JustOneMinute

In The News From the

In The News

From the very interesting NY Times piece about the author of "Who Killed Daniel Pearl?":

...his conclusion is anything but fictional: that Pakistan's military secret service, the Inter-Services Intelligence, widely known as I.S.I., is deeply involved with both the Islamic fundamentalist groups responsible for Mr. Pearl's death and with Al Qaeda.

From TIME magazine, about the interrogation by the US of captured Al Qaeda biggie Zubaydah:

Zubaydah, writes Posner, said the Saudi connection ran through Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom's longtime intelligence chief. Zubaydah said bin Laden "personally" told him of a 1991 meeting at which Turki agreed to let bin Laden leave Saudi Arabia and to provide him with secret funds as long as al-Qaeda refrained from promoting jihad in the kingdom. The Pakistani contact, high-ranking air force officer Mushaf Ali Mir, entered the equation, Zubaydah said, at a 1996 meeting in Pakistan also attended by Zubaydah. Bin Laden struck a deal with Mir, then in the military but tied closely to Islamists in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (isi), to get protection, arms and supplies for al-Qaeda. Zubaydah told interrogators bin Laden said the arrangement was "blessed by the Saudis."

And from Josh Marshall:

Now it appears that Iran's rapid progress toward a nuclear weapons capacity came thanks to substantial assistance from Pakistan. Add that to the fact that we now know that North Korea's progress along the uranium-enrichment track (as opposed to plutonium) was similarly the product of key assistance from Pakistan. If we're looking for the unstable Islamist-leaning state which has nuclear weapons and is the chief proliferator of nuclear technology to other unstable rogue regimes, we've found it: Pakistan. The urgent question to be answered is whether such assistance is continuing. If it's ended, when did it end?

As a very minor point - the NY Times reported that we are trying to add non-US troops into Iraq, particularly Muslim troops:

The top American commander for Iraq [Gen. John P. Abizaid] said today there was no need for more American troops there, but he encouraged Muslim allies like Turkey and Pakistan to send peacekeepers and said accelerating the training of a new Iraqi army should be considered.

OK, Turkey once occupied Iraq as part of the Ottoman Empire. Whether their troops would be welcome in a return engagement I leave to the bright lights and sensitive souls at the Pentagon and the State Dept.

Pakistan had troops in Somalia as part of Black Hawk Down, and apparently has been involved in 25 UN peacekeeping missions. But given the grim connections noted above, could someone explain to me, slowly, as if I were a complete idiot, why we want Pakistani troops in Iraq?

I'm Sure I Am Over-Simplifying

I'm Sure I Am Over-Simplifying

Ian Buruma, writing in the NY Times magazine, explains to us "How to Talk About Israel". My take-away - we went to war with Iraq because a bunch of black schoolboys beat up a nerdy Jewish kid.

I need to concentrate.

MORE: OK, let's add a "Disingenuity Alert". The author is noting, and debunking, the widespread notion that a "Jewish cabal" dominates US foreign policy. I agree with his conclusion, but find this unconvincing:

There are several myths to be considered. The first is the idea that the American or the British government is dominated or manipulated by Jews. In fact, none of President Bush's cabinet members are Jewish, and the last time individual Jews played a prominent part in any British government was under John Major.

OK, if reaching all the way back to John Major is allowed, maybe he should mention that under Bill Clinton, we had Robert Rubin at Treasury, Madeleine Albright at State, and William Cohen at Defense. I include Mr. Cohen because I suspect that fans of Jewish conspiracies will look at his name and suspect (correctly, it turns out) that he has Jewish roots.

STILL MORE: A serious, and seriously vexed, response. The Judd Bro fits this into a Grand Unified Theory, and informs us that Jewish men are like, well, women.

For the non-motivated, this chap should convince you of my seriousness, and save lots of reading. And let's put Daniel Urman of Oxblog in the mix.

Crazy Like A Fox From

Crazy Like A Fox

From the LA Times:

...U.S. and allied intelligence agencies have launched a major effort to determine if they were victims of bogus Iraqi defectors who planted disinformation to mislead the West before the war.

...Hussein's motives for such a deliberate disinformation scheme may have been to bluff his enemies abroad, from Washington to Tehran, by sending false signals of his military might. Experts also say the dictator's defiance of the West, and its fear of his purported weapons of mass destruction, boosted his prestige at home and was a critical part of his power base in the Arab world.

Hussein also may have gambled that the failure of United Nations weapons inspectors to find specific evidence identified by bogus defectors ultimately would force the Security Council to lift sanctions imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. U.S. officials now believe Hussein hoped to then covertly reconstitute his weapons programs.

Well, the scheme was evidently not as carefully calibrated as Saddam might have hoped, since we invaded anyway. So, was Saddam just crazy? Who knows? My candidate for "crazy like a fox" is Jeff Hauser, who aired the "he was bluffing" theory back in early June. Yesterday's wild leap is today's CW.

MORE: I have never before heard of the Power and Interest News Report, but this is on topic.

Getting Ready For The Man On A Horse

The Wesley Clark for President buzz is picking up.

