lloydtown |
||||
How Clueless was Bush?Glenn Reynolds, apparently still brooding about the "Bush lied" charge (and perhaps brooding even more that the only alternative is that Bush was completely clueless), links to this from the Chicago Tribune:
In measuring risks to this country, the administration relied on the same intelligence agencies, in the U.S. and overseas, that failed to anticipate Sept. 11, 2001. We now know that the White House explained some but not enough of the ambiguities embedded in those agencies' conclusions. By not stressing what wasn't known as much as what was, the White House wound up exaggerating allegations that proved dead wrong. Those flawed assertions are central to the charge that the president lied. Such accusations, though, can unfairly conflate three issues: the strength of the case Bush argued before the war, his refusal to delay its launch in March 2003 and his administration's failure to better anticipate the chaos that would follow. Those three are important, but not to be confused with one another. After reassessing the administration's nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege. Example: The accusation that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs overlooks years of global intelligence warnings that, by February 2003, had convinced even French President Jacques Chirac of "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq." We also know that, as early as 1997, U.S. intel agencies began repeatedly warning the Clinton White House that Iraq, with fissile material from a foreign source, could have a crude nuclear bomb within a year. Seventeen days before the war, this page reluctantly urged the president to launch it. We said that every earnest tool of diplomacy with Iraq had failed to improve the world's security, stop the butchery--or rationalize years of UN inaction. We contended that Saddam Hussein, not George W. Bush, had demanded this conflict. Many people of patriotism and integrity disagreed with us and still do. But the totality of what we know now--what this matrix chronicles-- affirms for us our verdict of March 2, 2003. We hope these editorials help Tribune readers assess theirs. Nice of them to make it clear they have their own butts to cover on this. And how reassuring that there are still three distinct screw-ups that can be kept neatly distinct. So: a shot at the CIA and other agencies. You didn't predict 9/11 (or was it just that Bush couldn't be bothered getting briefed on al Qaeda?), you didn't predict the end of the Cold War, you've been wrong on a lot of big things (often, er, over-estimating the threat posed by U.S. enemies--that's how bureaucracies grow in Washington): so no wonder if you misled poor, innocent President Bush and the editorial staff of the poor, under-funded Chicago Tribune. Sniff. So: there was a consensus that was, let us say, 70% wrong, and the Bushies were 100% wrong. How did they go from 70% to 100%? Did they dig themselves into a deeper cave of ignorance than anyone else? "Exaggerating allegations that proved dead wrong"? That sounds a bit worse than the old Churchill chestnut, "terminological inexactitude." Lots of people thought Saddam had WMDs of some kind; how many ever suggested he actually had, or could quickly acquire, nukes in early 2003? Weren't the latest and best intelligence reports all to the contrary effect? (Setting aside reports from 1997). Later the Trib says: "Hussein didn't have illicit weapons stockpiles to wield or hand to terrorists. Subsequent investigations have concluded he had the means and intent to rekindle those programs as soon as he escaped UN sanctions." Means? No. "Weapons of mass destruction related program activities" could mean anything or nothing. A couple of Ph.D's in chemistry living somewhere in Iraq? Or what? Was Saddam's Iraq any closer to having nukes, or any number of other WMDs, than 50 or more other Third World countries? Does any of this justify invading Iraq in March 2003? Hasn't Bush's good friend Musharaf of Pakistan caused or allowed the distribution of more nukes than Saddam ever did? The Trib has also drunk the same Kool-Aid as Reynolds and Bush when it comes to the UN. "Hussein had shunted enough lucre to enough profiteers to keep the UN from challenging him. In a dozen years the organization mass-produced 17 resolutions on Iraq, all of them toothless. That in turn enabled Hussein to continue his brutal reign and cost untold thousands of Iraqis their lives." Wow. Inaction by the UN did all that? So whenever anyone fails to act on any tyranny, oppression or suffering in the world, they are directly responsible for the resulting torture, suffering, and death? I don't think so. