Daves-first-blog

Via Finnegan's Wake, a great American's attitude on support for the commander-in-chief in times of war

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else. [Emphasis added]

-Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 [i.e. in the midst of WWI--ed.], as quoted on Howard Stern's website

Ezra Klein has a nice post up comparing the level of rhetoric used in this campaign. Basically, Kerry campaigns on ideas, with a few attacks. And when he does attack, Kerry usually goes after policies (ie Iraq) and not his opponent personally. BC04's only campaign theme is John Kerry's character.

This post nicely sums up the political parties as of right now. Republicans are most interested in maintaining political power, Democrats are more interested in promulgating policies that benefit the US. While Dems talk of succeeding in places such as Iraq, the GOP compares their political opponents to the terrorists while pushing policies beneficial to political supporters.

Via Steve Clemons today.

Steve links to an article published in Pakistan ans lists these highlights:

-- Nearly 17,000 service members medically evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan are absent from public Pentagon casualty reports

-- In addition to those evacuations, 32,684 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan now out of the military sought medical attention from the Department of Veterans Affairs

-- The military has evacuated 16,765 individual service members from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries and ailments not directly related to combat

-- The Pentagon has reported 1,019 dead and 7,245 wounded from Iraq. And 27,571 of the veterans who have sought health care from the VA served in Iraq

-- Among veterans from Iraq seeking help from the VA, 5,375 have been diagnosed with a mental problem, making it the third-leading diagnosis after bone problems and digestive problems. Among the mental problems were 800 soldiers who became psychotic.

Boris Yeltsin, the previous president of Russia, is now speaking out behalf of Putin and his plan to create a pseudo-dictatorship in Russia. And I thought Yeltsin was alrerady dead, or at least too busy drinking to bother with politics anymore. Who knew??

David Ignatius says that we should treat Russia just as we do China, by letting them continue on their anti-democratic ways while deepening economic ties in the country.

President Bush has stated that he is "concenred by moves in Russia to undermine democracy" in that country. This seems fairly weak and inoccuous. If he really cared about democracy promotion, Bush would be frank, upfront, and forceful with not only our enemies( ie invading Iraq to spread democracy in the Middle East), but also with our friends. Bush shuld tell his soulmate that what Putin is doing in Russia is wrong and that the US would use what leverage, economic, political, moral, it had in Russia and in the international community to pressure him to reverse his authoritarian ways. Otherwise, Bush's democracy promotion efforts will be seen for what they are: a sham.

This post in Washington Monthly describes one largely unmentioned aspect of the failre of the Iraq project, namely, the staffing of Coalition Provisional Authority staffs with Republican supporters of President Bush, regardless of expertise or experience.

The Post outlines some of these details in a story several months ago about Simone Ledeen's experience in Iraq.

The Bush administration was never really interested in transforming Iraq or spreading democracy in the Miiddle East. The Preseident was only interested in grand adventures (and why not, everything else he has ever done has always been either easy or else he would be bailed out by his dad's friends) while his political people (ie Rove, et al) and other appointees in the various federal agencies used the Iraq mission to help out like-minded Republican colleagues. There was little place in these designs for national security or American interests. The highest prioirty has always been the Bush reelection campaign.

On the front of the Web site for the World Trade Organization is a notice stating that 6 developing (ie third world) countries have filed a complaint against the US, stating that the Iraq war is "history's biggest illegal trade subsidy." Specifically, the complaint claims that Haliburton and Exxon have disproportionately benefitted from the war through reconstruction projects.

I think this is a lot of conspiracy theory as foreign policy. However, this news of the Pentagon's decision to (finally) compete reconstruction contracts originally awarded to Haliburton in secret, no-bid contracts, probably doesn't help.

Hello. This is the first post from Mrs. Dave, aka lovely bride. John Cory at Democratic Underground discusses accountability and why it should apply to those in power.

from Steven Waldman of Beliefnet, today in Slate

Kevin Drum has some interesting comments regarding this Michael Tomasky article from American Prospect. The questions I have after reading these two pieces are what exactly are the Dems policy differences with Republicans and why aren't they being articulted during this campaign?

I won't be able to give this question the answer it deserves right now (and I am not qualified to try and guess on the second question), but I think the discussion for the first should start here. Heather Hulburt's article is an excellent overview of the issue of why Dems are not trusted on national security policy. The short answer is Vietnam. From World War II to about the late 1960s, Democrats were seen as the "national security" party, while Republicans were either isolationists or liberal "Rockefeller Republican" internationalists.

The Vietnam War changed this. Anti-war liberals essentially destroyed those in the Democratic party who were seen as tough on national security. Those who remained democrats often supported Republicans' foreign policy (see, for example, here). For much of the 1970s and 80s "peaceniks" and "doves" dominated the foreign policy debate in the Democratic party.

To anyone who may be reading this, I would like to point to a new organization that is trying to rectify this situation. The Truman National Security Project is a group of young and mid-career policy professionals who are trying to forge new policy ideas for Democrats. Go check them out.

I don't understand why this has to be continuously repeated. The 9/11 commission, the Senate Intelligence committee, and President Bush have all said that Saddam had nothing to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The only people who continue to believe that Saddam is tied to 9/11 are VP Cheney and Laurie Mylroie. I wish the press and the general public could finally put this one to bed.

