I'm posting from the suburbs of Cincinnati at the end of a long day.
Today, I drove up I-71 in a rental car (though it wasn't a good day for that) to attend the national convention of the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR).
First, I attended a presentation on pitcher run support and then I went to another on the greatest leadoff hitters of the twentieth century. The latter was especially fun because the audience voted on the parameters of the study (determining the size of the N, metric for analysis, and even the interpretation).
Later, I headed over to the Great American Ball Park to see the local Reds take on the St. Louis Cardinals. It was my first visit to the new stadium and I had a good time. The food choices were pretty good and the beer was OK (if pricey). My greatest mistake was the softserve ice cream. After waiting in a long line, it was pretty tasteless.
In the game, Albert Pujols hit a no-doubt home run and the Cards won 7-2. Matt Morris started and pitched well for the victors.
Note: Blogspot has completely changed their blogging interface (Avery: check it out) and it might make it easier to improve the look. For instance, I can use color text.
With another vacation coming up, I may ask another reader or two to guest blog. OK?
I'm interested in international relations, American foreign policy, climate change, US presidential elections, public debate, Kansas Jayhawks basketball, film, and major league baseball.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
The Storms
Last night, Louisville was hit by a major storm and we lost power at my house for over 15 hours. That explains the blog silence.
I just learned, however, that my latest email exchange with Shelley Emling about the Lord Butler report caused her to quote me in Wednesday's Atlanta Constitution Journal.
Butler, you may have heard, released a report assessing the Blair government's use of intelligence in the UK. Emling asked me how it was likely to play in Washington.
Here's the first part of my email:
I just learned, however, that my latest email exchange with Shelley Emling about the Lord Butler report caused her to quote me in Wednesday's Atlanta Constitution Journal.
Butler, you may have heard, released a report assessing the Blair government's use of intelligence in the UK. Emling asked me how it was likely to play in Washington.
According to some political experts, Blair and Bush are not likely to suffer major repercussions from Butler's report.I've noticed she goes for the punchline.
"So far, the Bush administration has taken a number of hard hits, but no one yet perceives a knockout punch," said Rodger Payne, an expert on Iraq and international relations at the University of Louisville. "I doubt that many think such a blow will be coming from the UK."
Here's the first part of my email:
I think many in Washington are going to be curious about Butler's report, but few think it is going to mean that much for the administration. The war already poses difficult political problems. You may have noticed that the President campaigned Monday by giving a speech defending the war and the Bush Doctrine. Yet, the latest polls show that over half of Americans think the war was a mistake and worsened terrorism.Hmmm. Anyone see a pattern?
Washington insiders are, of course, going to want to compare Butler's findings to the Senate Intelligence Committee's and perhaps to the 9/11 Commission's. Potentially, this kind of "inside baseball" might lead to a bigger story, but it might not be right away. The 500+ page Senate report still hasn't been fully digested from last week.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Duped by the Propaganda Machine
The July/August Columbia Journalist Review has a terrific piece by Douglas McCollam on the vast campaign by the Iraqi National Congress to dupe both the world's major media outlets and western governments in hopes of fomenting US war against Iraq.
The INC's "nformation-collection program" was also feeding this bogus data to DIA and to the OSP at the same time -- as well as directly to the Vice President's office.
In retrospect, it must now be seen as one of the most successful (and heinous) fifth column attacks in world history.
McCollam begins his story by referencing a memo sent by Entifadh Qanbar, the spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress’s Washington office, to the US Congress. The memo notes 108 stories successfully "planted" by the INC in major media outlets between October 2001 and May 2002 (incidentally, this was Laurie Mylroie's heydey too). The INC provided "defectors" who supplied false information about Iraqi WMD and links to terrorism.
The consequences were devastating:
I keep meaning to point out, in fact, that Bush gave his most significant speech on Iraq to the UN on September 12, 2002, weeks before the CIA's NIE was even released.
Does that sound like a form of political pressure?
Since INC was getting cash from Congress, and may have used this cash to produce the bogus intelligence, I wonder if they broke any laws that might make them criminally liable?
The INC's "nformation-collection program" was also feeding this bogus data to DIA and to the OSP at the same time -- as well as directly to the Vice President's office.
In retrospect, it must now be seen as one of the most successful (and heinous) fifth column attacks in world history.
McCollam begins his story by referencing a memo sent by Entifadh Qanbar, the spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress’s Washington office, to the US Congress. The memo notes 108 stories successfully "planted" by the INC in major media outlets between October 2001 and May 2002 (incidentally, this was Laurie Mylroie's heydey too). The INC provided "defectors" who supplied false information about Iraqi WMD and links to terrorism.
The consequences were devastating:
The balance of the stories, however, advanced almost every claim that would eventually become the backbone of the Bush administration’s case for war, including Saddam Hussein’s contacts with al Qaeda, his attempts to develop nuclear weapons, and his extensive chemical and bioweapons facilities — all of which are now in grave doubt. Similar stories appeared earlier and later, but this nine-month period following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 was crucial in creating the perception that the Iraqi dictator was a grave threat to the U.S. “The INC’s agenda was to get us into a war,” says Helen Kennedy, a reporter for the New York Daily News, whose name appears on the list. “The really damaging stories all came from those guys, not the CIA. They did a really sophisticated job of getting it out there.”Remember, the CIA was preparing its fall 2002 NIE in this climate -- and Bush administration officials were making public speeches at the same time.
I keep meaning to point out, in fact, that Bush gave his most significant speech on Iraq to the UN on September 12, 2002, weeks before the CIA's NIE was even released.
Does that sound like a form of political pressure?
Since INC was getting cash from Congress, and may have used this cash to produce the bogus intelligence, I wonder if they broke any laws that might make them criminally liable?
Rule of Law
Earlier this summer, NYT columnist Anthony Lewis wrote a powerful piece for Mother Jones (warning, pdf file) discussing the adverse consequences of the war on terror for human rights.
To help make his most important point, Lewis referenced Aharon Barak, president of the Israeli Supreme Court:
Lewis argues that the Bush administration has ignored the rule of law by holding captives against their will and without due process at Guantanamo Bay and by holding American citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi for alleged terrorist actions. Lewis also discusses the arrest of more than 1000 Muslims in the US after 9/11. The article includes a bit about the Patriot Act, but these dubious detentions are far more serious since the President's lawyers basically argue against allowing detainees to have access to lawyers or to due process. Very few have been charged with any crimes and dozens of people at Gitmo have been freed. Hundreds of detained Muslims have also been freed, though some were held against their will for weeks and even months.
The section about some British citizens held at Gitmo is enough to make your skin crawl.
I tried to find the original for the Barak quote. It appears to have originated in a lecture the Judge gave in Cambridge (UK) , July 18, 2003 (warning, also a pdf file).
Barak also gave a great keynote address on this theme at Brandeis University on May 18, 2003. Allow me to quote this lengthy section:
To help make his most important point, Lewis referenced Aharon Barak, president of the Israeli Supreme Court:
"Terrorism does not justify the neglect of accepted legal norms," Justice Barak wrote in 2002. "This is how we distinguish ourselves from the terrorists themselves. They act against the law, by violating and trampling it, while in its war against terrorism, a democratic state acts within the framework of the law and according to the law. It is, therefore, not merely a war of the state against its enemies; it is also a war of the Law against its enemies."Powerful stuff.
Lewis argues that the Bush administration has ignored the rule of law by holding captives against their will and without due process at Guantanamo Bay and by holding American citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi for alleged terrorist actions. Lewis also discusses the arrest of more than 1000 Muslims in the US after 9/11. The article includes a bit about the Patriot Act, but these dubious detentions are far more serious since the President's lawyers basically argue against allowing detainees to have access to lawyers or to due process. Very few have been charged with any crimes and dozens of people at Gitmo have been freed. Hundreds of detained Muslims have also been freed, though some were held against their will for weeks and even months.
The section about some British citizens held at Gitmo is enough to make your skin crawl.
I tried to find the original for the Barak quote. It appears to have originated in a lecture the Judge gave in Cambridge (UK) , July 18, 2003 (warning, also a pdf file).
Barak also gave a great keynote address on this theme at Brandeis University on May 18, 2003. Allow me to quote this lengthy section:
There is no democracy without recognition of basic values and principles such as morality and justice. Above all, democracy cannot exist without the protection of individual human rights - rights so essential that they must be insulated from the power of the majority.I'm heartened to think that the American Supreme Court shares these ideals, since the Bush administration last month lost its attempt to deny Hamdi and the Gitmo detainees access to judicial processes. The Court did not rule on the Padilla case on technical grounds -- but sent it back to the lower court, presumably with a new copy of the latest rulings.
The rule of law and democracy must prevail in times of peace. They must also prevail in times of war and terror. The Roman saying that in battle the laws are silent - or the well-known saying that when the cannons speak, the Muses are silent - is wrong. Every battle a country wages - against terrorism or any other enemy - is done according to rules and laws. There is always law according to which the state must act. There are no black holes. And the law needs Muses, ever more urgently than when the cannons speak. We need laws most in times of war. And we need human rights most in times of war and in the fight against terror. Yes, when a democracy fights terror, not all means are acceptable to it, and not all methods employed by its enemies are open to it. Sometimes, a democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back. Nonetheless, it has the upper hand. Preserving the rule of law and recognition of individual liberties constitute an important component of its understanding of security. At the end of the day, to strengthen its spirit and to allow it to overcome its difficulties. So in the United States after September 11th, and so in my country, Israel, where we are suffering from terrorism for a long time.
