in office before we think we’ve done more vetting and contemplation of the upside and downside of these appointees than Obama has. :-?

  • kathy

    I didn’t catch MTP yet (will have to see it on MSNBC at 6) Nora O’Donnell is talking about poetry readings and science and schoolchildren in the White House.
    .
    wvng: I wonder if Obama’s read LOTR? He really does understand iconic magic. The white tree will bloom again.

  • wvng

    kathy, way cool emoticon. Which one is that?
    .
    btw, I have vast confidence in Obama’s judgment and character and intellectual rigour, and have no reason so far to be concerned. And, frankly, my read of the people he’s picked is that they are specifically excited at the opportunity to work as members of his team.
    .
    Cue textee.

  • wvng

    kathy, I don’t get MSNBC at all except via the web. You can watch MTP now at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/.
    .
    As for the White Tree blooming again, I think so too. But who are the hobbits? We need some hobbits.
    .
    Reich is pretty short, but I don’t know if he has hairy feet. :-)

  • Paul-no not that one

    For some reason I just knew Rose would like Rich today.
    I though Rich’s harshest comments were about Rubin who won’t be part of the team.
    .
    It was a pretty rote “counter intuitive” column I thought.

  • wvng

    Obama on MTP: “There is a convergence between circumstances and agenda.”
    .
    How I like this man.

  • wvng

    PNNTO, did you notice how Rich closed his column?
    .
    “Rubin hasn’t been seen in a transition photo op since Nov. 7, and in the end Obama chose Paul Volcker as chairman of his Economic Recovery Advisory Board. This was a presidential decision not only bright but wise.”

  • Paul-no not that one

    Yes I did wnvg. That was what I was getting at.

  • kathy

    wvng – I think of that as “consternation” or “chagrin,” as the occasion warrants. But here’s the page for wordpress emoticons:
    http://codex.wordpress.org/Using_Smilies
    .
    I’ve never actually tried these, but besides the grin :-D
    these look intriguing: :lol: :twisted: :oops:
    I think of the following as “nerd,” but they call it “shocked” 8-O

  • kathy

    wvng -
    I have to think of about the Hobbits. The people for whom it’s worth doing this? Who would they be. I have to wait for the MTP broadcast because me sweet kitties ate my speaker cords, and I haven’t spliced them yet.

  • kathy

    Rose – I think my real problem with the Rich column is the header: “The brightest are not always the best.” Well that would be true, and overly obvious.
    .
    When I was a summer camp director many years ago some wastebaskets were unfortunately used as conveyors of large quantities of water during a water balloon fight that escalated, in the dining hall. (Can’t imagine how that happened.) The director of the buildings decided that from then on children could only have cardboard boxes for wastebaskets, because the same thing would happen again. I’ve been teed off ever since. This sort of approach first of all underestimates the imagination of those who have need of a conveyance of large quantities of water, but it’s a basically pinched approach to think that because something happened before it inevitably will again (though, of course, sometimes it does :-? )

  • plukasiak

    re: Obama’s economic advisor picks…

    What bothers me is that none of them caused the stock market to drop a couple of hundred points when his/her name was announced. If Wall Street is happy with these people, Main Streeters should be sewing their pockets shut….

  • rose83

    For some reason I just knew Rose would like Rich today.

    LOL. I don’t think I need to attribute that quote! I’m still not really seeing how this column is anti-Obama – if pointing out the problems Obama is facing is anti-Obama then I think we’re all Obama haters. And one of the great things about this piece is that I expect Obama will actually read it. I imagine that Obama looked at the NY Times this morning, read Rich’s article, probably disagreed with some of it but maybe also saw it as a useful reminder to look for a track record of practical and not just political success in his economic team.

    Anyway, I’m a little surprised by the opposition to Rich’s column. It seems so innocuous. Maybe some people are still stuck in campaign mode when any slight perceived criticism of Obama is something to fight back against. But anyone in Obama’s situation would make mistakes. If a combination of Gandhi, FDR and Lincoln were the President-elect right now, they’d be making mistakes. This situation is too difficult to perfectly handle. All anyone can do is make constructive criticisms, and – most importantly – question everyone and everything. Including my last statement! If we neglect to do that, we are really no better than Palin. It’s just a different form of anti-intellectualism.

