My Take on the Freeman Thing

I'm not a big fan of Daniel Drezner, apologist as he is for the sort of winger conventional wisdom that dropped America in the soup in 2003, but I do agree with one of his commentators on this:

Vetting used to be about making sure someone was qualified, did not have a criminal background, and had no existing conflicts of interests. Now, it is whether or not you share the opinion of the major power brokers in DC. In this case, it was running afoul of the AIPAC crew. But it could just as easily holding the wrong position on medicine, transportation, etc.

What follows is some wingnut nonsense about the DoE, but the basic idea is sound. The fact that Freeman was lobbied to death because he said that the settlements were maybe sorta kinda a problem isn't as bad as Brzezinski getting froze out because he has ties to Jummy Carter(better known as History's Greatest Monster) but it's definitely a sign that the problems dealing with middle eastern issues have outlived the Bush/Cheney cabal.

Though it may not be that simple. Stephen Walt (yeah, THAT Stephen Walt) believes that this shows that the Dems are "wimps" and that his polemics are true. He points to a "chilling effect":

the worst aspect of the Freeman affair is the likelihood of a chilling effect on discourse in Washington, at precisely the time when we badly need a more open and wide-ranging discussion of our Middle East policy. As I noted earlier, this was one of the main reasons why the lobby went after Freeman so vehemently; in an era where more and more people are questioning Israel's behavior and questioning the merits of unconditional U.S. support, its hardline defenders felt they simply had to reinforce the de facto ban on honest discourse inside the Beltway. After forty-plus years of occupation, two wars in Lebanon, and the latest pummeling of Gaza, (not to mention Ehud Olmert's own comparison of Israel with South Africa), defenders of the "special relationship" can't win on facts and logic anymore. So they have to rely on raw political muscle and the silencing or marginalization of those with whom they disagree. In the short term, Freeman's fate is intended to send the message that if you want to move up in Washington, you had better make damn sure that nobody even suspects you might be an independent thinker on these issues.

I know I return to this point a lot, but there are good reasons to use pseudonyms, and this is one of them. Not necessarily this issue, but there are no small number of them where you either engage in RightThink or are unwelcome. Look at Walt.

(I note, without comment, that the anti-pseudonym and litigious Whatzisname is one of those who would applaud this move.)

Glenn Greenwald isn't happy either, and makes a good point about anonymity; that people with power can and do organize behind the scenes, while keeping their public hands clean. AIPAC (according to Greenwald and others) played this game: they coordinated the critical response, but didn't come out in public against Freeman's appointment, because they knew that their public involvement would actually strengthen his case. I'd say there's a difference, though, between pseudonymous or anonymous commentary and behind-the-scenes elite organization; one is available to the people, but the other is the province of the powerful.

(And there's also the issue of the press granting selective anonymity to sources, which is a different and yet somewhat more intractable problem. "High-level officials" are a much bigger problem that Greek-named bloggers, folks.)

That said, the fact that there WAS a debate over this does, in Greenwald's mind, indiciate that the situation is changing somewhat. I agree. Like Walt and Mearsheimer, any "victory" only reinforces the perception of unchecked power that they're trying to fight, and this particular issue isn't going away anytime soon, especially with Israel's new leaders being a problematic bunch at best.

I'll give the last word to Josh Marshall:

The whole effort strikes me as little more than a thuggish effort to keep the already too-constricted terms of debate over the Middle East and Israel/Palestine locked down and largely one-sided. James Fallows argues here for the need for contrarian thinkers in general, of which Freeman is certainly one. Joe Klein reviews the issue here, arguing that it's not the time to be enforcing groupthink on Israel or other critical policy issues. And Andrew Sullivan has been doing great blogging on this topic in general and in this timeline in particular, which shows the whole storm being whipped up by neoconservatives upset over Freeman's positions on Israel. Finally, 17 former Ambassadors -- including Thomas Pickering -- have now come forward to support the appointmentand defend Freeman's worthiness for the position if not agree with all his views.

These other posts are each worth reading because they're good and go into more detail than I am. And I could go into a deeper discussion of foreign policy questions involved. But the gist is that campaigns like this are ugly and should be resisted. Not just on general principles, but because the country needs more diversity of viewpoints on this issue right now.

True enough. But I suspect, Josh, that that's what they're worried about.

Manufacturing Confession

So here's digby:

Brainwashing. False confessions. Show Trials. Of course. That's the main purpose of torture. Indeed, it's the only thing it's capable of. That's been the case going all the way back to the Inquisition. So the purpose of torture is to use the power of the authority to force people to make false confessions --- and, more importantly, use those false confessions in kabuki procedings which many people know are show trials but which are powerless to challenge due to their superficial legality. The sheer power of that is awe-inspiring to the victims and the torturers alike.

The Bush administration's simplistic approach to national security was to show that they were the biggest, meanest bastards on the planet. Part of that is to create the impression that there is no rhyme or reason for our violence other than a demonstration that we have the power to do it. The inexplicability of it is the point. And to that end, all those creepy rituals with the prisoners in the orange jumpsuits and the goggles on their knees were designed to show that the United States was engaged in a form of bureaucratic, systematic sadism. Which it clearly was.

Interrogations for the purpose of gaining intelligence were never the point. The point was to create terror. And there's a word for that.

Wondering what that's all about? Simply this:

The point of the CIA torturing people like, say, Mohammed Bunyam was never to extract information. It was to coerce confessions.

Here's Valtin:

The worst part of Mohamed's captivity, by his own account, is the five months he spent at the "dark prison" the CIA ran at an undisclosed location near Kabul, Afghanistan...

...And what was all this torture for? According to Mr. Mohamed, it was during his stay at the Dark Prison that U.S. interrogators went beyond inducing confessions. They wanted him to finger other individuals, and use him to testify in the military commissions trials they were planning. Later, when Mohamed arrived in Guantanamo in September 2004, interrogators got worried Binyam would testify he only "confessed" or gave information because he was tortured, and tried to conduct "clean" interrogations, so they could say the testimony was uncoerced. They demanded he give his confession "freely". After Obama was elected president and announced Guantanamo would close, Mohamed says his treatment became more brutal.

I'll just interject here and say that I imagine this is because the interrogators were terrified that the party was over. Valtin isn't so sure, and believes that Obama will leave all this in place. I hope he's wrong. That would be odious.

The full article on this is at the Daily Mail. It paints a picture of a Central Intelligence Agency run absolutely amok, turned into a full-scale inquisitorial and intimidation machine. Whether it was due to overzealous career men or Cheney's horrific influence is debatable, though for the sake of the institution I hope it's the latter. Either way, this has nothing to do with the CIA's mandate, and needs to end. This isn't HUMINT, it isn't sources and methods, it isn't intelligence. It's horror. And, to the extent that the country ever was one built on a set of ideals, it's profoundly unAmerican.

Derivatives Skip Bankruptcy Courts

Now this is something I hadn't paid attention to. There was a provision of the 2005 bankruptcy bill—odious pile of lobbyist-authored faeces that it is—that helped cause the current situation.

TPM reader GG explains:

Respectfully, you guys are totally misunderstanding something crucial in the AIG bailout: Derivatives claims are not stayed in bankruptcy. (Yet another brilliant innovation from the 2005 bankruptcy reform legislation.)

If AIG were to go down, derivatives counterparties would be able to seize cash/collateral while other creditors and claimants would have to stand by and wait. Depending on how aggressive the insurance regulators in the hundreds of jurisdictions AIG operates have been, the subsidiaries might or might not have enough cash to stay afloat. If policyholders at AIG and other insurance companies started to cancel/cash in policies, there would definitely not be enough cash to pay them. Insurers would be forced to liquidate portfolios of equities and bonds into a collapsing market.

In other words, I don't think the fear was so much about the counterparties as about the smoking heap of rubble they would leave in their wake.

Additionally, naming AIG's counterparties without knowing/naming those counterparties' counterparties and clients would be at best useless, and very likely dangerous. Let's say Geithner acknowledges that Big French Bank is a significant AIG counterparty. (Likely, but I have no direct knowledge.) BFB then issues a statement confirming this, but stating it was structuring deals for its clients, who bear all the risk on the deals, and who it can't name due to confidentiality clauses. Since everyone knows BFB specialized in setting up derivatives transactions for state-affiliated banks in Central and Eastern Europe, these already wobbly institutions start to face runs. In some cases this leads to actual riots in the streets, especially since the governments there don't have the reserves to help out. If you're Tim Geithner, do you risk it? Or do you grit your teeth and let a bunch of senators call you a scumbag for a few more hours?

