Technical Knockout

UPDATE: 10/04 @ 11:40 AM
Now that the Common Wisdom on the first debate was that Kerry one, Bush partisans are switching tactics. Now they are quietly admitted that Kerry might have won (or that it was a "draw," which means Kerry won), but they argue that Kerry needed a knockout to really move in the election (examples here and here). I'd be tempted to dismiss this as normal spin, but because it has a chance to become a conservative talking point in the media, I feel compelled to address it. Kerry didn't need to blow Bush out of the water. He just needed to be a viable alternative.

John Kerry's problem has never been convincing swing voters that George Bush is doing a bad job. They're already well aware of that. Indeed, only 16% to 20% of undecided voters feel that the President deserves to be re-elected, while forty-percent of them feel that it is time for someone new (and that was before the debate!). Kerry's problem is that voters didn't see him as a viable alternative. They were worried he was spineless, a flipflopper, someone who would outsource our foreign policy to Paris. All John Kerry had to do was prove he wasn't a total wimp, and he'd convince alot of people who don't like Bush but weren't sure of the alternative.

The latest Newsweek poll confirms that this was the effect. Not only did Kerry erase his deficit, but he improved vis a vis Bush in virtually every category, jumping 6 percent in intelligence, 6% in leadership, 5% in ability to handle an international crisis, and a 12 point net gain on Homeland Security, among others. Bush's overall approval rating has dropped to 46%, the same amount of people who want to see him re-elected. (the CNN/Gallup poll says essentially the same thing). In other words, now that Kerry's proven himself not to be a total sap on these issues, he can persuade the plurality of Americans who'd rather see Bush out of office that they can trust him to be in it.

UPDATE: I finally found the bombshell support article for this proposition, from The American Prospect. If you're a Kerry partisan and want to be encouraged, check it out.

The Big Bounce

Newsweek's post-debate telephone poll has Kerry erasing his deficit in national polling and gaining ground in nearly every subset category. And better yet, the next debates focus on HIS strengths, the economy and domestic issues, where Kerry has double digit advantages on Bush. Lovely. One word of caution: One reason that Kerry beat Bush so badly is because he neutralized Bush's advantage on Bush's "best" issue. If Bush can do the same to Kerry (which I doubt, but it's possible), then we're back to where we started.

Also, Uncivil Litagator agrees with me on the absolute absurdity of the "You Forgot Poland" line. This is somewhat off-topic, but I needed an excuse to link to his site, because I think it's awesome. Also read the story of his greatest case. I'm not kidding, this is an incredible story, and I recommend it highly.

Iran Who?

Jonah Goldberg reports that Iran is ripe for a democratic revolution, bringing down the oppressive theocracy which has stifled the nation for 25 years. Unfortunately, it is getting barely any attention in the press.

Glenn Reynolds wonders why we aren't paying more attention to Iran. I don't know Glenn, maybe we're a bit DISTRACTED at the moment? Violent insurgencies and a thousand American casualities tend to do that to a nation (and a press corps).

Friday Factcheck

I had held back on accusing Bush of distorting certain issues I thought he likely misrepresented because I wanted to be sure on my facts. But a bit of research shows that Bush seriously misled America on a few of his key points in the debate.

1) The whole 100,000 Iraqi troops trained. I already addressed this earlier, so I'm not going to do it again. Suffice to say, that isn't how many Iraqi troops are actually available for us to use in combat.

2) Bush's claim that he raised funding 35% for the Nunn/Lugar program (which secures loose nuclear material around the world) surprised me, because it certainly doesn't mesh with what I've heard. And surprise surprise, it looks like Bush hasn't been a big fan of this program after all. The Washington Post reports this morning that:

Bush said he has increased spending on curbing nuclear proliferation by "about 35 percent" since he took office. But in his first budget, he proposed a 13 percent cut -- about $116 million -- and much of the increases since then have been added by Congress.

Bush fought on Nunn/Lugar alright. He fought against it, and thankfully he lost. But that isn't a benefit to his side.

3) I'm almost tempted to not include this, because there is some room for opinionated disagreement. However, Bush's assertion that opening bilateral talks with North Korea would cause the ruin of the multilateral ones seems to be without a warrant. The Post continues:

On North Korea, Bush charged that Kerry's proposal to have direct talks with that country would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. Kerry has said he would continue the six-party talks as well. Bush said direct talks with North Korea would drive away China, a key player in the negotiations.

But each of the other four countries in the talks has held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process -- and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea. Moreover, the Bush administration has talked directly with North Korean diplomats on the sidelines of the six-party talks, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met with his North Korean counterpart over the summer.

At the very least, this isn't as cut and dry as President Bush has made it out to be. It appears that all party's but the US believe that US bilateral talks will improve, not harm, relations. And for the record, Kerry saying that both multi- and bilateral talks are necessary is not an inconsistancy, its a realistic and legitimate policy position (no different from Bush saying we need to fight both Iraq and Al-Qaeda).