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's insane. Nobody had higher hopes for the UN than Americans--or at least, some Americans. Now there is this rage, probably a result of unrealistic high hopes being dashed. "Why didn't you stop Saddam?" Are you kidding? The UN "itself" has probably never overturned a government, or even made an oppressive government significantly less oppressive. It could have been predicted from the beginning that it would not achieve these results "on its own"; it requires forceful action by member states. So: the best post facto rationale for Bush is that things are turning out fairly well in Iraq. There is democracy and relative piece. Maybe the mullahs will allow women to go to university; maybe not. But does this explain March 2003? Of course we had to go in--there were people who needed to be liberated? Out of all the tyrannies in all the world, why this one? Out of all the people who have been brutalized even since 1945, how many have been liberated by the United States? The Bushies want to keep bringing up WMDs and links to terrorism because these rationales come closest to self-defence--the classic basis for just war. Without them, they have a vague idea of improving a whole region, or even the whole world, one country at a time, and thereby lessening the threat to the U.S. Iraq still seems like a bit of a detour. Questions about IraqIraq the Model (link via Instapundit) seems cautiously optimistic. The major groups have still not all met together, but they are planning to. One preliminary issue is whether to investigate allegations of fraud in the recent election, and on what scale. The leaders who are identified here all seem to want a "national unity" government, from which no major group is unfairly excluded, and peaceful solutions.
Barham Salih the planning minister and senior Kurdish politician who’s now in Sulaimaniya told al-Sabah that “threatening with violence are not acceptable but law should be allowed to take its course regarding the fraud accusation” and added “what we are hearing from the leaders of the Accords Front and Iraqi list is different from what you hear in the media...there’s a basic agreement among us to let law and peaceful talks bring a solution...we haven’t reached a solution yet and the problem is still out there”. In related news, al-Hurra said they’ve been told by Aadil al-Lami in a phone call that the election commission will be having a press conference tomorrow to announce the progress of their investigations. And it’s been reported that the UN is sending in 5 investigation teams to the southern provinces to investigate the accusations of fraud in the region. The name of Ahmed Chalabi, the "George Washington of Iraq," is not mentioned here. Voting returns seem to indicate that he is the most contemptible loser of them all. On the other hand, there is some rather weird speculation that a majority Shiite government, even with a strongly Islamic and mullocratic complexion, was Plan B for the Bushies all along. After all, the Shiites of Iraq in general, and even many Shiites in Iran, oppose the Iranian mullahs. In the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, very few Iraqi Shiites became pro-Iran. When Saddam slaughtered Shiites in the early 90s, Iran (like the U.S.) did nothing. The brains behind Bush's Middle East policy believe Iraq's Shia are just the instrument to bring down the terror-sponsoring, nuke-chasing regime in Iran. This remains the overarching foreign policy goal for the remainer of the Bush presidency. Iraq is merely a means to that end. For that reason the odd extremist Shi'ite impulse in Iraq—a death-squad here or Islamic courts there—will be tolerated by the U.S. All-out civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites will not, as that does not fit into the Arab vs. Persian playbook. Ahmed Chalabi might still have a role to play in this nasty little endgame. He can serve as a familiar face for the American public and Congress to affix a white hat to while the intrigue and deadly politics swirl around the region. Maybe he can visit Cheney and Condi Rice again. All Chalabi has to do is wait—and he has proven surpassingly good at that. Still, the idea that events today are what the Bushies had in mind all along seems laughable--obvious spin. Even recently they were putting serious money on the "George Washington" of Iraq. To say now that Iran was the real target all along (after all, it was actually sending terrorists into other countries, it actually had WMDS and, of course, oil), and the Iraqis may have to settle for something far short of liberation as Bush has promised it, is a bit too post facto for me. Next we'll be told that the Bushies shrewdly knew that Syria would be more of a cakewalk than Iraq (and of course it has oil), but they cleverly decided to change two or three regimes at once. I can't help thinking there is a great divide between those who mention Sistani, and emphasize his role in shaping Shiite opinion in Iraq, and those who don't. For those who do, it seems pretty clear that Bush didn't have a clue what was going on when he invaded. For those who don't, there's always a brilliant Bushie plan lying around somewhere. Yoo on Foreign Policy and WarJohn Yoo has become famous for writing memos, while he worked in the White House, that "told Bush what he wanted to hear": namely, that there was no law with which he had to comply when it came to torture or eavesdropping on Americans.
