“Because a large military presence will still be required under U.S. command, some would say ‘Well you are not giving full sovereignty’. But we are giving sovereignty so that sovereignty can be used to say, ‘We invite you to remain’. That is a sovereign decision,” Powell said.
Iraqis will make a sovereign decision to give up their sovereignty. But they’ll still be sovereign, because they made a sovereign decision, even though that sovereign decision was to give up their sovereignty.
Why is Powell respected again?
This really annoys me. I don’t really pay attention to Mickey Kaus, but that caught my attention and is really really pathetic. The gist is that Kaus attacked Kerry over Kaus’s misreading of an article, then attacks Kerry again for denying his allegation. Then Kaus attacks him again after he’s shown that he misread the article. Sheesh. And he’s supposed to be a Democrat! Do we even need Republicans to smear our candidates? We’re doing a damn fine job ourselves (though, Kaus has a history of this and it’s really hard to count him on the side of the Democrats).
So, yeah, last year on April 29th I started Speedkill on Blogspot. All the entries are imported, so you can look at my poorly written conspiracy theorist rantings from then if you want. It does seem like my writing has gotten a bit better (that last post on Kerry notwithstanding). I’ve become more informed and moved rightward somewhat (there will be no taking that as meaning the more informed you are the more right you go) as well. In any case, I’ve met some interesting people and found many more interesting blogs, so it’s been an entertaining year.
Yesterday, it was 77 degrees here. Last night and this morning, it snowed. It’s April 28th. There’s obviously no god.
Yes, that’s a horrible pun. Sue me.
I don’t listen to Michael Savage that much. Well, that’s an overstatement, I had listened to him for about 10 minutes before tonight. Some time during the 7 pm MST hour he went off on some AP pictures of Iraqis mourning some dead insurgents (I think; that’s what he said, I can’t find the pictures). Saying the reporter was a traitor, calling for censorship of the press (repeatedly, it got old). Saying it was going to “kill us all.” Par for the course I suppose.
Then afterwards there’s this other guy, I didn’t catch his name, attacking the demonstrators in Washington on Sunday. The guy really did sound like a maniac. I think it was his laugh. And of course, he defends Karen Hughes’s remarks from the other day.
I swear, some people’s children.
Kevin Drum touches on something I’ve been thinking about lately.
Berger’s quote is from an article by Farah Stockman in the Boston Globe today that highlights a key Kerry problem: as Kerry moves rightward after the primaries, and as Bush becomes more receptive to ideas that Kerry has long championed � giving the United Nations a far greater role in Iraq, emphasizing the importance of welcoming NATO to Iraq, and beefing up the number of US troops in Iraq � Kerry loses any chance of distinguishing himself from Bush over foreign policy.
This strikes me as a serious problem. National security is almost certain to be the defining issue of the campaign, and there’s just no way for Kerry to get any traction there if his positions aren’t clearly distinguishable from Bush’s. And despite the pro-war partisans’ continuing fantasy that George Bush is dedicated to the same kind of vast war of civilizations they are, the fact is that Bush has adopted an awful lot of Democratic positions in the past year. Aside from rhetorical tone, it’s getting harder and harder for Kerry to find points of disagreement that are more than just nitpicking.
This is something I’ve been seeing more of and something I’ve been wondering about. The TV news that I’ve seen frames it was “Kerry doesn’t have a postion on post-war Iraq, he just criticizes Iraq.” I don’t think that’s true; the problem is that it’s just not that different from Bush’s. I tend to think Kerry is more likely to get the UN involved than Bush, even with his rhetoric lately. And also, we saw the other day that Kerry thinks a stable government is more important that democracy first, while Bush says democracy is the only option (though I think Bush would say there’s no difference). I actually don’t think Bush cares about democracy and his position is more like Kerry’s. As long as the government is friendly, he’ll be happy.
So, how does Kerry distinguish himself? Pointing out the mistakes Bush’s made won’t really help. Who’s going to take him seriously if his position is “The same vision without the mistakes”? I think attacking the war as a mistake in the war on terrorism would do ok, as long as you outline a postion on the current situation, different from Bush or not. In the end, it’s going to depend more on what happens as the year goes on, if Bush does actual adopt the positions that separate him from Kerry.
How about what I think should be done? I don’t know. If you’ve noticed anything about my blog, it’s pretty devoid of post war Iraq policy criticism. I don’t find the withdrawal argument the least bit convincing. I think the UN is a good step, but they can’t do it without a significant amount of money and troops from us. Them in charge would help, though. Basically, anyone that isn’t us in charge would be good.
From today’s Bozeman Chronicle:
I’m surprised there hasn’t been a midnight vigil for Shane Savage. I thought this was a town full of tolerant liberals. Usually you are quite reliable in defending the oppressed minority, Islamic terrorists and the blue-eared western-slope bumblebee. Surely you can find someone else to blame for the illegal acts Mr. Savage has committed. As his friends and family have so compassionately affirmed, his actions weren’t his fault.
A call to liberals who blame the United States for 9/11: Where are you to defend poor Shane?
Shane Savage was convicted in 2003 of threatening to kill a man and a girl and pistol whipping his wife and he escaped from prison last summer for five months.
Why the Chronicle would print this is beyond me. There’s no point, it’s simply a hateful stereotype. We get this every Friday (except this one, strangely) from Tamara Hall. It’s really really pathetic.
Another letter printed today makes an interesting argument:
Now consider the words of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in response to President Bush’s State of the Union address: “He has presided over the loss of more jobs than any president since Herbert Hoover.” Sen. Corzine, D-N.J., weighed in with the comment that this was the largest job loss in 75 years. Clear calumnies. President Franklin Roosevelt in May 1937 had an unemployment rate of 12.3 percent, but in May 1938, during the recession within a depression, the unemployment rate was 20.1 percent. It was estimated that unemployed workers rose from 5.1 million in August and September 1937 to 10.8 million in May 1938. (Gene Smiley, “Rethinking the Great Depression”) That’s 5.7 million jobs, almost twice the supposed 3 million jobs “lost under Bush.”
I can’t find Corzine’s statement, but Pelosi’s statement was a comparision of net job loss over a president’s time in office. From Jan 1939 to Jan 1945 11.98 million jobs were created, offsetting the 5.7 million loss in the period he looks at. So, he’s an ass.