So, everybody else gets to wait and see, in the case of a bank failing, whether they get ANYTHING because the derivatives players get first crack at the organization, even if it breaks the debtor organization into pieces? This is horrendous.It makes sense, mind you, since this whole thing is based around managing risk and they clearly didn't want horrible unpredictable innumerate judges getting involved in this game.

It's still horrendous, though. It shows why institutions are so unwilling to lend. Who wouldn't be? You don't know how bad their derivatives situation is, don't know whether they'll have any money to pay you back, and don't know if you'll get a thin dime after the derivative traders get through with them!

And the fact that this might be an international security issue? That scenario in the fourth paragraph sounded frighteningly real, and the prospect of Geithner being responsible for the well-being of the European (and African, and Asian, and...) banking system is pretty terrifying itself. He's not a guy that inspires a lot of confidence and, well, hope. But now we know why AIG can't fail.

Then again, if it's in the public interest to have something exist, and the private sector can't run it, the solution seems, well, pretty obvious. Doesn't it?

"Collossus of Propaganda"

Sorry, Bill, but I'm really not feeling it. It's not anywhere near as good as The Mighty Wurlitzer:

Seem reminiscent of anything? Yep. Bill's projecting again, as conservatives so often do. Their own little archipelago has been (well, HAD been) a unified machine propelled by a few money men for decades, so it makes sense that they'd assume that the left works the same way. That obsession with Soros is a good example; they KNOW that Scaife bankrolls half of their movement, and so are constantly searching for a Scaife of the left.

(That Soros is Jewish just makes it that much more ironic and appropriate; the people who are always complaining about anti-semitism on the left are falling into classically anti-semitic paranoiac fantasies about eeeevil jewish bankers.)

As for Media Matters being a "smear machine?" Well, he'd know. But what's really neat about Media Matters is how incredibly frightened the right is of them. They're used to milquetoast progressives sitting opposite them in debate, so when they get someone who's knowledgeable and uncompromising, they don't know what to do. Media matters is mellow compared to its counterparts on the right; but because the strident opposition is on the 'wrong side', we end up with "smear machine".

I'm Sorry, Rush

Okay, honestly, this is just trolling. Sure, Grade-A trolling, but definitely trolling.




...





...




...yeah, I love it too.

A Bit of a Reminder:

This is what happens when you give Republicans the presidency:

Weeks after the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush’s Justice Department issued a sweeping legal opinion declaring that American military forces operating on U.S. soil did not have to obey the Constitution’s limits on search and seizure of individuals and their property, documents released Monday show.

In addition, Bush’s top lawyers argued that First Amendment rights “may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully,” said the October 2001 memo drafted by two former attorneys in the Office of Legal Counsel, John Yoo and Robert Delahunty.

The memo’s conclusions remained the official but unannounced policy of the U.S. government for nearly seven years – until October 2008, when a new head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury, renounced much of the 2001 opinion, again without notice to the public.

The memo and others surfaced as President Barack Obama’s administration demonstrated his stated commitment to transparency by revealing some of the most closely guarded legal secrets of his predecessor. The documents – long sought by critics of Bush’s expansive view of executive power – show that some of those legal claims proved to be too edgy even for the Bush administration, at least by the time it prepared to leave office.

In 2001, Yoo and Delahunty argued that the Fourth Amendment protections against search-and-seizure didn’t apply to domestic military operations, as long as they were designed to deter and prevent further terrorist attacks.

“We believe that the Constitution, properly interpreted, allows the President as Commander in Chief, and the forces under his control, to use military force against foreign enemies who operate on American soil, free from the constraints of the Fourth Amendment,” the pair wrote.

Seven years later, another lawyer, Bradbury, rejected that out of hand.

The 2001 opinion “states several propositions that are either incorrect or highly questionable,” Bradbury wrote in another newly-released memo. He labeled as “erroneous” Yoo’s conclusion that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military activity. He called the opinion’s assertions about war and the First Amendment “overbroad and general” and “not authoritative.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit to seek release of some of the opinions, said the claims about the authority of the armed forces were particularly disturbing.

“That memo takes the position essentially that the Constitution doesn’t constrain the military inside the U.S. It’s a memo that sees war as a blank check for the president,” an ACLU lawyer, Jameel Jaffer, said. “That memo provides a great argument for the transparency we’d been calling for because I don’t think if that memo had been released when it was written it could have survived public scrutiny but the result of it not being released was that the Bush administration was able to build an entire national security strategy on top of it.”

Remember this when you think about the last 8 years. You actually didn't have a right to freedom of speech. You didn't even have protection from illegal search and seizure.

The Constitution is, apparently, no match for a conservative with pet lawyers and a war to fight.

Steele Cracked First

I think we all knew that Michael Steele would go "crawling on his belly" (as digby put it) to kiss Rush Limbaugh's, ahem, ring.

Politico:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.”

“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”

Steele, mind you, only really said that he was the leader of the party, and that Rush was an entertainer whose comments were unhelpful and incendiary. Rush, on the other hand, called Steele everything but a little traitor bitch, and that's only because you can't really swear on a podium.

And Steele goes crying to him.

Yep. Rush "I call black victims 'hos'" Limbaugh is the leader of the Republicans and guiding light to the Conservative movement. They're clearly just trying to hold their seats from primary challengers. Outside of that, they're boned, as there's no way that the Dems won't be able to shove his nonsense down their throats in competitive districts and states.

Anyway, what the hell happened to the Republican party of a few years ago? There's no way someone like Steele would have been dumb enough to publicly apologize to a figure who's challenging his rule unless he'd already set it up as a mutual apology through back channels. He gets nothing out of this: he looks even weaker, which is devastating for an American politician and more so for a Republican, and only improves Limbaugh's position. And he can't afford to improve Limbaugh's position, because the man doesn't give a shit about his party or his country! The hateful, borderline-treasonous toad would watch both burn, as long as his ratings stay up!

Sure, I've got nothing against weak Republicans. As far as I'm concerned, they could collapse and another party spring up and the country would be better for it. But in the meantime, Congress has shit to do, and they aren't going to get it done as long as Limbaugh's at the helm.

Rushpublicans

So Michael Steele has been whining about the fact that it's Rush's party now?

Truth hurts. Sorry, bud, but the party that you lead has little chance of winning over Dems or independents at this point. The Republicans that are left are the ones who are in rock-solid seats, and those guys are going to be very, very worried about primary challengers. Those primary challengers know it, too, and that faction is going to work very, very hard to press the advantage.

Sure, it'll alienate the rest of the country, but what does THAT matter?

NATO's "Master Narrative" for Afghanistan

I haven't been paying much attention to "Wikileaks", but, apparently, they have released NATO's Master Narrative for Afghanistan. The file was on the Pentagon(!) server, and the password was easily guessed. It can be downloaded from the Wikilinks site.

I haven't read it yet, more when I do, but I can't decide whether the best part is that there is such a document, or that a file created by the Pentagon was so easily cracked. By the Wiki people, no less.

Steve Paikin: Class Act

As seen here, ripping up Whatzisname for playing the censor.

Paikin is the host of what is, quite probably, Canada's most respected current affairs show, The Agenda. I've seen it (episodes are on their website), and though it isn't flashy, it's excellent. It also has a tendency to book controversial guests: one of them, Kathy Shaidle, is a notorious anti-Muslim agitator online. I saw the episode, and she wasn't very good, and her writings aren't very good either.

But, since she's also very much anti-Liberal, this didn't suit Whatzisname one bit. So, well, I'll let Steve tell it:

It was with a considerable amount of surprise that I received an email from Warren, the public affairs consultant and Liberal Party operative, the day our program was set to air.

Warren has been a guest on The Agenda several times, and, in fact, had been a guest with Kathy Shaidle on The Agenda in 2007.

Warren told me that he planned to blog about our “outrageous decision” to “give Kathy Shaidle a platform, and for provincial tax dollars to indirectly fund same.”

He asked whether we had any comment to make and whether Kathy was being paid to appear (she wasn’t).

Warren then included in his private email to me a lengthy list of things Kathy had said about other ethnic groups, mainly Muslims.

Here's what he sent, alleging Shaidle had said or written all of these things...

[here follows a laundry list of valid-but-irrelevant complaints]

I told Warren that if he was looking for an official comment from the program, it should come from our communications department or our executive producer, so I forwarded Warren’s email to Dan.

Later that same day, I received another email from Warren informing me that he was emailing the Minister of Education to ask her to pressure us to “unbook” Kathy Shaidle, and that if we didn’t, there would be significant consequences for TVO and The Agenda. He did, indeed, email the Minister.

Well, now we’ve got a different story, right? Now, it’s no longer a story about the appropriateness of our choosing Kathy to appear on the program. Now it’s a story about a well known Liberal Party operative threatening us (with what? We didn’t know) unless we did what he said.

