Conventional Wisdom

The Denver Post is reporting that 3 Fortune 500 companies have pledged $11.5 million to bring the 2008 Democratic Convention to Denver. New York is also a finalist.

Denver would be a decidedly smart choice for the Democrats--symbolically at least. The party is making serious inroads in the western states and a convention there could potentially codify that interest economically.

LINK

The Fog of Civil War

I refuse to even discuss the pros and cons of calling Iraq a civil war. Even NBC has changed its banners; others will follow. As it has so consistently done, the Bush Administration is ignoring the bad news and relying on a series of short term tactics--in this case rhetoric--to win the political war at home.

Did you read the NYT article claiming that insurgents were now self-financed? The response from almost every official and expert was that this was a rediculous ploy by the Administration to further conflate the war in Iraq with the war on terror. American forces and civilians have not infiltrated these groups, and their understanding of how they function is so poorly understood that there is no way such a claim could be substantiated.

The Washington Post has a story today that wonderfully elaborates on why the insurgency is poorly understood and why this is an unwinable war. Observe:

Since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Fartoosi has been a militiaman with the Shiite Muslim Mahdi Army of firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Last week, he also served as a relief worker, a policeman, a traffic controller and a guard.

So did thousands of his militia comrades who mobilized to assist victims of the deadliest attack on Iraqis since the invasion, highlighting the power associated with the Mahdi Army's less-publicized roles in Iraqi society.

"We do even more than what the government should do," said Fartoosi, 21, as he recalled the eight grueling hours after a barrage of car bombs, mortars and missiles killed more than 200 people in Baghdad's Shiite heartland.

LINK

Cutitude

OK, so I feel bad about always being a buzz kill here on Speak Easy. Stare at this for a while, you'll feel much better. I know I will.

No Victory

I know I have been writing a lot about Iraq lately, but when 3,709 civilians are killed in a single month and the press haggles over what to call the bloody catastrophe, it grabs a few headlines. However, this will be the last Iraq posting of the day because I have a paper to write.

Chuck Hagel wrote a beautifully written, thoughtful piece on Iraq proving again he may be one of the last Republicans in the Senate to actually take a stand.

Leaving Iraq, Honorably

By Chuck Hagel
Sunday, November 26, 2006; B07

There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. These terms do not reflect the reality of what is going to happen there. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis -- not the Americans.

Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism. There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger made this point last weekend.

The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose.

We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government.

It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq. America's options on this point have always been limited. There will be a new center of gravity in the Middle East that will include Iraq. That process began over the past few days with the Syrians and Iraqis restoring diplomatic relations after 20 years of having no formal communication.

What does this tell us? It tells us that regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest -- without the United States. This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years. The Middle East is more combustible today than ever before, and until we are able to lead a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, mindless destruction and slaughter will continue in Lebanon, Israel and across the Middle East.

We are a long way from a sustained peaceful resolution to the anarchy in Iraq. But this latest set of events is moving the Middle East in the only direction it can go with any hope of lasting progress and peace. The movement will be imperfect, stuttering and difficult.

America finds itself in a dangerous and isolated position in the world. We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims. Unfortunately, that perception is gaining credibility in the Muslim world and for many years will complicate America's global credibility, purpose and leadership. This debilitating and dangerous perception must be reversed as the world seeks a new geopolitical, trade and economic center that will accommodate the interests of billions of people over the next 25 years. The world will continue to require realistic, clear-headed American leadership -- not an American divine mission.

The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq. The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars and world standing has been devastating. We've already spent more than $300 billion there to prosecute an almost four-year-old war and are still spending $8 billion per month. The United States has spent more than $500 billion on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our effort in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, partly because we took our focus off the real terrorist threat, which was there, and not in Iraq.

We are destroying our force structure, which took 30 years to build. We've been funding this war dishonestly, mainly through supplemental appropriations, which minimizes responsible congressional oversight and allows the administration to duck tough questions in defending its policies. Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibility in the past four years.