    Kathy, and that last line I wrote is why I liked Rich’s column. Given the absolutely disastrous state of the economy, these people just have to be questioned. If we disregard their horrible mistakes and keep on happily trusting them, well that is the same as believing intelligent design is a scientific theory. Blind trust is always unscientific and irrational, even when people are blindly trusting “scientific” authorities. Oh, and I don’t think I’ve done more vetting and contemplation of Obama’s economic team than he has. Not at all. But… why should I not question Obama’s economic team because he has spent more time thinking about them? My doctor has spent more time thinking about medicine than I have, but I’m still going to check any medication she prescribes for side-effects and contraindications.

  • Kobe Expat

    “If Wall Street is happy with these people…”

    I feel the same about the absolute gush-fest re: Clinton–from Kissinger (war criminal) to Rove to well just about every right winger out there.

    Janis Joplin singing something about it’s the same farking day man springs to mind.

  • James, Los Angeles

    # wvng Says:
    Obama on MTP: “There is a convergence between circumstances and agenda.”
    .
    How I like this man.

    .
    .
    How I like the fact that the moderator of Meet the Press spent all of 40 minutes asking tough, substantive questions of the future president, who responded thoughtfully (if not *fully*) to each in full sentences strung together into entire paragraphs, the end of which were not only understandable, but not subject to guffaw and ridicule.
    .
    It reminds us of how indulgent the MSM has been with the low quality of bush administration staff, and George W. Bush himself. Look how indulgent Charlie Gibson was with Bush the other night, asking NO substantive questions and allowing Bush to dictate the terms of his “legacy” without challenging his outright fantasies.
    .

    .

  • kathy

    Rose – I don’t have any problem with questioning them as such (yes, I know I said it would be nice to let them get in office before we start trashing them). I have a problem with Rich trying to compare them to different people in different circumstances as if there was an easy transference. Of course there are bright people who overstep and don’t succeed. Not sure why this is a surprise, or even relevant. There are also neophytes who shine. It just seemed like a shallow, toss-off column. I generally really like Rich’s columns. He has a lot to offer. Call me cranky today, I guess.
    .

  • formerlyjames

    James,LA, maybe Gibson did more by allowing Bush to go on his fantasy ride than he would have by asking substantive questions. I don’t know about Gibson, but Bush wouldn’t know a substantive question if it bit him in the ass. He is what he is, and he showed it all again in that interview.

  • kathy

    James, LA
    .
    I’m intrigued with the way Obama is calling on people in press conferences. Just about 3 or 4, and he knows in advance who he’s going to call on. Not exactly spreading it around – I think Julianna (who is David Schuster’s wife) got two in a row. But he also answers pretty thoroughly there, too. In fact, he sort of got tied up a little today during one answer. It won’t take SNL long to be enumerating during his answers. (I have a mathematics professor brother-in-law who does that)

  • textee

    Exhibit No. 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 that Joe Klein is a tin foil hat wearing leftist loon: “For that, [Shinseki] was humiliated by Rumsfeld and, especially, by Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and forced to retire from the military.” ROTFLMAO!!!

    ABC’s Jake Tapper on John Kerry repeating the lie that Shinseki was “forced to retire” as alleged by Klein: “That is incorrect and Senator Kerry must know this by now – it’s been pointed out on fact checks all over the country. But General Shinseki, who was the Army Chief of Staff, announced his retirement in 2002. He did not make his controversial remarks until 2003, so the idea that he left the military because of the remarks is just not a fact.”

    BTW, someone please point out to Klein and other like-minded fools who know nothing about the military: Flag officers generally are not feminized pansies who get “humiliated” by other people’s words. If Klein has any evidence that Shinseki suffered an uncontrolled, hysterical crying fit after something Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz said, then please provide the evidence to support that allegation.

  • formerlyjames

    kathy, are you saying that Obama has canned responses arranged for specific questions?

  • kathy

    texte – you’re not even annoying anymore. Don’t you realize you’d be much more effective if you avoided the epithets and just argued a point of view? Of course you don’t. my mistake.

