Edgewise

More fun with statistics: Iraqi death toll

This morning I heard a report on TV - Fox I think, but it could have been CNN, about the mounting death toll in Iraq. The hawk guest quickly noted that Saddam killed an estimated 35 people per day from the time he took control of Iraq. 35 per day! That's a staggering number.

And then I thought, hmm, how many people have died since the beginning of the war? The war started on March 19, 2003 and has been going for 467 days if my math is correct.

Casualties:
Iraqi civilians (estimate): 9451 to 11,333
Iraqi soldiers (estimate): 4,895 to 6,370
U.S. soldiers: 854

This is certainly not a complete list, but for the sake of argument let's assume it is, and let's just look at the Iraqi casualties mentioned here. With that we have the following estimates:

(9451 + 4895)/467 = 30.7 dead Iraqis per day minimum
(6370 + 11,333)/467 = 37.9 dead Iraqis per day maximum

So, to liberate Iraq from a dictator who killed 35 Iraqis per day, on average, our actions have directly or indirectly caused the deaths of 31 to 38 Iraqis per day, on average. In other words, it is basically a statistical wash.

I'm sure Iraqis take comfort in knowing that, though they are dying at the same rate, they are dying for a better cause.

Let freedom reign!

Iraq Is Free! Rejoice!!

Hooray!! Iraq is now a free, sovereign nation! Let me repeat that because it just sounds so sweet...

Iraq is free!!!

What a blessed day! I woke to the news yesterday morning and ran out into the street, heart and bathrobe aflutter, waiting for the throngs to join me in spontaneous celebration...

Hmm. Well, it was early, so maybe the neighbors hadn't heard yet. I went back inside to watch the spontaneous celebrations that the free, democratic Iraqi people clearly must have been enjoying and the news channels must have been broadcasting...

Well, maybe al Jazeera is suppressing it or something. Anyway, you all must be as totally PSYCHED as I am that Iraq is now free and sovereign!

Three cheers for the newly Democratic, Sovereign, Iraq!

Hip hip....hooray!!!!!
Hip hip....hooray!!!!!
Hip hip....hooray!!!!!

IRAQ ROQS!!!!!

C'mon people! What the hell's wrong with you all? This is a glorious day! The beginning of world democracy and the beginning of the end of evil as we know it!!!

Get hyped you bastards!!!!

Oh, forget it.

FT counterstory anticipates Marshall's scoop

Joshua Micah Marshall, back at the helm of TPM after a few weeks of stellar guest-hosts, responds to a story just floated in the Financial Times regarding the source of the forged Niger-"yellowcake" documents, related to the state of the union / CIA / Cheney / Rove / Wilson / Plame et al. scandal:

My colleagues and I have reported on this matter extensively, spoken to key players involved in the drama, and put together a detailed picture of what happened. And that picture looks remarkably different from this account which is out today - specifically on the matter of the origins of those forged documents and who was involved.

I cannot begin to describe how much I would like to say more than that. And at some later point in some later post I will do my best to explain the hows and whys of why I can't. But, for the moment, I can't.

Let me, however, offer a hypothetical that might help make sense of all this.

Let's say that certain individuals or organizations are responsible for some rather unfortunate misdeeds.

And let's further postulate that such hypothetical individuals or organizations find out that some folks are on to them, that a story is in the works - perhaps more than one - and that it's coming right at them.

Those individuals or organizations - as shorthand, let's call them 'the bad actors' - might well start trying to fight back, trying to gin up an alternative storyline to exculpate themselves and inculpate others. If that story made its way into the news, at a minimum, it might help the bad actors muddy the waters for when the real story comes out.

You can see how such a regrettable turn of events might come to pass.

This is of course only a hypothetical. But I thought it might provide a clarifying context.

Note to self: blog needs new category: Scandal-plagued Bush administration

Bush testifies without Cheney present

"I have thought from the beginning that this case was a ticking time bomb," writes MARK (in Mark A. R. Kleiman: Valerie Plame: A chat with the Prez):

Having interviewed Dick Cheney some time ago, yesterday Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor working on the Valerie Plame affair, spent an hour and ten minutes with the President and the private counsel the President has retained. The President wasn't under oath, but lying to a prosecutor would still be a crime (ask Martha Stewart).

...