The president's constitutional powers, even when supported by Congress in wartime, do not include the authority to close the doors to an independent review of the legality of locking people up, the justices said.I should note that the "rule of law" was an important reason to oppose the US invasion of Iraq. Without UN sanction, it was an illegal war. How can the US foster democracy around the world if its leaders attempt to subvert it domestically and if it is not accountable internationally?
"We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in Hamdi et al v. Rumsfeld.
Monday, July 12, 2004
PUD Followup
The Ken Lay indictment reminded me to search Google News for updated information about my friend Eric Christensen and the Snohomish (WA) Public Utility District.
They're the guys who transcribed and publicized the "Enron tapes."
I found a nice AP story that looks into PUD's research"Journal Gazette | 06/27/2004 | County utility upstages feds in Enron probe":
Here's a nice compliment:
So, they're not trying to get money from Enron (which seems quite problematic, as a reader pointed out to me in an email). But there's still a big pile of cash at stake.
Taxpayers of the region should be very happy if this works out.
Then, maybe Eric should consider running for public office. This has got to be nearly as good as a prosecutor winning a major conviction in a high profile case.
They're the guys who transcribed and publicized the "Enron tapes."
I found a nice AP story that looks into PUD's research"Journal Gazette | 06/27/2004 | County utility upstages feds in Enron probe":
How did a public utility district with 290,000 customers nearly 2,000 miles from Enron’s Houston headquarters find itself at the forefront of such a complex legal battle, ahead of much larger utilities and state and federal regulators?I think Eric is just being modest.
“We just happened to turn over the right rock that had this amazing trove of evidence that was not only legally explosive but something that ordinary people could listen to and say, ‘Wow, these guys are really crooked bastards,’ ” Snohomish lawyer Eric Christensen said.
Here's a nice compliment:
The transcriptions were explosive. Enron traders joked about lying in their negotiations with Snohomish and others. They joked about stealing money from “Grandma Millie” in California, and they joked that President Bush would not stop them by imposing price caps because of his close relationship with then-Enron chief executive Ken Lay.The story explains that PUD was motivated by a desire not to pay $122 million to Enron as part of a bankruptcy settlement.
“This is more than a smoking gun,” said Russ Campbell, another Nevada Power lawyer. “It’s an audiotape of the gun being fired, the bullet hitting the victim and the murderer standing over the victim laughing.”
So, they're not trying to get money from Enron (which seems quite problematic, as a reader pointed out to me in an email). But there's still a big pile of cash at stake.
Taxpayers of the region should be very happy if this works out.
Then, maybe Eric should consider running for public office. This has got to be nearly as good as a prosecutor winning a major conviction in a high profile case.
Bush's Big Adventure was a Ratings Flop
CNN.com has the latest poll results about the way Americans feel about Iraq and their own security:
This is perhaps one factor in Kerry's 50-46 lead over Bush in the same poll. Actually, that's the result pollsters got after they massaged the data to reflect "likely voters." Among registered voters, it was 51-44.
I suspect the anti-Bush vote is going to be fairly motivated in November.
By the way, these numbers reflect Kerry's Veep choice, John Edwards.
Toss in Nader and the lead among registered voters is 50-45-2, implying that the third choice is drawing equally from Kerry and Bush. We'll see, eh? Last I read, Republicans are still working to help Nader get on the ballot in Michigan, Oregon and Arizona.
Back to the security theme for a minute: How will Bush manage to push the threat enough to scare the beejesus out of everyone, even as he reassures voters that he's the man to provide security?
This was Bush, today:
Plus, it implies that the war in Iraq was worth all it cost simply to keep this a "road war" rather than a "home war."
Opps, here's Tom Ridge, last week:
Ridge's statements, of course, have also led to a mini-firestorm in the major media (Newsweek) and on the blogs as everyone is trying to figure out if the administration is thinking about ways to cancel November elections.
And of course, there are clear signs the President suffers delusions:
The President has no choice other to defend the war, but I suspect he's going to wish he did. American soldiers keep dying (29 in just 12 days this month, since the handover) and the Iraqi government just cleared the path for martial law. Hmm, not very democratic of them.
There were no WMD. No links to al Qaeda.
Where's the success, exactly?
The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds 55 percent of Americans feel less safe from terror because of the war in Iraq. The fear factor is now 22 percentage points higher than it was six months ago, when the same question was asked.That can't be good for a President running on the promise of security.
This is perhaps one factor in Kerry's 50-46 lead over Bush in the same poll. Actually, that's the result pollsters got after they massaged the data to reflect "likely voters." Among registered voters, it was 51-44.
I suspect the anti-Bush vote is going to be fairly motivated in November.
By the way, these numbers reflect Kerry's Veep choice, John Edwards.
Toss in Nader and the lead among registered voters is 50-45-2, implying that the third choice is drawing equally from Kerry and Bush. We'll see, eh? Last I read, Republicans are still working to help Nader get on the ballot in Michigan, Oregon and Arizona.
Back to the security theme for a minute: How will Bush manage to push the threat enough to scare the beejesus out of everyone, even as he reassures voters that he's the man to provide security?
This was Bush, today:
America's determination to actively oppose the threats of our time was formed and fixed on September the 11th, 2001. On that day we saw the cruelty of the terrorists, and we glimpsed the future they intend for us. They intend to strike the United States to the limits of their power. They seek weapons of mass destruction to kill Americans on an even greater scale. And this danger is increased when outlaw regimes build or acquire weapons of mass destruction and maintain ties to terrorist groups.Confident, resolute and reassuring, right?
This is our danger, but not our fate. America has the resources and the strength and the resolve to overcome this threat. We are waging a broad and unrelenting war against terror, and an active campaign against proliferation. We refuse to live in fear. We are making steady progress...
...we are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy. We will confront them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home.
Plus, it implies that the war in Iraq was worth all it cost simply to keep this a "road war" rather than a "home war."
Opps, here's Tom Ridge, last week:
Credible reporting now indicates that al-Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process.Anxiety-inducing, eh?
...We lack precise knowledge about time, place and method of attack
...We are basically laying out before the general public the kind of information that we have received and it's not us. These are not conjectures or mythical statements we are making. These are pieces of information that we could trace comfortably to sources that we deem to be credible.
Ridge's statements, of course, have also led to a mini-firestorm in the major media (Newsweek) and on the blogs as everyone is trying to figure out if the administration is thinking about ways to cancel November elections.
And of course, there are clear signs the President suffers delusions:
...we're protecting the peace by working with friends and allies and international institutions to isolate and confront terrorists and outlaw regimes. America is leading a broad coalition of nations to disrupt proliferation. We're working with the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and other international organizations to take action in our common security. The global threat of terrorism requires a global response.Sounds good, but none of this was the administration's strategy. Remember when Bush said the UN would be irrelevant if it didn't sanction the war?
The President has no choice other to defend the war, but I suspect he's going to wish he did. American soldiers keep dying (29 in just 12 days this month, since the handover) and the Iraqi government just cleared the path for martial law. Hmm, not very democratic of them.
There were no WMD. No links to al Qaeda.
Where's the success, exactly?
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Feith's "not lawful" shop
OK, so the talented blogger Digby links to me and my top post for most of the weekend is on my fantasy baseball team. Ugh.
My regular readers might put up with such ramblings, but the new crowd was bound to be disappointed.
How's this...
Earlier today, the Senators who directed the Intelligence investigation said some interesting things about the Pentagon's intelligence operations -- both the regular DIA and Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans.
You know, the operation Senator Rockefeller already said was "not lawful."
Kansas Republican and Committee Chair Pat Roberts was not at all happy with the way DIA disclosed sources and methods -- to the CIA!
Senator Rockefeller emphasize the problematic OSP under Feith:
Let the fun begin.
My regular readers might put up with such ramblings, but the new crowd was bound to be disappointed.
How's this...
Earlier today, the Senators who directed the Intelligence investigation said some interesting things about the Pentagon's intelligence operations -- both the regular DIA and Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans.
You know, the operation Senator Rockefeller already said was "not lawful."
Kansas Republican and Committee Chair Pat Roberts was not at all happy with the way DIA disclosed sources and methods -- to the CIA!
Roberts cited false information on Iraq that the Bush administration had taken from a source code-named Curveball.I think we can imagine, eh?
"Curveball really provided 98 percent of the assessment as to whether or not the Iraqis had a biological weapon," Roberts said.
"Yet the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, knew of his background. He has a very troubled background."
Based on this source's claims, the administration argued that Iraq had biological weapons capability, Roberts said.
"That's the kind of flaw in intelligence and I think -- I won't say willful -- but the DIA should have shared that information with the CIA. And the CIA should have gone from there."
In fact, Roberts said, much information about Curveball was redacted, or blacked out, from the version of the report that was made public.