Here is the General on "Meet The Press", June 15; and on "Crossfire", June 24. Here is an article trying to sort out his position of gays in the military: "Let's hope he gets his story straight - and his position gay."

So, with "Clark for President" as an excuse, I will now channel the conventional wisdom on the various candidates.

First, this idea that the Democrats need more candidates is silly - several of the current crop have admirable resumes, and appear to be perfectly Presidential. What is really happening is that the Democrats are trying to conjure up a candidate who can appeal to their base and sneak past the rest of us. A track record is a burden for this exercise; hence, the current muttering for new faces.

As to the individual candidates, Sharpton, Moseley-Braun, and Kuchinich will not be affected by a Clark candidacy, because their campaigns are not reality-oriented.

Graham has apparently said he will be the Presidential nominee, or retire. I believe he will not run as a "ticket-balancer" - better to reign as an elderly Senator than serve as an elderly VP. Therefore, Clark's entry will not affect his already-neglible chances.

Edwards is running for the VP slot this year, as an escape route from a 2004 Senate race he might well lose. Clark would be a more compelling VP pick than Edwards, who is almost as politically inexperienced as Clark, and has a less impressive background. We assume here that Clark, as a military type, will have Southern appeal. Edwards' strategy must now be to oppose tort reform, and prepare to re-enter the practice of law in 2005.

Gephardt is a fellow I have never had a feel for. I think he has no hope of gaining the nomination, and no appeal as a VP pick. Clark's entry doesn't help him, so it must hurt.

Lieberman at this point believes his mission is to preserve the credibility of his party on the subject of national security. Clark's entry would help Lieberman on this score. As to getting himself nominated, Lieberman may be entertaining the fantasy that, if we find WMDs and Saddam, his positions will merit a second look. We will, they won't.

Kerry has already begun his death spiral. The rest of us will be thankful if a Clark candidacy means that Kerry does not mention his Viet Nam service every three minutes, but one wonders what else Big John might offer. Self-financing of his campaign is out; eighteen years of distinguished public service, during which he annoyed us with his arrogance and issue-straddling, will count for little.

Dean will not lose one of his current supporters to Clark. However, Dean needs to pick up support amongst the Democrats who need a fresh face with whom to fall in love, and have so far resisted his charms. Clark will hurt here. Also, the fickle media will have a back-to-school crush on Clark, dumping Dean like an old newspaper. Still, on balance, a Clark candidacy hurts Kerry much more than it hurts Dean, so we score this as a plus for the eventual Democratic nominee.

Wild cards? Al Gore stepped aside last year, thinking primarily of his own situation. Now, he will listen to folks tell him that the party is on the brink of disaster, and only he can unite it, deliver the message, defeat Bush, and end the madness. It is not about Al anymore, this one's for all humanity! Gore in the balance! Groan. He may fall for this rubbish, put personal considerations aside, and give Dean even more stature when Dean steamrollers him.

Folks who remember McCarthy v. Kennedy will know what sort of resentment I am picturing if Big Al joins the hunt. Al ran a screwed up campaign in 2000, he has been damn near AWOL in opposing the war, and if he thinks he can waltz in at this late date to pick a position and claim the prize.... well, that is what Dean's folks will be thinking. And saying.

And Hillary? Hillary! versus Dean would be the brawl to settle it all, and we would pay extra to see it. Although her current ploy is to sit this one out, we remain convinced that, unlike her hubby, she will not duck the draft.

OK, dream ticket - Dean-Clark? The fiscally responsible / socially irresponsible Governor, the General, two guys that gun nuts could love - why not?

We will no doubt think of reasons as the day approaches.

Good Catch By The Cal

Good Catch By The Cal Pundit

Kevin Drum presents a vivid example of misleading reporting by Reuters. However, we aren't sure he appreciates his own discovery:

POSTSCRIPT: The more I think about Rumsfeld's recent comments [Reuters link], the more they piss me off. Here's what he said three days ago:

"There are some recommending that more U.S. forces go in. I can tell you that if Gen. Abizaid recommended it, it would happen in a minute. But he has not recommended it."

Technically that's true: Abizaid doesn't want more U.S. forces. But he does want more forces.

Crikey. Can you trust a thing these guys say without parsing every single phoneme to within an inch of its life?

Hmm. I fear that by "these guys", the estimable Cal Pundit might actually mean Bush, Rumsfeld, and company.

But he should have targetted Reuters. Let's go the to transcript:

Rumsfeld: My position is that we ought to have as many forces in the Middle East as is appropriate. And if we're going to make an error, we ought to have too many, rather than too few. And that is the position of the president. It's the position of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the vice chairman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff completely, all of them, and the combatant commander. John Abizaid's the combatant commander. He has indicated that he has the level of forces there, U.S. forces, that he believes is appropriate at the present time --

Q: (Off mike.)

Rumsfeld: -- for the tasks that he has.

He has also said that we need to increase the coalition forces. And we've been working to do that, and they're flowing in now, in larger numbers.

