Return of the domino theory
July 31

The neocons have shown a new sign of desperation, or maybe it's just Nostalgia Xtreme!, because they've dug up from the Cold War the old domino theory. You can see it in the subhead of Clifford May's latest column, "Think dominoes. Think a loss of homeland security. Or think this: The surge is working." The text doesn't use the word, but the concept is clear:

Expect Pakistan to shift yet again should America retreat in humiliation from Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is probable that militant Islamists would soon rise to power in other countries as well. Start with Jordan, a nation that already has been attacked by suicide-bombers dispatched by Al-Qaida in Iraq. Move on to Bangladesh. Add Lebanon, too, a fledgling democracy under intense pressure from Hezbollah, Iran's longtime terrorist proxy.

Gaza is now ruled by Hamas, a terrorist organization supported by both Iran and Sunni extremists in league with Al-Qaida. Its short-term ambition will be to take over the West Bank as well.

This theory put us in Vietnam and kept us there for the longest war in US history. The Johnson and Nixon administrations pushed the war over into Cambodia and Laos. Funny though, no US military intervention was needed to prevent the next dominoes from falling.

You might say the dominoes were just limited in number, but I would point out that the countries of French Indochina shared not just circumstances. That is they were part of French Indochina. Same circumstances at the same time. The same argument could be made about the Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe, all going democratic at the same time. In the case of Iraq however, not so much. Even before casting doubt on the notion that what happens in Iraq will happen in all its neighbors, let's recall that the invasion was in fact an attempt to start the dominoes toppling. Knock off that one dictator, and not only would democracy flourish, but all the neighboring regimes would fall over as well. So how'd that work out? You see, there's this small problem where different countries have different circumstances. Iraq's history, for all the similarity to its neighbors, is quite different from its neighbors. If you don't know the details, time for you to read Iraq 101. For now suffice it to point out that though May thinks insurgents in Afghanistan will copy the successful tactics of insurgents in Iraq --- which, by the way, they've already done --- Afghanistan is not just a copy of Iraq. If you don't know how, please find an Afghanistan 101. I don't have a link to something like that, but you've got to do some of the work yourselves.

If you're wondering how far May carried his mental experiment, he did the typical neocon fear mongering. Pakistan will fall, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, but he doesn't stop there:

Over time, the only Muslim-majority states to resist the Islamists will be those that accommodate the Islamists. The Europeans, too, will cut their deals.

Israel will hold on -- or die trying. You can't imagine a second Holocaust within a hundred years? Imagine harder.

In this environment, there will be no way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. With both Iran and a no-longer-allied Pakistan proliferating nukes, sooner or later it won't be just nation-states that have them. But our intelligence services are unlikely to be able to tell us with confidence who possesses these weapons of mass destruction or where they are hidden.

The best bet for the United States at this point will be "enhanced homeland security," which just means more guards, guns and gates -- more checkpoints where you'll open your bags and take off your shoes. Such measures will work until they don't -- eventually, creative and determined terrorists will figure ways around them.

That's right. It's a long version of "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here". To buy into his theory, you have to believe all the Sunni insurgents are Al Qaida in Iraq, which the Bush administration certainly wants you to think. Funny, until they kept telling the press everyone the army fought in Iraq was Al Qaida, they've always said the foreign fighters were 5-10%. You also have to believe that the Shia fundamentalists are inevitably on the same side as the Sunni fundamentalists, even though they shown nothing but hostility to each other thus far, even though an Al Qaida state is the last thing Iran wants in a neighbor. I guess they'll pause long enough to take over the Middle East, the rest of the Muslim world, Europe, and endanger America, in that order. Right, the neocons who have gotten every prediction wrong the whole way along can predict the order of conquest.

Though I suppose it's easy to be wrong in every prediction when you're delusional about the present. Before the invasion of Iraq, the delusion was WMD and Al Qaida ties. Now, there's this:

Al-Qaida in Iraq is being cut off and killed. Anti-American, pro-Iranian militias are back on their heels. If Petraeus and his troops are allowed to persist, if they are given the time, resources and support they need, the U.S. military presence in Iraq could be reduced -- not eliminated -- by this time next year. Iraqi troops would take their place, knowing we will continue to have their backs as they battle our common enemies.

"By this time next year!" How many times has that one been heard before? At least he didn't ask for just one more Friedman unit (six months, named after Tom Friedman and his multi-year predictions that the next six months will decide).

