Skip to content

Fighting terror wearing blinders

There’s an excellent book review in the Times today (Our War on Terror), in which Samantha Power reviews a number of books which, in one way or another, illustrate the problems with the American approach to fighting terrorism, particularly the disastrous Bush approach. In fact, the review is essentially a catalog of the all-wrong-all-the-time Bush anti-terror effort, but it also makes reference to some chronic American failings that are not exclusively those of George Bush, though he has raised them to high art. In this class is a failing closely allied to the classic American refusal to talk to those it considers its enemies, particularly those it feels are upstarts-the inability or refusal to try to understand the other guy’s point of view:

[Ian] Shapiro [author of CONTAINMENT: Rebuilding a Strategy Against Global Terror] argues, much as the Counterinsurgency Field Manual does, that the United States must learn to get inside the minds of its enemies, to try to see the world as they do. Take Iran, for example. A Bush administration that had stepped into Iran’s shoes might have toned down its inflammatory rhetoric, having seen that the American occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq would be, in Shapiro’s words, “as if the Soviet Union had occupied Canada and Mexico at the height of the cold war, and had its fleet anchored off Cuba.” United States intelligence capacities, he says, must be revamped so that policy makers in Washington can guard against a “propensity to confuse leaders the United States might regard as desirable with leaders who actually enjoy legitimacy on the ground.”

She makes the point that this refusal to get into the heads of our rivals often renders us powerless to deal with them. In the case of terrorists, as just one example, it makes it extremely difficult for us to exploit their differences with one another, as we persist in seeing them as monolithic.

We make it impossible to achieve our own objectives by refusing to talk to our rivals until they meet preconditions that they cannot or will not meet, and we doom our efforts to deal with other people by refusing to put ourselves in their shoes. We insist on viewing the world through the distorting lens of our own ideology.

Recently Obama and Hillary Clinton got into a dustup about his “lack of experience” versus her hard bitten grasp of reality when he committed the mortal sin of saying he would talk to other countries without setting preconditions. She jumped on him for that, and he later called her approach “Bush-lite”. Give credit to Obama for being willing to burst our self imposed foreign policy shackles.

Calling a spade a spade

Just an observation. In this morning’s Courant we learn that the Libyans used “harsh interrogation techniques” on the Palestinian doctor that they accused of infecting children with AIDS. Except for some reason I can’t entirely fathom, the word “torture” is used. I noted a while back that the New York Times (and the Times is not alone) can’t seem to cough up the word when describing what we do to our prisoners, but apparently the word rolls off the tongue more easily when we’re talking about others.

More on Rudy

In response to a recent comment, I’m not a gambling man. However, as the post concerned Rudy Guiliani, I thought I’d submit yet another reason why it will be hard for Rudy to get nominated by a party dominated by the Religious Right. Now I have nothing against cross dressing, being a tolerant guy, but some people do.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8[/youtube]

Friday night music

Bruce Springsteen singing We Shall Overcome:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovgPaVwgpdw[/youtube]

Channeling Condi

When I was in college, I took a sociology course from a very bright professor, who told us that certain industries, including banking, avoid hiring intelligent people because they ask too many questions. It certainly does seem that the folks who have brought us he latest housing bubble are none too smart. Consider Angelo R. Mozilo, chief executive of Countrywide Financial, a company that was an innovator in subprime lending. Here’s Mr. Mozilo in this morning’s Times, reacting to comments from St. Louis Fed President William Poole, who, with amazing hindsight, blamed bankers like Mr. Mozilo for the current collapse of the housing and stock market:

Angelo R. Mozilo, Countrywide’s chief executive, doesn’t think he should be blamed. Talking to analysts this week, he called Mr. Poole’s comments “unbelievable” and criticized the Fed for first raising interest rates and then forcing banks to tighten their lending standards.

When an analyst suggested that Countrywide, the country’s largest mortgage lender, should not have made those loans, Mr. Mozilo sounded as if he had no more choice than a lemming going over the cliff.

“Our place in the industry would have changed dramatically because we would have arbitrarily made a decision that was contrary to what everything appeared to be — values going up and no delinquencies, no foreclosures — and we suddenly stop the music,” he said.