But most important, he and the Coalition Provisional Authority have been working very hard to increase the number of Iraqi forces. So the Iraqi forces in the police, the army, the militia, the border patrol have all been growing at very rapid clip. And I don't know the number at the moment -- it changes from time to time -- but the last time I looked, it was something in the neighborhood of 40 or 50 thousand Iraqis are now either trained or in training and on the job, armed, to contribute, to provide security in the country.

If you think about it, if you had a choice between foreign presence for security and Iraqi presence for security, with an Iraqi face on it, clearly the latter is preferable. It is, in the last analysis, the responsibility of the Iraqi people to take control of their country and to provide the kind of security and stabilities and an environment that's hospitable to economic recovery and political recovery.

The -- there are some recommending that more U.S. forces go in. I can tell you that if General Abizaid recommended it, it would happen in a minute. But he has not recommended it, and we are putting a full court press on trying to increase the number of Iraqis.

From which Reuters extracted the quote above, thereby irking sunny Southern Cal.

Trust, and verify. But with Reuters, skip directly to "verify".

A Little "Flypaper" Rally Don

A Little "Flypaper" Rally

Don Rumsfeld, speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 25:

"In Iraq moreover we’re dealing not just with regime remnants but also with tens of thousands of criminals that were released from the jails by the regime before it fell, as well as terrorists and foreign fighters who have entered the country over the borders to try to oppose the Coalition. They pose a challenge to be sure but they also pose an opportunity because Coalition forces can deal with the terrorists now in Iraq instead of having to deal with those terrorists elsewhere, including the United States."

If Rumsfeld is describing a flexible adaptation to a difficult situation, fine. We are big supporters of "when life hands you lemons, make vodka-tonics". However, his remarks are a long way from saying it was the initial plan.

With that caveat, and however we got here, Rumsfeld is certainly suggesting that "flypaper" is sticking around.

Reflexive Bush-Bashing Drives P. Krugman Insane

(We Tried To Warn You)

The first prominent victim was TAPPED. Now, Prof. Krugman has succumbed, joining the calls for a larger military.

TIME has more.

The Unbearable Lightness Of Being

The Unbearable Lightness Of Being Paul Krugman

De Broglie, as you recall, enunciated the view that matter could be characterized as both a particle and a wave. Apparently, wave-like behavior is most easily detectable amongst smaller particles, such as electrons, and leads to puzzling results - because the wave is (or at least, can be thought of as) a probability distribution, an electron can appear to be in two positions simultaneously, and has some (albeit small) probability of being anywhere.

Yes, these ruminations have taken us somewhat afield, and no, we are not prepping for a Star Trek convention. Rather, we are attempting to connect the physical sciences with the social sciences, and especially the dismal science.

The Man Without Particle Accelerator has recently discovered the astonishing shrinking HDP Krugman. With the help of Don Luskin and Matt Hoy, we also observe that the newer, smaller HDP K is able to appear nearly simultaneously in two very different positions on the matter of California's fiscal health.

We are fascinated. What other insights has physics to offer? Onward to the frontier!

UPDATE: The Man Without Conflicting Opinions finds P. Krugman is everywhere, but always gloomy:

Nationally, state and local taxes are highly regressive, and have become considerably more regressive over time. California's system is regressive, too, but not as much so as the national average.

versus:

What is true is that California's taxes are highly inequitable: thanks to Proposition 13, some people pay ridiculously low property taxes.

So, taxes are highly inequitable in California, and really, really deplorable elsewhere. Well, we don't like 'em either.

I'd Rather Be Lucky Than

I'd Rather Be Lucky Than Good

The Chinese (YES, all one billion of them) are making very encouraging noises about North Korea: "China Says N.Korea Wants Nuclear-Free Peninsula".

And over at the UN, we see this: "U.S. Now Signals It Might Consider U.N. Force in Iraq".

Critics of the Bush Administration foreign policy effort may soon have to contend with the fact that, by luck or design, we may see multilateral (and, God bless us, successful) efforts in both North Korea and Iraq.

It will be all very well to assert that Bush and Compnay would never have staggered to the correct course without the goading of their critics, but that may prove to be a tough sell come the election.

Josh Marshall is right - painfully so.

The Old Black Magic Is

The Old Black Magic Is Working At The Crow

Harrison Ford is annoying us.

MORE: This is a very funny discussion of liberal politics in Hollywood. The panelists are Rob Long and Harry Shearer.

Orrin Judd has argued repeatedly that all comedy is conservative. In this discussion, we learn that Hollywood drama is conservative as well.

Can I count on you to follow the link and find it (and to skip the rebuttal)? Here's the excerpt:

Harry Shearer: ...if you look at the--the vast majority of--of pictures that Hollywood likes to crank out, are intensely conservative in their world view. It's an individual, a sole individual who embodies, a--a--an eternal sense of right and wrong that's not relativistic in any sense, a raid against a very threatening world, and, you know, he'll cooperate to a limited degree, but in the full knowledge that most of those he'll cooperate with will either will betray him or be killed, and he'll be standing alone as the lone hero at the end of the film.

The sort of role that Harrison Ford would take.