It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission gives the president a new opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq. If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder -- one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead.

To squander this moment would be to squander future possibilities for the Middle East and the world. That is what is at stake over the next few months.

LINK

And if you want to know more about Hagel, this is a cogent, comprehensive profile from back when the NYT Magazine was still worth reading, before the stupid Funny Pages debuted.

Thank You Connecticut!

This morning, Joe Lieberman appeared on "Meet the Press" with John McCain and fell further down the crazy hole. He told Tim Russert exactly how, after 3 YEARS of defending Rumsfeld, and then conveniently calling for his resignation just before the Democratic primary, was not in any way a political tactic.

Lieberman went on to say that he will propose a bipartisan working group on Iraq. Hmm, maybe it will feature 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans under the watchful gaze of James Baker and Tim Keane... you know like the one we alread have.

Here's an excerpt:

LIEBERMAN: Incidentally, I’m intending, when the, when the new session convenes, to introduce a joint resolution to establish a bipartisan working group in Iraq composed of the chairs and, and senior Republicans, and the relevant security committees to, to monitor and work with the administration on a bipartisan basis to bring Iraq to a success. The voters spoke on Tuesday that they’re unhappy with the status quo. I don’t believe that they, they want us to pick up and leave Iraq, because they know that that would have disastrous consequences on Iraq, the Middle East, and on our security against terrorism.

MR. RUSSERT: But, senator, you evolved on the issue. In ‘04, about Rumsfeld, you said, “Donald Rumsfeld’s removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America’s presence in Iraq.” A few days before the primary, you said Rumsfeld should go. But less than a year ago, you said we were making progress in Iraq.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: We were.

MR. RUSSERT: But now, today, in ‘06, do you share Senator McCain’s view that we should send in more American troops and either win the war or, quote/unquote, “win the war” or withdraw?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Let me go back real briefly on Rumsfeld. I said in October of 2003 that I thought the president should bring in a new secretary of defense because our policy in Iraq was collapsing then and somebody had to be held accountable. When I made that statement, it was a time around—I think it was around Abu Ghraib, and I said “This is the wrong time to pull out the secretary of defense.’”

MR. RUSSERT: But should we send more troops in?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I think we have to be open to that, as, as a way to succeed, to achieve a free and independent Iraq, which would be an extraordinary accomplishment. But it’s got to be tied to a, to a new strategy, and it may be that it should be tied to commitments from the Iraqi government to, to disarm those militias and to bring more Sunnis into a national unity government. But, but I wouldn’t send more troops just for the sake of sending more troops. But I would if it’s tied to a success strategy.

LINK

Fourth Longest War in American History, Brought To You By George W. Bush

The Iraq War is, as of today, officially longer than the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War (shhh, don't tell Lou Dobbs), World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and Desert Storm. In fact, it is the fourth longest war in American history.

In other words, it took less time to defeat Germany, Japan and Italy than it's taken to win Bush's "slam dunk."

LINK

Reporting From Lebanon

The "Middle East" is the only region of the world still known by its colonial moniker, yet the geographic identifier most salient these days is "the brink:" Iraq is on the brink of civil war, Iran is on the brink of nuclear capability, Palestine is on the brink of bankruptcy and now Lebanon may be on the brink of a coup.

John Bolton, our sharp-elbowed and soon be ex-UN ambassador, has put forth the theory that this assassination may be the first shot fired in a Syrian-led coup d'etat to take back Lebanon.

LINK

For more measured reporting, I highly suggest Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk at the Independent. His weekly diary is a must-read. Here's the link, and a taste of his surgical writing style:

Half a million? 250,000? Crowd figures are as reckless here as in London or Washington. There are few Shia. I can think of only six who are attending this massive service for the dead at St George's Cathedral, which stands next to the great Hariri mosque - and one of these is the Speaker of Parliament.