The key question: how often do neocons get to be wrong about everything before newspapers stop running their columns?

Bizarre letter to the editor from Coleman staffer
July 29

On Friday, the Star Tribune letters to the editor included a bizarre letter from Tom Steward, Communications Director for Sen. Norm Coleman. First, to understand why it was bizarre, you need to understand that the Senate has unlimited debate, so a senator can talk as long as he wants. the exploitation of this loophole in the rules to keep debate open and never allow a vote is called a filibuster. Though only a simple majority is needed to pass a bill or amendment, a supermajority of 60 is needed to pass motion to end debate. This motion is known as "cloture". In any other rules of order, it's just called a motion to end debate and vote. Filibusters are used by minorities which can't defeat passage, but can defeat a motion to end debate and vote. Normally, filibusters are infrequent, used just when the minority feels particularly strong against something. This year, according to Steward's letter, Republicans have used the filibuster 4 times. That's an amazing number. By his own claim, there were just a comparative few in prior sessions. Before the 1990's whole sessions went by without a filibuster. So just what is bizarre about Steward's letter? This paragraph:

Unfortunately, since Sen. Harry Reid took over as majority leader in January, he has exploited this little-understood Senate procedure, invoking cloture more than any other Senate leader in history. Reid has now filed cloture 46 times in the first seven months of this session of Congress, compared with just 16 at the same point in 2005 or 11 at the same point in 2003 when Republicans were in control of the Senate.

He accuses Reid of trying to stop debate. The only reason for seeking cloture is someone is filibustering. This is what was behind the recent all-nighter Reid made senators go through. Normally it's a gentlemen's agreement that when the minority filibusters, there will be no attempt at cloture until senators are willing to vote for it. It's not like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, where senators talk endlessly to prevent a vote. This time, Reid said that if Republicans were going to filibuster, they would have to actually do it. So when Steward accuses Reid of using cloture an enormous number of times, he admits that Republicans have filibustered seemingly everything. This is something like being upset that the cops patrolling your neighborhood have arrested ten times this year, while the cops who made the same patrol in prior years arrested you only 2-3 times. Could the problem be you're doing something to get arrested? Just maybe you're the problem?

Republicans would be correct to point out that Democrats have used filibusters too. It's a valid question whether a supermajority should be required to pass anything, which is not what's required by the Constitution. Filibusters have become so embedded, that news media routinely repeat that 60 votes are required to pass anything. Funny, when Democrats filibustered, it was a minor scandal. Republican were so incensed that they came up with what they called "the nuclear option" to abolish filibusters for judicial appointments. This would entail challenging the filibuster on a point of order, and having Cheney, in his role as Senate President, rule filibusters for judicial nomination out of order. A simple majority could uphold his ruling over a motion to overrule the chair. The obviously isn't open to Democrats ---- yet. Next time there's a Democratic vice president, they could pull the same thing.

However, whether there should be filibusters, and how they get reported on, are bigger questions. The immediate point is Coleman's communications director, presumably with the senator's approval, is trying to confuse the public about which is an attempt to solve the problem, and which is the problem.

Speaking of odd senatorial communications, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has started a site to attack Al Franken. They've gone public with a site that has only a home page and, of course, a donations button. They have this quote by Franken, "I visit family a lot, but no, I think I'm in New York pretty much permanently. My life is here, my kids grew up as New Yorkers," which is supposed to be make him look like a liar for moving back to Minnesota, even though, according to TPM Cafe, the quote is from 1998. A few things have changed since then, like the Republicans gaining control of the government and driving the country toward a one-party state. There is also a video of Franken speaking about supporting the troops and considering a cut off to Bush's funding for Iraq. It's meant to show him flip-flopping, but though I'd hope I wouldn't have to point this out, those clips are so clipped, that they are plainly out of context. On the upside, if this bad attack ad is typical of what the Republicans have to offer, then let us hope they'll show the same competence at campaigning that they show at governing. Democrats might never lose again.

