The Iraqi election: Had it been up to Bush…

When it comes to Iraq, we tend to forget how we got here. With George Bush and his surrogates working the airwaves, trying to milk political credit for Sunday’s elections, we should note that these elections would not have happened had Bush had his way. As Bush is an opponent of “revisionist history,” let’s help him out by setting the record straight:

As Swopa rightly reminds us all, the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly “extremely offended” at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn’t hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn’t use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did.

So if it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship under Chalabi, or would have had stage-managed elections with an electorate consisting of a handful of pro-American notables. It was Sistani and the major Shiite parties that demanded free and open elections and a UNSC resolution. They did their job and got what they wanted.

The next time you hear Bush expounding on the “resounding success” of the Iraqi elections, remember that they took place in spite of him.

The election, with a dash of sobriety

Steve Gilliard said it:

Despite the lies about Iraqi effectiveness, we’ve seen exactly how effective they are today. Shut down the country, prohibit driving and they will do just fine guarding buildings.

While the media and the warbloggers cheered the election, their usual lack of perspective lets them miss the main issue, which is what happens when the Shia run the government. Allawi may have a job, but I doubt it. What is likely is that a Sistani-loyal government will take the place of the CIA stooge Allawi and then might start making demands on the US, like controlling combat operations and demanding trials in Iraqi courts`when US troops shoot Iraqis and other things the USG might not go along with. You know, like not having those death squads.

Also, the warbloggers missed the potential disaster of the Sunni non-participation. It isn’t one yet, but if this is a Sunni rebellion, that was evident today. The question is if they will enter the government or attack it. [...]

There is a childish belief that “oh, the Iraqis faced down the terrorists”. Well no. That’s not true. Sunni turn out was abysmal and the Shia and Kurds were going vote no matter what. So the resistance laid low, as they have on other big days, only to increase the tempo of combat in the following days. The members of the assembly cannot remain anonymous forever. When they start getting killed, what then?

This is the first thing in 18 months which has gone even remotely right. The question is does it lead to peace and the end of the war or a violent reaction. John Kerry said the next few days would make all the difference. Judging from the backslapping, they don’t seem to understand that.

Ted Kennedy had exactly the right idea last week…

The United States should start to withdraw militarily and politically from Iraq and aim to pull out all troops as early as possible next year, Sen. Edward Kennedy said on Thursday.

After Sunday’s Iraqi elections, Kennedy said President Bush should state he intends to negotiate a timetable with the new Iraqi government to draw down U.S. forces.

At least 12,000 U.S. troops should leave at once, Kennedy said, “to send a stronger signal about our intentions to ease the pervasive sense of occupation.”

…and was predictably ignored. An immediate twelve-thousand troop pullout would have been symbolically powerful not only to the Iraqis whose hearts and minds are ostensibly still up for grabs, but also to American soldiers and their families here at home.

That the Bush administration refuses even this gesture is no surprise; its track record of terrible decisions in Iraq remains unbroken. The election (which, if you’ll remember, was forced on the U.S. by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani), was indeed the first thing in a year and a half which has gone remotely right. It will be some time before we hear the next piece of good news.

Got irony?

Props to patachon at Daily Kos for this dose of historical irony:

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote:
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3– United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here. [...]

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

This from George Bush, yesterday:

Today the people of Iraq have spoken to the world, and the world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East.

In great numbers and under great risk, Iraqis have shown their commitment to democracy. By participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists. They have refused to be intimidated by thugs and assassins.

And they have demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-government. Some Iraqis were killed while exercising their rights as citizens.

We also mourn the American and British military personnel who lost their lives today. Their sacrifices were made in a vital cause of freedom, peace in a troubled region and a more secure future for us all.

The Iraqi people themselves made this election a resounding success.

This from George Santayana, ever and always:

Those who cannot remember the past, tralalalala.

What’s it worth to you?

Would you pay as much as twenty dollars to an appropriately powerful authority, or perhaps to a company offering a V-chip-type device, in order to not have to hear anything at all, ever, about the all-consuming, oxygen-destroying Michael Jackson molestation trial? Would you pay as much as fifty dollars? How about a hundred?

Think about the network news coverage. The network news magazine coverage. The Court TV coverage. The various televised celebrity-shrines: Entertainment Tonight, Extra, The Insider, and their ilk. The TV gabfests, the ones that usually go by one name: Oprah, Maury, Montel, so on and on. Mind you, we haven’t yet mentioned print: daily papers, tabloids, magazines. Or babbling talk radio programs. Or the Web.