I had asked Rudi Polikavic to come with me, an old Christian militiaman opposed to the Falange in the civil war, with the scars of three bullets on his neck and arms. I receive a call from a friend, Amira Solh, who is with another Al Arabiya crew, asking where I am in the crowd. "I am on the mosque side of the church," I shout, and Polikavic collapses with laughter. " Fisky," he roars, "that really is the story of Lebanon. Aren't we are all now 'on the mosque side of the church'?"

LINK for rest of article

2008 Race Tracker

So far the majority of the data is scant, but in time 2008 Race Tracker will grow and may prove to be an invaluable resource. This website is well-organized and the interface is intuitive and simple. It's also a wiki site so if you think there's something you could add, go ahead. Do it. Do it.

www.2008racetracker.com

Three Options for Iraq

A Pentagon study on what to do with Iraq has proposed 3 choices, known as "Go Big," "Go long," and "Go home." Is there anything sports metaphors can't do?

"Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.

The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.

The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a "Go Long" option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not a disguised form of withdrawal.

Even so, there is concern that such a radical shift in the U.S. posture in Iraq could further damage the standing of its government, which U.S. officials worry is already shaky. Under the hybrid plan, the short increase in U.S. troop levels would be followed by a long-term plan to radically cut the presence, perhaps to 60,000 troops.

That combination plan, which one defense official called "Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go Long," could backfire if Iraqis suspect it is really a way for the United States to moonwalk out of Iraq -- that is, to imitate singer Michael Jackson's trademark move of appearing to move forward while actually sliding backward. "If we commit to that concept, we have to accept upfront that it might result in the opposite of what we want," the official said.

LINK

"A Star in the Galaxy of Iraqi Arts"

This is so very, very very sad:

For the last three years, Walid Hassan had an impossible task. He had to make war-weary Iraqis laugh. Week after week, the comedian and broadcaster found inspiration in the turmoil and bloodletting. On his weekend television show, "Caricature," he poked fun at the poor security, the long gas lines, the electricity blackouts and the ineffective politicians.

In Hassan's world, nothing was sacred. And many Iraqis adored him. In a nation bottled up with frustration, he was their release. They would recognize him on the streets and uncork their plights. He would listen, and turn them into satire.

On Monday, Hassan, 47, a father of five children, became a victim of the war and chaos from which he drew his inspiration. A Shiite Muslim, he was found in the majority-Sunni neighborhood of Yarmouk in west Baghdad with multiple bullet wounds to his back and head, according to police. He was last seen by witnesses in a black car with a driver and two other passengers.

"He was a star in the galaxy of Iraqi arts," said Ali Hanoon, the show's director. "Now, he's another sacrifice on the altar of this slaughtered country."

LINK

Obama Officially Joins the Anti-War Majority

Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq in 2007, arguing that the threat of an American pullout is the best leverage Washington has left in the conflict.

"The time for waiting in Iraq is over. It is time to change our policy," said Obama, a freshman Democrat from Illinois touted as a possible national candidate in 2008.

"It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America's efforts on the wider struggle yet to be won..."

Some of the troops now in Iraq should be sent to Afghanistan, where he said the Iraq war has had "disastrous consequences" for the battle against the al Qaeda terrorist network.

Furthermore, he said, the Iraq war has hurt American support for international engagement and damaged public trust in the government.

Obama called last year for a limited pullout of American troops from Iraq, but said it is now necessary for that withdrawal to begin in 2007.

LINK

Carville in Losersville

James Carville tried to spin the midterm elections as a win for DLC-style Democrats despite all the evidence to the contrary--that this was a real win for economic progressives. I am neither pro- nor anti-Carville on principle, but the outrageous coup he launched against Dean as DNC Chair was, at best, naive. I am not convinced that Dean is the best man for the job, but Carville's suggestion of Harold Ford was a disgrace. Ford voted twice for the Defense of Marriage Act, one of the most discriminatory pieces of legislation to come down the pike in the last decade. Ford is the only Democrat to run a DLC campaign, and he lost. I would vote for Ford in a race against a Republican, but that's about it.