Gonzo caught in perjury
July 25

OK, technically it might not be perjury. I think lying to Congress is a separate crime, the legislative equivalent of perjury. Nonetheless, the important point is Torture Boy got caught in a lie so blatant, that everything else looks eminently spinnable by comparison. There's really no "I forgot", I didn't explain it right", or "I corrected it later" about this one. He denied that when he pestered John Ashcroft in his hospital room to get him to sign off on something he and the other senior DOJ staff threatened to resign over if it were approved, that the program in question was the Terrorist Surveillance Program already known to the Gang of Eight congressmen with the clearance to know. Gonzales said not only was this a different program, but he was checking with Ashcroft at the request of those congressmen. He is not only contradicted by James Comey's testimony where the story first became public, but congressmen at that briefing flatly contradicted the story, saying they were told nothing about another program, so they sure wouldn't have asked to have Ashcroft bothered about it while semi-anaesthetised. Now a memo about that meeting specifically says it was about the known program.

Before you give Gonzo the benefit of the doubt, that he just forgot, remember that he was told he would be asked about this incident so he knew he needed to have his facts straight. Even before that, the controversy caused by Comey's remarks surely brought this to Gonzo's attention, meaning he needed to figure out how to answer the inevitable questions. Moreover, if there is no other program, one never mentioned to even the most security cleared members of Congress, then he couldn't have mixed them up. Obviously this raises the possibility he let slip a previously unknown program, which could open a whole new controversy, but I don't think so. Listen to the rest of his testimony, and he rarely kept a story straight. He sometimes said contradictory things within a few sentences. I think either he was making it up on the fly, or had so many stories he couldn't keep them straight.

The impossible position for the acting president and his fart-catcher serving as AG is that either they have to admit there are other programs which they kept hidden from even the intelligence committees --- very illegal --- or else Gonzales lied about as clearly as is possible. Which is it? I'd go with perjury. It's less serious than not telling Congress about another surveillance program, because the natural suspicion is that the targets were domestic political opponents including, just maybe, congressmen, who may change their minds about impeachment when they learn they've personally been the objects of warrantless spying.

Coleman not vindicated on Galloway, despite headline
July 22

The headline of the StarTribune story on Norm Coleman's reaction to the British Parliament's reprimand of MP George Galloway was accurate: "Coleman claims vindication in spat with British MP". He does indeed make that claim, and the article supports him. The StarTribune story says, "Whatever Galloway's misgivings about the war, the U.K. report suggests the MP had a direct financial stake in the oil-for-food program, as Coleman alleged." However, The Independent gave a very different account of what Parliament said, "However, a long-running inquiry into Mr Galloway's activities found no evidence that he personally received money from the Iraqi government." This is similar to the account in The Guardian.The StarTribune also fails to mention that Galloway won a libel suit against the Daily Telegraph on this charge.

There is a grain of truth to the charges, in that Galloway's charity received donations from its chairman, the Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat, who was caught up in the oil-for-food scandal. Galloway's charity, The Mariam Appeal, was named for a child suffering as a consequence of the sanctions against Iraq in the 1990's, and beyond helping this child, the charity advocated against the sanctions. None of this, however, comes anywhere close to Galloway making money off the charity and thereby from Saddam, which was what Coleman charged.

It makes me wonder if the StarTribune story relied just on Coleman for a source. If they want an opposing perspective to Coleman's, Independent columnist Mark Steel points out that the Parliament is punishing a war opponent, but the people who perpetrated the lie that Iraq could attack with WMDs in 45 minutes have faced no consequences at all. Alternatively, to get really radical, how about the perspective of the accused?

If you want the background on the confrontation between Coleman and Galloway, here's a quote from the Iraq quotes archive, with the links if you want to see the context:

"The program gave 30 cents per day per Iraqi for the period of the oil for food program. 30 cents for all food, all medicine... I believe that the United Nations had no right to starve Iraq's people because it had fallen out with Iraq's dictator. David Bonior, your former colleague Senator, ... described the sanctions policy as "infanticide masquerading as politics". Senator Coleman thinks that's funny. But I think it's the most profound description of that era that I have ever read... So I opposed this program with all my heart not because Saddam was getting kickbacks from it, ... but because it was a murderous policy of killing huge numbers of Iraqis."
George Galloway answering a question on the Oil for Food program during his testimony before Norm Coleman's subcommittee and remarking on Coleman's reaction at the moment. (Video link, longer written quote here.)