The problem for originalists who believe in a strong executive and are cynical about international law is that the framers held precisely the opposite views—they were intensely wary of executive power, and as leaders of a new and vulnerable nation, they were eager to ensure that the mutual obligations they had negotiated with other countries would be honored and enforced. During the last two centuries, of course, executive power has greatly expanded in practice; and the attitude of many US leaders toward international law has grown increasingly disrespectful as the relative strength of the US compared to other nations has increased. But these developments are difficult to square with the doctrine of "original intent," which, at least as expressed by Justice Antonin Scalia and other extreme conservatives, largely disregards the development of the law for the past two centuries. One issue is whether provisions actually in the Constitution, including the fact that only Congress can "declare war," mean that the President is required to defer to Congress except in the most extreme situations. All the evidence Yoo cites...can be read more convincingly to corroborate the view he seeks to challenge—namely, that the Constitution gave the president only the power, as commander in chief, to carry out defensive wars when the country came under attack, and to direct operations in wars that Congress authorized. Of course, some of what Bush did in the period immediately after 9/11 could be considered self-defence in the face of an attack. Kevin Drum has said he would have favoured all the wiretapping we have been told of, with no warrants, at least for several months. But for years during which there is no sign of any further attack on Americans on U.S. soil? The war in Iraq? [blockquote]Yoo's further suggestion that the [declaration of war] clause recognizes a distinction between "total wars," which must be declared, and lesser wars, which need not be, has no historical basis. Despite his ostensible commitment to originalism, Yoo cites no evidence whatever to suggest that any such distinction existed for the founding generation. Nor does he ever explain what the distinction might mean today. And the fact that the text grants Congress both the power to "declare War" and to issue "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" strongly suggests an intent that Congress decide on all forms of military conflict other than repelling attacks. Once these explanations evaporate, all that is left for Yoo's theory of the war clause is that it gives Congress the power to provide a "courtesy to the enemy"—hardly a persuasive refutation of the clear language of the framers quoted above.[/blockquote] I gather Yoo's introduction of "total wars" is intended to wrap up World War II, the Cold War, and the War on Terror, all together. Unfortunately for this argument, however, it can realistically be said the entire U.S. economy was mobilized for the Cold War. Some of the mobilization obviously remains in place. But has anyone been asked to sacrifice for the War on Terror, other than the actual troops? Have there been any further attacks since September 2001? Have any suspects been announced for their activities on U.S. soil, other than Larry, Moe, and Curly? Yoo's evidence does not undermine the conclusion that the framers intended Congress to take responsibility for the decision to send the nation into war. But in some sense, arguments against his theory are academic. Modern practice is closer to Yoo's view than to the framers' vision. Beginning with the Korean War, presidents have routinely involved the nation in military conflicts without waiting for Congress to authorize their initiatives. Yoo notes that while the nation has been involved in approximately 125 military conflicts, Congress has declared war only five times. Were the framers lacking in practical judgment when they gave Congress this power? Yoo claims that since September 11, it is all the more essential that the nation be able to act swiftly and without hesitation, even preemptively, to protect itself. We can't afford to wait around for Congress to figure out what it wants to do. The "war on terror" does not permit democratic deliberation, at least not in advance. And, as Yoo repeatedly insists, Congress remains free to cut off funds for any military action that it does not like. But there is as good reason today as there was when the Constitution was drafted to give Congress the power to authorize military activities. As the framers accurately predicted, presidents have proven much more eager than Congress to involve the nation in wars. It is easier for one person to make up his mind than for a majority of two houses of Congress to agree on a war policy. Presidents also tend to benefit from war more than members of Congress, by increasing their short-term popularity, by acquiring broader powers over both the civilian economy and the armed forces, and, sometimes, by the historical recognition later accorded them. Moreover, as the Vietnam War illustrated, even when a war becomes extremely unpopular, it is not easy to cut off funds for the troops. That last point brings us, once again, to the Congressional system. All that military spending is benefitting specific districts and states that have representation in Washington. Much easier to ratchet the spending up, than ratchet it down. A relatively small group, determined to achieve