lloydtown 

Clueless or Lying? (Cont'd)

There is still an official story that the Bush administration was clueless about WMDs in Iraq (and to some extent on al Qaeda links as well). Remarkably enough, this is actually their defence against the charge that they were lying.

The recent report of the presidential commission on intelligence, chaired by Yale President Richard Levin, confirms that the major intelligence agencies, especially the CIA, produced intelligence estimates on Iraq that were deeply flawed--greatly overestimating the threat posed by Iraq to the United States.

The commission wasn't specifically asked to consider how political and policy people used the intelligence reports. The commission leaves the clear impression that the reports were misleading on their own, as it were, with no distortion or torquing from political people. But they literally didn't investigate whether there was political torquing after the reports were prepared, to give an even more slanted wrong view to the president and the public. Even if the major official reports were more wrong than right, there may have been a judicious or statesmanlike element of lying in the mix as well.

Getting back to an old hobby-horse of mine: Eisenhower was faced with grossly exaggerated reports about Soviet missiles in the 50s. He pretty consistently treated these reports as crap, which they were. If bright, highly paid people at senior levels are helpless dupes of faulty documents, why are they collecting pay cheques?

Even more to the point, if the Bushies were basically going to accept the major intelligence reports, why set up the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon?

Now there is a report that Carl Ford might testify against John Bolton. There have been allegations that Bolton took it upon himself to manage the flow of information--intimidating people who had reports Bolton didn't want to hear or take any further, and keeping people away from decisive meetings. Carl Ford was with the one agency (the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research) that was most consistently correct--and quite consistently disagreed with the CIA. (Via Kevin Drum: In fact their tendency to be correct goes back to the 50s; see Steve Clemons link from Drum).

Do the Bushies have a strategy to admit that this one guy, Bolton, lied or distorted the evidence, so they can feed him to the wolves and move on? (In a way they've already done that with Colin Powell). Or is Ford going off on his own? If the latter, does this mean he didn't get the think tank/private sector job he was hoping for?

Bolton's confirmation will only be stopped if Lincoln Chafee votes nay, and that doesn't look likely.

UPDATE: More on these issues in an exchange between Wesley Clark and Richard Perle. Who was more correct in his estimate of the danger posed by Iraq in September 2002?

My main interest in all this is my "Spartan" argument. One could argue that a big part of the "Vietnam Syndrome" was the belief that the case for war was too weak both on grounds of U.S. self-interest and on grounds of justice. Vietnam itself may not matter all that much, and it would be foolish to try to be the world's policemen. But neighbouring states may fall like dominoes, giving many victories to Communism. But: those states may not matter all that much, either.

The Bushies have been determined to make the strongest case they can based both on justice and U.S. self-interest, and they have been willing to go at least a bit beyond the facts they know in order to do so. 9/11 makes them feel that anything they do militarily, anywhere, is now a matter of self-defence--even torturing a grab-bag of people in Abu Ghraib or Syria. The appeals about WMDs and al Qaeda were both attempts to say: Saddam is threatening Peoria and Spokane, so we must fight--in fact, it's preemptive, almost retaliatory. The Spartan part of this is that it's good for morale to believe or pretend that there is no possible tension or opposition between your self-interest and justice. Everything you do is just; nothing you fail to do is required by justice. In always wanting to protect and pursue your legitimate self-interest, you are obviously no worse than anyone else, even if you are no better. But if your actions always coincide exactly with justice, you are probably, in all modesty, morally superior to everyone else. Self-defence is the one kind of self-interest that most people concede is required by justice. It was also important to mention the liberation of Iraqis--as reason number three or higher--and it is important to provide a security force to help elections and a constitution get underway. There is very little honest explanation, however, of why the Iraqis had to be liberated ahead of anyone else who needs it, and certainly no admission that most people who need liberation will not get it anytime soon. The Spartans want to assure everyone that they are the liberators of Greece, and indeed that they are on their way to liberate. As the Athenians point out to the Melians, this is substantially false: the Spartans only liberate others when they are convinced it is in their self-interest to do so; and for this reason, they are almost always not on the way to liberate.