Think about how long this new trial, featuring one of the most famous people on the planet, will take.

Think about the fact that the jury hasn’t even been selected yet.

Now how much would you pay?

Representin’

Somebody ask Condoleezza Rice if “now is the time for diplomacy.”

Cheney’s Auschwitz outfit raises eyebrows

Vice President Dick Cheney raised eyebrows on Friday for wearing an olive-drab parka, hiking boots and knit ski cap to represent the United States at a solemn ceremony remembering the liberation of Auschwitz.

Other leaders at the event in Poland on Thursday marking the 60th anniversary of the death camp’s liberation, such as French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin, wore dark, formal overcoats and dress shoes or boots.

“The vice president, however, was dressed in the kind of attire one typically wears to operate a snow blower,” Robin Givhan, The Washington Post’s fashion writer, wrote in the newspaper’s Friday editions.

The Post’s Givhan said Cheney might have been hoping to avoid the cold weather in Oswiecim, but noted he had worn a dark overcoat and no hat at all at another recent winter occasion — his own swearing-in ceremony on Inauguration Day on Jan. 20 in snow-dusted Washington.

“The vice president might have been warm in his parka, ski cap and hiking boots,” Givhan said. “But they had the unfortunate effect of suggesting he was more concerned with his own comfort than the reason for braving the cold at all.”

Cheney’s staff had no comment on the story.

Dick Cheney, representin’ the U S of A!

America! Fuck yeah!

Darwinian times: Life under Blunt

Matt Blunt’s attack on Medicaid - as announced in his State of the State address - has prompted swift and critical responses from the daily papers in Missouri’s two largest cities.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Gov. Matt Blunt’s first State of the State message laid out a vision for Missouri that is almost Darwinian in its cruelty.

The strong - corporate interests, highway builders, doctors, the Farm Bureau and the like - will thrive, with continued government help. The weak - the mentally ill, the poor, the disabled, the state workers scraping from paycheck to paycheck, those financially ruined or maimed by corporate or medical malpractice - will need to scrabble harder to survive. [...]

[Some of] Mr. Blunt’s ideas are simply cruel. He wants to solve at least some of the state’s budget problems by taking help away from the working poor and some of Missouri’s most helpless citizens. These ideas are unworthy of the state and its people.

Mr. Blunt waited only 16 days after his inauguration before going back on a campaign pledge not to bounce thousands of Missourians off the Medicaid rolls. Currently, a family of three in Missouri can earn no more than 75 percent of the federal poverty guideline - about $11,752 a year, or $226 a week - if the parents want to qualify for a state-federal health insurance program. [...]

The governor also wants to cut Medicaid coverage for injured adults who are waiting to be certified by the federal government as permanently disabled. The governor wants to save $35.6 million in state money by eliminating a program that provides poor people with wheelchairs, crutches, prosthetic limbs, ambulance service - even hospice services when they’re dying.

Mr. Blunt, 34, appeared as young and nervous as an “American Idol” contestant as he delivered his speech. But it is not his youth that is troubling, but rather the narrowness of his vision and the apparent limits of his personal experience. Has he ever met a single mother who earns $90 a week?

If Mr. Blunt believes in his vision for Missouri, he shouldn’t be afraid to be accountable for it. And he has a lot to be accountable for.

From Mike Hendricks of the Kansas City Star:

“Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?”

I didn’t get it down verbatim. But that pretty much conveys the theme of the Boy Governor’s first state of the state address.

To increase funding for education and prop up business interests without a tax increase, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt proposes to balance the state budget the old-fashioned way.

On the backs of the poor and disabled.

And you thought that was just a cliche. No, this time it’s the real deal. Goodbye “compassionate conservatism.” Hello, Charles Dickens.

Mental-health spending? Slashed $41 million.

Social services? Down even more.

But the meanest cut of all is the plan to reduce Medicaid outlays by $625 million.

According to the Blunt administration’s own figures, 89,000 Missourians stand to lose health benefits under his plan.

This includes the working poor.

Some will almost certainly quit their jobs to retain eligibility.

Those suffering mental illness may find themselves without care, on the streets and much more likely to end up in emergency rooms — or in jails — when they fall ill or fail to take their meds. [...]

During the campaign, Blunt promised not to change the Medicaid eligibility requirements.

Now, less than a month in office, he reverses himself, supposedly because he has access to new numbers.

Yeah, well, right, whatever.

Plainly, Blunt broke his promise.

