Ross Douthat has a good post about Iraq and the surge.
After all the blood and blunders, people are right to be sceptical when good news is announced from Iraq. Yet it is now plain that over the past several months, while Americans have been distracted by their presidential primaries, many things in Iraq have at long last started to go right.
This improvement goes beyond the fall in killing that followed General David Petraeus’s Ã¢â‚¬Å“surgeÃ¢â‚¬Â. Iraq’s government has gained in stature and confidence. Thanks to soaring oil prices it is flush with money. It is standing up to Iraq’s assorted militias and asserting its independence from both America and Iran. The overlapping warsÃ¢â‚¬â€Sunni against American, Sunni against Shia and Shia against ShiaÃ¢â‚¬â€that harrowed Iraq after the invasion of 2003 have abated. The country no longer looks in imminent danger of flying apart or falling into everlasting anarchy. In September 2007 this newspaper supported the surge not because we had faith in Iraq but only in the desperate hope that the surge might stop what was already a bloodbath from becoming even worse (see article). The situation now is different: Iraq is still a mess, but something approaching a normal future for its people is beginning to look achievable.
The article proceeds to explain the improvements in greater detail, and then concludes:
In highlighting the improved conditions in Iraq we do not mean to justify The Economist’s support of the invasion of 2003 (see article). Too many lives have been shattered for that. History will still record that the invasion and occupation have been a debacle. Iraqis even now live under daily threat of violent death: hundreds are killed each month. They remain woefully short of the necessities of life, such as jobs, clean water and electricity. Iraq’s government is gaining confidence faster than competence. It is still fractious, and in many places corrupt.
Nor does it follow that a turn for the better necessarily validates John McCain’s insistence on America staying indefinitely. A safer Iraq might make Barack Obama’s plan to pull out most American troops within 16 months more feasible, though at the moment a precipitate withdrawal looks foolish. But to guard the fragile improvements, the key for America must be flexibility. Both candidates have to keep their options open. If America’s next president gets Iraq wrong because he has boxed himself in during the campaign, all the recent gains may be squandered and Iraq will slide swiftly back into misery and despair. That would be to fail twice over.
Kimberly Kagan, president of the Institute for the Study of War, and Frederick Kagan, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, claim in the WSJ:
America is very close to succeeding in Iraq. The "near-strategic
defeat" of al Qaeda in Iraq described by CIA Director Michael Hayden
last month in the Washington Post has been followed by the victory of
the Iraqi government’s security forces over illegal Shiite militias,
including Iranian-backed Special Groups. The enemies of Iraq and
America now cling desperately to their last bastions, while the
political process builds momentum.
These tremendous gains remain fragile and could be lost to skillful
enemy action, or errors in Baghdad or Washington. But where the U.S.
was unequivocally losing in Iraq at the end of 2006, we are just as
unequivocally winning today.
(Hat tip: Youngblai.) I have no idea whether the Kagans are correct, but in general, the problem with claims like theirs is one of credibility: back in 2006, most folks on the Right did not contemporaneously admit that we were "unequivocally losing in Iraq," so it’s hard to know how much credence to lend to their claims now. (Honest query: I’d be curious if somebody can find an example of the Kagans bucking this trend back in ‘06, and forthrightly admitting then that we were losing. Maybe they did; I have no idea. But many conservatives — and administration officials — didn’t.)
Listening to a hawkish conservative who always claimed we were winning say, "we were losing then, but we’re winning now," is sort of like listening to a far-left liberal who opposed the war in Afghanistan say, "we should have stayed out of Iraq and focused on Afghanistan." Maybe they’re right, but they have no credibility saying it!
Actually, though, the former example is arguably worse than the latter one, because whereas a lefty who rallies ’round a war he opposed is making a self-contradicting statement of opinion, a hawk who rewrites the war’s history is making a self-contradicting statement of fact. And, as the saying goes, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but nobody’s entitled to their own facts.
That’s what makes this Iraq debate so frustrating for someone like me — someone who is by no means an expert on what’s happening in Iraq, but who wants to support the right course of action based on sound
reasoning and properly understood facts. Both sides are so committed to their ideological preconceptions that it’s seemingly impossible for them to agree on what the facts are. The Left will claim we’re losing, or are inevitably bound to lose, and must therefore get out, whether that’s factually true or not; and the Right will claim that we’re winning, and can succeed if only we keep at it for a little longer, and must therefore stay the course, whether that’s factually true or not.