Fitzgerald's success in keeping the lid on the grand jury testimony has generated a drought of stories on the case, which in turn has created the impression that it's gone away.

Don't bet on it....

I think appointing Fitzgerald was Bush / Cheney / Rove's Archibald Cox moment. You have to admire those Fitzgeralds - those Norman Welsh Saxon Viking more-Irish-than-the-Irish lord lieutenants - and their rebellious pride and integrity.

(And we've heard the jokes about Gerald Fitzpatrick "so save it".)

I pledge alliegance to my respective country...

This was a Reuters headline today:
Serb Vote Halts Feared Slide Back to Nationalism
The AP story led with:
A reformist politician defeated a nationalist ally of Slobodan Milosevic...

I wonder, seriously wonder, what in the world we Americans do think about nationalism. Do we think that we are nationalistic? If so, do we take that to be a good thing? We definitely think patriotism is a good thing. But do we think of Serbs as patriotic?

The Reuters piece continued:
Serbia turned its back on a generation of hard-line nationalism...
Is there such a thing as "hard-line patriotism"?
The New York Times was more circumspect:
...allaying fears of a possible revival of nationalist extremism...
Again, is there such a thing as "patriotic extremism"?

The two Webster's entries are nearly indistinguishable:
nationalism: Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
patriotism: Love of and devotion to one's country.

What I wish I could get at is not how strongly people feel--or should feel--about their countries. It is what seems to me a morally corrupting conceptual asymmetry, probably in all counties, but, I'm guessing, especially in the US (compared to other "advanced countries," at any rate).

It would be interesting to see a survey that asked first:
"Do you approve of patriotism?"
"Strongly?" "Moderately?" etc.
Then follow with:
"Is that only in the United States, or also in other countries?"
"Strongly?" "Moderately?" etc.

I think a lot of Americans would feel blind-sided by that, that it was "a trick question." And my impression is that Europeans would mostly not feel tricked in the same way.

Is 'Fahrenheit' Swinging?

I think the people who say Fareihnheit won't reach many of the undecided have forgotten about the kids.

For one thing, millions of kids have going to the movies built into their weekend schedules. They don't have to be pried loose from their homes by special interest in a parcticular film. And given that you are going to a see couple of movies over the weekend, this one will be a fairly plausible choice.

The other thing? Young people tend to be majorly swing voters in the sense of being "undecided" about whether or not they will go out and vote.

A one-story state?

It seems to me that it's easy enough to dismiss or reject Michael Moore's worldview and interpretation of facts and documentary evidence (hint to pundits: "documentary" means "based on documents"), but isn't the nation entitled to at least have a counterstory to consider? Or is it unpatriotic to propose such a different storyline?

Since '96 I've been calling elections based on competing narratives. 2000 was tie between "the son vs. Saddam" story and "dudley doright."

Moore makes the point well in this ABCNEWS.com item (Michael Moore Discusses Documentary):

TAPPER: If the government of Iraq permitted a terrorist named Abu Nidal who is certainly responsible for killing Americans to have Iraq as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police — now this is not a murder but it's a plan to murder — to assassinate President Bush which at the time merited airstrikes from President Clinton once that plot was discovered; does that not belie your claim that the Iraqi government never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering an American?

MOORE: No, because nothing you just said is proof that the Iraqi government ever murdered an American citizen. And I am still waiting for you to present that proof.

You're talking about, they provide safe haven for Abu Nidal after the committed these murders, uh, Iraq helps or supports suicide bombers in Israel. I mean the support, you remember the telethon that the Saudis were having? It's our allies, the Saudis, that have been providing help and aid to the suicide bombers in Israel. That's the story you should be covering. Why don't you cover that story? Why don't you cover it?

TAPPER: I've been told that's all the time we have. Thank you very much for this spirited debate, I appreciate your time, good luck with the movie, Michael Moore in New York.

Of Thee I Sing

We have just come back from the grand Grand Lake Theater after seeing Farenheit 911, the Michael Moore paen to America. Yes, it is. And perhaps also to mothers who weep when their children die in wars that are unnecessary. The people are flocking to see this movie because everyone is talking about it, not because Michael Moore wants to bring down a president.