At a time when George Bush plans to shift more of the costs of Medicaid and Medicare from the federal government to the states - in support of the war in Iraq and ill-considered tax cuts - Matt Blunt intends to force thousands of Missourians from the Medicaid rolls in the name of “budget savings.” The effect on ill people who are also working poor or disabled will be devastating.

If a people are best judged by the way they care for those most in need, then the people of Missouri are about to fail.

In his editorial, Mike Hendricks quoted a National Alliance for the Mentally Ill official as she said that a public outcry was needed.

The media needs to hear from everyone who is appalled by this draconian plan to abandon the sick, the poor, the disabled.

And so does Matt Blunt.

P.O. Box 809-A
Jefferson City MO 65102
Telephone: (573) 751-3222
Email: mogov@mail.state.mo.us

Friday catblogging #1

As promised last week, Waveflux now fulfills the last requirement of bloghood by posting images of the household cats on Friday. We’ll begin with Kitty #1, the first cat in our current stable of four to be adopted by us. This is Venice during one of her baleful moods, which occur often and without warning:

As you may recall from a long-ago post, Venice was named for The Venice Cafe, where she was found by off-duty staffers from Kingsbury Animal Hospital (actually, in or around a dumpster near the cafe). She’s terribly affectionate, except when she’s not, which is about half the time. When she’s not, furniture and other cats have a tough time of it. Being the first cat, she’s somewhat territorial. She gets along fairly well with Baxter, tolerates Scooter, and seems to resent Roxy. We do a lot of cat redirection with Venice. (Not this kind of redirection, but the kind that involves string and shiny things.)

Here’s the little princess taking out her aggression on helpless furniture. “No, Venice. Stop, Venice. Venice!” Yes, we’ve used Sticky Paws. And yes, Venice has become awfully adept at removing them. We just heart smart cats. Don’t you?

The most endearing thing she does is to sit atop the radiator in the bathroom (we put a folded towel atop the radiator for this purpose; we spoil our cats something fierce) and watch with rapt attention as you brush your teeth. Something about that just fascinates her. Maybe it’s the minty freshness.

The state of Matt Blunt’s state won’t be so great

Via Blunt Watch: Roy Temple is on the case of Governor Matt Blunt’s State of the State address. The Temple Report has a series of critiques on Blunt’s announced intentions (scroll down to “What Blunt’s Medicaid cuts really mean” and go from there). It’s required reading, particularly Blunt’s plan to gut Medicaid for “budget savings,” doubtless in order to avoid raising taxes (emphasis mine):

According to Virginia Young’s story in the Post-Dispatch, here’s what Blunt’s Medicaid cuts will mean:

Blunt would lower the income threshold for parents to qualify. Instead of 75 percent of the federal poverty level, parents could earn no more than 30 percent - for example, about $4,701 a year for a family of three.

$4,701 for a family of three. That’s not a typo. We all know you can’t live on that.

It’s the same type of “fiscal responsibility” we’re seeing at higher levels of government, balanced on the sickbeds of the poor.

Check out The Temple Report. There’s more where that came from.

NOTE: Here’s a larger chunk of the P-D story:

In a turnaround from statements he made during the campaign, Blunt proposed throwing thousands of people off the Medicaid rolls. The state-federal program provides health care for the disabled, the blind, some elderly people and low-income families with children.

Blunt would lower the income threshold for parents to qualify. Instead of 75 percent of the federal poverty level, parents could earn no more than 30 percent - for example, about $4,701 a year for a family of three.

Also cut would be adults who are considered medically unemployable but haven’t yet qualified as disabled. They often rely on the special coverage while they await federal decisions on whether they are disabled.

The governor would eliminate podiatry, dental care and rehabilitation services for adults. Also, some services would be subject to small co-payments and deductibles.

To paraphrase Blunt, I guess the poor and disabled aren’t exactly “equal in the eyes of God” to the rest of the state.

Hillary Clinton on abortion: Forget the messenger, read the message

Jill Cozzi at Brilliant at Breakfast gets it right in a post on Hillary Clinton’s recent statements on abortion. The progressive left is now in a rush to demonize all things Clinton - a viewpoint that moves the left into bed with its political opponents - over the prospect of a Hillary dash for the White House in 2008. That candidacy would be a strategic mistake, and everyone outside the Clinton household knows that. But Senator Clinton points the way to a rational approach to abortion that some folks thoughtlessly reject just because it came from her. Not smart. As Jill says:

In our unwillingness to even DISCUSS the abortion issue, we’re losing a very real chance to stop the relentless march of the fundamentalist right, who give lip service to babies when their agenda is really about punishing women who do not remain chaste. Bill Clinton used to use the words “safe, legal, and rare”, and that is EXACTLY where we ought to be.

