Edgewise

I do smell appeasement somewhere.

Dick Cheney:

Some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone.

DKo:

Some in our own country claim conquest of Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the Bush Administration and get them to leave the rest of the world alone.

—There’s the recycled history of great-power appeasement. And they tell us to remember Munich!

At long last, have you no decency?

I don’t think Cheney’s getting traction anymore. Average Americans think he’s some kind of vampire/monster. Hillary Clinton and Hairplug Biden have both dissed him openly on the talking head shows.

Zach at Hanlon’s Razor has the right idea (Dick Cheney’s heart pumps bile):

Saying that Iraq is the War on Terror ad nauseum and that pulling out would be helping the terrorists is nothing new, but here we find Dick taking it a step further.

“Some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone,” Cheney told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nevada. “A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be … a ruinous blow to the future security of the United States.”

Pause, reflect, read for a second time. The Penguin is saying that there are people who want to pull out to make the terrorists happy. I will offer $1,000 right now if anyone can provide me any kind of evidence that he’s actually heard someone suggest that. Of course, it wouldn’t be adequately Cheney if he didn’t add something even more retarded.

“They overlook a fundamental fact. We were not in Iraq on September 11, 2001, but the terrorists hit us anyway,” he said, in a reference to the hijacked plane attacks that killed almost 3,000 people.

And the terrorists had no connection to Iraq. Hell even Bush said that. You could replace “Iraq” with any nation in the world and that statement would be equally valid. “We were not in New Zealand on September 11, 2001, but the terrorists hit us anyway.” Iraq != War on Terror. Get it through your head, asshole.

How Could I Have Missed the Joke?

For those of a certain age.

Republicans’ comments may hurt at polls, AP

“One Republican senator [Burns, MT], described his house painter as a ‘little Guatemalan man.’ Another [Allen, VA], called an Indian man a ‘macaca,’ a type of monkey.”

“[T]he comments by Burns and Allen have garnered heavy attention as their party is trying to improve its showing among minorities.”

Burns and Allen! Now I understand. Theyve been doing a Burns and Allen impression!

Two Red Herrings

My Google news alerts have whispered to me that two Red Herrings are diverting the focus of media coverage these days. Since I seem to have been programmed from youth to pass on what I think I’ve learned, here’s my guesswork:

Iran Sanctions. The solidity of the six-nation alliance confronting Iran is thought to rest on the question of sanctions. Indeed, sanctions apparently won’t pass the Security Council, as Russia has already publicly parted company with the US on this. But the key point is not sanctions; it is the refusal to negotiate.

It is not so easy for six nations to refuse to negotiate. It only takes one, in this case Russia, to pursue discussions with Iran, which they have emphatically promised to do. If they come back with something interesting, the other five nations will have to listen. They’re not refusing to negotiate with Russia.

France and Germany have reaffirmed that without a complete nuclear suspension, there will be no talks. At the same time, they have sounded awfully soft on this question. For example, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told the meeting of European Union foreign ministers in Brussels, “…Iran must understand that we cannot sit at the negotiating table if new centrifuges are built every day”—indicating that they just might sit at the table if the number of centrifuges does not grow.

This potentially puts the Bush administration’s core credibility at risk. It is one thing to have Russia and China split off on sanctions. But if France and Germany should split off on the refusal to talk, that is a diplomatic humiliation and a complete failure of policy. That leaves the US isolated—and on a very sore-headed point of policy too.

Disarming Hezbollah. Hezbollah will not be making use of its arms in the area where UN forces are present anyway, and they are not likely to shoot missiles over the heads of the UN forces, from further north. The key issue here is re-armament by sea and across the Syrian border. The UN forces will not disarm Hezbollah, but they will block the border, if the Lebanese government asks them to, and it will be extremely awkward for them not to ask. The Rules of Engagement do call for the use of force to enforce this provision of the cease-fire.

The non-disarmament of Hezbollah will look like a victory for them, but non-rearmament eventually puts them out of business.

If only the White House had access to Google!

The Office of The Suspector

There has been speculation* that somewhere in the national security establishment there is an official known as The Suspector. When someone wants to wiretap conversations with an individual, they bring that person’s name to The Suspector, and ask, “Do you suspect this person of having terrorist connections?” The Suspector says, “Yes.” (After all, you are bringing this person’s name to me.) This establishes that the person is suspected of terrorist connections.

Only after this procedural safeguard has been satisfied can phone calls with the Person Suspected of Terrorist Connections be wiretapped without a warrant.

*Full Disclosure. I am one of those people known as The Speculators. After I speculate about something, one can say, “There has been speculation.”

The Wiretaps. What was the judge so mad about?

In the Reuters report on the ruling against warrantless wiretapping, warrants are not mentioned until the eighth paragraph.