And now I understand that everyone is talking about it because there is a lot in it to digest. We "see" once again the flaming towers but not because Moore shows them to us again. Instead he gives us the sounds of September 11th. He gives us the feeling of chaos and death as if we stood there ourselves. Then like a sock in the stomach we see--not just hear--the chaos and death of Iraqi people. I could not watch. Just as the American news shows have declined to show most of the carnage we are now wreaking on the Iraqi people.

Moore also shows us our president and the people close to him at play in the enclaves of money and power. He shows us our elected representatives in Congress turning a deaf ear to their disenfranchised constituents when they attempt to protest the ratification of a sham presidential election. We see (once again) the ruined neighborhoods of Rustbelt America, it's young people, and the U.S. Marine recruiters come to offer them "jobs." In Iraq. And we see the weeping mothers--one in Iraq and one in Michigan--who have lost their dear ones and are angry at America.

I came home thinking about my own feelings of shame and fury. In a way, I blame myself. As an American I have to feel responsible for what my country, my government does. Like the German who wasn't yet born when the Nazis held Europe in a death grip I feel compelled to apologize for what my country has done. It's in this way that I can empathize with David Brooks, reading his words today in the Times, and see why he might feel bad about Michael Moore traveling the world on a "mea culpa" tour saying things like, "Our stupidity is embarrassing."

Well, it is. And David Brooks is feeling it. I can tell when I watch him spar politely with Mark Shields on the Lehrer News Hour. David is an intelligent guy with a heart, obviously. And an ardent idealist, I'm guessing. Which is where we meet on the commons. Americans are ardent idealists. At least they like to believe that about themselves. Americans are not, as Brooks summarizes Michael Moore's view, "kind of crappy." But they think their government--and their president--is.

Michael Moore isn't the only one who thinks we've been hoodwinked by phantom weapons of mass destruction, and manipulated by fear into funding a military campaign to fight ghosts. Every person who goes to see his movie is afraid that he's telling the truth. And he delivers the goods so we can decide for ourselves.

The Sweet Spot

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a very big deal by any standard. "Steven Spielberg has said the film could reap $100 million." (article) But the specific electoral impact is going to be enormously magnified, because it is soo perfectly aligned with the sweet-spot of Bush's popular support.

The Alignment
This scene is already famous:
NYT, 6/20/04 "[T]he most devastating segment of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' may be the video of a befuddled-looking President Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes... continuing to read a copy of 'My Pet Goat' to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers. Mr. Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world."

The Sweet-Spot
In the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, people rated the two candidates on eight key characteristics, Bush leads on four and Kerrey leads on four. But the four where Bush has the edge are precisely the ones that won't survive seven endless minutes of My Pet Goat.

Kerry Leads on Four:
He is honest and trustworthy Bush 39-Kerrey 52
He understands the problems of people like you 36-56
He shares your values 46-48
He stands up to special interest groups 43-45

Bush Leads on Four:
He can be trusted in a crisis Bush 53-Kerrey 41
He is a strong leader 51-43
He takes a position and sticks with it 57-36
He will make the country safer and more secure 54-40

The Detainee Documents

The statements on detainee treatment released by the Bush administration yesterday carefully keep all the options of torture and Geneva violations open.

From today's NYT (All italics are mine.) "[A] senior Justice Department official said the document [the already infamous 8/02 Justice Department memo] was 'overbroad and irrelevant' and was unnecessary because no one in the administration had ever asked for the legal authority to torture captives."

That does not repudiate the memo's sanctioning of torture; it merely puts it on hold. When someone does "ask for the legal authority to torture captives," the document would no longer be "overbroad and irrelevant," nor unnecessary.

Similarly, in a memo on 2/7/02, regarding violation of Geneva conventions, Bush defies Geneva twice:

First, he explicitly keeps his authority to violate Geneva in reserve. "I accept the legal conclusion ... that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time..."

Second, in the very same memo, he immediately goes ahead and does "exercise that authority at this time." (NYT again) "A Feb. 7, 2002, memo from Bush to top members of his administration said al Qaeda and Taliban detainees were to be 'treated humanely and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles' of the Geneva Convention."

So what happens when treating detainees in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention is not "consistent with military necessity"? In what manner should we treat detainees then? What about when we have to interrogate them about potential threats? What about when there's a war on?