Most of the other gaffes were relatively minor and inconsequential (whether Bush was right in identifying Poland as part of the coalition strikes me as splitting hairs, not mention ignoring the larger point that Poland is not evidence of a 'grand coalition.'). The only important issue on which Kerry is alleged to have misspoke is when he said that Bush let Bin Laden escape in Tora Bora. The media claims that we don't actually know that Bin Laden was there. This may be true, but we certainly suspected it (kind of like we suspected Iraq had WMDs?), and at the very least we DID know there were alot of Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorists out there whom we presumably wanted to catch. On the basis of the best possible intelligence and most feasible military action, President Bush made the wrong choice and that doesn't change regardless of whether Bin Laden actually was there or not.

DeLay Admonished

Man, my day just keeps getting better and better. First off you had the debates, in which Kerry clearly creamed Bush. Then I got to watch Republicans desperately try and spin the results, and fail miserably. I'm sorry, but when Rudy Giuliani gets taken down Jon Stewart, you know you've got problems. When that video clip comes out, I want it.

But perhaps the most satisfying news today comes from Capitol Hill, where House Majority Leader (and Official Prince of Darkness) Tom DeLay has just been admonished by the House ethics committee from trying to coerce another Representative to vote for a GOP-backed bill by threatening to withhold support for his son in a tightly contested GOP primary. As usual, DeLay expressed amazement at the novel concept of ethical conduct

In a statement, Mr. DeLay said that he had not meant to violate House rules and that the panel had never ruled on this type of activity before.

"In this report the committee has provided guidance regarding a novel and very specific subject matter,'' he said. "I accept their guidance."

Now I know its hard to keep track at this point, so let's be clear: This is not the same ethical investigation as the one prompted by departing Texas Representative Chris Bell over DeLay's Texas redistricting tactics. Its also distinct from his admonishment over pressuring trade groups to hire Republican officials (hinging legislation passage on it), his aides indictment for Money Laundering and Illegal Fundraising, and a myriad of other "ethical lapses which just go to show that DeLay is the most corrupt man in Washington (not an easy feat).

Now all I need is to see DeLay in handcuffs, and I'll be in sheer bliss. Come on law enforcement, get tough on crime!

The Post-Debate, Part Two

TNR has its debate analysis up. Etc blog thinks that Kerry left alot to be desired, but expectations were so low it doesn't matter. Jonathan Cohn thought originally that Kerry's focus on alliances would be a death blow, but concedes it seems to have gone over rather well. Ryan Lizza claims that the nervousness of the GOP in spin alley betrays the fact that their candidate got creamed. And Jeremy McCarter argues that Kerry won because he drew effective contrasts and made himself look decisive. All agreed that Kerry LOOKED better than Bush did, and that for many voters, that's all that matters.

On related, but slightly different notes, Peter Beihart says neither candidate had a truly honest or workable plan for Iraq. Beihart also degenerated the prospects of democracy emerging in Iraq, which I find deeply troubling. And Spencer Ackerman points out that Bush was making a huge distortion when he said that we have 100,000 trained Iraqi troops in uniform, a fact I pointed out last night.

Post-Debate Analysis...or Why It's All About Poland

I just finished watching the 1st Presidential Debate. As you know, I wasn't at all confident about Kerry's chances tonight, in fact, I thought he risked blowing the entire election.

Now? (drumroll please...)

Kerry drilled it (it being the debate and Bush).

Kerry: Loved how he came out swinging. He clearly knew his stuff, and he nailed Bush on SPECIFIC programs he was neglecting, which I thought was great. I thought especially that his emphasis on proliferation, chemical plant security, and port security, was a dagger to the heart. If he can keep the focus on those issues, Bush will be beat. Also, Kerry finally gave an answer that strikes at the heart of his whole consistancy deal on Iraq. Hussein was a threat, there was a right way and a wrong way to disarm him, and we picked the wrong way. This isn't a binary, you can agree on the problem and see many different solutions. Kerry also laid out his Iraq plan, which is important. I'm not sure how I feel about the summit idea, but at least its a fresh idea. Add it to internationalization and iraqification, and suddenly you've got a bona fide solution. "Outsourcing" line about Bin Laden and warlords a bit over the top, but it got the point across. Best line of the night was when Kerry said "I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?" That's huge. Still some rambling issues and clarity problems, but much improved there too. And while at times Kerry made his positions explicitly clear, in general his discussion of them might have been too complex and confusing. However, the overall aura Kerry gave off was calm, in control, and Presidential. GRADE: A-