That’s a very different story and as a result, we naturally refused to “unbook” Kathy. We do not take our marching orders on whom to put on or take off our television program from anyone, but most assuredly, not from partisan political operatives with personal grudges (Warren’s tangle with Kathy, I’ve learned, goes back awhile).

So if Warren’s ultimate goal was to deprive Kathy of a “platform,” his approach failed spectacularly.

Throughout the course of the day, Warren and I emailed back and forth a few times. Much to my surprise, I found my private emails to him quoted on his blog. I found that to be a violation of etiquette and surprising for someone who, I would imagine, understands the value of private conversation.

The show went ahead. Kathy Shaidle didn’t insult Muslims – or anyone else. Some viewers have suggested she appeared angry and defensive but she was not the ogre Warren demanded we take off the public’s airwaves.

After the program, I emailed Warren once again, offering to talk to him at his convenience about the day’s events. He declined, saying “the damage has been done.” What that damage was, he didn’t say.

At this point, I was unclear as to whether my efforts to communicate with Warren were really about resolving a difference of opinion, or simply providing content for his blog.

No doubt.

I've been doing this for a while. My numbers aren't as high as they were, but I've never really cared that much about that. Read it or don't. I certainly don't pull Kinsella's numbers. But even if I did want to pull those kind of numbers, there's no way that I'd pull a stunt like this to get them. Not only does this hurt his credibility, but it damages the credibility of the man he works for, and the sense of entitlement in his "I'M GONNA EMAIL THE MINISTER!!" tirade reinforces every negative stereotype about the Liberal party and its apparatchiks that Canadians have of them. It makes them look worse than Republicans; more like the bloated patronage-ridden power brokers that drag down the Japanese LDP.

It's every reason they got their asses kicked all in one idiotic package. And, as an added bonus, it'll have ticked off a key public media figure in Canada, which is the LAST thing the Liberals need. They have little pull online, especially compared to their Conservative and NDP counterparts, and the press is predominantly Conservative-leaning in Canada. They need people like Paikin, and he'll be thoroughly alienated after this.

One can only hope that somebody dressed this guy down thoroughly. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Republicans and Demmycrats

So Barack Obama talked about helping a country in need, and how he was going to help, just like a good Democrat.

Meanwhile, Bobby Jindal lied his ass off about Katrina to serve his political ends. Just like a good Republican.

(In case you're wondering, it's that weird story he gave about how government was the problem during Katrina--no, really--because he saw how some people with boats were forbidden from helping. Problem is, he was nowhere near where he said he was at the time. He was in Baton Rouge. And the guy he says was there with him? Dead.

Besides that, though, it takes one hell of a set of blinders to think that the problem with Katrina was bureaucrats. Uh, no, Governor, it was your party's cronyism and incompetence. As usual, Republicans take their own complete inability to run a government and blame everybody else
Stay classy, Grand Old Party.

As for Obama? It really was a good speech. The education stuff was really powerful, and his call for all Americans to consider at least one year of post-secondary schooling or training provided a cutting edge to all that "national sacrifice" stuff we've been hearing.

I'm not happy about the comments about social security. He seems to be trying to play both sides by holding out the promise of social security privatization to Republicans and their various private-sector paymasters while assuring Dems and retirees that their pensions are safe from cutbacks. But most of the rest was good, if sombre.

Mr. President, Stay the Hell Away From Social Security

No, really, trying to cut SS would be the worst idea ever.

Not only would the AARP carve you up, your base walk out, your Democratic allies lose their minds and the press reframe your entire presidency as you vs. "the left", the Republicans would just get in "give us an inch" mode and start agitating for medicare cuts, too, since that's the one that might actually face sustainability problems.

Besides, would you really try selling the idea that people should be saving privately? NOW? Everybody is thanking their lucky stars that Bush didn't get his "reforms" through--boomers would be facing the prospect of Meow Mix as a dietary staple--and you want to dig up THAT festering corpse?

You're finding it harder and harder to avoid [i]nationalizing the banks[/i], I somehow don't think that's going to inspire people's confidence in private-sector retirement solutions!

(And if you just cut without ANY other option, say goodbye to your Democratic Congressional allies, because they'll either ignore you or lose their jobs. Or both.)

You're smarter than this, Mr. President. Don't let axe-grinding economists throw you off.

A Fanatical, Irrational Minority

That's what the ever lovin' nobelprizewinningeconomist Paul Krugman is calling the California Republicans, who are filibustering the state budget bill and sending the state into crisis. The state of California is broke. It can't pay people. It can't give out tax refunds. It can't even borrow money, since its credit has gotten so bad.

But it can't raise taxes, either, or really do much of anything, because of State Republicans.

The roots of California’s inability to address its budget woes are statutory and political. The state, unlike most others, requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Legislature to pass budgets and tax increases. And its process for creating voter initiatives hamstrings the budget process by directing money for some programs while depriving others of cash.

In a Legislature dominated by Democrats, some of whom lean far to the left, leaders have been unable to gather enough support from Republican lawmakers, who tend on average to be more conservative than the majority of California’s Republican voters and have unequivocally opposed all tax increases.

And then there is Governor Schwarzenegger, whose budget woes far outweigh those of his predecessor, Gray Davis, whom he drummed from office in a 2003 recall that stemmed from the state’s fiscal problems at the time. The governor has failed to muster votes among lawmakers in his own party, whom he often opposes on ideological grounds, resulting in more scorn from Democrats.

Furthermore, Republican leaders in the Senate and the Assembly who have agreed to get on board with a plan have been unable to persuade a few key lawmakers to join them. The package needs at least three Republican votes in each house, to join with the 51 Democrats in the Assembly and the 24 Democrats in the Senate.

For months Republicans have vowed not to raise taxes, which in California means no increase in either the sales, gas or personal income tax.

“It is a dramatic time,” said Darrell Steinberg, the State Senate’s president pro tempore. “The solvency of the state is on the line. It is really quite a system where the fate of the state rests upon the shoulders of a couple of members of a minority party. The system frankly needs to be changed.”

In the meantime, drivers are met with “closed” signs at Department of Motor Vehicles offices two days a month, environmental programs are left unattended, piles of dirt mark where highway lanes are to be built to ease the state’s infamous traffic congestion, school systems mull layoffs and counties prepare to sue the state for nonpayment of bills.

Yep. They can't do anything, because of the combination of those damned ballot initiatives and that 2/3rds threshold. A single Republican broccoli farmer's intransigence over taxes is holding up the work of the entire state. People are losing their jobs because of this. The state might shut down because of this. THAT is the face of the modern Republican party. They'll let the rest of us all burn to save a few bucks on the firemen.

Meanwhile, the usual idiots in Washington still fetishize bipartisanship- despite people far smarter and more knowledgeable than them explaining that it's bunkum.

But even if it weren't, even if the historical trends weren't clear, the fact is inescapable that this bunch aren't worth working with.

A Quick Tip for Michael Gerson

Aside from everything else you screwed up, Michael, inflationary pressures are the LAST thing you should be worried about right now.

The economy stands in serious danger of high deflation. Deflation is an absolute disaster for an economy. Inflationary pressures are a good thing.

Sometimes He's Awesome

Obama on bipartisanship via Bob Herbert:

When I asked him if there was any reason to believe that the G.O.P. had made a good-faith effort at bipartisanship, given the fact that only three Republicans voted for the stimulus plan in the Senate and none in the House, he said he did not want to question the motives or sincerity of those who opposed the plan.

But he made a point of adding, “Now, I have to say that given that they were running the show for a pretty long time prior to me getting there, and that their theory was tested pretty thoroughly and it’s landed us in the situation where we’ve got over a trillion-dollars’ worth of debt and the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, I think I have a better argument in terms of economic thinking.”

He also made it clear that he won’t let his desire for bipartisanship undermine important initiatives. “I’m an eternal optimist,” he said. “That doesn’t mean I’m a sap.”

Bolding mine. Whatta great line.

And on the economy in general?

But beyond his specific policies (and whether one supports them or not), Mr. Obama is emerging as the very model of the type of person one would want in high public office. He is intelligent, mature, thoughtful, calm in the face of crises and, if the nation is lucky, maybe even wise.

When asked about the sharp drop in the stock markets after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced an expanded bank bailout plan last week, Mr. Obama replied:

“I am not planning based on a one-day market reaction. In fact, you can argue that a lot of the problems we’re in have to do with everybody planning based on one-day market reactions, or three-month market reactions, and as a consequence nobody was taking the long view.