Since Bush authorizes the Geneva principles only "to the extent appropriate," etc., to betray military necessity and endanger Americans by adhering to them in any way beyond that would violate the direct orders of the commander-in-chief.

Too Deep for Me

I was listening to a review of this new kid's movie, and I don't get why there's a law that a rowboat will not harm a human being!

Cheney's Shootdown Orders

When Cheney issued the shootdown orders on 9/11, he said Bush had "signed off on the concept."

Apparently Bush told him not to issue the order right away, when he got off the phone. It was more like: "Shoot down the planes, but only if someone asks."

More than a few bad apples

Is Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page the first mainstream pundit to affix -gate to the word Iraq (No contest: Iraq-gate trumps Monica-gate)?

Why I [heart] the Poor Man

Despite the occasional charming spelling lapse, Andrew Northrup writes with the crisp biting wit of a Mencken or Swift.

For example: Men of Principle

No blockquote. Best read in toto.

Another reason why bloggers rule and pundits drool: Northrup doesn't have any access to power to worry about, just his eyes and his ears and his mind and his fingers to work with.

(Another of his entries, referred to in the post linked above, about expecting the President to do the job of the President, is possibly the best weblog post ever.)

a modest proposal

"Recalling Anguish in 2000, Kerry Is Mum on His No. 2" reads the NYTimes piece (Sat. June 19) by David M. Halbfinger. "I don't think John went through life fantasizing about being on the ticket as vice president," an associate comments.

Why not? Because being vice president, according to one former incumbent of the job, "Isn't worth a bucket of spit." The job description? Breaking tie votes in the Senate. And whatever else the president decides you can do. So, breaking tie votes in the Senate and being the president's gofer. Unless you're G.W. Bush and you decide you'll be the vice president's gofer. So you probably can see where I'm going with this...

Used to be, vice presidents were the election runners up; that would have made G.W. Bush Al Gore's vice president in 2000. Oops. Either way, it's an amusing idea but I don't think the deep-pocket campaign funders would go for it. The point is, vice presidents used to get elected and now they don't.

I propose we the people once again elect the vice president of the United States. And since nobody really wants the office why not skip the whole "running mate" thing and let each presidential candidate propose one name. But the people decide who will get the job.

All this hoopla about choosing a vice presidential candidate would be history. And presidential hopefuls might even confer with each other about their choices. That would be fun. Actually, they probably wouldn't bother.

Besides checking tickers (original, artificial and device-assisted) and citizenship (do we still want just pure-bred American?) the vetting process wouldn't be so important. How many ties in the Senate is one vice president gonna have to break?

If only...

If only we could get some of Rove and Norquist's sweet sweet money into our grubby little proletarian hands: Political Wire: Dirty Political Blog Tricks

kos sez:

Man, if we are working for Rove, I don't think the guy is getting his money's worth.

aka "State-Sponsored Terrorism"

Many of us saw this news item last week:

Ex-C.I.A. Aides Say Iraq Leader Helped Agency in 90's Attacks, NYT, 6/9/04, article
"Iyad Allawi, now the designated prime minister of Iraq, ran an exile organization...that sent agents into Baghdad in the early 1990's to plant bombs and sabotage government facilities under the direction of the C.I.A., several former intelligence officials say....
"One former CIA officer...recalled that a bombing during that period 'blew up a school bus; schoolchildren were killed.' ... he did not recall which resistance group might have set off that bomb. Other former intelligence officials said Dr. Allawi's organization was the only resistance group involved in bombings and sabotage at that time."

All of the reports on this last week focused on the specific connection with Allawi, which is important. But far more significant is that the United States sponsored these bombings. And the comments from officials make clear that such sponsorship, in general, is to them unsurprising, if not routine. "An American intelligence officer who worked with Dr. Allawi in the early 1990's noted that 'no one had any problem with sabotage in Baghdad back then,,,"

Yet the whole world knows that state-sponsored terrorism is anathema to the United States.

Fortunately, we have stern punishment in store for countries that engage in it. I suggest we begin with purely economic and diplomatic sanctions, We must be patient and give these sanctions a real chance to work. Punitive military action against the United States should be employed only a last resort. If it does come to military action, we must have a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council before we begin. Unilateralism has cost us far too much already.

President Bush's dictum must be applied. "We're either with us or we're against us."