"I can't really tell you some of the more specific details that would make your eyebrows even raise higher," Roberts said.
Senator Rockefeller emphasize the problematic OSP under Feith:
"There's always the question whether or not he [Feith] was running a secret intelligence operation that bypassed the entire intelligence community. And the law says you've got to inform the intelligence community of anything that you're doing," Rockefeller said.The press reports suggest that other Senators are interested in digging around the Pentagon. I'm sure there's plenty to learn.
Let the fun begin.
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Weekend baseball
If you are really, really bored, follow the ongoing OBFLB draft. OBFLB stands for Original Bitnet Fantasy League Baseball.
You read that right. Bitnet.
This is a 24 team head-to-head fantasy baseball league that has been around for about 15 years. My Louisville Sluggers joined the league in 1991 and have won at least 5 World Series championships during that time (it may be 6...some records are missing from the archives).
Winning is made a bit easier by the fact that we play 2 seasons during each major league baseball season. Since the Sluggers first competed in the second half of 1991, 2004 will be my 27th season. The most recent championship was just last year (2003B), but the team played just around .500 ball in 2004A.
In any event, the ongoing draft is for the second half (2004B).
Each team keeps at least 7 players, but no more than 15, prior to the draft.
In addition to the draft picks, which you can see for yourself, I retained:
1B Jim Thome (PHI)
3B Eric Chavez (OAK)
SS Derek Jeter (NYY)
OF Gary Sheffield (NYY)
SP Pedro Martinez (BOS)
SP Zack Greinke (KC)
RP Eric Gagne (LA)
Yes, my team has a strong core of All Stars.
At the break, I sold OF Shawn Green (LA) and SP Greg Maddux (CHC) as part of a rebuilding effort. Both had been with the Sluggers through all the championships...Maddux was the last original player from 1991.
The draft picks reveal that I'm trying to turnover the roster towards youth. My top draft pick, 2B Omar Infante, is 22 years old and hitting .291/.360/.485 (Batting average, on-base average, slugging percentage). The "OPS" is 845, which is very good for a 22-year old middle infielder. I sure hope this isn't just a fluke first half.
You read that right. Bitnet.
This is a 24 team head-to-head fantasy baseball league that has been around for about 15 years. My Louisville Sluggers joined the league in 1991 and have won at least 5 World Series championships during that time (it may be 6...some records are missing from the archives).
Winning is made a bit easier by the fact that we play 2 seasons during each major league baseball season. Since the Sluggers first competed in the second half of 1991, 2004 will be my 27th season. The most recent championship was just last year (2003B), but the team played just around .500 ball in 2004A.
In any event, the ongoing draft is for the second half (2004B).
Each team keeps at least 7 players, but no more than 15, prior to the draft.
In addition to the draft picks, which you can see for yourself, I retained:
1B Jim Thome (PHI)
3B Eric Chavez (OAK)
SS Derek Jeter (NYY)
OF Gary Sheffield (NYY)
SP Pedro Martinez (BOS)
SP Zack Greinke (KC)
RP Eric Gagne (LA)
Yes, my team has a strong core of All Stars.
At the break, I sold OF Shawn Green (LA) and SP Greg Maddux (CHC) as part of a rebuilding effort. Both had been with the Sluggers through all the championships...Maddux was the last original player from 1991.
The draft picks reveal that I'm trying to turnover the roster towards youth. My top draft pick, 2B Omar Infante, is 22 years old and hitting .291/.360/.485 (Batting average, on-base average, slugging percentage). The "OPS" is 845, which is very good for a 22-year old middle infielder. I sure hope this isn't just a fluke first half.
Friday, July 09, 2004
Senate Intelligence Report
The Senate Intelligence Committee Report was issued today. I haven't read it yet, though that is readily explained since it runs 511 pages according to Senator Jay Rockefeller. Think about that in the next day or two as you hear and see politicians and talking heads pontificating about it.
I sent an email to Senator McConnell's office in hopes of receiving a paper copy.
Also, I did read through the transcript of the news conference that featured Rockefeller and Committee Chair Pat Roberts of Kansas.
The Republican began the proceedings and he was quite critical about the October 2002 NIE that helped justify war against Iraq.
Roberts previously stated that the Iraq resolution might not have cleared the Congress if the intelligence had been accurate. Rockefeller said the same thing (more forcefully) in today's new conference.
A lot of the other conclusions pertain to the intelligence-gathering process and to the analysis of that intell.
The Republican Senator also defended the Bush administration:
Rockefeller notes that there were areas of disagreement -- "especially on the question of whether the administration pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined, in my judgment, conclusions."
Bluntly, the Committee didn't even consider the way the intell was used:
Actually, it has been widely reported that they have no intention of releasing the second report before November.
Roberts notes that the intelligence community's assessment of Iraq-terror connections were accurate, but Rockefeller puts a very different spin on that claim:
Rockefeller also points to a juicy tidbit about the now-defunct Office of Special Plans:
Here's Rockefeller's devastating but not unexpected conclusion:
I predict a long, hot summer in Washington.
Update: Kathy at Random Thoughts has a nice bullet-point summary of the Report's key findings.
I sent an email to Senator McConnell's office in hopes of receiving a paper copy.
Also, I did read through the transcript of the news conference that featured Rockefeller and Committee Chair Pat Roberts of Kansas.
The Republican began the proceedings and he was quite critical about the October 2002 NIE that helped justify war against Iraq.
Obviously, while it is too large for either one of us to summarize, I can point out some of the highlights.Those are powerful charges.
First of all, most of the key judgments in the October 2002 national intelligence estimate on Iraq’s WMD programs were either overstated or were not supported by the raw intelligence reporting.
Here are some examples of statements from the key judgments.
ROBERTS: "Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle, a UAV, probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents. And all key aspects, research and development and production, of Iraq’s offensive biological weapons program are active, and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War."
Now, these are very emphatic statements. Simply put, they were not supported by the intelligence which the community supplied to the committee, and they should not have been included in the NIE.
Second, in the committee’s view, the intelligence community did not accurately or adequately explain the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 national intelligence estimate to policy-makers, both in the executive branch and here on Capitol Hill.
Roberts previously stated that the Iraq resolution might not have cleared the Congress if the intelligence had been accurate. Rockefeller said the same thing (more forcefully) in today's new conference.
A lot of the other conclusions pertain to the intelligence-gathering process and to the analysis of that intell.
The Republican Senator also defended the Bush administration:
Finally, the committee found no evidence that the intelligence community’s mischaracterization or exaggeration of intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of politics or pressure.Rockefeller directly challenged this claim, so that was not a bipartisan finding even though the Committee accepted the report unanimously.
Rockefeller notes that there were areas of disagreement -- "especially on the question of whether the administration pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined, in my judgment, conclusions."
Bluntly, the Committee didn't even consider the way the intell was used:
I have to say, that there is a real frustration over what is not in this report, and I don’t think was mentioned in Chairman Roberts’ statement, and that is about the -- after the analysts and the intelligence community produced an intelligence product, how is it then shaped or used or misused by the policy-makers?Though he calls for doing this evaluation ASAP, does anyone believe it will occur before November?
...So again there’s genuine frustration -- and Chairman Roberts and I have discussed this many times -- that virtually everything that has to do with the administration has been relegated to phase two.
Actually, it has been widely reported that they have no intention of releasing the second report before November.
Roberts notes that the intelligence community's assessment of Iraq-terror connections were accurate, but Rockefeller puts a very different spin on that claim:
Our report found that the intelligence community’s judgments were right on Iraq’s ties to terrorists, which is another way of saying that the administration’s conclusions were wrong, and that is of the relationship -- formal relationship, however you want to describe it, between Iraq and Al Qaida, and no evidence existed of Iraq’s complicity or assistance in Al Qaida’s terrorist attacks, including 9/11, which, through the device of Mohammed Atta and others, the debate continues almost up until two months ago, at least on the part of the vice president.Will the American people continue to buy the administration's assertions, which now boil down to "the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absense"?
Rockefeller also points to a juicy tidbit about the now-defunct Office of Special Plans:
We’ve done a little bit of work on the number three guy in the Defense Department, Douglas Feith, part of his alleged efforts to run intelligence past the intelligence community altogether, his relationship with the INC and Chalabi, who was very much in favor with the administration wanting them to come on in. And was he running a private intelligence failure, which is not lawful.Not lawful.
Here's Rockefeller's devastating but not unexpected conclusion:
Let me just finish by saying, again, an emphasis on this relentless public campaign prior to the war, which repeatedly characterized the Iraqi weapons program in more ominous and threatening terms than any intelligence would have allowed. In short, we went to war in Iraq based on false claims.Given recent poll findings, the public now understands this too.
I predict a long, hot summer in Washington.
Update: Kathy at Random Thoughts has a nice bullet-point summary of the Report's key findings.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Behind the Curtain
While the Bush White House is trying to focus attention on the alleged inexperience of Senator John Edwards, the FBI is reminding everyone of the President's own past.