For many on both sides, I think, it’s past the point of being dishonest: they’re so committed to their argument that they convince themselves to honestly believe their version of reality. One of the reasons I’m undecided between Obama and McCain is because I feel like I’m choosing between these two camps, both of which have ideological blinders on, which is not exactly an appealing choice — and meanwhile, I don’t have the requisite information to decide whose preconceptions are closer to the truth, largely because I don’t trust either side to present that information accurately! Nor do I trust the liberal media, or the conservative media, or the right-blogosphere, or the left-blogosphere. On this issue, it seems like everybody has an agenda.
What are the actual facts? Are we winning or losing? Is there a reasonable hope of genuine success in building a reasonably stable and at least somewhat democratic Iraq, or are we just wasting our time on a quixotic and unsustainable effort to do so, and suffering needless losses in the process? If we leave, will things get better or worse — and if worse, how much worse? The "facts on the ground" that would help answer these questions are absolutely essential pieces of information for any rational decision-maker, yet they get lost in the fog of war — and, perhaps more pertinently, of politics. Argh.
Sounds good to me, but what I want to know is, will we do the other things?
P.S. In other John McCain-related news, he’s apparently trying to fight off the "age issue" by making references that the youngsters of today will understand — like, for instance, comparing Obama to William Jennings Bryan.
The year was eighteen ninety-six, and John McCain was just sixteen…
P.P.S. And yet more McCain-related news: he’s released his first general-election ad, in which he states: "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war. … I hate war.
And I know how terrible its costs are."
TPM’s Greg Sargent says "McCain is using his bio to achieve separation from George W. Bush," suggesting that "even if he’s
continuing Bush’s war policies, he’s different from Dubya in that he understands the costs in a way that Bush never did." The subtext, Sargent writes, is: "Even if that reckless chicken-hawk took us to war,
someone who actually understands and has experienced the costs of war
– someone you can actually believe — is here to tell you that we must
So, to review: John McCain hates war, yet he wants to send a man to Mars, a planet which is named after… war. :)
UPDATE: Glenn links here, and says of my above joke, "somehow the Obama backers manage to make everything about Iraq… Heh." Hey, now! What’s this about "Obama backers"? I know it might be hard to believe, given my blog’s recent focus, but I repeat:
I am undecided. In fact, if you put a gun to my head right now
and made me choose, I think — *think* — I’d vote for McCain. But it’s
really entirely up in the air how I’ll vote in November. I like and
admire Obama, but that doesn’t mean I think he’d make the best
president. The best Democratic nominee, yes, but that’s only because
his opponent is such a lying, conniving, deceitful [bad word]. Against
McCain, he doesn’t have such an obvious "character" advantage (both
candidates are, as best as I can tell, generally good, decent and
honest, though of course not pure or perfect), and I’m not at all sure
who I think is, on balance, better on policy.
If that confuses you, consider this: "The portion of my brain that views politics as a sport can’t help
‘rooting’ for Obama (he’s exciting! he’s inspiring! he’s shiny!), [but] the
rational part of my brain, which governs my actual vote, is totally undecided
between Obama and McCain." Obama is the scrappy mid-major going up against the staid, boring, established program; he’s Boise State against Oklahoma ("They said this day would never come: a WAC team in a BCS bowl! Yes, we can!"), he’s Appalachian State against Michigan, he’s Davidson against Kansas. Or, as McCain might prefer to say, he’s Hawaii against Georgia. :) The point is, he’s fun to root for, and that fact bleeds over into my blog coverage. (Also, my blog coverage has just been generally Dem-dominated because that contest has been much more exciting since late January.) Moreover, it’s fun to poke fun at John McCain because, you know, he’s old. (In fairness, I’ve also poked fun at Obama for being messianic and cultish. Whee, humor is fun!) But none of that necessarily means that I support Obama, because in the end, politics isn’t a sport, and voting isn’t about "rooting" or making jokes, it’s about deciding the future of the country. So yes, I’m undecided. Really.
P.P.P.S. Speaking of the Red Planet, Andrew Sullivan this morning posted a picture from 2005 of Sunset on Mars. He should have included it in his "The View From Your Window" series!