“My job is to help the country take the long view — to make sure that not only are we getting out of this immediate fix, but we’re not repeating the same cycle of bubble and bust over and over again; that we’re not having the same energy conversation 30 years from now that we had 30 years ago; that we’re not talking about the state of our schools in the exact same ways we were talking about them in the 1980s; and that at some point we say, ‘You know what? If we’re spending more money per-capita on health care than any nation on earth, then you’d think everybody would have coverage and we would see lower costs for average consumers, and we’d have better outcomes.’

I've said it for a little while, but what I like about Obama is that he learns. Bipartisanship isn't necessarily the best choice? Fine, keep it as a guidepost but do what's necessary. Economy goes south right before you become president, and it looks like it might be a long-term issue? Fine, take a long-term view. Health care isn't working? Fine, improve it.

There are a lot of things that concern me about this administration--the constant references to "entitlement reform" bother me as much as they do digby--but unlike his predecessor, he gets the message. Nice change.

Wait a Second...

Did Frederick Kagan seriously talk about "Iraqi bitching" on C-Span?

Gregg's Out

The reason: he's a Republican, and they simply aren't willing to be sensible about the economy.

Fifteen Seats For the Party That Demands "Loyalty Oaths"

That's what the Israeli electorate gave Avigdor Lieberman yesterday. Link's to Ezra Klein, who says this:

We can now say with some certainty that the Gaza assault swift strengthened the extreme right in both Israel and Palestine. In Israel, the center-right lost to a coalition of the far-right and the extreme-right. Avigdor Lieberman's rise was perhaps the clearest example of this: Lieberman advocates loyalty oaths for Israeli Arabs (those who refuse would be stripped of their citizenship) and execution for any Arab Knesset member -- that is to say, Israeli-Arab members of the Israeli parliament -- who meet with Hamas. And don't take it from me. Marty Peretz -- Marty Peretz! -- writes that Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu ("Israel is our Home") is "a neo-fascist list headed by a Russian immigrant and certified gangster, Avigdor Lieberman, who is the Israeli equivalent of Jorg Haider of Austria (now dead) and Jean-Marie LePen." Yisrael Beiteinu is now the third largest party in the country, ahead of the once dominant Labor, and is likely to be the second most powerful member of the governing coalition.

Meanwhile, in the Occupied Territories, Hamas's popularity has soared. About half of the Palestinians said Hamas won the Gaza war, while less than 10 per cent said Israel had triumphed. More troubling, a snap election would, according to the survey, hand Hamas a win of 28.6 percent of the vote, up from 19.3 percent last April. This would put it ahead of the rival Fatah party, which has seen its support plummet from 34 percent last April to 27.9 percent. And Hamas's lead is even larger in the West Bank -- which Fatah formerly controlled -- than in Gaza. Meanwhile, the changes within Hamas are predictable too: The hardliners have been empowered, and those who saw their post-election mission as bringing some level of normalcy to the lives of Palestinians have lost power to those who believe revolutionary struggle is the only path forward. And thus the violent extremists feed off, and strengthn, one another.

The best part is summary execution for Arab Knesset members who meet with Hamas, presumably for any reason whatsoever. Sounds reasonable.

I imagine this is probably not what Olmert had in mind. But it was probably inevitable: Klein is absolutely right that this sort of conflict only strengthens the hand of violent extremists. Well, they're strengthened. Democratically, too.

Consensus on TARP pt. 2:

The wrong rival won, Mr. President, and then went on to let down the "team."

Next time, listen to the brilliant guys that won you an election against the odds, instead of the guy who was at the table where this whole mess was started.

Well, the Senate Passed the Stimulus Bill

Billions of dollars of compromise for three damned votes.

Funny how that works. When the Republicans are at the helm, the Dems compromise. When the Dems are at the helm...the Dems compromise.

In any case, here's hoping that Pelosi prevails on reconciliation. Hopefully she got out from under that double-decker that Rahm parked on top of her.

Newfound Buddies?

I said that the WH Press Corps were the "newfound buddies of the Republicans" in the last post. I may have been wrong: it's not THAT newfound. Here's ThinkProgress:

As Media Matters has documented, during the Bush administration, the media consistently allowed conservatives to dominate their shows, booking them as guests far more often than progressives. The rationale was that Republicans were “in power.”

It appears that old habits die hard. Even though President Obama and his team are in control of the executive branch and Democrats are in the majority in Congress, the cable networks are still turning more often to Republicans and allowing them to set the agenda on major issues, most recently on the debate over the economic recovery package.

On Sunday, conservatives began an all-out assault on President Obama’s economic recovery plan, with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both announcing that they would vote against the plan as it stood. Despite Obama’s efforts at good faith outreach, congressional conservatives have continued to attack the stimulus plan with a series of false and disingenuous arguments.

The media have been aiding their efforts. In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that the five cable news networks — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC — have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio this week.

In total, from 6 AM on Monday to 4 PM on Wednesday, the networks have hosted Republican lawmakers 51 times and Democratic lawmakers only 26 times. Surprisingly, Fox News came the closest to offering balance, hosting 8 Republicans and 6 Democrats. CNN had only two Democrats compared to 7 Republicans.

The drastically imbalanced coverage isn’t the first time that the news networks have effectively supported attacks on the recovery plans. As ThinkProgress reported on Monday, the cable networks, the Sunday shows and the network newscasts promoted a controversial CBO non-report 81 times before the actual CBO analysis of the stimulus plan was released.

I didn't transfer over the very nice chart they have, it would have broken the table here, but I urge you to check it out. The Republicans are clearly engaged in a full-court-press here, and the Dems (as usual) seem not to understand what they're dealing with.

Again, let's be clear. They want America to fail. They want to shake the country apart and build a new one from the pieces, since the only way they're ever going to get the change they want now is if they convince people that the Dems made things worse. They want things to get worse; far more than the Dems ever did under Bush. And, naturally, they'll make it worse still if they get back into power, since it was their institutional insanity that put America in this position in the first place.

That's the fight. Nothing less. That the media doesn't get it is their problem.

Quote of the Quote of the Day

Gettin' Meta.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman::

The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge.

Sums it up nicely. We've seen how far the Republican are willing to go to tear down the country around them in the service of the very people who put America into this mess. That the next step would be something just a bit more [i]drastic[/i] than Keynesian stimulus seems to elude them, focused as they are on protecting their ideology and what it apologizes for.

But there's a bit Tristero didn't quote:

So what should Mr. Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. What matters now, however, is what he does next.

It’s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation’s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge.

Remember how I said "the nuclear option looms large here"? I meant it. The parliamentary points of privilege of a bunch of dishonest bastards are not worth a collapsing economy.

If the Republican continue to be obstinate, take their ball away. And if their newfound buddies in the WH press corps start yelling, tell them you were willing to entertain good ideas, not a repackage of the ideological drivel that put America in this position to begin with.

Let us be very clear. This was their fault. Their attitude of "wealth can do no wrong". Their worship of deregulation of all sectors, especially the financial sector, which led Gramm to create the bizarre, unholy credit default swap market that ruined the banking sector. Their simultaneous ineptitude at governance and cynical manipulation of politics. Their hatred of the workers who actually do things, as opposed to making increasingly complicated leveraged bets that even they don't fully understand. And their tendency to blame people whose dreams were cynically exploited by the people they really work for: the monied and powerful.

(The very people who are getting richer and richer as these other poor saps get more and more desperate.)

Hell, they couldn't even keep America safe.

No, they deserve no quarter and little tolerance. Certainly not tolerance for a kabuki-theatre "filibuster". If they won't act in good faith, to hell with 'em.

The Prez in the Post

Barack Obama went to bat for the stimulus package in the Post today.

Makes sense. The GOP has been flooding the airwaves with nonsense, and Obama has both the ability and experience to be able to counter this sort of thing directly.

One bit really made me sit up, though. He said, in response to the Republicans, that "I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."

So, yeah. We just got "I won" in long-form in the Post. I'm sure Republicans will be losing their mind at the thought that the guy they thought was a stealth Republican turned out to be a muscular progressive—for the most part—who isn't willing to put up with their BS, but here we are. And he's deflecting the Republicans' arguments for "bipartisanship" quite well in the piece. Take this bit:

By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring.

What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years, provide immediate tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, ignite spending by businesses and consumers alike, and take steps to strengthen our country for years to come.

This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it's a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.

He's setting the groundwork for an argument that the Republicans are being obstructive. That helps him keep up the sense of momentum on the plan, and that's the most important job he has: he needs to take those Republicans "standing athwart history saying 'NO'" and just push them aside, like some kind of executive sumo wrestler. That's what the people WANT him to do. That's what he was elected to do. And though Harry Reid is a quivering jello-mold of a leader, that's what he probably wants to do too.

The "nuclear option" looms large here.