This is from today's Washington Post report:
How does Lay's allegedly criminal leadership of a "massive conspiracy" relate to the Bush White House? New Zealand's Scoop provided a useful image reminding everyone of how Enron ties permeate the Bush White House:
But, of course, there's much more. A lot more.
First, Lay personally served as co-chair of George H.W. Bush's 1992 re-election campaign. Also, Enron was the #1 contributor to the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign (worth $1.14 million). As Post reporter Carrie Johnson wrote, Lay "cultivated close ties to the Bush administration. President Bush nicknamed him 'Kenny Boy.'" Do a little searching of the internet and it is easy to find copies of personal correspondence between Lay and the President. For example, then-Governor Bush called Lay an old friend in 1997 when sending him a personal birthday greeting.
Columnist Kevin Phillips claims that the Bush family has received upwards of $8 to 10 million dollars from Enron over a 17 year period. "Depending on some still-unclear relationships, it could be as high as $25 million."
Finally, Lay was one of the oil industry insiders Dick Cheney met with when the Vice President was secretly planning the Bush administration's energy policy in 2001.
And of course, Enron's crimes are legion. They defrauded investors, robbed their own employees by making them sink retirement dollars into the company, and apparently conspired to screw California consumers. This latter act indirectly toppled Governor Gray Davis, meaning that the company distorted democracy. Abroad, they also had a dubious human rights record.
Bush and Lay are part of the same culture of crony capitalism that must be held accountable for their misdeeds. These are the very guys who have engineered the "two America's" that John Edwards keeps talking about.
Speaking of Bush's past and John Edwards, Brad DeLong would like to remind the country of a good reason to ignore those Republican ads claiming that Edwards was John Kerry's second choice for Veep. After all,
This is from today's Washington Post report:
Former Enron Corp. chief executive Kenneth L. Lay was charged with 11 counts of securities fraud, wire fraud, and false and misleading statements in a 65 page indictment unsealed this morning hours after he surrendered to federal authorities.Lay is claiming that he was misled about Enron's circumstances by financial officers, but the Post notes that this defense is unlikely to fly:
In recent months, the grand jury has heard evidence from a series of former employees who said they alerted Lay to mounting financial problems in the months before the company disclosed phony earnings and billions in hidden debt.And Lay was selling millions of dollars worth of company stock even as he was receiving all this bad news. So far, nearly a dozen former Enron executives have either plead guilty or been convicted of various felonies.
How does Lay's allegedly criminal leadership of a "massive conspiracy" relate to the Bush White House? New Zealand's Scoop provided a useful image reminding everyone of how Enron ties permeate the Bush White House:
But, of course, there's much more. A lot more.
First, Lay personally served as co-chair of George H.W. Bush's 1992 re-election campaign. Also, Enron was the #1 contributor to the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign (worth $1.14 million). As Post reporter Carrie Johnson wrote, Lay "cultivated close ties to the Bush administration. President Bush nicknamed him 'Kenny Boy.'" Do a little searching of the internet and it is easy to find copies of personal correspondence between Lay and the President. For example, then-Governor Bush called Lay an old friend in 1997 when sending him a personal birthday greeting.
Columnist Kevin Phillips claims that the Bush family has received upwards of $8 to 10 million dollars from Enron over a 17 year period. "Depending on some still-unclear relationships, it could be as high as $25 million."
Finally, Lay was one of the oil industry insiders Dick Cheney met with when the Vice President was secretly planning the Bush administration's energy policy in 2001.
And of course, Enron's crimes are legion. They defrauded investors, robbed their own employees by making them sink retirement dollars into the company, and apparently conspired to screw California consumers. This latter act indirectly toppled Governor Gray Davis, meaning that the company distorted democracy. Abroad, they also had a dubious human rights record.
Bush and Lay are part of the same culture of crony capitalism that must be held accountable for their misdeeds. These are the very guys who have engineered the "two America's" that John Edwards keeps talking about.
Speaking of Bush's past and John Edwards, Brad DeLong would like to remind the country of a good reason to ignore those Republican ads claiming that Edwards was John Kerry's second choice for Veep. After all,
George W. Bush was America's second choice for president.
Beat him by more in 2004!
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Iraqi WMD Intell Update
"They used the thinnest sources to justify the grandest conclusions about weapons of mass destruction and other activity in Iraq," Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat on the panel, told Reuters.The obvious question: Who are "they"?
Well, according to this Wired News story from Reuter's ("Senate Report to Detail Iraq Intelligence Flaws"), "they" are the CIA and other US intelligence agencies.
The soon-to-be forthcoming Senate Report is apparently going to blame the CIA for ignoring evidence suggesting Iraq did not have WMD -- such as interviews with Iraqi scientists.
Other Dems besides Durbin are placing a lot of blame on the CIA, but there's more here than meets the eye:
Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana, said flawed intelligence resulted from a pre-existing belief that Iraq had banned weapons, pressure to reach conclusions in the face of ambiguity, and that all doubts were resolved in favor of the pre-existing beliefs.In other words, at least some of the Dems lay at least some of the blame on the Bush administration for pressuring the intelligence agencies:
"It's also important to have a devil's advocate, somebody playing the contrarian; I'm afraid some of that may have gotten lost," Bayh told Reuters.
Some Democrats have written "additional views" to the report which will raise questions about whether the Republican Bush administration, including the White House and Pentagon officials, pressured the CIA to fit its conclusions with the administration's desire to go to war.According to the story, the key 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) included a lot of dubious intelligence that had been eliminated from earlier drafts.
"Go to each of the key elements justifying the invasion of Iraq and you will find a failure of our intelligence agencies to properly assess the evidence given to them and to describe it to policymakers," Durbin said.
Is this too much like "inside baseball"?
One main area of focus is the process by which the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate was drafted. That key pre-war report, which compiles views of various intelligence agencies, concluded that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.That doesn't sound like the CIA goofed by relying too much on technology and ignoring new evidence casting doubt on Iraqi WMD.
Draft portions of that report are submitted to administration officials and various agencies and then the material is adjusted after comments.
"And in the last draft, all of a sudden, this material that has been thought to be erroneous by the CIA or has been said to be wrong, is now back in that report," a government source familiar with the Senate report said. "That's the kind of stuff that is problematic."
That sounds like a CIA vulnerable to political pressure.
Vignettes
Today is my last day guest-blogging for Rodger, at least for the time being, and I'm already worried that my four previous posts -- too long-winded for the web -- have set Rodger's readership back 6 months. So I thought I'd conclude my stint with a few short vignettes.
1. Greater threats than terrorism (I): HIV/AIDS
The UN has declared that the world is losing the battle against HIV/AIDS. The statistics are staggering, and the role of the US government is worse than shameful. Indeed, to join in the use of "battle" terminology, let's put the question this way: which side is the US government on? An impartial assessment provides some good evidence -- Reagan's prudish neglect, Bush I's gag rule, Clinton's attempt to enforce drug-patent laws, Bush II's opposition to birth control and sex ed, the unchecked trade in arms that fuels war and instability worldwide, and the bipartisan support of agricultural subsidies that force people off their land and into anomic, jobless shanties around major cities of the Global South -- that in this war, the US government is on the side of HIV/AIDS. Of course, as with most such things, the US plays both sides. But in comparison, our band-aid contributions to the fight against HIV hardly show up on the graph.
Can this be changed? Only, perhaps, by linking AIDS to terrorism. A backwards strategy, if you ask me, but when the only tool you have is a hammer....
2. Greater threats than terrorism (II): Global Climate Change
Earlier this year a secret Pentagon report claimed that global climate change is a greater threat than terrorism. Now this is pretty obvious, but what's amazing is that Pentagon staff could say so. When will their boss, the lovely and talented Donald Rumsfeld, or any high-up government official admit this? Surely not during the Bush administration. Will Kerry or Edwards have the guts to speak the truth on this before the election (or even after it)? What better way to underscore Bush's screwed up priorities? Of course, I'm not holding my breath -- though perhaps I should, given all the particles we're inhaling.
3. George II as Frederik II
Kenneth Olwig relates the following story in chapter one of Landscape, Nature, and the Body Politic. Soon after being crowned in 1559, King Frederik II of Denmark went off "to play heroic knight in shining armor" by invading a small peasant republic called Dithmarschen. He needed to avenge a previous king, whose own attempt to conquer the region had ended in embarrassment and failure. Frederik used overwhelming force -- 20 000 infantrymen and 3000 cavalrymen to attack some 7000 irregulars -- pillaged and burned, and then incorporated Dithmarschen into his kingdom (and its coat of arms into his) even though Dithmarschen retained autonomous rule. In other words, Frederik the shining knight was able to overwhelm Dithmarschen but not to govern it, so he declared "mission accomplished" and went home. Incidentally, Frederik's Denmark was the mecca of European theatre. Olwig punningly refers to this conquest as one of "the first acts" of Frederik's rule.