  • kathy

    formerly james – no, I wasn’t intending to say that at all. I assumed he plans to spread the wealth around and call on “minor” correspondents as well as the major outlets. I’m thinking (who knows?) that answering fewer questions means he’s being careful not to call on the same people all the time. I think this is a fairness doctrine. He seems to be working from a seating chart. He’s also made a point to call on a Chicago media person each conference, which is how he ended up answering a question today about the windows and doors people who are occupying a building.
    .
    Today he called on Julianne (not sure who she works for), Jonathan Martin from Politico, I think one other person, and the local guy. It’s not many people to call on. But then, he’s holding very short press conferences.

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    james, Gibson is still being indulgent even if he is giving Bush the rope to hang himself.
    .
    kathy, there are traditions in the White House Press Corps, like AP is supposed to get the first questions, and to close. Obama likes to let the Chicago press get one or two in. He also called on Fox recently, whether that was because of their hissy fit and the Fox gushy-fans like Patrick Gavin at FishbowlDC and Michael Calderone at Politico.com with their “Obama Fox Watch” I can’t say.
    .
    Here’s an interesting little blog post from one of the White House reporters on the transition:
    .
    A Transition for the Press, Too. And don’t ‘ruffle feathers’ – CORRESPONDENT
    .
    Ruffle feathers indeed.
    .

  • wvng

    kathy, has he called on a Faux “News” reporter yet?
    .
    /snark.

  • James, Los Angeles

    wv,
    He called on a Fox “reporter.” Read all about the excitement here:
    Fox News Gets A Question! – mediabistro.com: FishbowlDC

  • James, Los Angeles

    Here’s the question/response from the Fox “reporter”:

    Wendell. Where? There you are. How are you?
    .
    Q Mr. President-elect, thank you very much.
    .
    PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: You bet.
    .
    Q I’m just fine, sir. Thank you for calling on me.
    .
    Secretary Paulson has indicated that the initial tranche, initial half of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program that he is able to spend, without asking Congress, is almost gone, down to about $15 billion. I wonder if you are concerned that he may be well into the second half of that before you are sworn in, sir.
    .
    And if I also may ask the governor, what happened to the beard, sir? (Laughter.)
    .
    PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: I’m going to answer this question about the beard. I think it was a mistake for him to get it — get rid of it. I thought that whole western, rugged look was really working for him. (Laughter.)
    .
    For some reason, maybe because it was scratchy when he kissed his wife, he was forced to get rid of it. But we’re deeply disappointed with the loss of the beard. (Laughter.)
    .
    With respect to TARP, until Secretary Paulson indicates publicly that he’s drawing down the second tranche, the second half of the TARP money, it would be speculation on my part to suggest that that money is going to be used up.
    .
    Understand that in order for that second half to be released, it is necessary to notify Congress. And Congress has the ability to block it. I will say that my team has been reviewing very carefully how the TARP program has proceeded.
    .
    One of my central principles, when I, when I first examined the TARP proposal, was to insist that there was going to be strong oversight. The GAO report has now come out.
    .
    We’re seeing some areas where we can be doing better, in making sure that this money is not going to CEO compensation, that it’s protecting taxpayers, and that the taxpayers are going to get their money back; that it’s effective in shoring up our financial markets.
    .
    And so what I can assure you is that my team is very active in reviewing what’s already been done, to ensure that when we hit the ground running on January 20th, that any taxpayer money is going to be properly spent.
    .
    One last component of that that I think has to be emphasized, and I’ve said this before, we’ve got to start helping homeowners in a serious way prevent foreclosures. The deteriorating assets in the financial markets are rooted in the deterioration of people being able to pay their mortgages and stay in their homes. And if we help Main Street, ultimately we’re going to help Wall Street. So that’s an area that I’m particularly interested in.

    .
    They can’t say he wasn’t responsive to the question.

  • Paul-no not that one

    From James’ link at 5:45
    “That heavy tome helps the new person behind the podium answer such riddles as “when do you assemble the press for an Oval Office event?” ‘
    .
    Alas for poor Dana the riddle “What was the Bay of Pigs” was not covered.