Anyway, to get back to my point, as soon as Carville began his tirade last week, not a single pol, adviser or public figure (as far as I could find) backed him up. Not even Hillary Clinton:

Insiders from the Clinton camp winced at Carville's untimely remarks last week calling for Dean's ouster in favor of unsuccessful Senate candidate Harold Ford of Tennessee.

"It was not coming from [Sen. Hillary Clinton] and they made a real effort to distance themselves from James' comments," said a source close to the Clintons.

LINK

Not Your Mama's Protest

Bush faced some very well organized and angry protesters in Indonesia but nothing is as terrifying as the fact that one Indonesian put a freakin' CURSE on him:

Of President Bush, Indonesia And Curse Of Shaman Ki Gendeng

By Mohd nasir Yusoff

BOGOR, Nov 17 (Bernama) -- If there is someone that can be said to have gained something from the planned visit by US President George W. Bush to this Rain Town on Monday, he has to be shaman Ki Gendeng Pamungkas.

The lone act by the witch doctor was the most outstanding among the thousands including the non-governmental organisations that staged hundreds of protests nationwide for the past two weeks against Bush's 10-hour visit.

Be it for the hardly right or extremely wrong reasons, Ki Gendeng has become the talk of the town after his performance of putting the evil curse (santau) on Bush at Kujang Square Thursday was prominently reported by the local press together with his photo in the act.

Claiming that he was putting the curse, using blood from a goat he slaughtered, a snake and a black crow following the requests from thousands of Indonesians who called him up and submitted to him their signatures, he said, he did that not because he did not like Americans but because he hated Bush.

Commenting on Ki Gendeng's act online, many Indonesians were of the opinion that it was nothing more than the most entertaining show for the day but others said it reflected badly on the country's image.

On the ongoing protests and demonstrations, some urged fellow citizens involved to give it at least two thoughts before burning the US flags and pictures of Bush, asking them how they would feel if citizens of other countries do the same thing to state symbols of Indonesia.

"Give some thoughts to the feelings of friendly Americans before they retaliated by urging their government to chase out the thousands of Indonesian workers and students now in the US, and boycott all Indonesian products," said another.

One other said in jest that if the curse worked on Bush and his entourage, said to be in trance upon entering the Bogor Palace for the meeting with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, then Ki Gendeng could be laughing all the way to the bank.

"He would be in demand worldwide and would be employed even by the CIA and the Arabs to get rid of their enemies and if he fails, Indonesia will become the laughing stock of the world," the commentator added.

A social analyst, Salleh Dani told Bernama Friday that he was saddened to read about the widely reported demonstration against Bush not because he was pro Bush or the scheduled visit but because it was proven so easy for anyone to distract Indonesians from focusing on their effort on earning a living.

"Thousands left their workplaces for so unproductive reason just to show their unheeded anger towards a super power which could not be bothered at all while we Indonesians continue to lament on how hard it is to make ends meet," he said.

LINK

TV News Sir

I don't normally like to toot another man's horn (for so many, many reasons) but a NY Times story today about the kid who writes TVNewser.com was both well-written and insightful. I feel like a nearly 24-year old loser...

It is read religiously by network presidents, media executives, producers and publicists, not for any stinging commentary from Mr. Stelter, whose style is usually described as earnest, but because it provides a quick snapshot of the industry on any given day. Habitués include Mr. Williams and Jonathan Klein, the president of CNN’s domestic operations, who long ago offered up his cellphone number to Mr. Stelter.

“The whole industry pays attention to his blog,” said Jeffrey W. Schneider, a senior vice president of ABC News. “It would not surprise me if I refreshed my browser 30 to 40 times a day.”