4. "A spirited campaign"
George Bush yesterday "welcomed" John Edwards to the Democratic ticket and said he looked forward to a "spirited campaign." I heard this just after reading an Atlantic article, "Playing Dirty," by Joshua Green, explaining why the 2004 campaign is already the dirtiest and only getting worse. The article was largely based on a BBC documentary, Digging the Dirt, about opposition research, or "oppo," and its use by both sides in the 2000 campaign. The documentary never aired here. The BBC followed the Bush campaign against Gore, but Green's article also discusses Wesley Clark's use of "oppo" in derailing the Dean campaign before the Iowa caucuses. It worked, but took Clark down along with Dean. Bush's idea of a spirited campaign is one that relies on the ignorance of the public and the manipulation of appearances. Our best hope is that it will backfire, as did "mission accomplished," "bring 'em on," and the entire invasion of Iraq.
1. Greater threats than terrorism (I): HIV/AIDS
The UN has declared that the world is losing the battle against HIV/AIDS. The statistics are staggering, and the role of the US government is worse than shameful. Indeed, to join in the use of "battle" terminology, let's put the question this way: which side is the US government on? An impartial assessment provides some good evidence -- Reagan's prudish neglect, Bush I's gag rule, Clinton's attempt to enforce drug-patent laws, Bush II's opposition to birth control and sex ed, the unchecked trade in arms that fuels war and instability worldwide, and the bipartisan support of agricultural subsidies that force people off their land and into anomic, jobless shanties around major cities of the Global South -- that in this war, the US government is on the side of HIV/AIDS. Of course, as with most such things, the US plays both sides. But in comparison, our band-aid contributions to the fight against HIV hardly show up on the graph.
Can this be changed? Only, perhaps, by linking AIDS to terrorism. A backwards strategy, if you ask me, but when the only tool you have is a hammer....
2. Greater threats than terrorism (II): Global Climate Change
Earlier this year a secret Pentagon report claimed that global climate change is a greater threat than terrorism. Now this is pretty obvious, but what's amazing is that Pentagon staff could say so. When will their boss, the lovely and talented Donald Rumsfeld, or any high-up government official admit this? Surely not during the Bush administration. Will Kerry or Edwards have the guts to speak the truth on this before the election (or even after it)? What better way to underscore Bush's screwed up priorities? Of course, I'm not holding my breath -- though perhaps I should, given all the particles we're inhaling.
3. George II as Frederik II
Kenneth Olwig relates the following story in chapter one of Landscape, Nature, and the Body Politic. Soon after being crowned in 1559, King Frederik II of Denmark went off "to play heroic knight in shining armor" by invading a small peasant republic called Dithmarschen. He needed to avenge a previous king, whose own attempt to conquer the region had ended in embarrassment and failure. Frederik used overwhelming force -- 20 000 infantrymen and 3000 cavalrymen to attack some 7000 irregulars -- pillaged and burned, and then incorporated Dithmarschen into his kingdom (and its coat of arms into his) even though Dithmarschen retained autonomous rule. In other words, Frederik the shining knight was able to overwhelm Dithmarschen but not to govern it, so he declared "mission accomplished" and went home. Incidentally, Frederik's Denmark was the mecca of European theatre. Olwig punningly refers to this conquest as one of "the first acts" of Frederik's rule.
4. "A spirited campaign"
George Bush yesterday "welcomed" John Edwards to the Democratic ticket and said he looked forward to a "spirited campaign." I heard this just after reading an Atlantic article, "Playing Dirty," by Joshua Green, explaining why the 2004 campaign is already the dirtiest and only getting worse. The article was largely based on a BBC documentary, Digging the Dirt, about opposition research, or "oppo," and its use by both sides in the 2000 campaign. The documentary never aired here. The BBC followed the Bush campaign against Gore, but Green's article also discusses Wesley Clark's use of "oppo" in derailing the Dean campaign before the Iowa caucuses. It worked, but took Clark down along with Dean. Bush's idea of a spirited campaign is one that relies on the ignorance of the public and the manipulation of appearances. Our best hope is that it will backfire, as did "mission accomplished," "bring 'em on," and the entire invasion of Iraq.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Two Americas
As my regular readers know, I've long been intrigued by the political skills of John Edwards. Long ago, I predicted he could land a spot on the national ticket (or perhaps in the Cabinet).
In any case, today seems like a perfect date to reference his "Two Americas'" address. Here's the key paragraph:
The rhetoric is openly populist and quite appealing:
I'd excerpt more of the Edwards speech, but I'd encourage everyone to read it...or watch CSPAN. I'm sure they'll be running versions of it very soon.
Here's how Edwards closes the speech:
In any case, today seems like a perfect date to reference his "Two Americas'" address. Here's the key paragraph:
Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America that will do anything to leave its children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because its children are already set for life. One America -- middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a President.And Edwards really electrifies crowds when he delivers these words.
The rhetoric is openly populist and quite appealing:
2004 is a make-or-break election because we need to create one America again. And that is the one thing George Bush will never do. Dividing us into two Americas - one privileged, the other burdened - has been his agenda all along. Just look what he wants to do to our tax code. From the beginning, this President has had one solitary goal: to shift the tax burden away from the wealth of the most fortunate and onto the work of the middle class. He wants to cut the capital gains tax, eliminate the dividends tax and the estate tax, and create new tax shelters for millionaires' stocks that are bigger than most people's salaries. By the time he's done, the only people who pay taxes in America will be the millions of middle-class and poor Americans who do all the work.Democrats all over the country should be applauding Kerry's decision and renew their vows to help bring down Bush in 2004.
That's wrong. It's wrong for a millionaire who sits by the pool on the phone to his broker to pay tax at a lower rate than the cop on the beat or the waitress working two shifts.
What's more, by dividing us into two Americas, George Bush is hurting our economy, cheating our future, and undermining our very way of life. The engine of our economy is not that guy sitting by the pool. It is millions of guys and gals in factories, fields, and offices across America who go to work every day trying to do right by their families. When we invest in those Americans, our middle-class grows, and our whole economy grows. That is the simple truth George Bush will never understand.
I'd excerpt more of the Edwards speech, but I'd encourage everyone to read it...or watch CSPAN. I'm sure they'll be running versions of it very soon.
Here's how Edwards closes the speech:
We will replace the crass politics of greed and the current politics of rage with a new politics of opportunity.Here's a song lyric from Little Walter I used to quote after winning a big argument against another debate team: "Boom boom! out go the lights."
We are all angry at what George Bush has done to our country, our values, and our way of life. But we all know in our hearts that our anger won't change America; our actions will. Democrats are the party of optimism and action, and I am in this fight to keep that tradition alive, and to build on our country's great successes.
Because I believe in an America where every man, woman, and child can reach his or her God-given potential. I believe in an America where the family you're born into and the color of your skin should never control your destiny.
Hoping for a president I can hate
A friend of mine who was in SDS in the mid-1960s tells me, "You haven't had a decent president in your lifetime. When I was in college, I hated the President more than anyone in the world -- and he was trying to end poverty!"
Point well taken.
My hope is that John Kerry -- especially now with John Edwards on the ticket -- will be not just a NonBush, but my first decent president. And I have some reason to be hopeful here. The reason for hope is that Kerry and Edwards, unlike Clinton and Gore, actually support the right to organize.
The right to organize is by far the most important legislative achievement for workers -- though of course, it is connected to other issues, such as immigration, trade, and criminal-justice reform. Improvements like an expanded EITC, increased minimum wage, and even health-care reform are important and valuable. We need them. But even if wages and employment temporarily stagnated, an expanded right to organize both domestically and internationally would reap long-term rewards for working people everywhere. What the right to organize does is to enable workers to fight for and be secure in their own rights, rather than bow and scrape, hoping for scraps to fall from the table.
This latter circumstance describes the Clinton-Gore era.
First, consider Clinton-Gore's own list of accomplishments for workers, which touts job and wage growth, but leaves right-to-organize issues way at the bottom. And rightly so. Most of Clinton's right-to-organize achievements were minor and symbolic; they look good only under spin.
Second, check out the devastating critique lodged by the International Labor Rights Fund -- a mainstream organization that worked with Clinton on issues such as the "Fair Labor Association". According to ILRF's report on NAFTA, Clinton's track record on organizing was shameful.
The report also refers to "the weakness of NAALC to influence wage bargaining and union organizing attempts in the United States by threatening to move production to Mexico." Its first prescription for fixing the NAALC is to end "the 'three-tier' division of rights enforcement that excludes the most fundamental labor rights (i.e., freedom of association, right to organize, bargain and strike, forced labor, discrimination, equal pay, workers' compensation and migrant labor etc.) from full treatment under the agreement". Why did Clinton not even try to do this?
And here's a final point. Union membership, especially in the private sector, was already in steep decline when Clinton took office, thanks to 12 years of all-out war on workers. How did Clinton solve this problem? As the Labor Party newsletter wrote back in 2000, "Many unions pinned their hopes on the 1994 bill that would have banned permanent replacement workers in a strike. It went down to defeat in the Senate while Clinton was off on a European excursion."
By dragging their feet on -- or, through NAFTA/NAALC, actively undermining -- the right to organize, Clinton and Gore harmed workers and increased inequality in the US and around the world. Their inaction on this issue demonstrated their desire to be regarded as the savior, as being responsible for any gains workers made; this was more important to them than actually helping workers make those gains.