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    The press conferences aren’t really short. He spends a lot of time on top announcing what he has to announce, and then gives thoughtful, substantive answers (where appropriate) to the reporters’ questions. They are used to the two-question, scripted press conferences of georgie boy, which are tightly managed, with a pre-approved list of reporters (all two of them) who get to ask something.
    .

  • wvng

    James, thanks for that. I’m sure it was disconcerting for the Faux guy to hear complete meaningful sentences and paragraphs grounded in reality and actual meaning. Did his head explode?

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    PNNTO,
    .
    but she *was* ragged about it in a couple of briefings.
    .

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    wv.
    .
    Yes. Yes it did.
    .

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    The biggest danger we face anywhere in the world is the difference between what we can physically accomplish and what we wish to accomplish.
    .
    Atrios makes a good point here. When Shinseki told the committee that 500,000 soldiers would be needed, he was really saying that the occupation wasn’t possible to engage in successfully, because 500,000 soldiers were needed, and the US didn’t have 500,000 soldiers.
    .
    One reason we got rid of the draft was to make imperialist wars and occupations untenable, a firewall against another Vietnam. The occupation of Iraq requires more military resources than was available from the volunteer army.
    .
    It’s worth recalling how many unthinkable things have been done during the occupation of Iraq.
    .
    1) The use of national guard and reserve forces as regular army units.
    .
    2) Tours of duty violating standards of length, exposure to danger and time out of theatre.
    .
    3) Forcing wounded and mentally unstable soldiers back into combat.
    .
    4) Lowering of intelligence, psych profiles and criminal record standards for recruits
    .

  • Paul-no not that one

    Ha I know James, it was trivial but then I am trivial so I HAD to bring it up.

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    It *was* funny. At the link, I thought the “don’t ruffle feathers” line was great too.
    .
    Then this:
    Twitter / OKnox: The White House just promi …
    .
    I’m suspecting the WHPC has a little more fun than they let on to us rubes.
    .

  • wvng

    jay: It’s worth recalling how many unthinkable things have been done during the occupation of Iraq. It’s worth recalling how many unthinkable things have been done during the last eight years that we never would have associated with our country.

  • wvng

    Have you all noticed how Brokaw sounds like more and more like his impersonators as time goes by?

  • formerlyjames

    jay, your post caused me to stir and scramble for the keyboard. Here is my pitch. The draft needs to be reinstated. National service can substitute as appropriate. The volunteer force supplemented with the mercenary forces (Blackwater) have corrupted our military establishment and removed all citizens from the dangers of war other than paying the financial costs.
    .
    Please discuss.

  • formerlyjames

    In my haste, I failed to explain. I don’t mean the corrupt draft Bush and the priveleged class was able to manipulate, I mean universal service.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    @formerlyjames
    I disagree for just the reason jayack pointed out:
    One reason we got rid of the draft was to make imperialist wars and occupations untenable, a firewall against another Vietnam.
    This is still an important goal. If it weren’t for the extreme denial and wishful thinking that went into the 2002 Iraq sales pitch, then the lack of manpower might have been able to cause more careful consideration. This is of course one of the reason that our push to invade was so rapid and why Spring ’03 was being treated as a deadline. They wanted to get the troops commited and in harm’s way, before anyone had a chance to think about the consequences or reconsider.

  • formerlyjames

    Paul D., that is one side of the equation. My side says this. Every American should hold a stake in every war. When war only affects a small corner of our country, who cares? If there had been universal national service when the Bushie crazies went to work, we would have settled in Afghanistan, got the job done, and come home. Iraq would never have happened because every American had a stake in the craziness. Tell me if I have explained what I mean.

  • formerlyjames

    I speak in terms of the proximity of human lives to every citizen. Everybody was affected by somebody who died in Viet Nam. Personally, I know not a person who died in the current wars. Not that it makes any difference to my opposition, but it would some others, maybe.

  • formerlyjames

    When I say that everybody was affected by deaths in Viet Nam, it took what, 10 years for that to happen? I am saying that even in the case of Viet Nam, the opposition and questioning did not occur until the impact had been truly felt by all.

  • formerlyjames

    And Paul, the lack of a draft (again, that is not what I am proposing), did not prevent Iraq, and I submit to you, contributed to that insanity.

