January 2008 Archives
The long long years of the Bush presidency are coming to an end -- but sadly, that's of little comfort: the consequences of those years will be with us for a long long time to come.
In his final State of the Union address, President Bush predictably made the case for an open-ended military presence in Iraq, probably for decades. Bush has previously invoked Korea as a model and his administration hopes to conclude a formal status of forces agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that would effectively tie his successor's hands in ever getting us out of Iraq.
Christopher A. Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, puts it this way:
What a dramatic change from one year ago, when the president claimed that the surge would facilitate political reconciliation that would enable U.S. forces to come home. But the reduction in violence has not contributed to national reconciliation, and the president now argues that we cannot withdraw below pre-surge levels lest Iraq fall back into chaos. Approximately 130,000 American troops will remain in Iraq, roughly the same number as when the surge was first announced.
We cannot know how long it will take for Iraqi politicians to take responsibility for their country, or even whether they will do so. Given their many past failures, there is little reason for optimism. In the meantime, while Iraq's politicians dither, and our troops are risking their lives every day, we hope that the lull in violence continues. But this much is certain: President George W. Bush launched a war of choice in March 2003 that has so far cost the lives of nearly 4,000 Americans, and left many thousands more with life-altering injuries. The venture has cost American taxpayers more than $500 billion, and the meter is running at a rate of $10 billion a month. It will be up to the next president to clean up the mess.
Looking back, it's almost farcical how it all started, and how it would have been so easy to prevent: Back in 2003 or 2004, former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke talked to Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes about the Bush administration's neocon obsession with Iraq:
OK -- Cloverfield:
It's New York City 9/11 panic times 1000 heart-stoppingly terrifying with all the thrills of an out-of-control high powered roller coaster ride: NYC gets seriously whacked!!
It's a VERY good movie. It'll set the standard for it's type of film making for a long long time. The editing and style are unusual, but if they tried to make this as a normal big-budget thriller, it would not be even half as good.
See it on a Friday or Saturday night when at least half the audience is 25 or under. See it with someone you can hold on to . . . !
I'm Rudy Giuliani and I Approved This Movie
P.S. For an absolutely hilarious review of the movie, check out Kyle "Plasauce" Plaisance's viewpoint from his perspective while on 3rd shift at Wetzel’s Pretzels . . .
Liberal Values has some of the best blog-based political analyses out there, and it's almost got me convinced to back Obama, however, there's growing trouble in paradise for Obama. Liberal Values of late has been expending a lot of sweat and bytes defending Obama from a well-coordinated Clinton attack campaign, e.g.,
Eric Zorn Exposes Clinton Lies:
Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn also argues that The Clintons are Lying About Obama’s Remarks on Reagan. Don’t miss his quiz at the end . . .
Why Bill Clinton Has Spent The Last Several Days Spreading Lies:
As I just posted, Factcheck.org has supported Obama in debunking the falsifications from Hillary Clinton on the Ronald Reagan matter in last night’s debate. Earlier in the day Eugene Robinson had similar comments defending Obama while also suggesting why Bill Clinton might be so upset . . .
Factcheck.org Verifies Obama Side of the Reagan Controversy:
Factcheck.org has reviewed the debates and, as usual, found that all the candidates made statements which can be questioned. The ones which were the most significant regarded the distortions of Obama’s statement on Ronald Reagan by Hillary Clinton. This includes two distortions, the first regarding Obama and Republican ideas . . .
Fact Checking the South Carolina Debate:
The South Carolina debate got heated (as seen in the above video) but primarily covered material which has already been discussed in recent posts. I’ll briefly summarize some of the key controversies with links to further material. (Obama also responded to similar issues on Good Morning America with video posted here. Many of these issues were also reviewed by The Washington Post, which I discussed in this post) . . .
Liberal Values and other Obama supporters are doing Yeoman's work in defending Obama with expert and exceptionally well executed parrys, beats, remises and ripostes -- but they're so involved in a heated pitched battle that I'm afraid they don't really understand why they're forced into this kind of battle at all.
I really want to believe in Obama — in fact, for me, I love it if he was really another Bill Clinton (and the GOP was in charge of the house and senate. That’s what made the 90’s so great, but that’s going off topic here).
The problem Liberal Values and other Obama supporters are overlooking is a fundamental weakness with Obama: the Clintons are aware of it -- and they’re taking maximum advantage of it. It all comes down to the question: “Dear Mr. Obama — where’s the beef?”
Pro-tax Liberal Values, for reasons that aren't at all clear to me, has gone on a small jihad against Supply-Side Economics (what he's calling Voodoo Economics).
It's a rather astonishing and embarrassing mix of sweeping generalizations and red herrings substituting for real analyses from a guy obviously smart and bright enough to know better.
The attack begins with a clear-as-mud critisism of the "Laffer Curve:"
A conservative publication, which I will not name, just spiked a book review because I said that the Laffer Curve didn’t apply at American levels of taxation, even while otherwise expressing my vast displeasure with the (liberal) economic notions of the book I was reviewing. This isn’t me looking for an alternative explanation for the spiking of a bad review: the literary editor accepted it, edited it, and then three hours later told me it couldn’t be published because it violated their editorial line on taxation.
I suppose I ought to have known, but I didn’t. Go ahead liberals, pile on: you told me so.
(Megan McArdle, The Atlantic.com, 10 . 16 . 2007)
Pro-tax Liberal Values frames this quote with this out-of-the-blue and way-the-hell over-generalization:
I’ve often noted that a major problem with the modern conservative movement and the Republican Party is that they put ideology before reality.
. . . ?! . . .