And here's where Kerry and Edwards step in. Both in his Senate career and in the campaign so far, Kerry has been an important ally specifically on right-to-organize issues. The AFL-CIO gives Kerry a lifetime rating of 91%; Edwards, hailing from a "right to work" state, has a lifetime 96% rating (with many fewer years in the Senate). But because of the signal importance of the right to organize, what's more important than the rating on all AFL issues is candidates' actions and words on that one right. The AFL has catalogued a number of Kerry's recent stances, and is probably working on a release about Edwards as we speak. Kerry refused to cross a police picket line in Boston last week; he joined UFCW grocery employees on a picket in California earlier this year; he wrote to management at Comcast and Quebecor World asking that they respect their employees' right to organize; and (along with Edwards) he's a cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act (S. 1925).
A president who supports the right to organize is not simply preening for the history books. To the contrary: such a president knows he is likely to end up on the wrong side of a number of issues, facing down a strengthened, emboldened, and broad-based labor movement. Such a president doesn't just stand for the right things, but is willing to free the hand of people he can't control so that they can struggle on their own, even when it's inconvenient for him.
Ever since the beginning of this campaign season I've been impressed with Kerry on the right to organize. Now that Edwards is his running mate I am even more heartened. I'm becoming optimistic about the possibility of having a decent president for the first time in my life -- a president I can hate more than anyone else in the world, even though he's trying to end poverty.
And that's why I'm supporting Kerry this year, even though I supported Nader in 2000 and have no regrets about having done so.
Point well taken.
My hope is that John Kerry -- especially now with John Edwards on the ticket -- will be not just a NonBush, but my first decent president. And I have some reason to be hopeful here. The reason for hope is that Kerry and Edwards, unlike Clinton and Gore, actually support the right to organize.
The right to organize is by far the most important legislative achievement for workers -- though of course, it is connected to other issues, such as immigration, trade, and criminal-justice reform. Improvements like an expanded EITC, increased minimum wage, and even health-care reform are important and valuable. We need them. But even if wages and employment temporarily stagnated, an expanded right to organize both domestically and internationally would reap long-term rewards for working people everywhere. What the right to organize does is to enable workers to fight for and be secure in their own rights, rather than bow and scrape, hoping for scraps to fall from the table.
This latter circumstance describes the Clinton-Gore era.
First, consider Clinton-Gore's own list of accomplishments for workers, which touts job and wage growth, but leaves right-to-organize issues way at the bottom. And rightly so. Most of Clinton's right-to-organize achievements were minor and symbolic; they look good only under spin.
Second, check out the devastating critique lodged by the International Labor Rights Fund -- a mainstream organization that worked with Clinton on issues such as the "Fair Labor Association". According to ILRF's report on NAFTA, Clinton's track record on organizing was shameful.
Once elected, President Clinton significantly altered his campaign position and negotiated a supplemental agreement ... requiring only that each NAFTA country enforce its own labor standards. This labor "side agreement," the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) was wholly inadequate to deal with the complex issues of cross boarder labor regulation since it did nothing to correct the verified record of non-enforcement of labor laws in Mexico, particularly in the maquiladora plants. [...] In short, the USTR [US Trade Representative] acknowledges that NAALC has changed nothing significant with respect to labor law enforcement in North America and leaves many workers vulnerable to gross exploitation....
The report also refers to "the weakness of NAALC to influence wage bargaining and union organizing attempts in the United States by threatening to move production to Mexico." Its first prescription for fixing the NAALC is to end "the 'three-tier' division of rights enforcement that excludes the most fundamental labor rights (i.e., freedom of association, right to organize, bargain and strike, forced labor, discrimination, equal pay, workers' compensation and migrant labor etc.) from full treatment under the agreement". Why did Clinton not even try to do this?
And here's a final point. Union membership, especially in the private sector, was already in steep decline when Clinton took office, thanks to 12 years of all-out war on workers. How did Clinton solve this problem? As the Labor Party newsletter wrote back in 2000, "Many unions pinned their hopes on the 1994 bill that would have banned permanent replacement workers in a strike. It went down to defeat in the Senate while Clinton was off on a European excursion."
By dragging their feet on -- or, through NAFTA/NAALC, actively undermining -- the right to organize, Clinton and Gore harmed workers and increased inequality in the US and around the world. Their inaction on this issue demonstrated their desire to be regarded as the savior, as being responsible for any gains workers made; this was more important to them than actually helping workers make those gains.
And here's where Kerry and Edwards step in. Both in his Senate career and in the campaign so far, Kerry has been an important ally specifically on right-to-organize issues. The AFL-CIO gives Kerry a lifetime rating of 91%; Edwards, hailing from a "right to work" state, has a lifetime 96% rating (with many fewer years in the Senate). But because of the signal importance of the right to organize, what's more important than the rating on all AFL issues is candidates' actions and words on that one right. The AFL has catalogued a number of Kerry's recent stances, and is probably working on a release about Edwards as we speak. Kerry refused to cross a police picket line in Boston last week; he joined UFCW grocery employees on a picket in California earlier this year; he wrote to management at Comcast and Quebecor World asking that they respect their employees' right to organize; and (along with Edwards) he's a cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act (S. 1925).
A president who supports the right to organize is not simply preening for the history books. To the contrary: such a president knows he is likely to end up on the wrong side of a number of issues, facing down a strengthened, emboldened, and broad-based labor movement. Such a president doesn't just stand for the right things, but is willing to free the hand of people he can't control so that they can struggle on their own, even when it's inconvenient for him.
Ever since the beginning of this campaign season I've been impressed with Kerry on the right to organize. Now that Edwards is his running mate I am even more heartened. I'm becoming optimistic about the possibility of having a decent president for the first time in my life -- a president I can hate more than anyone else in the world, even though he's trying to end poverty.
And that's why I'm supporting Kerry this year, even though I supported Nader in 2000 and have no regrets about having done so.
Monday, July 05, 2004
And the Libby goes to...
If there were ever a beautiful example of the way contemporary punditry is skewed in thousands of papers around the country, it was provided by two columns on Fahrenheit 9/11 that appeared Saturday in my local paper, the Louisville Courier-Journal. The Courier, a Gannett paper, occasionally uses USA Today's "pro-con" debate format, but this weekend the debate had to be renamed "a liberal and a conservative view" because the liberal, Ellen Goodman, was more critical of Michael Moore's film than was Mona Charen, the conservative. (In her column Charen also discussed one of Rodger's favorite neo-cons, Michael Ledeen.)
Maybe this is just an indicator of my own political orientation -- the "political compass" puts me pretty far out toward the southwest -- but it seems to me that the Courier has one standard for "liberals" and another for "conservatives." The "liberals" are mostly centrist, judicious, and careful -- participants in what they take to be a genuine national political discourse. The "conservatives" tend to argue poorly and call names rather than engage; they seem to regard themselves as partisans first and participants in a dialogue second, if at all. (Thomas Friedman, who shares these latter traits, is hard to categorize -- a shill for corporate globalization if ever there was one, he is nonetheless somehow regarded as a hero by many who consider themselves liberals.) And arguably what irks the right so much about Al Franken, Michael Moore, and others is that the liberal polemicists are mirror images of the conservative public intellectuals. Consider this table of syndicated columnists carried regularly by the Courier:
The categories are my own; feel free to leave a comment if you think someone is miscategorized here, or if I've forgotten someone who is a regular. Now look me in the eyes and swear that you genuinely believe that the "conservatives" are on the whole as responsible, honest, careful, and civil as the "liberals." I bet you can't do it. I should emphasize that I usually agree with very few of the people in any column -- this isn't about correctness, it's about a certain kind of discursive virtue.
What to make of this? If I were a liberal I would say that the media have a double standard -- a common criticism from both sides, recently rehashed in this exchange on Crooked Timber. On this view, the media require liberals to be judicious to the point of timidity, while conservatives are rewarded in proportion to their temerity. It's talk radio brought to the printed page.
But a better interpretation might be that the two sets of columnists are simply engaged in different projects, and either the editors who juxtapose them are unaware of this -- because the shallow culture of contemporary journalism leads them to think all you have to do is put some lefty next to some righty, and presto! objectivity! -- or the editors are fully aware and perpetrating a kind of con game on us. What would the con be? That we have a political culture where dialogue matters, when in fact what we have is a pair of echo chambers with an alienated populace on the outside? That politics really isn't about what we all think it's about? I'm inclined toward these latter readings. But now the question becomes, what is politics really about, then? Follow the money.
At any rate, what got me thinking about all this was the howler of the weekend: Mona Charen lecturing Paul Krugman on economics. Charen writes,
I propose a new fake award: the Liberty Bell award (short name: the Libbys), for someone who says something that, though they are free to say it (because this is a free country, after all), is the remark of a Ding-Dong. And I hereby award the first Libby for Economic Commentary to Mona Charen.