Since I keep referencing it, but I haven’t actually stated my position on it, I figured I should probably weigh in on yesterday’s controversial statement by President Bush at the Israeli Knesset:
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals,
as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong
all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks
crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if
only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been
avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is Ã¢â‚¬â€œ the false
comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by
Now, let me begin by pointing out that I myself have made the "appeasement" argument before. Specifically, in response to posters that were plastered around USC’s campus in the immediate wake of 9/11 by anti-war activists (against the Afghanistan war, mind you), which stated "WAR IS ALSO TERRORISM," I made some rebuttal signs that stated, "APPEASEMENT IS ALSO SURRENDER." When I chose those words, I was responding to the then-common far-left credo that our reaction to 9/11 should involve withdrawing from the Middle East, closing our bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, etc. — in other words, making specific, substantive concessions to Al Qaeda’s demands.
Similarly, in 2005, I wrote on the blog that we should not withdraw from Iraq simply because the terrorists want us to:
The Islamist radicals donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t just want us out of their backyards Ã¢â‚¬â€ they want to take over ours.
Just like we were foolish to ignore HitlerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s long-term goals for
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Greater GermanyÃ¢â‚¬Â and pretend that he would be satisfied with a few
incremental concessions here and there, we are foolish to ignore the
IslamistsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ long-term goal of a worldwide Islamic state.
Withdrawing from Iraq for fear of further attacks would not stop
them Ã¢â‚¬â€ it would not even slow them down. On the contrary, it would
encourage them, because it would show them that they can convince us to
change our policies by terrorizing us. It would give them reason to
hope that, with a few more attacks and a few more surrenders, maybe
they really will be able to see the Islamic flag flying over the whole
world. We must not feed that fantasy.
ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not to say the Iraq war is necessarily justified Ã¢â‚¬â€ thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a separate debate, but the debate must be conducted on our terms, not theirs. Whatever else might be said about Iraq, the terroristsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ ire is NOT a valid reason to consider withdrawing. Appeasement is not the answer.
Again, in raising the specter of "appeasement" and World War II, I was addressing a specific substantive concession that I believed we should not make, at least not for the reason stated. Now, you can argue the merits of my point, but it is at least within the realm of rationality to claim that such an action would indeed be "appeasement."
President Bush’s comment, by contrast, is not within the realm of rationality. He is claiming that the mere act of sitting down and negotiating with an enemy is tantamount to "appeasement." That is absolutely absurd. Bush needs to look up a dictionary definition of the damn word he’s talking about. American Heritage defines "appeasement" as "the policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace." Concessions. Not negotiations. In no version of reality is the mere act of negotiating "appeasement."
Now, it’s perfectly fair to debate whether Obama’s stated willingness to meet with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions is a good idea. I’m not at all sure it is, and my uncertainty on that point is one reason (among many) that I’m undecided between Obama and McCain. The mere act of engaging in negotiations does have certain potential negative consequences, particularly when you’re the world’s unipolar power — it tends to bestow a certain veneer of legitimacy to the other side, it can be a propaganda coup, etc. These factors need to be considered, and weighed against the potential positive consequences. That is an important debate to have.
But regardless of where you come down in that debate, calling the simple act of negotiating "appeasement" is clearly incorrect. It’s not "appeasement" unless you concede something. Period.
If you want to argue that merely negotiating with one’s enemies is
itself inherently a "concession," then what do you make of the many times throughout
our history that U.S. presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have
met with our enemies, sometimes with great success? Remember "only Nixon
can go to China"? How about Reagan’s meetings with Gorbachev, which helped end the Cold War? (Hat tip: David K.) Were
those revered Republican presidents "appeasing" China and Russia, merely by meeting with
them? Or does the substance of the negotiations determine whether they engaged in "appeasement"?
The answer is head-smackingly obvious, to the point that anyone who responds incorrectly is either an idiot or a liar. It is substantive concessions that matter. Thus, for instance, it is fair to argue — not necessarily correct, but plausibly arguable — that President Clinton "appeased" North Korea by essentially paying them off to halt (or pretend to halt) their nuclear ambitions. It is not, however, fair to argue that a President Obama would inherently be "appeasing" them merely by re-opening direct talks. You can’t make any kind of judgment on the issue of "appeasement" without getting into the substance of the potential talks.