Further on:

Every day, our economy gets sicker -- and the time for a remedy that puts Americans back to work, jump-starts our economy and invests in lasting growth is now.

Now is the time to protect health insurance for the more than 8 million Americans at risk of losing their coverage and to computerize the health-care records of every American within five years, saving billions of dollars and countless lives in the process.

Now is the time to save billions by making 2 million homes and 75 percent of federal buildings more energy-efficient, and to double our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy within three years.

Now is the time to give our children every advantage they need to compete by upgrading 10,000 schools with state-of-the-art classrooms, libraries and labs; by training our teachers in math and science; and by bringing the dream of a college education within reach for millions of Americans.

And now is the time to create the jobs that remake America for the 21st century by rebuilding aging roads, bridges and levees; designing a smart electrical grid; and connecting every corner of the country to the information superhighway.

These are the actions Americans expect us to take without delay. They're patient enough to know that our economic recovery will be measured in years, not months. But they have no patience for the same old partisan gridlock that stands in the way of action while our economy continues to slide.

THIS, THIS is amazing stuff. He's leveraged that "Now is the time" stuff that did so damned much good in the primaries and general to get things done.

All the excitement of his campaign, all of that sense of history and purpose and unity, all of it is bound up in the phrases he drilled into people's heads over and over and over again. People complained that "they didn't mean anything"; now they do. It's pretty much inevitable that readers (who aren't doctrinaire Republicans) are going to see this and make that association with positive progress, and they're going to come down on any filibuster like a ton of bricks.

So we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time.

..and that's the judo flip that makes the Republicans look like the nasty partisans, not the Dems. It's almost bizarre seeing it. I'm so used to Republicans making this sort of play that when a Dem does it I almost feel a bit confused. It's strange having a Democrat in the White House, but it's shocking having a Dem in the White House who plays the game at the Republicans' level.

But that's the thing about Obama, isn't it? He's still new enough to Washington that he doesn't seem to quite "get" the things that everybody else "gets". He doesn't buy into the Republican interpretation of everything, doesn't think that the country is "center-right", doesn't do whatever his handlers tells him, and doesn't spend all his time triangulating between his own party and those who consider that party their enemies. But that doesn't mean he's a bad politician. He's an excellent politician, one of the most gifted liberal politicians I've ever seen.

No wonder the Republicans look so desperate.

Edit: That said, Gibbs needs to work on his press-handling. He's getting torn up here.

Obama's Doing a Pretty Good Job!

Which is a bit of an issue, since that sort of thing can be difficult to blog. Fortunately, once again, America's northern neighbours and its 'Liberal' party come to the rescue, after placing themselves in a de-facto coalition with the ruling Conservatives. And, well, they don't like small 'l' liberals opening their mouths much these days.

James Curran:

Is anyone else in this f--king party livid? Cause this - As Warren Kinsella would say - former Liberal activist (not) is. Unbelievable. Michael! You crossed the ocean to Harvard, then to Toronto, then to Ottawa, to be Prime Minister! What the hell are you waiting for?

More proof the kids in the OLO have no clue what they're doing, and that this party is lost for a generation. We have the conviction of nothing. Say what you want about Stephane Dion, he died fighting for the environment and some sort of principal attached thereto.

The other night a Liberal friend of mine suggested I leave the party for the party's sake and complain as a non-member. It was the 6th such suggestion by an Ignatieff insider over the last month. Let me just tell you something people. You've pissed me off. You're pissing off the rest of the party too. Just like you did in the 2006 leadership.

You know what else? I ain't leaving! Unlike some of the others that won't be heard, I'm gonna stick around and help change the bullshit attitude in this party. Know what else? I bet I'm not gonna be alone in my quest. Don't believe me? Just watch us!

While we're at it, let me ask what the hell the rest of the 76 Liberal MPs were thinking over the last 24 hours that would lead their leader to the undramatic decision he made today? What the hell are you thinking? You think that you're doing justice for your constituents? I have news for you people, your constituents sent you to Ottawa to speak up for them, not just so you can collect your $158,000 a year.

Where is the Liberal Party of Kelowna? Where is the Liberal Party of Health Care? Where is the Liberal Party of a National Childcare Strategy? Where is the Liberal Party of Kyoto? The Party of Trudeau? Of Laurier? Of Pearson? Of Chretien? We just sold out our convictions to keep this evil, vindictive Conservative government in power. We just let this country slip back into Mulroney years.

Unbelievable!

Bolding's mine.

You know what's a sign of a healthy, strong, vibrant political party? Telling your most passionate, engaged members to "get the fuck out" because they don't Support The Leader. Never mind that The Leader wasn't technically chosen by the party and was instead placed there by its most powerful members (having just tweaked the rules to ensure nobody else would run). And never mind that his ideology clearly has little to do with the ideals of the party he leads.

Nope, it's "fall in line or piss off and die."

Funny thing, though. Everybody thought that Obama would be like this, but he's turned out to be surprisingly progressive-friendly. He's not always progressive, but he clearly keeps progressives in mind when he's making his decisions and explaining them. "Obama the centrist anti-liberal" is not a problem, even if the media and Republicans are screaming foul about it.

What's surprising is that everything that everybody feared about Obama is, it would appear, true for Ignatieff. Ignatieff wouldn't close Gitmo: he's defended "the lesser evil" and "coercion" any number of times in the past, as much as he whines that he's anti-torture. (Carefully splitting hairs, Cheney-style, over what that is.) Ignatieff propped up the Conservatives, despite their production of a pork-laden "stimulus" budget that privileges tax cuts and anti-environmentalism over aid to the unemployed and desperate. And he's being as adroit at kicking out the people who don't fall in line as any Republican, where Obama has made a point of bringing critics on board.

Ignatieff clearly hopes that Obama's success will spill off on him. But, honestly, why should it?

Bit of Old News Footage

It's a bit dated, but there's definitely some interesting information in this old broadcast I saw on YouTube:



Worth a watch.

Obama's First Call to a Foreign Leader

...was Mahmud Abbas?

Astonishing. Here's the AP:

President Barack Obama plunged straight into the Middle East conflict on his first day in office calling the Palestinian president on Wednesday after the last Israeli soldier withdrew from Gaza.

Obama assured Mahmud Abbas that he intended "to work with him as partners to establish a durable peace in the region," the Palestinian leader's spokesman told AFP.

The new US leader told Abbas that the Palestinian president was the first foreign leader he called since taking office, said spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina.

"This is my first phone call to a foreign leader and I'm making it only hours after I took office," he quoted Obama as telling Abbas.

Obama and his secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton had vowed to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict immediately after taking office.

There was no confirmation if Obama also called Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, while a close Abbas aide admitted surprise at the speed with which Obama moved.

"We were not expecting such a quick call from President Obama but we knew how serious he is about the Palestinian problem," said Yasser Abed Rabbo.

During his inauguration speech Tuesday, Obama pledged a new approach to the Muslim world saying "we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

This is an incredible gesture. Yes, the fact that he's appointing George Mitchell as an envoy is also an important gesture, but the fact that this ultra-popular and ridiculously powerful incoming president chose Abbas is likely to send shockwaves throughout the Middle East.

(And throughout America. I'm already reading rumblings of discontent from those who aren't too thrilled with either the call or Mitchell.)

Anybody else watching C-Span Right Now?

Apropos of nothing, that version of Amazing Grace at the National Prayer Service was incredible.

Day One of the Post-Bush Era

Anybody else feeling a bit...lighter? Feeling a bit as if some great weight has been taken of your shoulders? Maybe feeling as if a cloud in your vision has finally dissipated, and for the first time you can actually see what's ahead of you?

It's not so much the new guy. He's still just a guy, at the end of the day. But that idiot and his rat-bastard handler are gone, gone away, gone to Texas. Hallelujah.

First Blogger?

Maybe, maybe not. But Whitehouse.gov does have an RSS feed and a blog now.

A Brilliant Speech

...though, at this point, who would have expected anything else?

The theme of service and sacrifice, of common purpose, that I expected. What I didn't expect was that the speech would be a not-so-hidden challenge to the doctrine of small government and small ideas; that he'd come out so thoroughly against consumerism, selfishness, and nativism.

It also looks like the "meeting with leaders" line wasn't actually a mistake, or at least that he's embraced it. That line about "we will reach to you with open hands, if you first unclench your fist" was just about the most poetic summation of the doctrine of liberal engagement I've yet heard. And to say he'll "defeat" those who use terrorism, instead of "destroy" or "kill" or "eliminate" was a very striking choice. It suggests that the intention is to make them irrelevant, not simply blow the up and let their neighbors sing their martyr's praises.