Maybe this is just an indicator of my own political orientation -- the "political compass" puts me pretty far out toward the southwest -- but it seems to me that the Courier has one standard for "liberals" and another for "conservatives." The "liberals" are mostly centrist, judicious, and careful -- participants in what they take to be a genuine national political discourse. The "conservatives" tend to argue poorly and call names rather than engage; they seem to regard themselves as partisans first and participants in a dialogue second, if at all. (Thomas Friedman, who shares these latter traits, is hard to categorize -- a shill for corporate globalization if ever there was one, he is nonetheless somehow regarded as a hero by many who consider themselves liberals.) And arguably what irks the right so much about Al Franken, Michael Moore, and others is that the liberal polemicists are mirror images of the conservative public intellectuals. Consider this table of syndicated columnists carried regularly by the Courier:
| Liberals | Conservatives | Hard to categorize |
| Paul Krugman | Thomas Sowell | Norman Lockman |
| E.J. Dionne | Cal Thomas | Thomas Friedman |
| David Broder | Mona Charen | |
| Ellen Goodman | Kathleen Parker | |
| Matthew Miller | George Will | |
| Maureen Dowd | William Safire | |
| Ronald Brownstein |
The categories are my own; feel free to leave a comment if you think someone is miscategorized here, or if I've forgotten someone who is a regular. Now look me in the eyes and swear that you genuinely believe that the "conservatives" are on the whole as responsible, honest, careful, and civil as the "liberals." I bet you can't do it. I should emphasize that I usually agree with very few of the people in any column -- this isn't about correctness, it's about a certain kind of discursive virtue.
What to make of this? If I were a liberal I would say that the media have a double standard -- a common criticism from both sides, recently rehashed in this exchange on Crooked Timber. On this view, the media require liberals to be judicious to the point of timidity, while conservatives are rewarded in proportion to their temerity. It's talk radio brought to the printed page.
But a better interpretation might be that the two sets of columnists are simply engaged in different projects, and either the editors who juxtapose them are unaware of this -- because the shallow culture of contemporary journalism leads them to think all you have to do is put some lefty next to some righty, and presto! objectivity! -- or the editors are fully aware and perpetrating a kind of con game on us. What would the con be? That we have a political culture where dialogue matters, when in fact what we have is a pair of echo chambers with an alienated populace on the outside? That politics really isn't about what we all think it's about? I'm inclined toward these latter readings. But now the question becomes, what is politics really about, then? Follow the money.
At any rate, what got me thinking about all this was the howler of the weekend: Mona Charen lecturing Paul Krugman on economics. Charen writes,
It turns out that Krugman objects to capitalism. Yes, Krugman is appalled to learn that Paul Bremer was intent upon "privatizing government-run factories." Good heavens, these Bush administration people really are zealots! Later, Krugman calls them "right-wing economic theorists." Hello? Was Krugman asleep when we won the Cold War? Note: Free markets work; state-run economies flounder. But this news may not yet have filtered down to the New York Times.
I propose a new fake award: the Liberty Bell award (short name: the Libbys), for someone who says something that, though they are free to say it (because this is a free country, after all), is the remark of a Ding-Dong. And I hereby award the first Libby for Economic Commentary to Mona Charen.
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Jus Intra Belligerans
A few years ago I gave a couple public lectures in which I argued for a third, or fourth, category of Just War Theory.
Traditionally, Just War Theory is divided into two general categories: jus ad bellum, or the justice of having this conflict at all, and jus in bello, or the justice of its prosecution. (And Brian Orend recently wrote a book articulating and defending a third category, Jus post Bellum, or justice in the conclusion and aftermath of wars.) Each category then covers a number of criteria. The modern classic of just war theory remains Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars.
In my public lectures I added to this mix by examining more deeply than usual one traditional Jus ad bellum criterion: that only a legitimate ruler may declare war.
What does this entail? I believe we can articulate a principle of what I call (with apologies to Latin scholars –please let me know what the correct term would be) Jus intra Belligerans, or justice within the warring party. This could apply to both the individual soldier and the state that wages war.
The basic idea behind Jus intra Belligerans is the observation that justice is a process and that wars take time. That a war is declared by a legitimate power says nothing about whether the power remains just throughout
the war. I was particularly concerned about the impact of domestic crisis provisions such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the apparent suspension, in the case of Jose Padilla, of habeas corpus. So this flavor of Jus demands that the warring party not only be legitimate at the start of the war but remain so throughout.
Americans—the free, the brave—typically argue against any criterion of Jus intra Belligerans. They do so by holding that war is hell, that war requires secrecy and covert operations and all sorts of government behaviors that would be rejected during peacetime. Everyone knows that truth is the first casualty of war; back in 2001, George W. Bush even told us flat out that he didn’t intend to tell us the truth all the time. And between Pentagon press pools, embedded reporters, and censorship (self- and otherwise), not to mention corporate self-interest and fear of being called “unpatriotic,” war leaves the free press flat on its back.
But let me offer three quick arguments for Jus intra Belligerans.
First, war is one of the most horrible activities that humans engage in. If it is ever justified, it is so only under the tightest, most careful and self-critical scrutiny.
Second, wars very often last longer than their initial legitimating reasons – the jus ad bellum, such as it was – persist. Thus war always requires reassessment of the “national interest” as well as cataloguing of the tradeoffs between values and aims that war has engendered. War also changes the relationships between the warring country and third parties, as witness the US’s decreased
capacities with respect to Iran, Korea, China, and other global claims on its attention.
Third, war typically empowers specific sectors of a society – generals, munitions manufacturers, and lately oilfield-services corporations – at the expense of enlisted soldiers, taxpayers, civilian/elected officials, and civil society. A criterion of Jus intra Belligerans would mitigate this tendency, though surely without eliminating it altogether.
How much does Jus intra Belligerans require? Does it require enhancing the degree to which the society is just, or merely ensuring that it does not become less just? Or perhaps it permits some erosion of justice provided some minimal threshold is not passed? I think the best case can be made for the first, enhancement, criterion, but any criterion of Jus intra Belligerans would be better than what we have now, which seems to me an absolute decline in the justice of American society.
Traditionally, Just War Theory is divided into two general categories: jus ad bellum, or the justice of having this conflict at all, and jus in bello, or the justice of its prosecution. (And Brian Orend recently wrote a book articulating and defending a third category, Jus post Bellum, or justice in the conclusion and aftermath of wars.) Each category then covers a number of criteria. The modern classic of just war theory remains Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars.
In my public lectures I added to this mix by examining more deeply than usual one traditional Jus ad bellum criterion: that only a legitimate ruler may declare war.
What does this entail? I believe we can articulate a principle of what I call (with apologies to Latin scholars –please let me know what the correct term would be) Jus intra Belligerans, or justice within the warring party. This could apply to both the individual soldier and the state that wages war.
The basic idea behind Jus intra Belligerans is the observation that justice is a process and that wars take time. That a war is declared by a legitimate power says nothing about whether the power remains just throughout
the war. I was particularly concerned about the impact of domestic crisis provisions such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the apparent suspension, in the case of Jose Padilla, of habeas corpus. So this flavor of Jus demands that the warring party not only be legitimate at the start of the war but remain so throughout.
Americans—the free, the brave—typically argue against any criterion of Jus intra Belligerans. They do so by holding that war is hell, that war requires secrecy and covert operations and all sorts of government behaviors that would be rejected during peacetime. Everyone knows that truth is the first casualty of war; back in 2001, George W. Bush even told us flat out that he didn’t intend to tell us the truth all the time. And between Pentagon press pools, embedded reporters, and censorship (self- and otherwise), not to mention corporate self-interest and fear of being called “unpatriotic,” war leaves the free press flat on its back.
But let me offer three quick arguments for Jus intra Belligerans.
First, war is one of the most horrible activities that humans engage in. If it is ever justified, it is so only under the tightest, most careful and self-critical scrutiny.
Second, wars very often last longer than their initial legitimating reasons – the jus ad bellum, such as it was – persist. Thus war always requires reassessment of the “national interest” as well as cataloguing of the tradeoffs between values and aims that war has engendered. War also changes the relationships between the warring country and third parties, as witness the US’s decreased
capacities with respect to Iran, Korea, China, and other global claims on its attention.
Third, war typically empowers specific sectors of a society – generals, munitions manufacturers, and lately oilfield-services corporations – at the expense of enlisted soldiers, taxpayers, civilian/elected officials, and civil society. A criterion of Jus intra Belligerans would mitigate this tendency, though surely without eliminating it altogether.
How much does Jus intra Belligerans require? Does it require enhancing the degree to which the society is just, or merely ensuring that it does not become less just? Or perhaps it permits some erosion of justice provided some minimal threshold is not passed? I think the best case can be made for the first, enhancement, criterion, but any criterion of Jus intra Belligerans would be better than what we have now, which seems to me an absolute decline in the justice of American society.
Friday, July 02, 2004
Rep by Pop
Canada just elected a minority government. It did so by splitting its 308 seats in the House of Commons among 4 parties (and one independent) such that no one party has a majority. As important, no two parties that constitute a majority of the seats will be able to form a governing coalition.
The Canadian election was interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the role that the US played in the rhetoric of the Liberal Party. Despite his wish to get closer to the US, Prime Minister Paul Martin scared voters Liberal by warning that the Conservatives would make Canada look like the US. (Presumably he meant to add, “…even more than I will.”) Canadian resentment and foreboding regarding the US are particularly high these days, so once again George W. helped elect a left-leaning government.