The last time I checked, neither Barack Obama nor any other major Democratic figure is promising any specific substantive concessions to Iran, nor to any other "terrorists [or] radicals." Bush himself actually acknowledged this point, unintentionally no doubt, when he mockingly described the Dems’ position as a belief that "some ingenious argument will persuade [the terrorists and radicals] they have been wrong
all along." If that were really the Dems’ goal, as Bush asserts, then it would be foolish and naive, but it would not be "appeasement." Even if we credit Bush’s own straw-man version of the Democrats’ position, he’s still wrong. Trying to convince someone they’re wrong is not the same thing as "appeasing" them!
Of course, in reality, the goals of diplomacy are varied and complex, and again, we can and should debate what those goals should be, whether direct negotiation is worth the costs, etc. But dismissing the whole project as, by its very nature, "appeasement," is simply a lie.
Nor is this just some minor semantic debate. The word "appeasement" has a very specific and loaded historical meaning in geopolitical discourse, as Bush knows perfectly well. He made this explicit with his reference to Hitler, but he didn’t need to. Everybody knows, when you’re talking about "appeasement," that you’re referring to Neville Chamberlain and his decision to give Hitler the Sudetenland, in hopes of achieving "peace in our time." That foolish action was, of course, a textbook case of "granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace." That was appeasement.
But the mere fact that Chamberlain talked to Hitler wasn’t "appeasement"! What made it "appeasement" is what he did at those talks: he made a concession that he shouldn’t have made. Bush has offered no evidence, nor even an argument, that the Democrats would follow the same course as Chamberlain in that regard. He therefore has no business invoking Chamberlain and Hitler to make his point.
What’s really sad about this whole kerfuffle is that, as I said, there is actually a very serious and important issue that underlies all this bulls**t and malarkey. But now that’s all become obscured by Bush’s despicable rhetoric and the Democrats’ justifiably angry rebuttals. Basically, what’s now happening to our political discourse on the important issue of how we should approach diplomacy with our enemies is precisely what happens on the Internet whenever somebody breaks Godwin’s Law and inappropriately invokes Hitler. Our president yesterday became a glorified message-board troll.
One other point: I don’t personally get too riled up about the whole "politics stops at the water’s edge" thing. I’m not saying it isn’t a good principle, necessarily, but it’s just not something that personally makes my blood boil. However, it is something that Republicans and conservatives tend to get very worked up over. God forbid a liberal public figure should ever say anything critical of our foreign policy overseas! Any time they do so, even arguably, the right wing predictably erupts in a paroxysm of rage. For heaven’s sake, Natalie Manies of the Dixie Chicks was pilloried for the fact that she dared speak ill of President Bush in England, and she’s a freakin’ singer. And I know there are examples of even more righteous outrage when it’s an actual Democratic politician who does this, though I can’t remember details off hand. The point is, this is very much a sore spot on the Right.
So, against that backdrop, it is totally hypocritical for anyone who has ever invoked the "politics stops at the water’s edge" principle to in any way condone Bush’s remarks yesterday. He went before the legislature of a foreign nation and, acting in his capacity as head of state, made a clearly political argument designed to attack the other party and its presumptive nominee. (And don’t even start with the "he wasn’t referring to Obama" nonsense, or the "Obama doth protest too much" absurdity. Just don’t. That’s beyond Hillaryesque in its disregard for the truth. Of course he was talking about Obama, you nitwits. And acknowledging that obvious fact in no way acknowledges the truth of the criticism. Go back to third grade art class and rejoin the discussion when you have something meaningful to contribute.) As such, he has specifically validated the practice of taking our internal political debates overseas, in the most ostentatious way imaginable. If you’re okay with that, fine. But don’t you dare ever criticize any Democrat or liberal ever again for doing the same thing in reverse.
Last weekend, there was an interesting discussion in comments here on the blog about the merits of forcably bringing humanitarian aid to the people of Burma/Myanmar, the junta be damned. Now the New Yorker’s George Packer ponders the same question, asking, "Should Burma Be Saved from Itself?" He writes:
Forcing the regime to let the rest of the world save its people
would have a devastating effect on morale. BurmaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s leaders are so
isolated and irrational that they actually believe their own propaganda
about being the only group that can hold the country together. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s
possible that the junta would collapse out of sheer humiliation. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s
also possible, though it seems unlikely to me, that Burmese military
units would be ordered to engage the foreigners. Shots might be fired,
people might be killed. No one knows what will happen if British
sailors and American airmen arrive on soggy Burmese soil. Hanging over
the question is, of course, Iraq. No one expects an intervention to go
smoothly anymore; now we expect it to go terribly wrong. I doubt the
American, British, French, Australian, and other governments, with or
without U.N. consent, will decide to invade Burma with boxes of oral
rehydration kits and high-energy biscuits. But if the fear of Baghdad
and Falluja is what keeps foreign powers from saving huge numbers of
Burmese from their own governmentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s callousness, that will be one more
tragic consequence of the Iraq war.