TPM hints at big scoop in not-too-distant future

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: June 13, 2004 - June 19, 2004 Archives:

I and several colleagues have been working on a story that, if and when it comes to fruition - and I'm confident it shall - should shuffle the tectonic plates under that capital city where I normally hang my hat.

That's a serious claim, "shuffle the tectonic plates." Is it 'Pass the popcorn' time again?

(Can't categorize this till the story leaks.)

No, truth is MUCH stranger...

Guantanamo interrogators use tea and 'mental chess' -Reuters, 6/14/04. (article)

"Building rapport can mean sharing a Big Mac meal from the base McDonald's..."

History Lesson

Contractor Immunity a Divisive Issue
Washington Post, 6/13/04. (Article)
In an early test of its imminent sovereignty, Iraq's new government has been resisting a U.S. demand that thousands of foreign contractors here be granted immunity from Iraqi law....

Extraterritoriality
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. (Entry)
.... privilege of immunity from local law enforcement enjoyed by certain aliens....considered...to be under the legal jurisdiction of their home country.
This immunity from law enforcement is reciprocal between countries and is generally provided for visiting heads of state, those in the diplomatic services of foreign nations and their families...
In the 19th cent. Western powers, often through coercion, secured unilateral extraterritorial rights for their citizens in China, Egypt, Japan, Morocco, Persia, Siam, and Turkey in the belief that these "uncivilized" states were incapable of establishing justice....
Extraterritoriality of this type was strongly resented as an infringement of sovereignty and was abolished in Japan in 1899, in Turkey in 1923, and in Egypt in 1949....

Friendly Persuasion

Guantanamo Cell Tapes Turned Over to U.S. Officials, Reuters 6/13/04
"The tapes were turned over to the military's Southern Command in Miami, which has jurisdiction over Guantanamo."

OK, then. The Southern Command in Miami has jurisdiction over Guantanamo. And United States' law has jurisdication over the Southern Command. Yet United States' law does not have jurisdiction over Guantanamo.

I guess we'll just have to rely on persuasion.

American Emperor

Some call it the Left Coast and others dismiss it as a fantastical realm of gurus and gayness but today I want you to think of it as the birthplace of the Republican Emperor on this the officially declared day of mourning for Ronald Reagan, late president of the Empire and former governor of the Barbarians.

But, you say, Reagan was born in Illinois, in the heartland of the Empire. True, but the myth of Reagan, the hero of the well-shod and down trodden, was born in the West. Those were not wingtips but custom-made cowboy boots hanging from the stirrups in his funeral parade.

The Reagan eulogies tend to skip his governorship but the Barbarians cannot forget it - from his inaugural swipe at the inadequacies of the governor's mansion to his siccing of the National Guard on his unruly subjects. Even the Giant Redwoods felt his scorn, "If you've seen one tree you've seen them all," he jovially declared in a photo op with lumber company executives. And they do tend to look the same as stacks of two-by-fours.

He ruled us but he could not tame us. Besides, if you want to have real power you must rule the Empire - not its hinterland. Even though that hinterland is a land of empires (Disney, Silicon and the Great Central valleys).

So we watch, some with nostalgia, some with pride, others with amused annoyance, the gilding of the Reagan funeral lilies by an American Emperor wiping the flop sweat from his momentarily relieved brow - he can relax for as long as the eulogies hog the front pages. Then it's back to the disasters of his flailing foreign campaign.

And for those who have forgotten the political roots of this cherished champion of American Enterprise you might just want to rent an old movie for a preview of Emperors to come... it's called "Conan the Barbarian."

But, Technically!

In the face of George Bush's "non-denial denials" (Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate term) regarding torture, the British have so far bettered us in calling things by their right names.

Bush sidesteps questions over prisoners' torture, The Financial Times, 6/11/04 (article)
...when asked whether he had authorised the use of aggressive interrogation techniques to fight the war on terrorism, Mr Bush resorted repeatedly to a legalistic formulation: "The authorisation I issued was that anything we did would conform to US laws and would be consistent with international treaty obligations."....

Mr Bush was given several opportunities on Thursday to state his opposition to torture, but instead said that his administration was instructed to stay within the letter of the law....

The phrase consistent with has indeed stood out in a wide range of recent Administration and military statements. That and the phrase treat humanely have been insisted upon repeatedly.

