The Iraq "thing" and progress in Israel

There are so many things to write about, I can't fully mention them all.

First, there's that Iraq thing (I don't mean to make light of the war, BTW, but "Iraq" has become by now sort of a code for a whole disparate group of issues). The Bush administration has, in the last week, gone on the offensive by restating the goals of the occupation, and setting up a quasi-timetable for the conditions under which a withdrawal might be considered and implemented. It's hard to take it all seriously from a foreign policy standpoint, since it's merely (albeit potentially a brilliant and successful plan) a means to help stem the tide of opposing public opinion. In spite of the less than competent manner in which the administration has handled the occupation, anyone who initially supported the war but now opposes it (and this could be as much as a quarter of the US population) is an idiot who should be ashamed of themselves. What the hell did these people think was going to happen? Did they actually believe the rosy projections by Rumsfeld? I actually supported the war (mainly for reasons I suspect were genuine, but unstated by the administration) and I never thought it would be so easy... But I digress. Representative Murtha's 'stunt' last week, and the shameful response by the House Republicans, has at least opened up the debate a bit on this, even if one contends, as I do, that foreign policy should not follow the dictates of public opinion.

Then, there's Hillary. In a desperate continuation of her need to appeal to the centrist wing of the party, she is maintaining her support for at least the principle behind the invasion, even if she opposes the administration's handling of the aftermath. In doing so she is bucking the current trends in her party, and might run the risk of losing a nomination that is supposedly hers for the asking. Meanwhile she's sent her lackey husband out to calm the waters with the left wing of her party, by having him slyly (wink wink, nudge nudge) suggest she opposes the whole thing. And Senator Feingold's getting in on the act, speaking to ever larger groups of potential donors and supporters, who, in a response worthy of Pavlov, reflexively stand and cheer every time it's mentioned he voted against the resolution allowing the invasion. Too bad a significant number of Democrats feel the need to lose every single fucking time.

Concurrently, things have broken loose in Israel, where, faced with a revolt from the right by "Bibi" Netanyahu, Prime Minister Sharon bolted the Likud Party that he helped found, in order to govern from the center. This had been expected, but more surprising was Shimon Peres' announcement that he would leave the Labour Party and join Sharon in his new moderate party. This newest triumph of moderation in Israel is most encouraging. One hopes American politicians are paying attention.

Post-election post

Clever use of words, no?

The Reform Ohio Now! initiatives all failed. Yay. Corzine got elected governor of New Jersey, although one has to wonder how a man intelligent enough to run Goldman Sachs would want to run NJ... Also, Tim Kaine will be the new governor of Virginia.

But quite probably the best news of the day was that all eight of the Dover PA school board's pro-'Intelligent Design' members were defeated for re-election.

OK, I've got this problem...

I'm trying to not post a lot about politics in here these days, but something has been troubling me for the past couple of weeks, and I need to write about it. I'm sorry, but it's about Iraq.

Remember about three years ago, when the U.S.-led coalition was gearing up for the invasion, and many people on the left were crying "no blood for oil" and claiming that the only reason that the Bush administration wanted to invade was because it was trying to line the pockets of their wealthy friends in corporations like Halliburton? Also, remember the outcry in countries like France, Germany, and Russia?

See, here's the problem. There was, in Hussein-led Iraq, this thing called the Oil for Food Program. Many westerners, like Clinton crony Marc Rich, Russian parliamentarian Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and British MP George Galloway, profited from the Oil for Food Program. In other words, they had a financial incentive for the Hussein regime to remain in power. One might conclude that their opposition to the invasion should be seen as just as cynical and craven as Republicans' support for it.

Now, recently, evidence has shown that, in addition to the above-mentioned individuals, more than 2,000 western corporations have been linked to this corrupt Oil for Food Program, benefitting in excess of $2 billion. Corporations like DaimlerChrysler, Banque Nationale de Paris, and Saybolt. Ironically, corporations and politicians in countries opposed to removing Hussein from power.

So tell me, why is it that those who were in favor of the Iraq War did it because they were greedy, but those who opposed it were altruistic? Maybe it's a case of people seeing what they want to see.

Harry the eunuch

Senator Harry Reid is probably the worst Senate Minority Leader in my lifetime. He hasn't got a clue what his job is supposed to be about. The good Senator has announced, prior to floor debate, that he will vote against confirmation of John Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This is the worst case of political premature ejaculation I have ever seen. Because of his statement, Senator Reid has thrown away any leverage, any influence he may have on this issue. Now, it's pretty clear to anyone following the proceedings that he has little or no influence anyway, at least on this particular issue. Roberts will be confirmed with a huge majority (I'm guessing he'll get at least 85 votes), and only Democrats who have no interest in being useful or productive in the current term will vote against him. I'm speaking of course of Senators like Durbin, Kerry, and Boxer, who are all practically worthless anyway. However, the Minority Leader cannot afford to be one of that group. He absolutely must maintain an aura of effectiveness. His job is not to be obstructionist, it's to present an appealing alternative to the Republicans, to point out weaknesses and show a better way. Just saying "no" straight out of the box is not an alternative, it's just petulance.

The compromise

14 Senate "moderates" stared into the abyss and flinched. I had anticipated that some sort of accomodation like this would arise before the final showdown and I was not disappointed in that respect. What is disappointing, and is going unnoticed by most casual observers, is how bad a deal this is for just about everyone involved.

The Republican leadership, specifically Senator Frist, loses because they had the power to get everything they wanted and they gave in to the "obstructionist" Democrats. Frist now appears like a Majority leader who couldn't keep his troops in line, and had his power pulled out from under him. Time will tell if this cripples him permanently, but it seems sure that his 2008 Presidential bid will soon be referred to as his aborted 2008 Presidential bid...

Senator Reid is another big loser, since he played the politics of incalcitrance and obstructionism, and was shown to be tactically erroneous in doing so. What's the point of making such a big point of drawing a line in the sand and making a stand if your troops outflank you and compromise with the enemy? Maybe in a few years the actions of the Minority leader will be shown to have been correct, but at this moment he appears to be an inneffectual leader.

Another loser is, as a group, American liberals. The deal struck will allow Justice Brown to get a seat on the Fedaral bench unimpeded, which will pretty much make her a lock for Associate Justice O'Conner's seat when she steps down in a couple of years. Since Senate Democrats allowed Brown a position in the Federal judiciary now, they can't very well say she's unqualified later, now can they? This will essentially replace a Supreme Court moderate with a hard-right ideologue, the exact thing Democrats were trying to avoid in the first place.

I guess the winners are the group of Senate moderates. As the Boston Globe piece I posted yesterday indicates, this group is fully poised to occupy the power vacuum opened up by the unwillingness of their more ideologically driven colleagues on either side of the aisle to seize power and use it, rather than seizing rhetoric and flailing it about.