Nobody saw this coming,” he added.

Apparently Mr. Poole is to home mortgage lending as Condoleeza Rice is to fighting terrorism.

But how can I criticize? How could anyone see this coming? They had an ironclad business plan.

First, find a person who has bad credit. Lend that person 100% of a mortgage on a home, 80% at an initial low rate that balloons beyond what they can pay in a mere two years, and finance the 20% balance at a fixed, high rate. Look the other way when scam artists loan brokers like Jose Guzman submit loan applications that overstate borrower’s incomes. Now, do the same thing a few million more times and sell the debt to suckers even stupider than you. When those rates balloon the buyer can always refinance or sell at a higher price to someone else, because real estate prices will just continue to rise.

What could go wrong?

What’s that you say? How can the pool of people with bad credit bail each other out of these loans at ever higher prices when wages for the working and middle classes are stagnant? Isn’t all this just a variant on a Ponzi scheme? Won’t we end up with an astronomical rate of default? Sorry, I can’t hear you.

Of course, besides normal ordinary people who nobody listens to, there were people with national platforms who saw this coming. Paul Krugman has been writing about the coming housing collapse for years, see, e.g., Running Out of Bubbles and That Hissing Sound from May and August of 2005.

But the fact is, folks like Mozilo have no incentive to see the obvious, anymore than Mr. Ponzi did. They have even less, because what they do is perfectly legal. They’ll walk away with millions, leaving us holding the bag. Maybe my old professor had it wrong.

Saint Joe visits the asylum

Max Blumenthal has guts. Here he visits a convention of Christians United for Israel, a group of certified nutcases who want to provoke a war with Iran in the hopes that they can bring on Armageddon. Featured Speaker: Our own Joe Lieberman. Is there a way to impeach a Senator?

Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour from huffpost and Vimeo.

What I find odd about all this is Lieberman’s lack of historical perspective. Who does he think is using who? At bottom, it’s pretty clear these people are anti-Semites. They’ll turn on the Jews as soon as it becomes clear that sane people in Israel aren’t really interested in being burned to a crisp so that Christians from Texas can ascend to the right hand of Jesus.

House votes contempt, but …

The House Judiciary Committee has voted to hold Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton in contempt. The vote was along party lines. Yet more evidence that the system of checks and balances has been all but destroyed. One must wonder whether the White House has conveyed more than brilliant legal arguments to the House Republicans in order to keep them in line. Are there any horses out there that are missing their heads?

For reasons that are mystifying, the Democrats have decided to cite them for statutory contempt, which is unenforceable without the cooperation of the United States Attorney. There is no reason to think the U.S. Attorney will depart from the legal “principle” that was leaked last week. In other words, the U.S. Attorney will decline to present the case to a grand jury.

It was observed in the Federalist Papers that the executive would always be the most energetic branch, but there is something about the slow, plodding style of the Congressional Democrats that would surprise even Hamilton.

Bush has announced in advance that he will frustrate the will of Congress. We are beyond the point where any reasonable person can believe that he will act responsibly. There is no reason to believe that he will not do just as he says. Why go through the charade when a perfectly viable option, that of inherent contempt, exists. At the very least, Miers and Bolten will be rotting in jail while the case plays out in court. Congress merely advertises its own impotence by taking what should be a momentous step, only to have absolutely nothing happen as a result. It’s not as if they have to go this route to hold on to Republican support. They have no Republican support. They do, however, have the support of the nation. Put the nice lady in jail and let Bush play catch-up. If the courts are going to make Bush into a dictator, we might as well find that out now.

Another impeachment target

So many criminals, and always the same excuse: so little time.

