The Jena 6

If you've been following the Jena 6 case at all, you probably have developed a point of view about the whole situation. Or, if you've tried to follow it a little closer as I've been trying to do, you'd probably find that it just becomes more and more confusing as you delve into it. I was going to post my thoughts about what happened before, but the facts of the case became less clear the more I read articles. Different people reported different things, leaving me wondering if anyone really knew what was going on.

However, I have found a great summary article that puts to rest some of the myths and distortions about the case, but I can't really say "all" because I doubt we know them all yet. Needless to say, the article paints a picture rather in the middle between those who see this as the start of the 21st century civil rights movement (e.g. Al Sharpton) and those who think racism and discrimination don't exist anywhere in this country, let alone Jena.

What I think is truly unfortunate is that this case is what has galvanized much of the civil rights people across the country. If this case really is the start of the 21st century civil rights movement, then it is a sad day for that movement. Were the Jena 6 overcharged? Probably. Are they innocent? No. In fact, they beat a kid unconscious -- hardly what some are calling "just a schoolyard fight". And the one still in jail has a prior criminal record including battery. Should the noose incident have been reported to the police? Yes, but the federal authorities wouldn't have done anything because they don't pursue hate crimes against juveniles. Should those responsible for the nooses have faced harsher punishments? Yes, but they faced expulsion at first, but the school board overruled the principal. However, contrary to popular belief, they were not suspended for three days -- rather, they went to an "alternative" school for one month before facing an in-school suspension for two weeks. Moreover, was there even a relationship between the noose incident and the beating? According to the U.S. attorney, no.

Without going into even more detail, I find the case to be the usual mixture of things, with some discrimination involved, but hardly the kind of case you would want to make the poster case for the civil rights movement. What I find particularly irritating, though, is the repeated muddling of the truth by various columnists and radio people around the country who make wrong and spurious claims (e.g. connecting the nooses with the fight). As I said, it's a sad time for the civil rights movement when a case that requires lies and distortions to be compelling becomes their rallying point.

I knew Bush believed in his tax cuts, but to this extent?

As I just posted before, Bush mistakenly believes things about his tax cuts, and of course, we all know that Republican ideology essentially centers around tax cuts to the point that we all pay negative taxes. However, I was unaware of how effective these tax cuts were in terms of corporate malfeasance and Osama bin Laden, but this is a quote from Bush from yesterday:

"We dealt with a recession, a terrorist attack and corporate scandals. And we did it by cutting taxes."

LOL! The best part is that I know the Kool-Aid drinking Republicans will now actually believe this. Soon, Fox News will start accusing those who want to raise taxes of trying to instigate terrorist attacks and corporate scandals. Ah, to be a Republican and live in a fantasy world . . .

The Lying Liar Strikes Again

Bush recently decided (he is the decider, after all, right?) to change basic economics and history with his latest statement that his tax cuts helped shrink the federal budget deficit. One of the great Republican lies that Republicans continue perpetuating. Of course, it turns out that even his own Administration's economists do not agree (if you read further in the article). I guess some of his economists have managed to avoid the Kool-Aid for the day. They'll probably be fired tomorrow and replaced with people more incompetent. Certainly wouldn't want anyone showing up the president.

Sorry one more

I remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan's saying, "People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." This one applies to Bush and supporting conservatives. Certainly, one is free to argue about troop levels in any way one wants -- but you gotta do it with the real facts. Not your own wishes and dreams.

And another column (a rather long one) that goes through exactly how Bush is a lying liar (based on his speech last night). I presume conservatives will continue to buy into Bush's nutcase version of reality, although, to be fair, not all do so. As I mentioned, George Will doesn't seem to buy a shred of it, but Charles Krauthammer is still drinking the Kool-Aid.

This makes me wonder about something: What is it about conservatives that make them "follow the leader" right over a cliff (metaphorically speaking)? I mean, if Bush declared Canada Enemy #1 and threw them into the "axis of evil", would conservatives jump on board? When it comes to Iraq, it isn't just the lack of evidence for Bush's version of reality that's bothersome -- it's the complete evidence to the contrary that is so disturbing. So back to my question: Why do conservatives not engage in a little critical thinking on this issue? Clearly, between conservatives and liberals, authoritarianism is not balanced equally across the spectrum (and, no, I'm not going to go to the extremes of Communism and Nazism -- they're the extremes that prove the saying "Opposite extremes produce like effects". I am merely looking at the American liberals and conservatives, who, in the grand scheme of things, actually fall in a relatively narrow part of the spectrum). Does that explain it? Are conservatives just, on average, more enamored of authoritarianism and, thus, more willing to accept the "commander-in-chief"'s claims? Certainly, they didn't mind using the argument that we shouldn't question the commander-in-chief during a war back in the 2004 presidential campaign.

I also feel quite safe saying that liberals are, on average, less enamored of authoritarianism. Frequently, conservatives make fun of liberals for having so many different directions. The presidential primary system is famous for having the Republican Party come up with one guy early on, while the Democrats go in a million different directions, listening to no one in particular. This election season may be a bit unusual in that respect.

Could this explanation really be it? I hope not. It's a bit disturbing because it suggests that these guys still supporting Bush don't think. I wonder if they've ever thought a thought in their entire lives -- certainly, they've never thought one that requires any sort of critical thinking.

Since we're on the subject . . .

of the "surge", I might as well post one more time about the topic, especially since Bush gave his much-awaited speech on Iraq and the surge last night. One of the important things that must be done with any Bush speech is to determine how far from reality he deviated and whether such deviations are trivial or critical to the arguments of the speech. As usual with Bush, he deviated quite a bit and on issues critical to the overall points he was trying to win with the American public.