  • formerlyjames

    We didn’t get rid of the draft to make imperialistic war untenable. We got rid of it because every family in American sacrificed a loved human being to the untenable idiotic war and said no more. We went through a lottery to try to amelioriate the inequities which Bush abused, and then finally abolition of the draft all together. I say every American has a stake when war is necessary, and every citizen should protest when war is stupid.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    1968 2003
    Army 1570 538
    Navy 763 332
    Marines 307 194
    AF 904 328
    3544 1392

    I have no idea how this will look when I post it but the point is that our 1968 Military manpower is 2.5 larger than current. The bottom line is that we don’t need that many soldiers. If we implemented a draft just so that the families of draftees wouldn’t vote to send their loved ones into war, we’d still have to do something with all those people.
    The temptation to thin the herd would be way more than you think!

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    I say every American has a stake when war is necessary, and every citizen should protest when war is stupid.
    .
    And I say if you give them unlimited manpower, they will find many more wars to be “necessary.”

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Dirks-
    .
    Crosspost.
    .
    And, yes we did get rid of the draft because it made an unwinnable war that entailed no vital, or even sorta important, American interests. Perlstein has Nixon on record, before he was elected, saying the war was unwinnable. The existence of the draft permitted the extension of the war for at least 5 years, and more like 8 years after it was clear it could not be won.
    .
    Just as the Iraq occupation cannot “succeed” in the sense of converting Iraq into a reliable client state of the US without an occupying American force.

  • rose83

    A draft would be impractical because it would have to apply to both genders, and honestly, we’d just get pregnant if we were drafted. But in 2008, I can’t imagine telling 18 year-old boys, “Oh, yeah we know girls are doing better than you in school and in major metropolitan areas they make more money than you, but you’ll have to handle this war thing by yourselves.” I don’t know many guys who would accept that.

    And yes, drafts do enable imperial wars.

  • formerlyjames

    Can we dispense with the term “draft”? The histry of it does not serve rational discussion. Universal national service is my preferred term. Switzerland has never waged war, and it serves them perfectly. Aside from war, it can serve in the current economic crisis such as the CCC did during the Great Depression which we may be about to revisit. The argument for nuclear arming has been deterrence. Same goes for military manpower. Levels of that manpower are easily managed when it is universal. The levels cited by Paul are picked out of a place in time. That does not necessarilty have to be fixed, proximate to terms of service, transfers to reserves, or whatever.

  • formerlyjames

    rose, I am at a loss to respond. I am not a mysogynist, but my mind forms around history, and conscription has never applied to women. I will get back to you when I have figured this out.

  • formerlyjames

    Let me ask this. We do not have sufficient manpower for the government military who take an oath to the Constitution, so we hire former military soldiers at 100 times the cost to serve as mercenaries, ala Blackwater and whatever other private for profit outfits there are. Are you happy with that?

  • rose83

    Israel conscripts women. And I do think that in the event of a serious war or perceived threat – like in Israel – some women would accept conscription. But that possibility seems very remote for America. And I can’t imagine teenage boys accepting conscription while their sisters and girlfriends stay home. In the past when conscription only applied to men, men enjoyed a far more privileged position in society. Gender roles were more distinct, and it was difficult for men to feel that they were at a disadvantage. Obviously sexism is still a reality, but this isn’t the 1960s. I’m not even sure that gender selective conscription would be found constitutional anymore if it were seriously challenged.

  • formerlyjames

    rose, you answered for me. Thank you. Universal means universal. Young men and young women both. We will deal with the pregnancy issues as they occur.

  • rose83

    How would you ensure that a draft would be fairly imposed? Wealthier people could just leave the country – like in the Vietnam War – and women could get pregnant, which leaves lower-income men disproportionately affected by the draft. I’m sure you’re envisioning a national service for peaceful purposes that people wouldn’t be desperate to avoid, but 46% of voters chose McCain and his neocon policies this November. There’s no guarantee that in 2012 or 2016 a Democrat or rational Republican will be elected. Bobby Jindal could be elected with a team of neocon foreign policy advisers, and those people could do terrible things with what would effectively be a massive standing army.