We know how to make abortions safe. We know how to make them legal. But how do we make them rare? Again, that’s not as difficult as it seems, and this is where we have the opportunity to make some headway with moderate voters who may not be comfortable with what they perceive as our view — that abortion is an easy solution to a problem pregnancy that women enter into blithely.

It doesn’t matter that there isn’t a woman in the world who hasn’t at some point inspected her underwear every morning making bargains with God that they’ll save more money, be nice to their mothers, or never, ever have sex again, just please, please, just let her period come. It doesn’t matter that the idea of a “waiting period” is something that only someone who hasn’t been in this position could come up with. We have allowed the right to paint abortion as something women do as as casually as having their nails done, and it’s time to take back the debate and return it to sanity. All Christians aren’t murderers just because Paul Hill killed an abortion doctor, and all women aren’t looking to have abortions just because some mythical woman somewhere has had three. Just because something is permitted doesn’t mean it’s mandatory.

This discussion is what I believe Hillary Clinton was doing on Monday.

So long as the right successfully and uncontestedly paints whether or not to have an abortion in terms of blithe convenience, reproductive rights will be imperiled. Progressives must strike a moderate course that works to make abortions the rarity rather than the norm, while setting limits on the power of government over women’s bodies. But this can only be done if people are willing to actually think and talk about sex. “No abortions ever” and “abortions on demand,” those opposite poles of thought, are positions that eliminate any chance of public discussion or good public policy.

Hillary Clinton is right. But how many progressives will hear her out?

Breaker, breaker: Feeling safe yet?

CNN.com is all atwitter over an old story: truckers being enlisted in the battle against terrorism:

Truckers recruited in war on terror

‘You see a lot of things’

Hoping to take advantage of alert eyes along the nation’s highways, the government is trying to enlist more truckers in the battle against terrorism.

The Alexandria, Virginia-based Highway Watch, started by the American Trucking Associations in 1998 and funded since 2002 with homeland security money, focuses on safety and security.

Spokesman John Willard said the volunteer program has received a total of about $40 million and “all 50 states have active programs.” He said Highway Watch continues to seek trained members.

“Truck driver normally runs the same route every day. He is used to his surroundings,” said Dave Huneryager, president of the Tennessee Trucking Association. “Something may jump out at him.”

Longtime trucker Ernie Sherrill agrees: “You see a lot of things.” [...]

Training for membership takes about an hour, said Stephanie Fouts, Highway Watch program manager. She said each of the “tens of thousands” of members is assigned an identification number to use when making a report to the around-the-clock operation.

Did you like that bit about training taking one hour? Emphasized by me for your reading pleasure.

Regular readers here will remember that we already took a look at Highway Watch - courtesy of a July Time article by Amanda Ripley - and came away feeling less than impressed:

After the session in Little Rock, two newly initiated Highway Watch members sat down for the catered barbecue lunch. The truckers, who haul hazardous material across 48 states, explained how easy it is to spot “Islamics” on the road: just look for their turbans. Quite a few of them are truck drivers, says William Westfall of Van Buren, Ark. “I’ll be honest. They know they’re not welcome at truck stops. There’s still a lot of animosity toward Islamics.” Eddie Dean of Fort Smith, Ark., also has little doubt about his ability to identify Muslims: “You can tell where they’re from. You can hear their accents. They’re not real clean people.”

That kind of prejudice is hard to undo, but it’s a shame Beatty’s slide show did not mention that in the U.S., it’s almost always Sikhs who wear turbans, not Muslims. Last year a Sikh truck driver who was wearing a turban was shot twice while standing near his tractor trailer in Phoenix, Ariz. He survived the attack, which police are investigating as a hate crime.

The Highway Watch website boasts that the program is open to “an elite core [sic] of truck drivers” who must have clean driving and employment records. In fact, their records are not vetted by the American Trucking Associations. At the Little Rock event, some came in off the street without preregistering. However, the organization is highly security conscious about other parts of its operations. It refuses to disclose the exact location of its hotline call center or the number of operators working there. “It could be infiltrated,” says Dawn Apple, Highway Watch’s director of training and recruitment.

Put simply: any jingoistic yahoo, with any kind of background and full of hate for “Islamics,” can come in off the street and sign up for this safety patrol. That should make you feel much safer next time you note some trucker giving you the eye. Nothing personal, pal. You just look like an enemy of America, that’s all.

Next Page »