The Washington Post actually ran a "fact-check" article just to go over the things that Bush got wrong. For a newspaper that unequivocally supports Bush's Iraq plans, this is rather amusing. Essentially, they knew that Bush was a lying liar and that he would lie his way through his speech last night. So, they got prepared to comb through his speech and find all the glaring problems. I'll let you read the article to see the biggies, but surely one of the most obvious was his assertion that "Iraq's national leaders are getting things done", a critical assertion because the overall goal of the "surge" was to give said leaders "breathing room" to get "things done". (It is the lack of a political reconciliation that makes the "surge" a failure, according to Bush's own standards set out last winter.) Unfortunately, his example of sharing oil revenue was absolutely incorrect and, as of today, no deal exists on that issue.

But perhaps most deceptive of all was his statement that the surge-level of troops could be reduced due to the successes of the surge itself. This is utter nonsense as commentators on both the left and right pointed out, as in fact, the surge level of troops could never have been more than temporary due to deployment schedules. Analysts pointed this out last winter and spring after Bush proposed his surge. Therefore, had the surge NOT worked, troop levels still would have been reduced to "pre-surge" levels. Even the Post editorial supporting Bush (with both fingers in their ears and a third hand covering their eyes) acknowledges this.

More than that, though, is the utter lack of logic in Bush's statement on reducing the surge back to pre-surge levels. If the increase in troops has brought about an important increase in security missing at pre-surge levels, wouldn't it be logical, therefore, to argue for KEEPING the extra troops in Iraq? I mean, if pre-surge levels aren't sufficient, then why return to those levels? The whole Bush argument is absurd. In fact, if Petraeus and Crocker are right that we need these levels of troops to prevent the return to sectarian violence, doesn't this mean that Bush believes his top general and top civilian in Iraq are just plain wrong? At least Petraeus and Crocker are consistent -- yes, if you want to keep the reversible gains that you have achieved, then you will need to keep the circumstances in place that have produced those gains.

But, of course, my argument is naive. As I mentioned, Bush never had any intention of keeping the "surge" going -- deployment schedules would have made it impossible, unless Bush chose to extend deployment times dramatically. That, however, was politically unpalatable and would have sent his own party into a massive intra-party war and eventual tailspin (as if the 2008 elections won't produce enough of a loss of Republican senators). Such a step would have been, as the Post calls it, "politically explosive". At least, it would have been honest and logical.

Ouch!

I should also mention this column by Eugene Robinson. He goes into greater detail and criticism of the "kicking-the-can" phenomenon which has been the Bush Administration's playbook for Iraq for quite a while now.

Post-Petraeus Report (oh, and Crocker, too)

So, we've now made it to September -- that month that loomed in the back of our heads that was supposed to tell us everything. That month that President Bush promised would provide us with the much needed info on the Iraq "surge" (if a roughly 25% increase in troops can be considered a "surge", especially when original military estimates for occupying the country were closer to a 200-300% larger force than we had pre-surge). That month that Bush asked the country to be patient for. Well, it, and the Petraeus Report, arrived. And, we were told to be patient -- again. To paraphrase Dick Cheney, victory is just around the corner.

Except that it isn't. Petraeus, and to a greater extent, Crocker admitted that the problems lie on the political side. No, not our political side -- the Iraqis'. Ultimately, this is the same problem that I've mentioned before. "Victory", or at least "success", as originally envisioned by Bush, depended on the actions of the Iraqis. This is an unfair burden to place on our troops and our government, as we have no control over the Iraqis.

George Will wrote a very good column that summarized my views so well. Read it. It's short and worth it. As he astutely points out, by the original metric, the surge has failed because the ultimate consequence was supposed to be some sort of grand political reconciliation.

This is not to say that the military has not reduced violence, although the GAO appears to disagree with the military's reports on this issue. The gains in the Anbar province, it should be noted, however, are due to Petraeus's far more intelligent reading of the situation than his predecessors rather than due to the surge. In fact, the surge's goal was to reduce violence in Baghdad and its environs, which it has (admittedly unevenly). The success in Anbar was unrelated to the troop increase and related to Petraeus (and others) convincing the Iraqi Sunnis and insurgents to turn against the non-Iraqis (i.e. terrorists & al-Qaeda in Iraq). However, I seriously doubt that the Sunnis suddenly feel warm, brotherly love toward the Iraqi Shiites, particularly when the Shiites have done such a good job cleansing Baghdad neighborhoods.

To sum up my views on all that has been reported, I have no doubts about Petraeus's integrity. Moreover, I think he was probably the man for the job back in 2003. The problem is that it's 2007 and a different ballgame. In reality, it may have always been a different ballgame and the chance for a unified, democratic Iraq may have always been nil, regardless of who was in charge of our troops. The president appears to have subtly shifted to a stance that accepts a looser confederation in Iraq. Unfortunately, however, the president's plan appears to be to dump the whole thing into the next president's lap, leaving no good options for the next one (whether he/she is a Democrat or Republican).

I know I've been away

But I've been busy -- my wife had a baby. Needless to say, I haven't had much time on my hands.

However, with the latest Republican debate (this one in New Hampshire) behind us, I read a devastating critique of the Republican candidates' plans (well, "plans" is a rather loose description) for the Iraq War. Joe Klein, in his blog, pointed out that none of the candidates appear to be on planet Earth with the rest of us. He doesn't think much of most of the Democrats' plans, although I know, from previous columns of his, that he thinks Hillary gives a reasonable answer to the Iraq question, in large part due to her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Nonetheless, he thinks the Republicans are even more detached from reality. Interesting column by him. Read it.