    Anyway, I should sign off now…

  • Paul-no not that one

    About Rose’s concerns about the legality of male only conscription.
    “In 1981, several men filed lawsuit in the case Rostker v. Goldberg, alleging that the Military Selective Service Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by requiring that men only and not also women register with the Selective Service System. The Supreme Court upheld the act, stating that Congress’s “decision to exempt women was not the accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about women,” that “since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft, and Congress’ decision to authorize the registration of only men therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause,” and that “the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than ‘equity.’”[58]“

  • formerlyjames

    Thanks PaulNNTO. I’m gonna go now too. I think my idea is not very popular. Whatever, just trying to help in a dismal atmosphere. Later.

  • yoshiattack

    Mr. Klein, while I do appreciate you sticking blame where blame is due, is “coddling” our “ally” Pakistan code for “not getting into border fights with them?” Because that kind of sounds hawkish and…ill-advised. Is the US really willing to go to war with ANOTHER Middle Eastern state?

    After all this talk of realities, it seems odd to talk about this without referring to the consequences.

    BTW, a gender-neutral draft, if it came to that, would be the better answer as compared to the traditional Selective Service IMO.

  • Mr. Nice Guy

    Rose, are Israeli women actually “conscripted,” or is it part of the national service that they must serve, except where excused for religious beliefs?

    formerlyjames: Based on the tenor of this conversation, I don’t think it will make me popular – horrors! – but I agree that each of us should serve this country in some form or another. I wanted to join the military, but couldn’t – hearing problems, though not that I didn’t try. I’d have gladly signed up for an alternative program just so I could say to my many other brothers that I, too, served this country. Just not in the same way. Parenthetically, I don’t know how, exactly, that jives with the necessity of “hating America” because I didn’t vote Republican, but we’ll dodge that question, for now.

    Finally, for this thought, I agree with Shakespeare in GA: since when was the bar for the presidency so low that speaking eloquently was considered astonishing? That doing the smart, sensible thing for this country was considered amazing? Then, too, how do you explain so many people spouting their “anti-intellectual” rhetoric prior to the election? I’m sure there’s a tie-in, there…

  • viciousmaniac

    The IDF does indeed conscript women, but it’s only recent they’ve been allowed combat.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces
    .
    Minorities are mostly exempted, but the IDF also likes to gangpress ordinary Palestinian citizens into “service” such as forced informants (one example: arresting a normal civilian and forcing them to join with, and then inform on, a terrorist cell.)
    .
    A draft is a stupid idea. The rich and powerful will be able to dodge it regardless, as was proven by George W. Bush and Dan Quayle.
    .
    A draft doesn’t stop imperialism anyway, direct (Iraq War) or indirect (corporate globalization). Only action and protest against these institutions do.

  • Mr. Nice Guy

    According to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription, conscription and “national service” are pretty much the same thing, anyway. But, it doesn’t seem like folks over there are fighting the notion like Americans did our draft in the 60′s. Quite the contrary: if anything, the folks being discriminated against – women, gays, Druze – seem to want greater opportunities to serve. I didn’t get the impression that it’s universally trounced as a “bad thing.”

    I didn’t see any reference to Arabs being gang-pressed. I’m not implying anything other than that information didn’t appear in the article.

  • viciousmaniac

    Nice Guy, they are protesting their draft in Israel these days. After the 2006 Lebanon war, many were furious over having to serve for that needless, belligerent conflict while the same groups keep evading the draft, including ultra-Orthodox Jews which aren’t obligated to serve. The draft is looking more and more grim over there and frankly lasted this long only because Israel survives by constant conflict with its Arab neighbors.
    .
    As for Israeli forces abusing Palestinians into acting as informants, the Wiki article doesn’t mention it, but it is in fact old hat, even for our MSM. There’s been several stories in the MSM on this already, including this story from CNN about Shin Bet forcing sick Palestinians to inform in exchange for treatment.
    .
    http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/04/israel.informants/index.html

  • wvng
  • jasdeep

    Everybody go to my blog. I worked really hard on it. If you hate pollution you’ll love my site. me32.wordpress.com ;)

blog comments powered by Disqus