The Saddam-9/11 conspiracy talks distract from the larger issue of combatting al-Qaeda and not screwing up Iraq too badly (I won't say "get Iraq right," since I think the Bush Administration has so screwed it up to this point that I don't think anyone is still hoping for a flourishing pro-western democracy with a strong market economy in that country).

Laura Rozen points to clues that there may be serious trouble in Israel from the far right over Ariel Sharon's plan for disengagement from Gaza. This latest demonstration in Jerusalem points in that direction.

So sayeth Steve Clemons.

The Columbus Dispatch on what should be the first thing on everyone's mind today

Three years ago today, 3,000 people were murdered in coordinated terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. Yet the man who orchestrated these atrocities remains free.

For what he did, Osama bin Laden should be dead or in U.S. custody. No evidence suggests he is dead, and he is not in custody.

Because he remains free, extraordinary security precautions surround today’s Ohio State football game, considered a terrorist target because 100,000 spectators will be gathered in the heart of a state that is key to the presidential election.

Because bin Laden is at liberty, election and law-enforcement officials nationwide are busy planning extra security at polling places on Nov. 2.

Because bin Laden has not been captured, the nation’s capital and national monuments, including the Statue of Liberty, have been militarized and fortified.
The Bush administration can claim that bin Laden and his cohorts are on the run. But bin Laden and his cohorts plausibly can claim the opposite. All bin Laden has to do is point to the armed men and surveillance helicopters around Ohio Stadium.

How did the destruction of bin Laden slip so far down the nation’s todo list? Why are the bulk of U.S. military and intelligence assets tied up in Iraq, which posed only a hypothetical threat, while pursuit of the man who slaughtered thousands of Americans on their own soil is on the back burner?

Where is the anger? The Sept. 11 victims were not killed by a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, which cannot be brought to justice and against which rage is futile. They were killed by a man. A man can be made to pay. Why hasn’t he paid?

This is the question President Bush should be answering today and tomorrow and every day until Nov. 2. And where is Sen. John Kerry, who loudly proclaims his determination to strike back at any attack on the United States? The attack has occurred. Where is his pledge to make apprehension of bin Laden, dead or alive, Job No. 1?

Would bin Laden’s death eliminate terrorism? Of course not. Quick victory over this kind of nihilism and barbarism isn’t possible. But every day bin Laden remains free is a defeat for justice and for civilization. His continued existence, his ability to poison a seemingly impotent world, incites and encourages his followers and imitators.
Terrorism as a philosophy must be fought on many fronts: moral, social, political, financial and legal. But terrorists must be confronted with force. They must be killed or caged. The civilized world must make clear that anyone who resorts to terrorism, especially leaders of terrorists, will suffer harsh consequences.

Not long ago, The Dispatch pointed out that the major broadcast and cable networks had stopped broadcasting images of the hijacked airliners slamming into the towers of the World Trade Center. That decision was taken to spare the families of the dead and to shield children. But, The Dispatch noted, without the visual reminder of what happened, Americans might remember only their grief, not their anger.

Let today be filled with remembrance of those killed three years ago. But let it also be a day to remember who killed them.

More from Kevin Drum

I have seen the TV commercial advertising this supposed 9/11 coin. Then there was this today from the AP

One side of the coin shows the Freedom Tower planned for the site and bears the phrase "In God We Trust." The other side shows the old Manhattan skyline, with the World Trade Center still standing, and the phrase "One dollar." The company marketing the coin says it is the first "legally authorized government issue silver dollar ... to commemorate the World Trade Center and the new Freedom Tower.

National Collectors Mint is advertising the coins as products of the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The U.S. Mint said the commonwealth, as a U.S. insular possession, does not have the authority to coin its own money

I will post recommendations for books I am reading or have recently finished. My first book is War is a Force that Gives us Meaning

In addition to Krugman's mention of the book this week, Hedges' book is very much worth the read. In just under 200 pages Hegdes discusses the complicated relationship modern society has with the idea of war, including the power of nationalism, the corrupting impact war has on history and collective memory, and the allure of war to modern society. This book is a must read.

I have The Hill E-News sent to my inbox every week. This was item number two:

Drug wars: While there has been a lull in the war of words between Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and billionaire philanthropist George Soros, Hastert's role in U.S. drug policy continues to be examined. The National Security Archive has obtained declassified U.S. government cables. One cable reports that Hastert met with Colombian military officials in 1997 to assure them that he would work to de-link security aid and human rights conditions even though Congress was working to attach human rights conditions to U.S. aid. In another cable, former U.S. Ambassador Myles Frechette decries the fact that a shipment ofitems destined for the military – which had been held up pending negotiations – arrived in Colombia while the Hastert delegation was in country, undermining Frechette’s leverage with the Colombian military leadership.

Josh Marshall has the backstory on the Soros/Hastert constroversy here, here, here, and here (In response to Jack Shafer in Slate

My question is: What is the Speaker of the House doing meeting with Colombian military, especially during the run-up to passage of Plan Colombia

I am very excited to have my first official posting on my blog. Hopefully I will be able to do something interesting with this, or at least have a place to post my thoughts