The other bit that grabbed and excited me: in the midst of talking about roads and bridges and electrical grids, he included "data lines." It looks like he sees this here 'net as part of America's infrastructure after all. Perhaps we'll see a more mature attitude towards the Internet from this White House; what I hope is that they start asking the hard questions about the Last Mile that far, far too many have been avoiding.

And, yes, it was somber. It wasn't a smiling declaration of strength; it was a invocation to service in the context of 0ur challenging times. That was inevitable, but I can understand why there wasn't much cheering. If he succeeds, he may be one of the greatest Presidents the Union has ever had; but if he fails, that same Union could be irrevocably damaged.

What concerns me is that fate may not be in his own hands, but in the hands of those opponents in whom he has placed (in many eyes) too much trust. They're the ones who put America in this place, more than anything else. They're the ones who could still exploit enduring advantages to frustrate attempts to change a system that benefits them so handsomely. Obama will quickly learn, to his sorrow, that not everybody is willing to work to America's benefit at the expense of their own. As digby said, the true test is what happens after he learns that lesson.

So far, though, he's been a quick learner. He may not get all of it yet, but the man went from obscure State Senator to President in a shockingly short time. With any luck, he'll just as speedily learn about the job he was just given, and how to deal with those in his own city who would "defeat" him.

The Forty-Fourth

Oath or no, as of right now Obama is President of the United States.

Watching his face is fascinating. I suspect that, deep down, he's a bit freaked out. I can't imagine I wouldn't be.

Edit: he just took the oath. And messed up the words a bit. Yeah, he's freaked out.

But, freaked out or no, it's done. Defying all expectations, predictions, and conventional wisdom, Barack Hussein Obama is now the President of the United States.

Go Aretha

I hadn't realized she'd be performing "My Country 'tis of Thee". And damned if she didn't perform the hell out of it.

(Warren was surprisingly non-annoying too.)

(Though over at Kos there are a few who are quite annoyed that he specifically invoked Jesus; I thought it was tempered with that "America isn't about any religion" bit earlier, but I can see why it would be off-putting. It definitely surprised me considering that earlier line.)

Froomkin Summarizes Bush

Via Atrios, here's the choice bit from Dan Froomkin's The Bush Verdict Is In:

Here is Bush's legacy, in part:

He took the nation to a war of choice under false pretenses -- and left troops in harm's way on two fields of battle. He embraced torture as an interrogation tactic and turned the world's champion of human dignity into an outlaw nation and international pariah. He watched with detachment as a major American city went under water. He was ostensibly at the helm as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression took hold. He went from being the most popular to the most disappointing president, having squandered a unique opportunity to unite the country and even the world behind a shared agenda after Sept. 11. He set a new precedent for avoiding the general public in favor of screened audiences and seemed to occupy an alternate reality. He took his own political party from seeming permanent majority status to where it is today. And he deliberately politicized the federal government, circumvented the traditional policymaking process, ignored expert advice and suppressed dissent, leaving behind a broken government.

Worst president since slavery. At the very least.

As annoying as Obama's tendency to split the difference between sanity and Republicanism may become, we can all take heart in the fact that at least he's not Bush.

Israel Bans Arab Parties

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Israel on Monday banned Arab political parties from running in next month's parliamentary elections, drawing accusations of racism by an Arab lawmaker who said he would challenge the decision in the country's Supreme Court.

The ruling by parliament's Central Election Committee reflected the heightened tensions between Israel's Jewish majority and Arab minority caused by Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip. Arabs have held a series of demonstrations against the offensive.

Parliament spokesman Giora Pordes said the election committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of the motion, accusing the country's Arab parties of incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. Arab lawmakers have traveled to some of Israel's staunchest enemies, including Lebanon and Syria.

The 37-member committee is composed of representatives from Israel's major political parties. The measure was proposed by two ultranationalist parties but received widespread support.

The decision does not affect Arab lawmakers in predominantly Jewish parties or the country's communist party, which has a mixed list of Arab and Jewish candidates. Roughly one-fifth of Israel's 7 million citizens are Arabs. Israeli Arabs enjoy full citizenship rights, but have suffered from discrimination and poverty for decades.

Arab lawmakers Ahmed Tibi and Jamal Zahalka, political rivals who head the two Arab blocs in parliament, joined together in condemning Monday's decision.

"It was a political trial led by a group of Fascists and racists who are willing to see the Knesset without Arabs and want to see the country without Arabs," said Tibi.

Together, the Arab lists hold seven of the 120 seats in the Knesset, or parliament.

Tibi said he would appeal to the high court, while Zahalka said his party was still deciding how to proceed.

Pordes, the parliament spokesman, said the last party to be banned was the late Rabbi Meir Kahane's Kach Party, a list from the 1980s that advocated the expulsion of Arabs from Israel.

Incitement or no—and my gut feeling is "no"—this is just about the worst possible move the Knesset could have made at this time. Arabs across Israel are going to feel completely alienated, and the members of those banned parties have little to lose if they do decide to incite.

I can only hope the Supreme Court reverses this decision. It is not only an injustice, but a grave threat to Israel's legitimacy and, yes, to Israel itself.

So What's This All About?

In the Grauniad:

The Israeli military may have committed war crimes in Gaza, the UN's most senior human rights official said tonight, as Israeli troops pressed on with their increasingly deadly offensive in defiance of a UN security council resolution demanding a ceasefire.

Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, singled out the killing this week of up to 30 Palestinians in Zeitoun, south-east of Gaza City, when Israel shelled a house where its troops had told about 110 civilians to take shelter.

Pillay, a former international criminal court judge from South Africa, told the BBC the incident "appears to have all the elements of war crimes". She called for "credible, independent and transparent" investigations into possible violations of humanitarian law.

The accusation came as Israel kept up its two-week-old air and ground offensive in Gaza and dismissed as "unworkable" the UN security council resolution calling for "an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire". Protests against the offensive were held across the world today as diplomacy to halt the conflict appeared to falter.

With the Palestinian casualty toll rising to around 780 dead and more than 3,100 injured, fresh evidence emerged today of the Zeitoun killings.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), said in a report it was "one of the gravest incidents since the beginning of operations" against Hamas militants in Gaza by the Israeli military on 27 December.

OCHA said the incident took place on 4 January, a day after Israel began its ground offensive in Gaza. According to testimonies gathered by the UN, Israeli soldiers evacuated about 110 Palestinians to a single-storey house in Zeitoun. The evacuees were instructed to stay indoors for their safety but 24 hours later the Israeli army shelled the house. About half the Palestinians sheltering in the house were children, OCHA said. The report also complains that the Israeli Defence Force prevented medical teams from entering the area to evacuate the wounded.

The OCHA report does not accuse Israel of a deliberate act but calls for an investigation. Responding to the report, an Israeli military spokeswoman, Avital Leibovich, told AFP news agency: "From initial checking, we don't have knowledge of this incident. We started an inquiry but we still don't know about it."

Among the dead were nine members of the Samouni family; a picture of three of the family's children in blood-stained clothing laid on a morgue floor and in front of their grieving father was shown in the Guardian on Tuesday. The father, Wael Samouni, said dozens of people had been sheltering in the house after Israeli troops ordered them and neighbours to stay inside.

"Those who survived, and were able, walked two kilometres to Salah Ed Din road before being transported to the hospital in civilian vehicles," the UN said.

Rescuers from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society said they were able to reach the area on Wednesday only after being allowed safe passage by Israel.

The ICRC issued a statement on the incident yesterday, accusing the Israeli military of "unacceptable" delays in allowing medics safe access to injured Gazans.

This is, ahem, probably going to be a bit of a PR problem. Especially if this is the response:

Israel has accused Hamas of using civilians as human shields and has said militants have fired rockets from rooftops of homes and mosques.

Mark Regev, an Israeli government spokesman, said: "Israel wants to see no harm to the children of Gaza. On the contrary, we would like to see their children and our children grow up without the fear of violence. Until now, Hamas has deliberately prevented that from becoming reality."

Mark? Buddy? Find a new line of work. This doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Meanwhile, at the UN:

Fighting in Gaza has continued despite yesterday's UN security council resolution calling for an "immediate" and "durable" ceasefire and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. The resolution was passed with 14 out of 15 members in support of the resolution. The US abstained from the vote.

Wait, so they're straight-up ignoring a UN security council resolution? Creative reinterpretation is one thing, everybody does that, but ignoring it?

So Much for LibLogs

As much as I grouse about DailyKos, one of the things I like there is that there is a diversity of views on issues of policy, particularly foreign policy. And since I still believe that the Canadian Liberals need something like that, considering the incredibly dubious way that Ignatieff achieved near-dictatorial control over the party and the lack of grassroots support the party suffers, I've been very interested in whether LibLogs could serve that role. Right now it's a glorified RSS aggregator, but perhaps it could grow into something more.