something like a specific wasteful spending project, can prevail over a larger group which is somewhat less committed to the other side. Presidents are glory-seekers, and so they shouldn't be left to make so many decisions about war and foreign policy with no real checks on their actions? Otherwise you're back to George III again? I don't know about Yoo, but many of the neo-cons probably think the U.S. has tended to be too isolationist in general, and if decisions were left to Congress, there would still be a lot of isolationism today. Probably most of those who want more war also want more glory, for themselves, their friends, and their country; but they are likely to offer the noble rationale: "We've got people who need to be liberated." As Cole says, there has been a debate between every Congress and every President for decades about who has what powers. It is accepted in practice that the President can send and deploy troops almost anywhere, on very short notice. He has the advantages of speed and secrecy, and these might be lost if Congress was granted a veto. Even individuals who express the pro-Congress view when they are not in the White House will probably adopt the pro-President view once in. On treaties: Yoo apparently argues that treaties do not become the law of the land simply on being ratified by the Senate; rather, a further act of Congress is required to implement a treaty. Again, contemporary practice, but not "original intent," is mostly, though not entirely, on Yoo's side. In the modern era, Congress often specifies when ratifying a treaty that it should not be enforceable in court until further legislation is enacted. And even without such directives, courts sometimes find treaties not to be judicially enforceable; the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit did so recently in rejecting a Guantánamo detainee's claim that his pending trial in a military tribunal violated the Geneva Conventions. Yoo would go further, insisting on a presumption against judicial enforcement unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. On this view, treaties lack the force of law, and become mere political promises, having about as much force as campaign rhetoric. And he further claims that the president has unilateral authority to interpret, reinterpret, and terminate treaties, effectively rendering presidents above the law when it comes to treaties. [snip] [blockquote]If anything, Yoo's historical evidence is even thinner with respect to the treaty power and the Supremacy Clause than it is with respect to the clause on declaring war. As Jack Rakove, one of the foremost historians of the federal period, has concluded, the framers "were virtually of one mind when it came to giving treaties the status of law."[12] As other historians have pointed out, one of the principal incentives for convening the Constitutional Convention was the embarrassing refusal of state governments to enforce treaties. The Supremacy Clause solved that problem in as direct a way as possible—by making treaties the "Law of the Land," enforceable in courts and binding on government and citizenry alike. That treaties were not thought to need further implementing is underscored by the framers' unanimous decision to omit treaty enforcement from Congress's enumerated powers, "as being superfluous since treaties were to be 'laws.'"[13] Yoo's account turns that conclusion on its head; his reading would render superfluous the Supremacy Clause's assertion that treaties are laws. If treaties had domestic force only when implemented by a subsequent statute, as Yoo maintains, then the statute itself would have the status of the "Law of the Land," not the treaty.[/blockquote] This all makes it seem as though Yoo's book is tendentious and disingenuous, and perhaps saves him from the charge of being simply a Bushie hack. Cass Sunstein is praising him--perhaps because Sunstein admits that he doesn't want to be bound by "original intent," and it seems clear, even if he doesn't admit it, that Yoo doesn't want to be, either. The main question, as Cole makes clear, is what is the best approach for today. Cole says that not only is there an obvious danger is giving ambitious presidents their head, but in specific cases where Congress has not been sufficiently involved, quagmires have resulted. Cole includes Iraq as an example. Of course, while Congress did not exactly declare war on Iraq, they did authorize military action "if necessary" in October 2002, and then voted for massive funding in October 2003. "Were Congress to be eliminated from the initial decision-making process, as Yoo would prefer, the result would almost certainly be even more wars, and more quagmires such as the one in Iraq." Obviously this will continue to be debated for years, and we probably need a clear definition of "quagmire." But: has the cost of the Iraq war far exceeded any benefit to the national security of the U.S.? Still not clear, I think. In his closing paragraphs Cole is more concerned about torture, where Yoo really surpassed himself in his advice to Bush. I guess the point is: if the U.S. become known as torturers, even if they really are liberators, they will have more trouble being seen as liberators. Joe DanteLast night my son and I watched Small Soldiers together--a movie we've owned in VHS for many years. Very enjoyable. One of the writers also wrote The Borrowers; another has worked on Pirates of the Caribbean.