Link

More Presidential Politics

Here are a couple follow up stories that fit in with points I made a few days ago about Presidential politics. To quote myself, "Could racism and bigotry actually prevent an Obama win? Would anti-Mormon sentiment block Mitt Romney from rising to the top of the list?? Apparently, yes they can and would:

Forty-three percent (43%) of American voters say they would never even consider voting for a Mormon Presidential candidate. Only 38% say they would consider casting such a vote while 19% are not sure. Half (53%) of all Evangelical Christians say that they would not consider voting for a Mormon candidate.

And second, "things change." Here is a nice look back at poll numbers from January 2003:

Joe Lieberman……29%
Dick Gephardt……15%
John Kerry………..13%
John Edwards…….8%
Al Sharpton……….5%
Howard Dean……..2%

How To Be A Pundit

It's embarrassing that on this, a political blog, I haven't written a darn tootin' thing about the midterms. Assuming you forgive me, let's move on... to 2008. This was a year in which every poll and prediction was discussed as a euphemism for either Bush's failed presidency or the 2008 contest. Talking with an attractive, intelligent lady this morning, I was told that perhaps it would be helpful to write out some rubric for making sense of the contenders so we can rely on something more substantive than homespun aphorisms about politics and the electorate.

So, if you want to be the best talking head at your next lefty gathering, here are the questions you need to ask yourself about each candidate from Obama to yo mama:

1. A candidate must win the primary before triangulating, even Bill "I can please everyone in the room" Clinton knew that. So, who are his/her natural constituents within his/her party? Are they women? Union members? The anti-war majority? Veterans? Social conservatives?
2. Does that natural constituency have the resources, skills and infrastructure to mobilize voters in the early primaries--Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc?
3. Are the elites in the candidate's party united or divided? In other words, many have speculated that G.W. Bush and John McCain made a deal in 2004 that if McCain campaigned for him, Bush would support him in 2008. Thus, McCain will not have to fight as hard for the upper echelon Republicans from the socially conservative wing. And he already has the fiscal conservatives and disaffected Republicans lined up.
4. Does the candidate have not just natural allies, but natural enemies? For example, how effective will the Clinton-haters be in derailing Hillary? Or more likely, could Bill Clinton's superior charisma and command undermine his wife's authority? Could racism and bigotry actually prevent an Obama win? Would anti-Mormon sentiment block Mitt Romney from rising to the top of the list?
5. Money--who can raise it? And think creatively, don't just look at the numbers as they are now. Remember that there are very talented fundraisers such as Nancy Pelosi, Lou Wasserman, and a slew of rich people who bankrolled Kerry. Where will their loyalties lay?
   
6. Will the situation in Iraq continue to worsen? Will troop numbers increase or decrease? Will a war supporter be electable in 2008?
7. How exclusive is the candidate? Do you have to agree with him/her on all points or does he/she pitch a big tent, so to speak? (Insert lame sex joke here)
8. What coalitions will be formed around the candidate? And I don't be swift boat captains and "truth" lovers. No, I mean something more along the lines of anti-immigration voters and stem cell research activists or fiscal conservatives and anti-war soccer moms.
9. Who has already started campaigning? Look at how much money John Kerry has raised for Democrats in the past 2 years. Or the way Edwards has canvassed the country. Who are they talking to, directly and indirectly?
   
10. And finally, who would Hank Hill vote for?
    

This will be the first presidential election in 56 years in which no sitting president or vice president is in the race, so be ready for surprises. Don't buy into the water cooler crap about tall candidates winning or a strong narrative reigning supreme. One year ago no one imagined the Dems taking back both houses of Congress; things change. And no matter what the other pundits say, this isn't a horse race. That's just their dumbed down metaphor for all things political because they think it makes it all more exciting. It's not a linear race to the finish. Politics is a complex system of building various kinds of support across every demographic. It's about compromises, building alliances and neutralizing your competition.

Good luck, and happy speculating!