Court rules secret wiretaps violate rights, Reuters, 8/17/06

Absent the issue of warrants, what was the judge so mad about? She is quoted: The wiretaps “violated…civil rights,” “freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable searches, and a constitutional check on the power of the presidency.”

But why? How? Maybe because the wiretaps were “secret” (the headline). Or maybe just because they were wiretaps.

Absent the issue of warrants. The ignorance is depressing. I’m afraid this is pretty much the message that many, many American are going to get.

Two Countries Need to Be Put on the Spot

“With hard-liners riding high in Tehran, there’s little chance of changing minds there. But the White House should still try, offering security guarantees in exchange for Iran’s giving up technology that could feed a nuclear weapons program.” NYT Editorial, “Still Spinning,” 8/14/06

Well, will the White House “still try, offering security guarantees”? Is the White housing willing to try that, i.e., willing to give up its “regime change” program, or is the dream of overthrowing the Iranian government so important that they would rather watch the nuclear enrichment grow than give it up.

And what about Iran? Would they give up on the nuclear enrichment program in exchange for normal relations and security, or is the program too important for them to give it up?

Their public message at least suggests they are prepared to make that trade. Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, was asked, “What kind of ambiguities are you referring to [in the current six-power proposal]”

His answer: “For instance…we want to find out what they mean by long-term cooperation. Does long-term cooperation mean a relationship in all fields with Iran or only in nuclear activities? Depending on the answer, our interpretation of the package will be different. For instance, one of the provisions of this package mentions talking to Iran about regional security arrangements.” IRNA (Islamic Republic News Agency), New Delhi, “For the US, Iranian nuclear issue is just an excuse, Larijani,” 8/9/06

Is Iran willing? Is the US willing? There are two countries that need to be put on the spot next week, when Iran’s response to the six-power package comes out. So far, we have only been hearing about one of them.

[Note: Also in question will be whether Iran keeps a small number of centrifuges spinning, possibly with no Uranium gas being fed in. The US says none, but it is not a deal-breaker for at least Germany, Russia, and China.]

[High School chemistry joke: The Iranians reject a suspension of the nuclear program, but they may be willing to emulsify it.]

Are the Republicans Tough Anymore?

In the aftermath of the foiled terror plot in the UK, it seems as if the Bush administration and congressional Republicans have suddenly lost their bearings. For a few months this year, they were relentlessly focused on the keys to a safe America, but now they are all over the map. Americans want to know which party has the toughness to face down terrorism. Republicans need to get back to Republican priorities.

—They are talking about beefed up security at US airports! Have they so quickly forgotten that Iraq is the “central front in the War on Terrorism”? This is a crisis! There are children here! The entire corps of US Air Marshals must be immediately redeployed to Baghdad, where they can strike at the heart of the enemy.

—The Republicans used to care about flag burning. Can anyone doubt that the short attention span of congress in The War on Flag-Burning has emboldened our enemies? Congress must immediately take tougher action in this crisis. The ATF must be must be broadened to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Flag Burning. Laugh that off, Mr. Terrorist!

—For a time, terrorists around the world were stunned, intimidated, and immobilized by the Republicans’ steely resolve in the crisis of same sex marriage. “Who wants to take on those guys? They’re tough!” But when it came to naught, you could just hear the terrorists laughing, “And they call themselves Imperialists? Come on! Who’s afraid of them?”

The Democrats? I don’t think bin Laden is worried about people who can’t even stand by an American minimum wage that has served as a symbol of fairness for years.

Speaking of 'Connecticut for Lieberman'

Looks like his team forgot to register the domain: The Connecticut for Lieberman Party

Another tactical blunder by Lieberman

Even if you grant that Lieberman should run in the general election as an independent (and I do not), shouldn’t he at least have taken a page from Jed Bartlett and Howard Dean and called his party-of-one “Lieberman for Connecticut” instead of the self-centered sounding “Connecticut for Lieberman”?

A Hard Look at the West Bank Settlers

It is past time to take a good hard look at the West Bank Settlers, who have led Israeli politics around by the nose now for decades, as if Israel’s right to exist were one and the same with their right to keep their settlements!

I believe that peace with the Palestinians has long been available, by pulling the settlers back within Israel’s pre-1967 borders. Even the most seemingly intractable issue, the status of Jerusalem, has been resolved in detail since the last days of the Clinton administration. I believe the demand for the “Right of Return” will be exchangeable for a secure, economically developed, Palestinian state in the entire West Bank and Gaza.

I believe that the Palestinians, who feel they have nothing to lose, can come to have everything to lose, in secure sovereignty and prosperous economic development. The willing economic bakers are many, the population numbers are small, and the money already being spent on war and “peacekeeping” is vastly greater than a full, advanced Palestinian economic infrastructure would require. I believe that the Palestinians themselves would become the most ardent guardians of the peace, against anyone’s attempt to restore their former desolation.