Almost Seasonal QuotesI went looking for some Father Ted scripts, and found this:
TED: Yes well I just wanted to clear things up. I'm not a fascist, I'm a priest. Fascists dress in black and go around telling people what to do whereas priests... MORE DRINK! On the gifts of the Magi, and for that matter, on the whole debate on Slate about the historicity of Christ, we have the Life of Brian: [blockquote][Taking the gifts from the Three Wise Men and pushing them out the door][/blockquote] Brian's mother: Er, well, um, if you're dropping by again, do pop in. Heh. And thanks a lot for the gold and frankincense, er, but don't worry too much about the myrrh next time. All right? Heh. Thank you. Good-bye. [blockquote][Three wise men leave] Brian's mother: Well, weren't they nice? Hmm. Out of their bloody minds, but still.[/blockquote] Evelyn Waugh and the MagiSome Christmas thoughts. I'm trying to find a quote in Waugh's letters. For now:
“ ‘Like me,’ writes Waugh, ‘you were late in coming. The shepherds were here long before. Even the cattle, they had joined the chorus of angels before you were on your way. For you, the primordial discipline of the heavens was relaxed, and a new defiant light blazed amid the disconcerted stars. How laboriously you came, taking sights and calculating where the shepherds are run barefoot. How odd you looked on the road attended by what outlandish liveries laden with such preposterous gifts. You came at length to the final stage of your pilgrimage and the great star stood still above you, and what did you do? You stopped to call on King Herod with a deadly exchange of compliments which there began that unending war of mobs and magistrates against the innocent. Yet, still, you came and were not turned away. You, too, found room before the manger. Your gifts were not exactly needed, but they were accepted and put carefully by, for they were brought with love. In that new order of charity that had just come to life, there was room for you, too. You were not lower in the eyes of the holy family than the ox or the ass. You were my special patrons and the patrons of all late comers, of all who have a tedious journey to make to the obscure truth, of all who are confused with knowledge and speculation, of all who, through politeness, make themselves partners in guilt, of all who stand in danger by reason of their talent. For him, who did not reject your curious gifts, pray always for all the learned, the oblique, the delegate. Let them not quite be forgotten at the throne of God when the end comes to their kingdom.’ ” UPDATE: Found it shorter and neater in the letters. Not an easy book to find things in. In this case, not included in references to book about Helena (from which the prayer comes), no reference in index to Gospels or Magi. Now I see I should have looked under Epiphany. Sigh. To Laura Waugh, January 9, 1945 (Evelyn still at war): [blockquote]Have you ever considered how the Epiphany is the feast of artists. I thought so very strongly this year. After St. Joseph and the angels and the shepherds and even the ox and the ass have had their share of the crib, twelve days later appears an exotic caravan with negro pages and ostrich plumes. They have come an enormous journey across a desert and the splendid gifts look much less splendid than they did when they were being packed in Babylon. The wise men committed every sort of betise--even asking the way of Herod & provoking the massacre of the innocents--but they got there in the end and their gifts were accepted.[/blockquote] I have always detested Christmas. Now I shall always celebrate the Epiphany instead. This is very moving to me. Those of us who pride ourselves on some kind of taste, accomplishment, wisdom, feel compelled to pay homage, do so the best way we can, which turns out to be ridiculous or worse, yet we are accepted. There are lots of references in the letters to Waugh's hatred of Christmas, especially having a lot of kids around. Then this, from A Tourist in Africa (1960): The opening: [blockquote]28th December 1958. On the third day after Christmas we commemorate the massacre of the Holy Innocents. Few candid fathers, I suppose, can regard that central figure of slate in Breughel's painting in Antwerp [i.e. Herod] without being touched by sympathy. After the holly and sticky sweetmeats, cold steel.[/blockquote] Waugh announces with some pride that he made a point of vacationing, alone, beginning a few days after Christmas, for many years. Raptors: Two Wins in a Row Again!Wednesday (Dec. 21) in Houston:
Canada's Tories and QuebecNot long ago, Tory leader Stephen Harper suggested he could work with the NDP, on a "case by case" basis, to remain in government if he had only a minority of seats.
