The “bring them on” news cycle continues. Here are a couple of the more interesting pieces: From Stan Goff at CounterPunch: Bring ’em on? Goff, who fought in Vietnam, imagines what life is like these days for a soldier in Iraq – and it’s not pretty.

Meanwhile, Steve Gilliard at Daily Kos has this analysis: It’s worse than it seems. Note, by the way, that today is the earliest date previously predicted by Gilliard for the existence of “civil war” in Iraq. I think we clearly haven’t reached that point yet; Iraqis still seem much more focused on killing us than killing each other, but that doesn’t exactly make for rosy Defense Department briefings. The level of violence certainly hasn’t diminished since Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” photo op; it’s arguably getting worse.

Yeah, it’s a different part of the world, a different kind of local insurgency, different history, different rationales. And still, in its essence, Iraq is Vietnam. Congratulations, Mr. Daddy-in-Chief. It’s a quagmire.

I’ve noticed for a while that Paul Krugman is a particularly favorite columnist on this web site. As you would expect, a person who takes a very strident tone against a presiding Administration will attract some critics of his views. But I’ve also noticed a good deal of attention is made to things that are beyond differences in ideologies. Many critics are calling Krugman out for some deliberate misrepresentations of information and just plain sloppy reporting. This story and this one are two such examples of this criticism.

It appears that the U.S. is tentatively backing Mahmudali Chehregani, an exiled former PM from Azerbaijan, in Northern Iran, to be a catalyst in spreading the unrest within the country. The Azeri population is a large minority within Iran, and Chehregani is going to try to inspire this group, who has always been a bit cool toward Tehran, to join in the open protests of the Iranian leadership.

The main thing this unrest has been missing is a central figure who can consolidate various ethnic groups and classes into a relatively unified force. I have doubts that this person will be the one. First, he is a bit too closely tied to the US, which will make too many dissidents wary. Also, he has supported in the past, and apparently still advocates, a reunification of the Iranian region of Azerbaijan with the Republic of Azerbaijan, just across the border. This doesn’t seem to be a popular idea with the rest of the population in Iran. Chehregani also publicly promotes having a federation of “states” within Iran, of which the region of Azerbaijan would be one. But which option do Iranians feel he would actually pursue if he obtained power?

If nothing else he will serve to ratchet up the scale of unrest that will continue to ferment until a real voice of the people emerges.

Daily Kos has a pointer to this Reuters story on the aftermath of Bush’s Roosevelt Room quip about how badass our troops are: Bush taking heat for ‘bring them on’ remark.

The most interesting part of the story, for me, was this:

University of Texas political scientist Bruce Buchanan, a longtime Bush watcher, said Bush uses such language when under strain, and that he is likely feeling the heat of criticism about the lagging post-war effort in Iraq.

He called the remark an unfortunate choice of words because it sounded belligerent.

“I think that when he feels up against it, as he did at the time of the 9/11 attacks, or when he does when coming under criticism now, he has a tendency to strike back verbally, and I think that’s what you’re seeing there. He’s not choosing his words diplomatically at those moments because he’s not feeling particularly diplomatic,” Buchanan said.

I’m sure Buchanan is right about that; we’re getting unmediated dubya here. He’s pissed at people having the gall to criticize him, so he makes these out-there statements.

Lefties like me are (obviously) appalled at this new indication of how thoroughly unsuited for the presidency he is. On the other side, I’m sure there are people cheering his Texan straight-shooting.

Neither of those reactions matters at all, though. What matters is how this plays with moderate swing voters. Are they still scared enough by September 11 to vote for someone who talks like Rambo? Or are they ready to give the irrational-lashing-out strategy a rest, and try someone who’s actually remotely qualified to lead the country? I guess we’ll know soon enough.

A fun piece in the latest Onion: Bush asks Congress for $30 billion to help fight war on criticism. Ah, the Onion.

Thanks to ymatt for the pointer.

Ben Fritz of Spinsanity is up in arms about a Howard Dean sound bite re: Bush’s “Clear Skies” initiative, which will reduce air pollution less than is called for under the current terms of the Clean Air Act: Dean foggy on “Clear Skies”.