It is sometimes possible to guess the silent rationalizations that are embedded in such angular terminology. Here are my guesses.

Consistent with. Suppose you claim the Geneva Conventions forbid the torture of POWs and of ordinary civilian detainees, but don't really cover terrorists and enemy combatants. And suppose you go ahead and torture the latter two categories. You wouldn't want to say you were following the Geneva Conventions. After all, you were not required to torture them. Still, your torture would be consistent with the Conventions.

Treat humanely. On this one, I can almost hear the Senator rise: "If you allow innocent women and children to die in a terror attack, just because you were a bit too finicky to put pressure on a terrorist, do you call that humane!?"

(One thing I want to reply is: And how many of these hundreds of cases have truly been of that kind? Another is: Well, if it is right, defend it!)

Meanwhile, we don't have much to go on. Hopefully, we will soon discover what they have been thinking to themselves, as they crossed their fingers behind their backs - juvenile mendacity, given flesh and blood to play with.

The Torture Syllogism

Aide Says President Set Guidelines for Interrogations, Not Specific Techniques, Washington Post, June 9, 2004
McClellan called the memo a historic or scholarly review of laws and conventions concerning torture. "The memo was not prepared to provide advice on specific methods or techniques," he said. "It was analytical."

OK. Let's analyze. These are excerpts from the article. The boldface text is mine. --DKo

1. Bush's directive was to do everything in his power, short of going contrary to law.
"He felt very keenly that his primary responsibility was to do everything within his power to keep the country safe, ..." the official said. "That is not to say he was ready to authorize stuff that would be contrary to law. The whole reason for having the careful legal reviews that went on was to ensure he was not doing that."
White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales... "Anytime a discussion came up about interrogations with the president,...the directive was, 'Make sure it is lawful. Make sure it meets all of our obligations under the Constitution, U.S. federal statutes and applicable treaties.'"

2. Conducting torture was within his power, and was not contrary to law.
[T]he Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel... said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied...."
[T]he Justice Department concluded that laws outlawing torture do not bind Bush because of his constitutional authority to conduct a military campaign.

3. Bush's directive was to conduct torture.

Zen and the art of Walker Bush

link nipped from Mark A. R. Kleiman: The Zen of Bushism:

The Zen of Bushism

Evan Eisenberg explicates Bushido: The Way of the Armchair Warrior.

Knowledge is not important. The armchair warrior strives to attain a state beyond knowledge, a state of deep, non-knowing connection to the universe: in particular, to that portion of the universe which is rich, powerful, or related to him by blood.

The unenlightened speak of "failures of intelligence." But the armchair warrior knows that "intelligence" - the effort of the mind to observe facts, apply reason, and reach conclusions about what is true and what ought to be done - is a delusion, making the mind turn in circles like an ass hitched to a mill. The armchair warrior feels in his hara, or gut, what ought to be done. He is like a warhorse that races into battle, pulling behind him the chariot of logic and evidence. When the people see the magnificent heedlessness of his charge, they cannot help but be carried along.

Read it all.

Reagan, Gorbachev and the End of the Cold War

I feel that someone in this space needs to comment in some way on the Reagan legacy, so I guess I will.

The two biggest things that will linger in memory are clearly the end of the cold war (good) and Iran-Contra (not good). The Cold War ended on his watch, and he certainly deserves some credit for it. Though his bluster concerned many liberals and skeptics, the fact is that he continued the reasonable policy of containment and diplomacy and eventually won the war of attrition. And possibly the bluster helped soften up the enemy, if you will.

But the main reason the Cold War ended was that Mikhael Gorbachev came to power on the other side, a forward-thinking man who was ready and willing to make a change. He represented a new generation of Russians who cared more about personal liberty than holding together an empire, and dared to begin the shift away from the command economy and back into the free market. Reagan was smart enough to realize this, work with him, and wait it out. For that, and his charm and aura that, like it or not, he had, I give the man credit.

On a personal note, I was in the Soviet Union on a student study program when Chernenko (Andropov? I keep forgetting which forgettable term came last) died and Gorbachev came to power. The fact that they didn't prop up another old cold warrior really generated some positive feelings. It was also one of the rare times in my life I found myself defending Reagan, over the "Bonzo Goes to Bitburg" fiasco. I fielded a number of questions from concerned Russians and other European students, and my take was basically, no, I'm sure he isn't a Nazi sympathizer - it must have just been a public relations blunder. Can't say I ever learned for sure what happened there.