I'm reading about Woodrow Wilson in Paris: 1919, so I'll have more on this soon. By the way, the Spartans did eventually liberate quite a few Greeks--partly at least by accident, or despite themselves, but when it happened they were very pleased: we always knew we were on the side of justice, as well as our self-interest!

The Liberals--Forbidden Fruit

Somebody in the Toronto Star today (I still haven't registered) said that paper has covered the supposedly new story revealed by the Gomery inquiry for some years.

The bare bones, now supposedly covered by a publication ban: the Liberals gave millions of taxpayer dollars to a few firms in Quebec. Not only was oversight of any "advertising" and related work lax, but there was very little pretence that any work was done at all. Much of the money was flowed to Liberal party activists and candidates, as directed by senior people in Ottawa. The rest could be kept by the firms, no questions asked, with the expectation that they would keep their mouths shut.

It wasn't "save Canada"; it was "save the Liberal party."

No wonder the country is checking U.S. websites for details, and buzzing about criminal charges and an election that might bring down the Liberals in Ottawa.

I didn't post on the Conservatives national convention. They avoided voting for a "right wing" position on abortion, but opposed same-sex marriage, and supported defence spending, U.S. missile defence and tax cuts. Supposedly they have done nothing to reach out to Quebec--or even to the suburbs of southern Ontario. On the other hand, they endorsed bilingualism (a big deal for some of their western members).

Poor Charles

I swear I heard a news headline somewhere, on the day the Pope died, saying the wedding of Charles and Camilla would not be postponed. Then, the next day, it definitely was postponed. Another fiasco.

Who would actually give the order that Charles postpone the, er, happy occasion, and get his ass to Rome? The Queen? More to the democratic point, Tony Blair?

It may be a bit like the Robin Cook story. I haven't read the book by the bitter ex-wife, but apparently Cook and his then wife were at one of the airports, like Heathrow, planning a romantic holiday to see if they could patch up the marriage one more time. He was a busy Minister, and a notorious adulterer whose affairs had made news. He actually got a phone call while they waited. Some young fart-catcher working for Blair at the PMO said: your love life is in the news again this morning. We doubt the public cares, and we certainly don't care, which woman you choose, wife or mistress, but you must choose one, right now, or you are out of Cabinet. Cook thought, and said "mistress," then went and told his wife that the vacation, and the marriage, were off.

That may be the Tony Blair who told Charles...exactly what was going to happen on Saturday.

Now the little enthusiasm that might have existed for the nuptials has been drained away. Many people are thinking: just show up in the lobby of City Hall, aske people to make a little room, and get it over with in about 10 minutes. Don't take too long--it's a busy place.

The Pope

Dancing:

I remember once in Sydney, there was a youth rally, and there were two young girls were doing some kind of a dance routine. They got up and they got him up, and for like half minute had him sort of between him while they were doing sort of a line dance. Well, there was just that cut of film in the still picture of him with two sort of tall, Australian teenage girls seeming to dance, and he was the "Dancing pope" in Australia for the rest of the trip. I mean, you know, there was times when he really tapped his toes during a hymn, and it was a huge, huge thing. I'm sure he was aware of that.

Federalism and Rights in the U.S.

One more class to go. I think "National Security" went OK--I gave updates on Hamdi, Padilla, and Moussaiou, and discussed how the Bush administration's treatment of "enemy combatants" and military tribunals goes back to Quirin in WWII. I, er, neglected Rasul v. Bush, so I should say something about it next week.

For the final class, I will try to do some kind of overview. For part of it I will keep developing my thoughts about federalism.

During the ratification period, the Anti-Federalists spoke for many people in believing that the states would be closer to the people, i.e. to local majorities. This was supposed to mean states would be more protective of individual rights, i.e. of minorities.

In the PBS series on the Civil War, one of the Southern historians (Shelby Foote?) comes on and says that if northerners had advanced Lincoln's doctrine, that individual states had no right to secede, at the time of ratification, the South would have refused to ratify. That is to say: the South had a consistent message, that didn't change with circumstance, and it was not a mere smokescreen for a defence of slavery: it was genuine constitutionalism. (Maybe he said "if some people" had advanced Lincoln's view, "some states" would have refused to ratify.)