Apparently not.

Jason Cherniak, the Liblogs administrator who ran away from his own blog, is apparently quite content to twist LibLogs to his own ends, appending apologias to the top of the page and deleting posts when and if they make Liblogs unpopular with, um, conservatives. Far from serving as some kind of Canadian Kos, it appears that Cherniak is trying to make the Liberals are turning into the kind of spineless, "centrist", enabling Democratic boobs that people like Kos were working to counter.

But never mind that. What really bothers me is that this seems to suggest that no diversity of opinion is allowed now within the Liberal party. Whatzisname, newly-minted de facto iggy spokesman, was quite supportive of this, babbling about how ethical criticism of Israel's tactical and strategic choices is racist and how it's wonderful that Cherniak pulled the post down.

And what was it that was pulled down? Well, let's see. From "LeDaro":

In the interests of free speech and open dialogue, I am re-posting the entry which Cherniak found so "offensive." I wonder how the other Liblog board members feel about Cherniak acting unilaterally in censoring bloggers?

Do Stephen Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon have any humanity left in them? They keep on firing their verbal cannon that it is all about Israel's self-defence. Every passing day it is becoming harder to believe. The tacit (and not so tacit) approval by the Harper government is giving a black eye to Canada's past reputation as a peacekeeper.

Harper and Cannon are reading from Bush's playbook or talking points, but what is with our leader Ignatieff? When will red hot Liberal blood boil in him so that he sees the reality and call a spade a spade. European nations have caught on and French President Sarkozy is visiting the area. Even Obama, who has been keeping mostly silent on the issue (which raises criticisms of its own, though at least he is not yet sworn into office), has expressed regret at the loss of lives in Gaza.

Come on Canada.

Recently, 40 people (including children) were killed when a UN school in Gaza, which was being used as a shelter, was hit. Sorry folks, I must admit, I feel too upset to write anymore. The pictures above speak volumes.

This was accompanied by a series of pictures of Gaza casualties. Upsetting, but were it written about (say) Russians in Chechnya, nobody would dream of censoring it. And I've certainly read worse out of respected, widely linked American bloggers. So if it isn't offensive in-and-of-itself, then it could only have been removed because it didn't fit The Party Line; and, I suspect, LibLogs now exists solely to disseminate The Party Line.

But here's the thing- that doesn't work. It's terrible. The Party Line was what made American conservative blogs so ineffective and dull; because if you'd read one, you'd read them all. It's also why the Republicans became so empty of policy ideas: because the party line was ensuring that only those ideas that came from the top would actually get repeated. Meanwhile, the Democratic netroots' vigorous (and often frustrating) rolling debate would at least allow ideas to come to the fore. Yes, a lot of Dem activists are critical of Israel. A lot are critical of Hamas, too. MORE are just interested in getting past stupid apologias and figuring out what's needed for a long-term solution, and that includes the use of force.

In Canada? Whatzisname and his (again) friend li'l Jason dictate terms on the only "group blog" out there, Liberal progressives get further alienated—like the party needed that—Liberal blogging becomes even sadder, and the Conservatives will be able to use this victory to dictate to the Liberals what is, and isn't, "acceptable" for discussion. The Overton Window gets yanked to the right, and everybody who actually cares about liberalism gets screwed.

(Then again, it remains to be seen how many Liberals actually do care, instead of just seeing the party as a vehicle for getting fat those fat stacks lobbyist and consulting dollars. After all, real parties elect their leaders.)

Edit:I should, of course, add that I'm not necessarily endorsing all that was said on LibLogs. It's ridiculous to blame Liberals for the school bombing, as one (non-)Liblogger seemed to put it.

I do, however, think that there is a very, very questionable game being played here, and I'm concerned that it's ideology and fear,not taste or judgement, that are governing these choices.

Hospital Scrubs: "Germy Mess"?

So Says Betsy McCaughey in the WSJ, and the Journal would certainly know about things that are ill-conceived and dangerous.

You see them everywhere -- nurses, doctors and medical technicians in scrubs or lab coats. They shop in them, take buses and trains in them, go to restaurants in them, and wear them home. What you can't see on these garments are the bacteria that could kill you.

Dirty scrubs spread bacteria to patients in the hospital and allow hospital superbugs to escape into public places such as restaurants. Some hospitals now prohibit wearing scrubs outside the building, partly in response to the rapid increase in an infection called "C. diff." A national hospital survey released last November warns that Clostridium difficile (C. diff) infections are sickening nearly half a million people a year in the U.S., more than six times previous estimates.

The problem is that some medical personnel wear the same unlaundered uniforms to work day after day. They start their shift already carrying germs such as C.diff, drug-resistant enterococcus or staphylococcus. Doctors' lab coats are probably the dirtiest. At the University of Maryland, 65% of medical personnel confess they change their lab coat less than once a week, though they know it's contaminated. Fifteen percent admit they change it less than once a month. Superbugs such as staph can live on these polyester coats for up to 56 days.

Do unclean uniforms endanger patients? Absolutely. Health-care workers habitually touch their own uniforms. Studies confirm that the more bacteria found on surfaces touched often by doctors and nurses, the higher the risk that these bacteria will be carried to the patient and cause infection.

Ugh. It does explain something that's bothered me, though: why on earth the almost religiously-sterilized environments you see in hospitals are somehow riddled with germs.

Fortunately the solution is easy:

Until about 20 years ago, nearly all hospitals laundered scrubs for their staff. A few hospitals are returning to that policy. St. Mary's Health Center in St. Louis, Mo., reduced infections after cesarean births by more than 50% by giving all caregivers hospital-laundered scrubs, as well as requiring them to wear two layers of gloves. Monroe Hospital in Bloomington, Ind., which has a near-zero rate of hospital-acquired infections, provides laundered scrubs for all staff and prohibits them from wearing scrubs outside the building. Stamford Hospital in Connecticut recently banned wearing scrubs outside the hospital.

Across the pond, a British study found that one-third of medical personnel did not launder their uniforms before coming to work. One British surgeon who specializes in hip and knee replacements reduced postoperative infections by two-thirds at her hospital by protecting patients from contaminated uniforms. Before approaching any patient's bed, nurses put on disposable, clear plastic aprons that were pulled off rolls like dry cleaning bags. Each one costs a nickel.

In response to this evidence and public outrage over infections, the cash-strapped British National Health Service is providing nurses with hospital-laundered "smart scrubs." The smart design includes short sleeves, because long sleeves spread germs from patient to patient.

Can it really be that simple? Hospital-laundered scrubs that are forbidden from leaving the Hospital produce a near-zero infection rate? How is this not LAW?

Sure, it's the WSJ, and for all I know this is nonsense. I found the link while reading a Karl Rove piece about the mortgage crisis that blamed everything on Fannie and Freddie, for God's sake, one has to be cautious. But still.

FINALLY, Someone Gets It

Brilliant piece in Ha'aretz today by Gideon Lichfield explaining my take on the Gaza thing.

I frequently get asked by Israelis, "why aren't we winning the PR war? Why don't people understand that this is what we have to do?" Many are convinced that there is something wrong with Israeli hasbara (public advocacy), that the spokespeople aren't effective enough, or that the Palestinians have a huge and demonically efficient propaganda machine. When I hear this I have to explain that Israeli hasbara is so sophisticated that there is still no adequate word for it in English; that some of Israel's spokespeople could talk the hind legs off a donkey and then persuade the donkey to dance the hora, and that the Palestinians barely even know what a spokesman is, let alone be able to provide one who is available when he needs to be and knows anything about what is actually going on. So why isn't Israel winning the PR war?

I had forgotten that word, hasbara. It's a damned good word, and a one-word summary of this sort of monomaniacal advocacy and apology is damned handy, too. Especially when it's precisely that hasbara that annoys me so much.

Partly, of course, it's because the numbers are against it. Six hundred Palestinians dead versus nine Israelis, as of today's figures: There's just no way to make that proportion look pretty. Retired generals can drone on all they like about what "proportionality" really means in the laws of war, ambassadors can helpfully point out that many more Germans were killed than British in the Second World War, but these are theoretical notions; on television, what looks bad looks bad. (Nor do I really buy the argument that if Israel's casualties were more visibly bloody - if, say, the media showed the gory pictures of the few people who have been hit by Qassams instead of holding them back to keep the home front from getting agitated - then you could counter the stream of barbaric images from Gaza. There's just no competition.)

