Category Archives: Politics: US

If the Cubs can win the division title, then anything is possible (except Washington DC getting a team…). So please don't tell me the Democrats can't win a majority in the Senate. If the Cubs win the World Series, can Democrats dream of a two-house sweep, even despite the DeLay anti-hispanic redistricting in Texas?

Seriously, if senior Bush aides really outed a CIA agent for petty political pique, and the President didn't lift a finger to investigate the matter for months, this will resonate in the heartland. Add in the constant drip, drip of casualties, plus reservists serving longer tours than anyone expected without much feeling of achievement, not to mention respected commentators saying Bush is destroying the Army, and economists nearly unaninimous that Bush is destroying the economy, it is now possible to imagine an electoral dynamic in which Republican congresspeople run away from the Bush White House. And in which their opponents make hay by tying them to Bush policies.

It is no more inevitable than the Cubs winning. But never say never.

Methaphorically, anyway: rc3.org | Republicans in Texas revolt against Bush

I thought it was because I was getting more of my news from the Internet, but articles like Miller's Latest Tale Questioned, which recounts the behavior of a New York Times reporter who apparently shilled for the Iraq-is-full-of-WMD crowd, make me wonder if maybe the problem isn't simply that the NYT just isn't as good as it used to be.

Maybe they should bring back the old 8-column layout?

While popular attention is focused on whether (or, rather, how much) George W. Bush lied to stampede the country into invading Iraq, and blogging elites are comparing notes on the Administration's bald-faced attempts to deny they ever, ever said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a much less-heralded commission is quietly fighting a bureaucratic war with the Administration. The outcome of that struggle will shape the final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States —AKA the 9/11 commission, which has just issued its second interim report .

As the Washington Post reports, the Administration is stonewalling the 9/11 Commission for all it's worth. It is not at all obvious how this one will play out, and some of the early signs are not good—according to the Post,

The slow pace in acquiring documents and testimony — along with the commission's decision to refrain from issuing findings until it is closer to completing a report — has angered many families of victims of the terrorist attacks. Representatives from one group, the Family Steering Committee, issued a “report card” yesterday awarding the commission a “D” in most areas and urging it to better inform the public.

The 9/11 commission is co-chaired by former representative Lee Hamilton, a man of integrity, so there's still hope for a fair and informative report. One to watch.

I've been waiting for this lawsuit. I cannot conceive of a Constitutional theory that lets pro-Bush demonstrators near the President and restricts anti-Bush demonstrators to far, far away. That's called “viewpoint discrimination” and it's almost always illegal when the government does it (but almost always legal when private citizens do it).

OK. I can conceive of arguments the government might make, including something about relative chances of riots or whatever. I just can't conceive of those arguments standing up in court. What's that? The anti-Bush demonstrators are more likely to be violent or dangerous? You never saw a terrorist pretend to support something?

And calling the waaaay off-site zones to which protestors are relegated a “free speech zone” or a “protest zone” just adds insult to injury.

I thought for sure the blogosphere would jump all over this, but if so I missed it. The other day the New York Times ran an article about General Wesley Clark by Katharine Q. Seelye entitled Weighing his Run, General Was Encouraged and Praised by Clintons. Now, I'll be the first to admit that the source here is not the most reliable one. This is after all the same Katharine Seelye who so memorably and unprofessionally slanted her coverage of the last Presidential election. (Want examples to substantiate this serious charge? OK. Look here, here, and here.) Nevertheless, this was an eyebrow-raiser:

To Clark's humiliation, Clinton's Pentagon relieved him of his command. And Clinton had signed off on the plan, according to several published accounts, apparently unaware that he was being deceived by Clark's detractors.
…
The end came unceremoniously. It was July 1999, shortly after Clark had led the successful air war against Serbia. Clark was forced to retire early by top people at the Pentagon who, according to several accounts, tricked Clinton.

This is pretty amazing stuff: top military or civilian officials deceiving or tricking the President. Is this common knowledge? Substantiated? Did heads roll? If not, why not?

Of course, it makes a major difference if it was the civilians or the military.

Continue reading →