I don't think this is true. I think there was widespread understanding that it was "the people of the United States" who had tried to make do with the Articles of Confederation, and it was "the people of the United States" who ratified a new Constitution. Individual states didn't decide whether or not to join. The ratification process did not involve the agreement of state legislatures, even if the ratifying conventions were one per state, and their membership was determined (largely?) by state legislatures. Lincoln was right in saying: "no state was ever sovereign, except Texas." Both Union and (eventual) abolition of slavery were accepted as part of the ratification process--it was radical states' rights doctrine that was a nutbar invention of the decades before the Civil War, and it was grounded in slavery.

On the other hand: the anti-Federalists believed, or pretended to, that the states were better guardians of rights than the new Congress and national government would be. Small states always protect rights better? Especially if they are kept poor by trade barriers? Only in a libertarian's dreams. But I think this nonsense was in fact widely believed, so I would re-formulate Shelby Foote: If the Federalists had fought to have the Bill of Rights apply to the states, not just Congress, many states would not have ratified.

Does this mean that incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the 14th Amendment (which clearly does apply to the states) is wrong, according to the doctrine of original intent? Maybe, but this is a particularly stupid and bigoted part of the "intent of the Founders" to appeal to. Don't worry, small communities will protect rights? Or rather: they will maintain conformist and moralistic laws that have the support of bigoted majorities, and therefore keep individual rights in their place?

What is the status of the old "the majority as moral community" type laws--meting out harsher treatment to illegitimate children than to legitimate ones, criminalizing certain kinds of marriage, birth control, etc. Was it all an establishment of religion in disguise? Was it a kind of solidarity and spiritual uplift, as opposed to mere conformism, that even or especially modern, individualistic republics require?

What does it mean to say: The Supreme Court was wrong to strike down state laws on morality; federalism requires letting states legislate on "police powers," extremely broadly understood? (There may be a pun in there).

Turns of Phrase

Both about Schiavo:

"Persistent Legislative State": William Saletan, "Culture Vultures," Slate.

"Forces of Dehydration": Jesse Walker, Hit and Run.

Recommendation

OK, we rented Office Space, and it is funny. I believe Kevin Drum and Jonah Goldberg have both recommended it, from their different spots on the political spectrum. (See The Corner around Dec. 19).

Some favourites:

PETER
"We're not in Kansas anymore."

JOANNA
Yeah. Really. (laughs

PETER
It's on your - (points

JOANNA
Oh! That's, uh, that's uh, my pieces of flair.

[...]

MICHAEL
Nothing. Why don't you just tell Anne you're not into hypnosis and you
want to play poker with us?

PETER
Ah, I can't do that. She might get all pissed off at me. Besides, I
think the guy might be able to help. He did help Anne lose weight.

SAMIR
Peter, she's anorexic.

PETER
Yeah, I know. The guy's really good.


What strikes me is that this is the world of talk radio, except that the protagonists are a bit young for that, and not quite crazy enough. But they have insecure jobs they hate, at which they are not treated with respect. They are convinced things could easily be even worse, so they would be wise to cling to something that seems solid. And the idea that government or unions might help simply never crosses their minds.

UPDATE: One more:

____

BOB SLYDELL [Consultant/downsizer]
So what you do is you take the specifications from the customers and
you bring them down to the software engineers?

TOM
That, that's right.

BOB PORTER
Well, then I gotta ask, then why can't the customers just take the
specifications directly to the software people, huh?

TOM
Well, uh, uh, uh, because, uh, engineers are not good at dealing with
customers.

BOB SLYDELL
You physically take the specs from the customer?

TOM
Well, no, my, my secretary does that, or, or the fax.

BOB SLYDELL
Ah.

BOB PORTER
Then you must physically bring them to the software people.

TOM
Well...no. Yeah, I mean, sometimes.

BOB SLYDELL
Well, what would you say… you do here?