So here's to President Reagan, a man who helped end the cold war. Iran-Contra ... nah, don't feel like going there right now.

Good Intentions

"The March 6 document about torture provides tightly constructed definitions of torture. For example, if an interrogator 'knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith,' the report said.

'Instead, a defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control.'"
NYT

This could sound like gibberish: I know I am inflicting severe pain, but that is not my purpose. Perhaps I just wanted to test the electrodes?

But, no. it is not gibberish. They seriously want to establish that as long as my purpose is to get information, it is not torture. They same would hold if I was just trying to amuse some friends. (You know that you have a problem when you start torturing people by yourself.)

And bear in mind: express purpose. No guesswork here, please! These interrogators have rights!

But they are evil!

"Ashcroft said it was not the Justice Department's policy to define torture.

"But he did say the international rules governing treatment of detainees did not apply to groups like al Qaeda since only countries are signatories to the treaty."
(Article)

And are they similarly not bound to avoid torturing Americans?

Presidential popularity compared -- I could lose myself in this chart for a week

Kos linked over to this extraordinary chart that shows the ups and downs of presidential popularity for Bush I and II, Reagan, Carter, and Clinton. I've been hoping to find something like this for weeks, to draw my own side by side comparisons without, er, benefit of media interpretation. In that same spirit, I'll let you draw your own conclusions. But I highly recommend clicking through for a peek -- just fascinating stuff.

The two anti-parties

Some believe that the Democratic party is united like it hasn't been since Roosevelt, but note that Bush's base seems to be holding steady around 45% as well, so is this unusual unity or just a core, a base, hanging together even when going off the cliff together?

I ask this because I'm starting to think that the dialectic between Republican and Democrat has played out so far that each party has essentially turned inside out twice, switched regions, traded demographics, and exchanged voting blocs with the ultimate result that neither party fully exists except as a bulwark against the other its identity has evolved to oppose.

For example, the unity of Democrats now is anti-Bush unity and more largely anti-Republican unity. If Kerry wins, get ready for fragmentation several orders of magnitude larger than the Dean diaspora of this spring.

Similarly, I may now be able to find articles written by Clinton-hating conservatives, asserting that Bush is a disaster and Republicans are blinding themselves to apparent truth and send them to my utterly reasonable at times liberal progressive conservative and reactionary father and possibly convince him not to vote for Bush, but I still won't be able to convince him to vote for Kerry.

I was having lunch with Kos on Friday, as part of the work on my book (he claimed to recognize the name "Edgewise," which was kind of him!) and we talked about the low turnout in US elections and the way campaigns are run to expel all of the undecideds (sort of like the way juries get picked, come to think of it) and then turn out the base. We can keep Bush's negatives up, we in the Democratic (meaning anti-Republican party), but we can't prevent the Republicans (anti-Democrats) from driving up Kerry's negatives to a similar degree, regardless of the underlying 'facts on the ground'.

My father's father ran for congress in Philadelphia as a New Dealer in the 30s and lost to "an illiterate Republican." Arlen Specter replaced another Democractic family member of mine in his climb to the senate. My father somehow reacted against the corruption of machine politics and became a Republican when he moved to New York. His drift, voting for Nixon in '72 and living to regret it, then voting for Reagan, against Clinton, for Bushes with no regrets, matched that of his demographic profile as a northeastern Catholic.

When I point out problems with his Republican bedfellows, he simply outlines his view of a failed, corrupt, decadent, socialistic, nonwhite-favoring Democratic party "that left him."

So there is my dad in the anti-Democrat party. Maybe he'll vote for Nader. I can only hope. Then there's me in the anti-Republican party, ambivalent about my own bedfellows but crystal clear on what I'm against.

Is this the end or is this how parties always renew themselves?

(Note: Kos said a lot of other interesting things too, and I took some notes but mostly I'm going to have to go on memory. Regardless, I will publish an official version of the Interview over at the Power of Many blog.)

John Kerry Star Wars action figure

FliG blows the lid of Kerry's next big scandal, here.