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper promised to bring Quebec into the constitutional fold, instituting an "open federalism" in which consensus will be built on an issue-by-issue basis and allowing Quebec a role at international conferences, including UNESCO. Speaking to the chamber of commerce in Quebec City, Mr. Harper also said he would move to address a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces. "We will limit the federal spending powers that the Liberals have so badly abused. This exorbitant spending power has given rise to a domineering federalism, a paternalistic federalism, and is a serious threat to the future of our federation." Quebec Premier Jean Charest, a Liberal, has asked for a place at international conferences, but Liberal Leader Paul Martin's government has so far refused. Mr. Harper said he is not prepared to dismiss Quebec on the constitutional issue either. Although his plan lacked detail, Mr. Harper told reporters that there is a "huge difference" between what he is proposing and what he believes is the Liberal plan. He says his approach is to work for consensus on individual issues. Mr. Martin's approach amounts to inertia, Mr. Harper argued. "Mr. Martin's position, the position of the Liberal Party is 'we won't move on anything unless we get a consensus on everything.' Well, that's saying you'll never move at all." He said if consensus develops around issues such as Senate reform, a Conservative government would proceed on that issue. The "red flag" issues in this list are really "participation in international negotiations," and "constitutional reform," especially the Senate. The Tories under Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney (and briefly under that same Jean Charest) were always trying to find an approach to Quebec (and other provinces/regions, as provinces/regions) that was truly federalist, yet different from the Liberals. Apart from patriotism, and being a loyal opposition, there was an obvious strategy to try to win some Quebec seats. Typically this involved working with Quebeckers who identified themselves as nationalist but not (the Tories hoped) separatist. All too often the result was working with some pretty scummy people, and not being able to count on Quebec seats anyway. Mulroney won a lot of Quebec seats, put enormous faith in Lucien Bouchard, and Bouchard founded the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party serving exclusively at the federal level, which is still with us. In Lament for a Nation, George Grant wrote about some of John Diefenbaker's failures as Tory Prime Minister in the late 50s and early 60s. Diefenbaker does not seem to have sought serious French lieutenants who could mediate the interests of their people to the rest of the country. He seems to have contented himself with the rag and bobtail of the Union Nationale. Despite present propaganda, there were noble elements in that party. Even after the death of Duplessis, in September of 1959, Diefenbaker does not seem to have tried to bring such obvious Quebec conservatives as Bertrand into his cabinet. Duplessis's death was followed immediately by that of his successor, J.M.P. Sauvé, in January of 1960. This was the deepest blow that Canadian conservatism ever sustained. Sauvé could have become the first French-Canadian Conservative Prime Minister. However, this disaster need not have prevented Diefenbaker from seeking out other leaders from the Union Nationale. There are deep waters to plumb here, and questions well worth thinking about. Was the lingering conservativism of parts of Quebec at this time closely related to any powerful strand of English-Canadian conservativism? Was there such a thing, to use the idiom of today, as conservatism on social issues, including traditions, the Crown, etc.? I don't know. Somehow the Liberals always end up looking like they have a plan that is both patriotic and a winner--or enough of a winner--in Quebec. Will this still be true if we are in for another referendum on separation in Quebec, many years after Trudeau said separatism was dead? UPDATE: Although Harper's remarks were sketchy, they will remind some of Joe Clark's "community of communities" approach to federalism, and granting the provinces new powers (which prompted Trudeau to say Ottawa should not be "headwaiter to the provinces." Also Mulroney, the Meech Lake Accord. i for one have long hoped the Tories could come up with a coherent alternative to the Liberal approach. This gives me a reason to vote for my local Tory--someone I worked with a few years ago. UPDATE: Graham Fraser had a great piece in the Star pointing out that Harper and Martin seem to have switched positions on Quebec and federalism. Iraq, Post-ElectionSummary of Iraqi election results from the Independent:
Islamic fundamentalist movements are ever more powerful in both the Sunni and Shia communities. Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator, said: "In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq." [snip] Iran may be happier with a weakened Iraq in which it is a predominant influence rather than see the country entirely break up. [snip] The US ambassador in Baghdad, Zilmay Khalilzad, sounded almost despairing yesterday as he reviewed the results of the election. "It looks as if people have preferred to vote for their ethnic or sectarian identities," he said. "But for Iraq to succeed there has to be cross-ethnic and cross-sectarian co-operation." [snip] The election also means a decisive switch from a secular Iraq to a country in which, outside Kurdistan, religious law will be paramount. Mr Allawi, who ran a well-financed campaign, was the main secular hope but that did not translate into votes. The other main non-religious candidate, Ahmed Chalabi, won less than 1 per cent of the vote in Baghdad and will be lucky to win a single seat in the new 275-member Council of Representatives. It is unlikely that the Shia religious parties and militias will tolerate any rollback in their power. "They feel their day has come," said Mr Attiyah. Who is Ghassan Attiyah? "Founder and Executive Director of the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy in Baghdad. He is a political scientist, and was a formerly exiled opponent of Saddam Hussein's regime, living in the UK and publisher of the oppositionist periodical The Iraqi File." "The IFDD is a regionally based non-governmental organization committed to supporting democracy and development in Iraq by fostering dialogue between decision-makers and citizens on important social, economic, and political issues. A primary goal of the Foundation is to bring together people of diverse ethnic, religious, political and tribal backgrounds to build consensus on finding solutions to the issues most important to the Iraqi people and for assisting in the promotion of freedom and democracy. With the material and advisory assistance provided by IRI's Baghdad staff, the IFDD has convened several conferences to achieve these goals." March of 04, Peter Jennings, "Newsmaker of the Month": "Dr. Ghassan Attiyah, director of the Iraqi Foundation for Development and Democracy: President Bush has done us a great service. Having said that, he got rid of Saddam, but democracy is not Mr. Bush's or any American business. It's our job. And can we do it? I will confess to you that it is tough, it is difficult." Even Glenn Reynolds (there is always good news in Iraq that the mainstream media is not telling us) seems to be admitting that the election did not work out that great. "I'm not sure what to make of events so far, but Kaus's argument that more, closer-together elections would be better is looking pretty good." Do tell. Reynolds has probably, like Bush, never mentioned the Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, who has been identified as the most powerful man in Iraq today. He has never admitted that the Bush Administration has been surprised at everything, good and bad, that has happened inside Iraq. Yet he claims to be correcting for the biases and echo-chamber effect of the mainstream media? Setting up another cave, at least as stupid as the first one, somehow contributes to diversity? The media is giving only a hazy idea of what is going on. They are both at the mercy of Bush news releases, like lazy fat cat reporters who never go anywhere, and inclined to emphasize violence because it makes good pictures and neat stories. Both lazily stupidly pro-Bush, and lazily stupidly anti-Bush. Can't we do better? Bush's EavesdroppingKevin Drum (drawing partly on Orin Kerr/Volokh and Marty Lederman/Balkin) :
In other words, the president's program is almost certainly illegal unless you accept his unprecedented notion that we are currently in a state of war so grave that he has virtually unlimited power to override federal law whenever he considers it necessary. Even more importantly, by keeping his program secret, he has set himself up as the sole arbiter of whether his actions are legal or not. Neither Congress nor the courts are allowed any oversight, a position that is both breathtaking and dangerous.
|
Search This SiteSyndicate this blog site Powered by BlogEasy Free Blog Hosting | |||
|
|
||||