TOM
Well, look, I already told you. I deal with the goddamn customers so
the engineers don't have to!! I have people skills!! I am good at
dealing with people!!! Can't you understand that?!? WHAT THE HELL IS
WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!!!!!!!
_____

I've actually had jobs a bit like this. Take material from real experts, which may not appear in a finished, readable document. (It may not be short enough for decision-makers, or presented in clear graphic form, or both), and translate it into exactly the document the decision-makers want and/or need. A one-pager is a noble accomplishment. A one-page graphic that conveys a lot of information is solid gold. It just seems true that the real experts can't be bothered with this--it seems superficial to them. Asked for information, they want to submit at least a 20-page paper--which decision-makers, in my experience, very seldom want. It really does pay to be the middle-person here. I think in some cases educated people from outside the organization have been brought in and paid a good salary--not to become experts on anything, but basically to produce these finished products. They are brought in over the heads of long-serving people, some of them real experts, which causes resentment. Many of them prove themselves to be management material, if you can accept that "management skills are not subject-matter specific," and it is all about producing the product that is actually wanted, on time.

Some of these new middle-people might start billing themselves as experts in "strategic communications"--producing the right documents, with a reflection on the audience, at the right time.

And yet it seems crazy. Couldn't the real experts just add your job to what they do? I guess so.

Change of Heart?

In all the Schiavo business, Mickey Kaus more than once suggested, a bit playfully, that few of us would want to be held absolutely to a living will we signed when we were young and healthy.

I can't help thinking of Young Frankenstein:

Memorable Quotes from
Young Frankenstein (1974)

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Love is the only thing that can save this poor creature, and I am going to convince him that he is loved even at the cost of my own life. No matter what you hear in there, no matter how cruelly I beg you, no matter how terribly I may scream, do not open this door or you will undo everything I have worked for. Do you understand? Do not open this door.
Inga: Yes, Doctor.
Igor: Nice working with ya.
[Dr. Frederick Frankenstein goes into the room with The Monster. The Monster wakes up]
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Let me out. Let me out of here. Get me the hell out of here. What's the matter with you people? I was joking! Don't you know a joke when you hear one? HA-HA-HA-HA. Jesus Christ, get me out of here! Open this goddamn door or I'll kick your rotten heads in! Mommy!

Music and a Musical

I've seen bits of Handel's Messiah on TV for the Easter weekend--in both cases, Boris Brott conducting a group in Jerusalem (on the Christian TV network, or whatever it's called). Very nice. Appeals to both the long-lapsed Protestant and the music lover in me. Last night I got to see and hear "A Trumpet Shall Sound"--my favourite, partly because I played trumpet in high school and got to see my teacher perform this piece.

I also saw the end of "My Fair Lady." I don't know. I guess the whole thing is brilliantly written--even the spoken dialogue. There are some wonderful performances--everyone talks about Stanley Holloway, and I guess Rex Harrison was born for his role, which he delivers with gusto.

On the other hand, Audrey Hepburn's accent comes and goes, and there's the whole story about how her singing was almost 100% dubbed. (She seems to have admitted to the producers that she couldn't sing it all, and the next thing she knew, she wasn't even nominated for an Oscar in a movie which won several of them, in a year when Julie Andrews--the famous stage Eliza who didn't get the part--won an Oscar for Mary Poppins).

It gets grating to me that Harrison doesn't sing much of the wonderful music. Especially "I've Grown Accustomed to her Face."

On accents: in the Brit com "As Time Goes By," there's a story arc about Americans shooting a movie on an English estate in the country. They want the "toffs" to wear hunting gear, complete with a scarlet jacket. The real toffs whose property is being used say "but we've never known anyone who dresses like that." "It doesn't matter," is the reply. "This will communicate to Americans that they're seeing British aristocrats." By way of explanation, young Alistair says: "You know the Dick Van Dyke role in Mary Poppins?" "Yes." "Well, Americans think that's a Cockney accent."

The sets, costumes, lots of money, blah blah. Hollywood sometimes thinks it can turn any sow's ear into any silk purse.

Do Patients Lie?

From a piece on Slate by Zachary Meisel:

"The patient is having an adverse drug reaction," I announced as I walked out of Mrs. J's E.R. room holding a bottle of antibiotics that had recently been prescribed to her. The medical student assigned to the patient looked sheepish and the senior resident looked surprised. Along with the emergency-department registration staff, the triage nurse, and the nursing student, they had already asked Mrs. J. if she was taking any new medications. Yet the patient waited to tell me—the attending E.R. doc and the final and most senior questioner—about her new antibiotics.