February 11, 2005

Partisan Paralysis

(In the news today) January 25, 2001: Richard Clarke sends a memo to Condi Rice about the threat of Al Qaeda. He says: "We urgently need such a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network" and "We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge al Qaeda poses." Response: None, basically. He is told that his counterterrorism security group should report to the deputies committee, not [cabinet-level] "principals". September 4, 2001 (seven months later): The requested principals meeting takes place.

(In the news last April) August 6, 2001: The presidential daily briefing is titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Excerpts include "FBI information ... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks," and "Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft," and various other alarming and on-the-mark assessments of the terrorist threat. Response? Well, Bush was on vacation. For a month.

The memo to Condoleeza Rice has just been partly released, so we'll have another outburst of name-calling and media coverage, and the public will take a look but largely ignore it. My question is, how does this administration get away with these types of things, along with so many others?

Passionate partisan arguments seem to be clouding the public's vision to a dangerous extent. Where there should be general public outrage about the use of torture or the ineptness of the administration in dealing with terror before 9/11, there is partisan distrust. Many people read partisan new sources now and get skewed facts. Instead of judging the material on its own merit, they swallow the spin and get busy rationalizing bad behavior.

Perhaps Rice's lack of a real response to Clarke's memo was related to partisan distrust. Clarke comes across as begging for attention -- but she may have interpreted that as a partisan accusation, since he mentions Clinton-era strategies. Why Bush did not respond to the PDB probably has something to do with his own partisan domestic objectives. And his vacation. And his dislike of reading.

If you justify your disinterest in the current scandal by saying that it's counter-productive to examine coulda-shoulda-wouldas, there is plenty of information about irresponsible things the administration is doing right now. There's a good New Yorker article this week on the U.S.'s liberal use of extrication and torture. Torture really doesn't provide valuable information, does little to improve our image in Muslim countries, and opens our troops up to torture by other governments in future conflicts. There is a reason for the enforcement of human rights: When you find yourself taken aside at the airport because of your name, tied up, blindfolded, and sent off to Egypt without a word to your family and you're innocent, you'll be hoping like hell that some rational international legal force intervenes. The depressing thing is that America used to represent that rational force.

Posted by csageday at 01:39 AM | Comments (0)

January 26, 2005

Grand Old Iraq

Thirty-six troops died in Iraq today, the cost of the Iraq war is now $300 billion, we're not leaving any time soon, innocent Iraqis die every day, and insurgent violence threatens a fair election at the polls this weeked (that's an understatement). And Bush says: "I anticipate a grand moment in Iraqi history."

Update

Daily Kos had a similar reaction to Iraq news today.

Posted by csageday at 01:16 PM | Comments (0)

January 25, 2005

Oscar Glitz and Deficits

Today: Oscar nominees, and an answer about what snow will do the The Gates.

From Yahoo:

As Congress started to digest a new Bush administration request of $80 billion to bankroll wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its top budget analyst on Tuesday projected $855 billion in deficits for the next decade even without the costs of war and Bush's Social Security plan.

This seems unforgivable. Why does it seem like no one gives a damn? Is it blind American optimism, or just stubborn, faith-based, irrational American optimism? Do most people fail to see how a deficit that big might affect their daily lives? Or do they fail to realize that accommodating some political awareness into their daily lives might prevent such irresponsible policy from existing in the first place?

That's somewhat hypocritical. My attitude since the election has been one of numb resignation, not activism. I'm just not sure what to do when faced with crooked politicians and half-a-country's worth of misguided souls. Ideas are welcome.

Posted by csageday at 12:24 PM | Comments (0)