Fritz says Dean is implying that Bush’s proposal would lead to increasing air pollution beyond current levels. What Dean actually said, in speaking with Tim Russert on a recent Meet the Press episode, was this: “The Clear Skies Initiative which basically allows you to put more pollution into the air…”

Now, as anyone knows who pays any attention to commercials, comparative words like “more” and “less” (or “brighter”, “cleaner”, “stronger”, etc.) are the favorite tools of those who write ad copy, since they are essentially meaningless in the absence of an explicit frame of reference. You can loudly trumpet that your new burger has “Less Fat!!”, and as long as the thing is not 100% lard you’ll be safe from a truth-in-advertising claim, since you didn’t say less fat than what. You’re basically enlisting your audience, making them co-conspirators in their own deception, since they will predictably supply a “reasonable” frame of reference in order to interpret your unspecified comparison.

Dean’s obviously doing that here. Yeah, if he were being scrupulously honest, and seeking only to inform listeners, he would have been more specific, saying something like, “The Clear Skies Initiative, which basically will allow corporations to put more pollution into the air in the future than the Clean Air Act currently calls for.” But that isn’t how the game is played. It certainly isn’t how Bush is playing it, choosing a label like “Clear Skies” for what is, in its essence, a weakening of the Clean Air Act’s provisions for future air clarity.

I guess you could say that what the Bush people meant when they chose that name is that our skies are clear enough already, so let’s do away with the stricter air-quality standards that the Clean Air Act will require in future years. But if you said that all the grownups in the room would laugh at you.

So yeah, Dean is spinning. But Bush’s spinning in this case is much more blatant.
(more…)

Apparently, driving on a public road and crashing into a sign post at 60mph because you were having sex with a hitchhiker is NOT illegal in Germany … unless you leave the scene of the accident with out reporting it. Have I mentioned lately how much I Love Germany?

A friend of mine pointed out recordnet.com which is currently featuring The Governor’s Game … “Sit in the Governor’s Chair & Balance the State Budget.” I haven’t played with it long enough to confirm that it’s possible to “win” (No matter what budget i started with, any changes I made invariable cost me votes) but it’s definitely ammusing.

Christopher of NotMyDesk’s new site is on the air: Everything Once. It’s a Movable Type weblog, apparently, where he’ll be posting, he says, weekly updates on his performance of new and different, um, activities. If you’re a NotMyDesk fan (as you should be), you will realize that this is excellent news.

Interesting article in Time Magazine’s latest issue: Who lost the WMD? The lead tells of a funny, if it weren’t scary, incident that took place during Bush’s recent visit to Centcom.

The permalink-challenged wags at OpinionJournals’ Best of the Web page make the following observation about Dean’s good showing in the recent MoveOn poll, and the relatively large amounts of cash he’s pulling in lately:

Karl Rove must be jumping for joy. Apart from the Sharptonkucinichmoseleybraun also-rans, Dean is the best opponent the Republicans could possibly hope for. Can anyone imagine such an intemperate lefty winning a single “red” state? If President Bush merely carries the same states he did last time around, he has 278 electoral votes and a second term. Against Dean he could phone it in.

Dean supporters need to think about this issue seriously. I’m not saying we can’t choose to support him even if the above wisdom is deemed accurate. But choosing to do so in that case will carry certain costs, and we should be prepared to pay them.

Of course, the OpinionJournal writers could also simply be wrong. And without the kind of faith that would let us support a supposedly “unelectable” candidate, we’d never find that out.

The OmbudsGod has an interesting analysis of the March 16 Meet the Press appearance at which Dick Cheney made his much-cited comment about how Iraq “has reconstituted nuclear weapons”: What the vice president didn’t say. He points out that that one statement by Cheney was made in the context of numerous other statements that clearly ackowledged that Saddam did not actually have the nukes yet, but was biding his time until he could revive the program later.

It’s a good point. But it also betrays a naive view of how bigtime liars operate. Cheney makes five statements acknowleding the (obvious) reality that the Saddam of March, 2003, did not have the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. And in the midst of them he makes one statement that unambiguously says Saddam actually did have that capability.

Is that a simple mistake, as the OmbudsGod argues? Well, maybe. It could also be an intentional way of planting the suggestion in the mind of the suggestible. Like finding ways to mention Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence six different times in a single speech, without ever making the explicit (and easily refuted) statement that they actually are working together. You accomplish your goal (getting the gullible to believe something that isn’t true) without giving your opponents the ammunition that a bald lie would provide.

We don’t live in a binary universe. Reality doesn’t slice neatly into yes/no, either/or, true/false. Cheney made several true statements, and one glaringly false one. Maybe he did that on accident. Maybe he did it on purpose. But he did it, and the result was the same either way. And the result was that many more people believed they needed to support the president in his push to invade Iraq right then, not later. And since fostering that view was clearly Cheney’s intention, I don’t think he deserves much slack on the false statement.