But I want to talk about a different issue raised by the Canadian election: those 308 seats.
Despite covering a population ten times the size of Canada’s, the US House of Representatives has a constant membership only 1.4 times the size of Canada’s Parliament. It was not always so. The House has been stuck at 435 members since 1913, when US population was about 97 million. In 1790, the House’s 65 members represented (or rather, misrepresented) a population of about 4 million. Here’s a chart using numbers that I found at the sites of the US Census, the House of Representatives, and the Library of Congress, and then rounded off:
In other words, if my district were as thoroughly represented now as it was in 1913, we would have 3 representatives; going by the 1790 ratios, my district would have about 11 representatives instead of the one we have. (Of course, only a small fraction of the population in 1790 actually had the franchise, so if we were maintaining the rate of eligible voters per representative the ratio would be substantially worse.)
Another interesting fact: the single largest state in 1790 was Pennsylvania. It had a population of 434,000. As you can see, this is about 2/3 the size of the average House district today. The average house district today is more than twice as large as the average state was in 1790. Such a state had 5 representatives and 2 senators for a population of 308,000. Today, 308,000 people would merit 0.5 representatives and (on average) about 0.15 senators. The best thing that can be said about this is that the House has become the Senate and the Senate is a throwback.
The average Canadian riding (legislative district) has a population just under 100,000. Representation is far from perfect in Canada, but to match Canada’s ratio, the US House would have to have about 3000 members. It’s hard to imagine, or want, a Congress that size; and even so, a 1/97,000 ratio is still hardly intimate.
So what? Is dilution of representation a problem? Does it have a solution?
That might depend on the theory of representation you like. I am attracted to Iris Marion Young’s account. She has much to say about it in her book Inclusion and Democracy, but I want to focus on the conception of the representative. Whereas many democratic theorists treat representation as one (or both) of delegation (where the representative is just a proxy for the voters; the voters do the thinking and deciding) or trusteeship (where the representative thinks for the voters and acts in their best interests as s/he judges them), Young defends an account of representation as a dynamic dialogue, or rather, a bunch of ongoing, interacting dynamic dialogues where representatives as well as constituents learn to understand and anticipate one another’s opinions and interests. Successful representation depends on a number of factors, among which are two very important ones: that each representative, through these dynamic dialogues, come to know her/his constituents; and that at least some representatives share, not just opinions and interests, but important social perspectives, with broad sections of the population.
Someone representing 673,000 persons (and counting) is simply unable to engage in genuine dialogue with even a small minority of her constituents. Nor are 673,000 persons likely, in today’s climate at least, to engage in genuine dialogue with one another across race, class, religious, and other lines. The representative will likely share the perspective of few of them and be able to predict the reactions of only the most vocal (or wealthy). To make matters worse, thanks to gerrymandering and inter-party logrolling, most seats today are “safe” and not seriously contested. So representatives lack any incentive to mitigate these pathologies. It’s hard to see that the current system can be called representation at all.
Given that the ratio can’t be significantly improved (though it can, and should, be improved somewhat), the best option is to mitigate the pathologies of representation—lack of dialogue, gerrymandering, logrolling, the two-party duopoly, etc.—through some form of proportional representation. (Which form? I hope to talk more about this another time.) Let’s get rid of the single-member districts and institute proportional representation in the House. This would make all seats contested and increase the number of parties represented in Congress. Representation would improve, as judged by dialogue, shared opinion, community of interests, and social perspective.
Proportional representation would go some way toward bringing Representation back to the House. And who knows, maybe then Canadian voters would look to the US with interest and appreciation, not just resentment and foreboding.
The Canadian election was interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the role that the US played in the rhetoric of the Liberal Party. Despite his wish to get closer to the US, Prime Minister Paul Martin scared voters Liberal by warning that the Conservatives would make Canada look like the US. (Presumably he meant to add, “…even more than I will.”) Canadian resentment and foreboding regarding the US are particularly high these days, so once again George W. helped elect a left-leaning government.
But I want to talk about a different issue raised by the Canadian election: those 308 seats.
Despite covering a population ten times the size of Canada’s, the US House of Representatives has a constant membership only 1.4 times the size of Canada’s Parliament. It was not always so. The House has been stuck at 435 members since 1913, when US population was about 97 million. In 1790, the House’s 65 members represented (or rather, misrepresented) a population of about 4 million. Here’s a chart using numbers that I found at the sites of the US Census, the House of Representatives, and the Library of Congress, and then rounded off:
| Year | Population | Representatives | Persons per Rep |
| 1790 | 4 000 000 | 65 | 61,500 |
| 1913 | 97 225 000 | 435 | 223,000 |
| 2004 | 293 000 000 | 435 | 673,000 |
In other words, if my district were as thoroughly represented now as it was in 1913, we would have 3 representatives; going by the 1790 ratios, my district would have about 11 representatives instead of the one we have. (Of course, only a small fraction of the population in 1790 actually had the franchise, so if we were maintaining the rate of eligible voters per representative the ratio would be substantially worse.)
Another interesting fact: the single largest state in 1790 was Pennsylvania. It had a population of 434,000. As you can see, this is about 2/3 the size of the average House district today. The average house district today is more than twice as large as the average state was in 1790. Such a state had 5 representatives and 2 senators for a population of 308,000. Today, 308,000 people would merit 0.5 representatives and (on average) about 0.15 senators. The best thing that can be said about this is that the House has become the Senate and the Senate is a throwback.
The average Canadian riding (legislative district) has a population just under 100,000. Representation is far from perfect in Canada, but to match Canada’s ratio, the US House would have to have about 3000 members. It’s hard to imagine, or want, a Congress that size; and even so, a 1/97,000 ratio is still hardly intimate.
So what? Is dilution of representation a problem? Does it have a solution?
That might depend on the theory of representation you like. I am attracted to Iris Marion Young’s account. She has much to say about it in her book Inclusion and Democracy, but I want to focus on the conception of the representative. Whereas many democratic theorists treat representation as one (or both) of delegation (where the representative is just a proxy for the voters; the voters do the thinking and deciding) or trusteeship (where the representative thinks for the voters and acts in their best interests as s/he judges them), Young defends an account of representation as a dynamic dialogue, or rather, a bunch of ongoing, interacting dynamic dialogues where representatives as well as constituents learn to understand and anticipate one another’s opinions and interests. Successful representation depends on a number of factors, among which are two very important ones: that each representative, through these dynamic dialogues, come to know her/his constituents; and that at least some representatives share, not just opinions and interests, but important social perspectives, with broad sections of the population.
Someone representing 673,000 persons (and counting) is simply unable to engage in genuine dialogue with even a small minority of her constituents. Nor are 673,000 persons likely, in today’s climate at least, to engage in genuine dialogue with one another across race, class, religious, and other lines. The representative will likely share the perspective of few of them and be able to predict the reactions of only the most vocal (or wealthy). To make matters worse, thanks to gerrymandering and inter-party logrolling, most seats today are “safe” and not seriously contested. So representatives lack any incentive to mitigate these pathologies. It’s hard to see that the current system can be called representation at all.
Given that the ratio can’t be significantly improved (though it can, and should, be improved somewhat), the best option is to mitigate the pathologies of representation—lack of dialogue, gerrymandering, logrolling, the two-party duopoly, etc.—through some form of proportional representation. (Which form? I hope to talk more about this another time.) Let’s get rid of the single-member districts and institute proportional representation in the House. This would make all seats contested and increase the number of parties represented in Congress. Representation would improve, as judged by dialogue, shared opinion, community of interests, and social perspective.
Proportional representation would go some way toward bringing Representation back to the House. And who knows, maybe then Canadian voters would look to the US with interest and appreciation, not just resentment and foreboding.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Say hello to Avery
I'm doing some R&R this long holiday weekend and cannot promise frequent blog posts.
Thus, I've asked my friend and colleague Avery Kolers to "guest blog." We've discussed some of the topics he might cover and I think you'll enjoy his work. I've also talked to another long-time friend and reader who might also be joining us on occasion.
Anyway, Avery writes many a letter-to-the-editor of the local paper (and sometimes to even more impressive outlets), so I figure this will be a good alternative outlet for release.
Note that Avery is a Philosophy professor who is primary interested in political philosophy and applied ethics. Like me, he occasionally teaches a course on globalization.
Should I note that Avery is a long-time committed activist, for a variety of causes? I attended many anti-war meetings at his old apartment during 2002.
Don't you love the world wide web? That's him in the center.
Thus, I've asked my friend and colleague Avery Kolers to "guest blog." We've discussed some of the topics he might cover and I think you'll enjoy his work. I've also talked to another long-time friend and reader who might also be joining us on occasion.
Anyway, Avery writes many a letter-to-the-editor of the local paper (and sometimes to even more impressive outlets), so I figure this will be a good alternative outlet for release.
Note that Avery is a Philosophy professor who is primary interested in political philosophy and applied ethics. Like me, he occasionally teaches a course on globalization.
Should I note that Avery is a long-time committed activist, for a variety of causes? I attended many anti-war meetings at his old apartment during 2002.
Don't you love the world wide web? That's him in the center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)