Romney forgot to board up the windows at home
July 18

The headline refers to an old saying, I forget where I heard it though I'm pretty sure it was a line in a play I performed a long time ago, "People who through rocks through windows should make sure the windows are boarded up at home." I normally wouldn't care that Mitt Romney spent $300 for a makeup session with a high-priced professional, and would join those saying it's a stupid story, except for one thing. While Romney spent $300 on makeup, he was attacking John Edwards for the $400 haircut. Romney also tried to cover it up in his ledgers as a "communication" expense. I think these stories stick because of a sense they sum up a person. Often that's unfair. Sometimes there's a pattern. In this case, Romney spends freely on a luxury, which to be fair all wealthy people do, but then he hypocritically attacks someone else for doing the same thing, and hopes a lie will hide it. That tells us about Romney, just like the dog story. There's a consistency to someone who would treat a dog so cruelly, use the same euphemism as the Gestapo: "enhanced interrogation techniques", and brag that he would double the size of the prison at Guantanamo (the latter two in the same debate, though I doubt he knew about the Gestapo interrogation manual). I imagine his biggest regret was being governor of a state without a death penalty, so he missed all Bush's fun.

Must impeach TV
July 17

Consider it more the more fun way to learn the case for impeachment. Bill Moyers hosted an in-depth conversation on impeachment with two advocates, Bruce Fein and John Nichols. Impeachment just took a big jump from the fringe of some blogs and talk radio (and almost half of Americans, according to recent polls) to journalistic respectability. It hasn't reached acceptance by the beltway glitterati media yet, but now it can talked about. Locally, Eric Black of Minnesota Monitor put together Impeachment 101, so if you don't want to admit you don't know the basics, now you won't have to. Something I learned is that there is a precedent for impeaching a cabinet secretary. Following the link to Infoplease, there was an impeachment and acquittal of Secretary of War William W. Belknap in 1876. Aside from Clinton, all impeachments in the 20th century were judges. That shows how reluctant Congress has become to use this remedy for corrupt executive branch officials. May I suggest this reluctance is part of why the acting president and the acting vice president think they can get away with any lie or illegality whatsoever. OK, so the precedents are old, but there is a precedent for impeaching Gonzales. Whether the acting president, the acting vice president, or Torture Boy should be impeached first is purely a strategic question. The important thing, and my plea to Congress, is we have to start somewhere. ANYWHERE. If you want to go after Cheney first to take away the "President Cheney" argument from Bush's impeachment, fine, though I still think Cheney would be chastened thoroughly by Bush's removal. If you want to start with the henchmen to get to the boss, go after Gonzales. In terms of where the opportunity lies, the impeachment of Gonzales is most likely to succeed.

And about this argument that impeachment will just bog down the Congress and prevent anything getting done: what the *&^% do you think is getting done now?! The Senate Republicans already have filbustered 40 times. Didn't the Democrats need about a decade to hold that many? And it was a minor scandal each time? The radical difference in press coverage of each party's filibusters aside, the Republicans can stop anything getting through. If something slips past the filibuster, Bush will veto it anyway. Besides, many investigations, especially with an intention to impeach, will keep the executive branch tied up too, and anything that stops them screwing up anything else has to be good. Maybe enough investigations can even stop the coming attack on Iran ---- let's be optimistic.

If impeachment does happen, perhaps someone as respected by other journalists as Bill Moyers giving the subject a whole hour might be a tipping point. It's imposible to know in the middle. The tipping point, or maybe "turning" point, may be the commutation of Scooter Libby, which seems to have galvanized Democrats enough to get more of them to mutter the "I" word.

Hypocrisy can hurt, not just embarrass
July 17

I suppose the reason this David Vitter story bugs me is that this is hypocrisy that goes beyond embarrassing. In his morality (for others) crusade, Vitter made life harder for gays by doing his best to ban gay marriage. Maybe his opposition to AIDS programs got someone killed. I don't know that, but the mere fact it's possible, and that one of the main means of transmission is prostitution, just makes it worse than Clinton and the intern, or Vitter's House predecessor Bob Livingstone. OK, Livingstone also did the holier-than-thou thing, but at least what he and Clinton did was just tawdry, not illegal, in case anyone forgot that hiring prostitutes is illegal, even if powerful men normally go free while only the women get arrested. In an aspect that smacks of Mark Foley, Christopher Tidmore, a political columnist for Louisiana Weekly, and I believe I heard he's a political rival of Vitter's, charges that other Republican knew about Vitter.