There is plenty of support and detailed evidence for these contentions, but I won’t go into it, except to append a post I made last June, Palestinian Public Opinion, which bears on this. In polls, both the Israeli and Palestinian publics support the same path to peace.

Skeptical? It has never been tried. So try it!

What do we have instead? The horror of the current conflict and an unfinished wall cutting into the territory of a future Palestinian nation.

The most incredible part of all this is that the Israeli people have long been willing to make this trade-off. Support for the West Bank settlements has been a maddeningly feckless sleepwalk into disaster. Israel has acted as if indulging the settlers’ infantile delusion of a Greater Israel were a free ride, and always would be. (They grabbed another hilltop? Let them have it. They must really want that hilltop. We don’t want them throw a tantrum!)

But, if you back the settlers, you back them with military force, and eventually you back them with a war in Lebanon.. It is not a free ride. It has been a drugged sleepwalk.

The drugs?

—Military and technological contempt for the Arabs. Arabs can fire missiles! Arabs can construct stronghold entrenchments! Arabs can stand and fight!

Yes, they can. The bubble of invulnerability has been a drug.

—Overly broad, unconditional support from the US for Israeli West Bank policy. I say overly broad, not overly deep. Let it be deep! Deep means support for Israel’s right to exist. Overly broad means support for the West Bank policies.

American Jews and American politicians have been unwilling to speak the truth about Israel’s West Bank policies. This combined unconditional support has been a drug.

We need to become a counterweight. We need to repudiate, even, in time, to anathemize as murderous, continued West Bank settlements.

It is time to wake up to the suffering.

Is the timing bad? It will get better. The fighting will end. There will be negotiations. If sovereignty over the West Bank is in prospect, they can go well. If it is not, they will be hopeless.

Palestinian Public Opinion
Edgewise, June 21, 2006, David Kolodney

Note: I did do some “cherry-picking” for the data I liked best! Also: PIPA (Program on International Policy Attitudes), the source of this report, is well regarded as credible.

—David

Reported by WorldPublicOpinion.org (Publication of the Program on International Policy Attitudes)

Near East Consulting (NEC) poll of Palestinians, Jan. 27-29,

Hamas position calling for the elimination of Israel

Hamas should change its position: 63%

Hamas should maintain its position: 21%

“Even among those who voted for Hamas, only 37 percent support Hamas’ position that Israel does not have the right to exist.”

“[E]ighty percent support a peace agreement.”

JMCC poll (Jerusalem Media & Communication Center) poll of Palestinians, Feb. 8-12,

Two-state solution: 58%

“A bi-national state on all of historic Palestine”: 22%

Islamic state (a volunteered response): 3%

Among those who said they voted for Hamas, the reason given:

Hamas “political agenda”: 12%

Hoped Hamas would end corruption: 43%

“The poll also found that 73% do not want [President] Abbas, a Fatah leader, to resign from the presidency.”

Discomfiting the Apologists of Dickensian Predation.

This is a year old; I came across it in a search. But it’s worth noting. It ought to discomfit the apologists of Dickensian predation. (Old New-Left? Me?)

How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart July 17, 2005 NYT

“But not everyone is happy with Costco’s business strategy. Some Wall Street analysts assert that Mr. Sinegal is overly generous not only to Costco’s customers but to its workers as well.

“Costco’s average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam’s Club. And Costco’s health plan makes those at many other retailers look Scroogish. One analyst, Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco ‘it’s better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder.’”

The Commodious Ambiguity of "Optimism"

[I seem to be working my way back into rambling Philosophy mode here.]

General Abizaid said: “So the question is, am I optimistic whether or not Iraqi forces, with our support, with the backing of the Iraqi government, can prevent the slide to civil war? My answer is yes, I’m optimistic that that slide can be prevented.” NYT

This is subtle. My guess is he was actively trading on a systematic ambiguity about optimism.

Why? Today’s generals really do operate under a serious, post-Vietnam, military compunction. It is strongly felt within the services that the Vietnam generals sold out the troops when they lied about the prospects of that war.

The ambiguity:

Why does he introduce and lean on optimism?

On returning from a tour of the situation, you might say “I am optimistic about our prospects,” and that would indicate your conviction that what you saw gave you good reason to be hopeful.

But you also might say “I am optimistic” because you had a big glass of Happy Juice on the flight back, and it made you optimistic about everything. Nonetheless, you were truthful when you expressed your optimism.

The general could have been thinking that his job as a military leader is to be optimistic. So saying he is optimistic does not really render his strategic opinion; it just reports an optimistic state of mind. He is supposed to be optimistic.

Now absent the Happy Juice, the mental state he is reporting does not exist. So the report is a deception—but only a dutiful, understandable, expected, pro forma deception. In contrast, if he’d said, “I believe that the slide is likely to be prevented,” instead of merely “I’m optimistic that the slide can be prevented,” it would have been bald deception.