But the deeper reason is this: Israeli hasbara is perpetually trying to answer the wrong question: "Why is this justified?" Of course, it's natural for either side in a conflict to try to explain why it, and not the other side, has the moral high ground. But, especially in a conflict where both sides have been claiming the moral high ground for decades, nobody in the outside world is all that interested. From a foreign correspondent's point of view, it makes for boring journalism: "The Israelis said this, but the Palestinians said that." And since we're all studiously trying to be "neutral," we'll always balance your view against theirs; so the fact that you make more of an effort to explain than they do doesn't really matter.

And this is WHY I get annoyed. It's not that I think that both sides are equally justified in their behavior, although the issues that tend to end up below the radar (unfair distribution of water, for instance) are exactly the ones where Israelis tend to come off looking badly. It's that the hasbara always tries to focus on how bad Hamas is, and how righteous the Israelis are, and how it's Hamas' fault that each and every Palestinian died. And while some outlets (principally American) will dutifully follow along, most media organizations are going to "balance" as a matter of course.

And if the Palestinians don't have a spokesman? Well, the images will do the speaking for them, and the Israeli spokesman ends up looking like a callous ass for not being willing to acknowledge that the mayhem is even a necessary evil.

The question the foreign media really wants answered is invariably not "who's in the right?" but "how will this round of fighting improve the overall situation?" And on that point, Israel never has a convincing argument. Given the country's long history of engaging in wars that kill many more of its enemies than its own citizens but only buy a few months or years of calm, it's a tough call to explain how this latest escapade will change the strategic balance, bring peace and prevent the need for another such bloodbath further down the line. Often that's because there is in fact no good reason: Wars are fought for short-term gains. And it doesn't help that with the constant competition for power within Israeli coalitions, it's easy to interpret this war, like many others, as a political imperative, not a strategic one.

And so when the question the world is asking is not "who's right?" but "what works?" the consistent impression Israel leaves is that it kills people because, at best, it simply doesn't have any better ideas, and at worst, because some Israeli leader is trying to get the upper hand on one of his or her rivals. And no amount of hasbara can make that look good.

Exactly. This Gaza incursion isn't just reminiscent of the conflict in 2006, it's reminiscent of every foray into Gaza and the West Bank since the Sixties. Repeating rote arguments that it's Hamas' fault is not only not going to convince anybody that that's actually true, but it's not going to convince anybody that anything's going to change. Hamas isn't going to be deterred by this, and the Gazans are almost certainly going to rally around them.

But make the case that this will accomplish real strategic goals, that it will prevent more and bloodier conflicts in the future, that it will make for a safer Israel and speed a real two-state solution, and then I think people will start listening.

The Panetta Choice

From what I've seen, he'd be an admirable choice. An outsider, yes, but exactly the kind of outsider that the CIA needs to give it fresh eyes and reconnect it with the world outside "the intelligence community." And he's no fan of "coercive interrogation." Far from it.

That's why I'm concerned that Feinstein and Rockefeller are going to scupper the deal. They seem little interested in anything like real oversight, and know that they don't have to worry about challenges from progressives in their states. Sure, Obama has a lot of Dems owing him bigtime, but memories are short in Washington, and Dems' loyalties even shorter.

Even worse, I wonder whether Panetta was a deliberate sacrificial lamb, and that he'll be replaced with something more palatable to the Usual Suspects in that oft-cited "community." I think that'd be a bad idea, making Obama look weak at the moment when he most needs to appear strong, but it's possible. And let's be honest: Obama's got enough friction with the people that got him there as it is.

Dennis Blair, huh?

It would appear that Obama might have more of an Asian focus in his security policy than I had thought.

Dershowitz and Hamas

So Dersh was on CNN earlier tonight, and said something along the lines of "Israel can only succeed by defeating and destroying Hamas."

I had the same response as I always do to that sort of thing: And how, exactly, do you propose to do that? You can kill every member of Hamas, but you still won't get rid of the organization. Anybody who says they're Hamas is, um, Hamas. It's a concept, and you can't kill an idea.

The only way that Israel could theoretically "destroy Hamas" is to make it illegal to be a member of an organization called Hamas. But, ahah, how do they propose to make that happen, either? You can't make something illegal unless you are a government. And Israel has been steadfast about not wanting to occupy Gaza.

But that's it, isn't it? That's just about the only endgame that makes sense right now: re-occupation. They can't completely "destroy" Hamas without the power of a government to make organizations illegal. And they can't actually prevent rocket attacks unless they have a government's ability to enter homes and dictate what is and isn't acceptable behavior. They cannot achieve their goals unless they are the government of Gaza, and that means re-occupation, since Fatah would never threaten its own position by endorsing Israel's actions.

I'm not saying this is some Machiavellian plot by the Israelis to re-occupy Gaza. I don't think that's the case at all. I think that the various military and political leaders aren't really considering their endgame, and don't realize that they've boxed themselves in to the extent that there's only one possible one, and it's both odious and ultimately fruitless.

No, I think they're listening too much to the reflexive apologists like Alan, who aren't really concerned with Israel's security, but just making its actions look as good as possible in the foreign press to make themselves look good in turn. And I think it's going to bite them in the ass when they end up either re-occupying a riotous Gaza Strip, or withdrawing and facing the inevitability of more rocket attacks from defiant Gazans.

And Now, a Special Message from Kos to Bill O'Reilly:

Quoted Verbatim:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Couldn't say it better myself. Recount's over, Al's up by 226, and Bill's day is completely ruined.

This is a great day for liberalism and progressivism in America, because Al's going to be a strong, forthright liberal progressive voice in exactly the time and place where it's most needed. And if Al can learn the lessons that Paul Wellstone's enormous success can teach him, he could be a progressive Senatorial voice for a very long time, indeed.

IDF Troops Enter Gaza

Yep, we've hit the ground phase, even though any kind of end-game is still as opaque as ever.

I can't see how this ends well. The bombings were inflammatory enough, but any sort of ground incursion is going to create casualties on both sides, which will only harden their resolve to "win". (Whatever that is supposed to entail.)

"Or What?"

That was my reaction upon reading the ultimate end of Charles Krauthammer's latest apologia for blowing up brown peopleAy-rabs.

And no, I'm not referring to this bit:

The grievance? It cannot be occupation, military control or settlers. They were all removed in September 2005. There’s only one grievance and Hamas is open about it. Israel’s very existence.

My reactions to this were "of course Israel is still in military control, you ninny, they determine who gets to stay and leave" and "It figures that this kind of empathy-free ass wouldn't understand that Gazans might care about settlers occupying the West Bank".

And no, it wasn't this bit either:

Since its raison d’etre is the eradication of Israel, there are only two possible outcomes: the defeat of Hamas or the extinction of Israel.

My reaction was "this is nonsense", like suggesting that the only possibilities in Northern Ireland were the eradication of the IRA or the end of Britain. As much as they're a source of tension and terror, and as much as they're ridiculously counter-productive for getting anything useful accomplished, Gaza's rockets pose no existential threat to Israel. They simply don't. And nor does Hamas. They don't have the power.

No, "Or What" was my reaction to this:

Israel’s only response is to try to do what it failed to do after the Gaza withdrawal. The unpardonable error of its architect, Ariel Sharon, was not the withdrawal itself but the failure to immediately establish a deterrence regime under which no violence would be tolerated after the removal of any and all Israeli presence. Instead, Israel allowed unceasing rocket fire, implicitly acquiescing to a state of active war and indiscriminate terror.

Hamas’ rejection of an extension of its often-violated six-month cease-fire (during which the rockets never stopped, just were less frequent) gave Israel a rare opportunity to establish the norm it should have insisted upon three years ago: no rockets, no mortar fire, no kidnapping, no acts of war. As the U.S. government has officially stated: a sustainable and enduring cease-fire.

Yep, this is it! "Or what?" So what happens if another rocket gets launched from Gaza after all this punishing fire? Trying to take away the supply of the damned stupid things is nearly impossible; they're small, portable, and easily smuggled into the country.

Does Israel come back in again? Whoops, there's your occupation back, Chuck! Now they don't need rockets to blow up Israelis!

Or maybe do they just keep on bombing everything flat? Well, that'll sure help the cause of peace!

This is the problem with asshats like Krauthammer. Since they have no idea how human beings think, they have no idea how human beings react or behave. So they come up with these grand statements about how "they'll stop, or else", assume that they would do so in that circumstance, and never consider either how people really react and what might happen when their carefully-dreamed-up fantasies fall apart! Chuck can't even learn from history: if he could, then he'd have realized that it has never, ever worked like this, and thus is very unlikely to ever work! And what happens when it doesn't?

"No violence will be tolerated?" Or what?

(Unless, of course, the "or what" is dumping them all in Jordan, the Transfer That Dare Not Speak Its Name. And I'm sure that would go well.)

Happy New Year

Here's hoping it's better than the last few.