On the other hand, if itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s going to be done, it should be done
quickly. I know all the arguments why we shouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. But there are at
least a million counterarguments why we should.
Andrew Sullivan links to Packer’s piece, and explicitly jumps on the bandwagon with the title, "Invade Burma, Please." He writes: "A brief, decisive international effort to reach the starving and sick
seems important to me. If it helps demystify this vile regime, great.
But in its demonstration of humanity, it is also a great way for the US
to enhance its soft power in the developing world."
P.S. Meanwhile, Dr. Jeff Masters notes that the seasonal monsoon rains are rapidly approaching the Irrawaddy Delta.
Barack Obama’s stated position on Israel is, I think, impressively, refreshingly nuanced, and entirely unobjectionable. Which doesn’t mean there won’t be objections from those who regard "nuance" as a dirty word, of course. But I’m pretty hawkish about Israel (and terrorism generally), and yet I honestly can’t find anything wrong with what he’s saying (at least what I’ve read of it).
Honest, non-demogogic conservatives/hawks/Likudniks: show me where I’m wrong. Like Ross Perot, I’m all ears.
To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as Ã¢â‚¬Å“military analystsÃ¢â‚¬Â whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administrationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found. …
[C]ollectively, the…several dozen…military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administrationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse Ã¢â‚¬â€ an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks. …
In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.
A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.
(Hat tip: copndor.)
InstaPundit: “BLOGGER ANDREW OLMSTED has died in Iraq. (Via Blackfive). He left a last post for publication in this event; you can leave a note of condolence for his family in the comments, but please, nothing political. Here’s his blog, always worth reading.”
Between college football chaos and baby preparations, I haven’t had much time to follow the news lately, but the big story from a couple days ago is that Iran apparently isn’t going nuclear after all, at least not as imminently as we feared:
A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains
frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working
relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.
The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the
final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting IranÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s
nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.
assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the
consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is
likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but
that intelligence agencies Ã¢â‚¬Å“do not know whether it currently intends to
develop nuclear weapons.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Iran is continuing to produce enriched
uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for
civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could
still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon
sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially
unchanged from previous estimates.
But the new estimate declares
with Ã¢â‚¬Å“high confidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â that a military-run Iranian program intended to
transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down
since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt Ã¢â‚¬Å“was
directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and
The estimate does not say when American intelligence agencies
learned that the weapons program had been halted, but a statement
issued by Donald Kerr, the principal director of national intelligence,
said the document was being made public Ã¢â‚¬Å“since our understanding of
IranÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s capabilities has changed.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Rather than painting Iran as a
rogue, irrational nation determined to join the club of nations with
the bomb, the estimate states IranÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ã¢â‚¬Å“decisions are guided by a
cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of
the political, economic and military costs.Ã¢â‚¬Â The administration called
new attention to the threat posed by Iran earlier this year when
President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could
lead to Ã¢â‚¬Å“World War IIIÃ¢â‚¬Â and Vice President Dick Cheney promised Ã¢â‚¬Å“serious consequencesÃ¢â‚¬Â if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.
I haven’t read much of anything in the way of commentary on this, so I can only assume that the right is spinning this as "Iran is still a threat, those intelligence guys are a bunch of liberal ninnies anyway" and the left is spinning it as "See! See! We told you! Bush lies! It’s a rush to war!" But if anyone can point me to some actually insightful commentary on the issue, I’d certainly be interested in reading it.
Personally, my initial take is that, first of all, this report, if accurate, is obviously a good thing, notwithstanding the fact that it gives Mad Mahmoud an opportunity to declare "victory" (he’s kind of a cheap date, ain’t he?), because Iran without nukes > Iran with nukes, and also, no war > war. It’s only if those two equations come into conflict that we have a major problem, and this report — particularly the part I boldfaced in the last blockquoted paragraph — seems to suggest that maybe, just maybe, they might not come into conflict after all.