Apparently the news networks were obsessed with the fact that soda can be harmful to your health, so they didn’t give much coverage to the serial perjury being committed by the Attorney General of the United States. There is extensive coverage at TMP Muckracker. The coverage consists of a series of posts starting here. You can get to succeeding posts by clicking the “next” link. Each posts contains a video. Here’s the first, in which both Leahy and Specter question Gonzales credibility.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWIxG-ww2Ms[/youtube]

I haven’t watched them all, something I intend to do after I hit the publish button on this post. But it seems clear that at this point Gonzales doesn’t care what they think. He is basically in their face because he knows that ultimately, there’s nothing they can do to him. After all, only the Justice Department can bring perjury charges against him, and he runs the Justice Department. He doesn’t even attempt to make his lies credible or his excuses defensible. The wonder is that he hasn’t just told the Senate that he won’t testify invoking the magic doctrine of executive privilege.

There is something they can do, although I’m getting tired of typing the word. Impeach him too. There might actually be enough Republican votes to convict him.

By the way, no posts yesterday because I was attending a meeting of the Charter Revision Commission about which more, perhaps, in the next few days.

Debating impeachment

There is a fascinating exchange in the comments at Ezra Klein’s blog. Klein advocates impeachment, and quotes from the Paul Craig Russell column to which I linked recently ctblueblog.com/?p=307, and the possibility of a coup or coup-like denouement to the Bush Administration, possibly in the form of a “temporary” seizure of power after a conveniently timed 9/11 type attack.

One commenter argues that such a terror attack would undermine the “we have to fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” argument, but that type of argument assumes people behave and think rationallly. In our world, dominated as it is by Orwellian modes of governing, it will be no task at all for Republicans and Bush to consign the here/there rhetoric to the memory hole. The press will go along and the attack, a clear demonstration of Bush incompetence, will be successfully used as a reason for continuing either him or the Republicans in power. So far as terrorism issues are concerned, the Democrats operate in a no-win situation; both Republican success and Republican failure argue for continued Republican “leadership” and that’s the way it will be spun. Indeed, it has often been observed that the knee jerk Bush response to his own failures is to demand more power to abuse.

On the large issue of impeachment versus some other unspecified manner of halting the Republican subversion of the Constitution, it must be admitted that both sides have problems. It’s quite true that it is probably impossible (as things stand now) to gain a conviction in the Senate, since the Republicans there will fall on their swords for Bush, no matter the scope of his crimes or the depth of his contempt for them. That outcome might, in fact, legitimize his claims to power, i.e., that a Republican president cannot be checked by Congress. This expansion of presidential power will become null and void should a Democrat gain office, but will reappear as soon as the Republicans come back to power, an event sure to happen quickly given Republican domination of the corporations and media. The problem, of course, is that doing nothing also ratifies Bush’s power grab. Stymied investigations won’t establish a counter-precedent. Neither, at this point, will censure such as Senator Feingold is again suggesting. Exercising the power of inherent contempt might do the trick. Future presidential enablers might be somewhat deterred if they knew they would have to rot in prison for a couple of years beyond the reach of the presidential pardon power.

There may or may not be another coup (either crudely explicit justified by a terror event, or more subtle, by another stolen election), but even if there’s not, there remains the question of how we deal with this pattern of executive lawlessness by Republican presidents, aided and abetted by Republican courts and Republican legislators. Impeachment is one answer. Criminal prosecution by succeeding Democratic administrations is another possibility, but in the current climate it would likely be frustrated by the Republican courts and media, which would brand any such prosecutions as political. We learned that with the Libby case, in which the establishment press was overwhelmingly sympathetic to Libby.

Whatever the solution, the first step is for the Democratic establishment to recognize the problem, and to commit themselves to solving it. Right now we’re getting, with some noble exceptions, nothing but hand wringing and lectures about the rule of law. Whether impeachment is the ultimate answer or not, it’s the Constitutional method that people can rally around. If pressure for impeachment forces Democrats to develop alternative, effective strategies, so much the better. Unless there is pressure in that direction Democrats will just punt until the next election, and the Bush theory of the Republican unitary executive will have been ratified.

Great moments in the law

Upper Darby Township in PA is being sued by an 82 year old man whose civil rights were violated when he protested a visit by George Bush.

Defense attorneys have filed a motion seeking to preclude the mention of Bush’s name at the trial, arguing that Bush is so unpopular that mentioning Bush’s name would cause undue prejudice to the defense.