Also, frankly, even if we still have to eventually confront Iran over its nuclear ambitions (or about something else), it would be far better if we can wait until the president is no longer named Bush. He’s damaged goods both internationally and domestically, and his incompetent administration has generally proven incapable of successfully carrying out its objectives even when those objectives are correct. So even delaying a confrontation would be a good thing, in my mind (provided that the delay doesn’t worsen the problem, obviously), though obviously not as good as avoiding it altogether.
Secondly, the release of this report is actually a major rebuke to the "Bush lied" crowd. If the administration was the evil, soulless, fascist warmongering machine that so many on the left believe it is, then how did this report even get released? It sure throws a monkey wrench into the "Bush’s rush to war" narrative when the president’s own administration is releasing reports (with a big media splash, no less) that discredit said alleged rush. And if you want to respond that "Bush doesn’t control these people," that rather seriously complicates the argument that he muzzled them in the run-up to Iraq. Either the spooks are his puppets or they’re not, and if they’re not, they must have actually believed the faulty intelligence on Iraq’s WMD, no? In which case, Bush didn’t lie! Either way, the release of this report almost seems to suggest that most people in the administration (possibly even including the president!) actually, you know, care about the facts, and are motivated by a genuine desire to do the right thing (leaving aside the separate question of whether that desire is misguided in a given instance), rather than by a motivation to take over the Middle East for oil profits, or kill all the brown people, or whatever it is the Kos & Kucinich Kidz are accusing them of these days. I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
Anyway, in summary, No Iranian nukes = good. No World War III = good. Honesty with the American people = good. Bush = incompetent, not evil. And that’s about as sophisticated as my commentary is going to get at the moment. I’m curious what y’all think, though.
P.S. In other news, Dick Cheney says Democratic representatives John Dingell and John Murtha have small penises. Hey, remember that time Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face? HAHAHA. That was awesome.
Why do I suddenly have Tom Lehrer running through my head? "This is the song that some of the boys sang as they went bravely off to World War III…"
Anyway, this has been your international news update. We now return you to your BCS controversy, Hollywood writer’s strike, and Trials of the Century (O.J. and Barry), already in progress.
The Times of London reports:
A claim by President Ahmadinejad that Iran has 3,000 working uranium-enriching
centrifuges sent a tremor across the world yesterday amid fears that Israel
would respond by bombing the countryÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s nuclear facilities.
Military sources in Washington said that the existence of such a large number
could be a Ã¢â‚¬Å“tipping pointÃ¢â‚¬Â, triggering an Israeli air strike. The Pentagon
is reluctant to take military action against Iran, but officials say that
Israel is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“different matterÃ¢â‚¬Â. Amid the international uproar, British MPs
who were to have toured the nuclear facility were backing out of their Iran
Even before President AhmadinejadÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s announcement, a US defence official told
The Times yesterday: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Israel could do something when they get to around
3,000 working centrifuges. The Pentagon is minded to wait a little longer.Ã¢â‚¬Â
US experts say 3,000 machines running for long periods could make enough
enriched uranium for an atomic bomb within a year.
Somebody get Les Miles over there, stat.
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - After four days of martial law and nearly eight
years under former President Pervez Musharraf, the Republic of Pakistan
was restored to order by LSU (8-1, 5-1 SEC West) head coach Les Miles,
who parachuted into the Muslim country in a daring pre-dawn raid.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“People of Pakistan, you are free!Ã¢â‚¬Â Miles shouted from the highest step of the Pakistani House of Parliament.
Next season on 24: Jack Bauer finally meets his match… Les Miles.
I have no problem with hawkish bloggers and columnists saying things like this, but, um, shouldn’t the President of the United States be a little bit more circumspect with his rhetoric?
"We’ve got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," Bush said at a White House press conference after Russia cautioned against military action against Tehran’s supect atomic program. "So I’ve told people that, if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," said Bush.
I agree that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a grave threat to world peace, and not just because there are some trigger-happy people in the White House right now (though, that too). But I’m not convinced that having the president say things like this, in public — even if arguably somewhat true — makes things better. Perhaps I’m wrong, though. Thoughts?
In a related story, Bush still can’t say “nuclear.”