Bush: Stuck to message about consistency, which was good. However, Bush just repeated the same rhetoric over and over (if I heard "mixed messages" one more time I was going to put a hole in the TV), which makes it seem like this was a script, not him actually listening to the debate. Some evasions of the questions, especially when he was trying to make the answer fit into his preconcieved narratives. Saying "I'm going to win the election" doesn't answer the question "Will the country be more likely to have a terrorist strike if Kerry wins the election," and then Bush goes off on his resolved schtick. When Bush was forced off-message, he looked very vulnerable, alot of long pauses and stutters. That's actually worse than it normally would be because it directly harms his "resolute commander" image. I've been reading on some Conservative blogs that Bush looked "authoritative" and "resolute," and I can only believe that they are on cocaine. Normally I'd agree that Kerry is a worse speaker than Bush, but not tonight. I was glad that Bush didn't take the SBVT bait on the "character question," surprisingly classy. Oh, this is important: When the allegation is that you don't have a real alliance, saying "you forgot Poland" is NOT a good response. One GREAT point was how does Kerry expects to convince the world to help us in this "colossel failure of judgment" and "diversion?" That deserves an answer. Overall weak responses to Kerry's specific allegations on port/nuke/chem security, which is unfortunate, especially considering he agreed that non-proliferation is the most important issue. And to top it all off, he looked HORRIBLE on the cutaway shots, like Gore in 2000. He's going to have to improve big time. GRADE: C

Very few distortions on factual matters, though Bush's statement that the funding for securing loose nuclear material has risen 35% raised red flags. That doesn't mesh with what I've read on the matter. One true distortion was Bush's statement that 100,000 Iraqi soldiers are in uniform. That's TECHNICALLY true, but of that 100,000 only 22,700 have enough training to be even minamally effective. In my opinion, that doesn't count. It certainly makes Kerry's Iraqification point on the need to accelerate training more salient. Other than that, the facts didn't seem in much dispute.

Commentary by Powerline, Daniel Drezner, Kevin Drum, Victory Briefs (featuring some of the best debate critics in the business!), and Andrew Sullivan. Full transcript of the debate here.

Pre-"Debate" Jitters

I'm worried about the debates. I'm not confident that John Kerry will make a good show of himself. First of all, Kerry still seems almost entirely incapable of stringing a coherent sentence together when it comes to his Iraq position (a fact one of my commenters pointed out, though I disagree with his conclusion that it makes Kerry a flipflopper). If Kerry gets caught rambling blindly on some "nuanced" Iraq position, he's toast. Plain and Simple.

Another potential pitfall is if Kerry tries to get too tough...in the wrong direction. If he makes some grandoise statement to President Bush like "The American people want to know when you're going to bring the troops home," he'll be clobbered by the Republican Spin Machine so fast you won't have time to say "swing vote." Kerry has to appeal to the voters who want us to win Iraq, not those who don't think we should be there at all. That means challanging Bush on his weaknesses (like Fallujah), not playing to his weak-kneed liberal stereotype.

One thing that had made me optimistic about the debates was that I thought Kerry could address Bush directly. If I were Kerry, I would make my entire opening speech a serious of questions: "The War on Terror is too important to be subordinated to Politics, Mr President. The American people deserve to know: Why have we held back in Fallujah? Why'd you allow House Republicans to kill a bill to increase Chemical Plant Security? Why are you cutting funding towards securing loose nuclear material, so terrorists can't build a dirty bomb? Why'd you threaten to veto desperately needed Homeland Security spending, right after 9/11? Why'd you oppose the creation of 9/11 commission? Why'd you oppose the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? The security of the American people is worth more than a soundbite, Mr. President. It means having a real plan, that exists in the real world, and the American people deserve real answers to these questions."

Aggressive, neat, overwhelming, and factually true. What a combo (ok, maybe I'm tooting my own horn just abit)! But the principle sounds good, right? Apparently, Karl Rove thought so too, because questioning the opposing candidate is one of the many prohibited actions in the Byzantine debate rulebook. As Josh Benson of the The New Republic points out:

Deathly afraid of being challenged on his unraveling Iraq policy, Bush demanded--and won--a series of bizarre rules governing tonight's debate. There will be no rebuttals allowed, for instance. No follow-up questions, no movement about the stage, no audience interaction, no props, no split-screen TV shots, no moderator discretion. The perspiration-prone Kerry was even denied a chilled room. Worst of all, the rules forbid Kerry from asking Bush any direct questions, a prohibition that constrains Kerry's options and makes a mockery of our civic process precisely when open debate matters most.

This is a debate? This harldy qualifies as dramatic interpretation! At this point, why don't we just play the candidates stump speeches back to back?

Benson thinks that Kerry should just ignore these rules and question Bush anyway (or at least bend them). I find this proposition tempting, as the prospect of Bush whining that "questions are against the rules" is very, very appealing. But unfortunately, I don't think that the action would be as consequence free as Benson implies. Maybe it would be beneficial on the whole, I don't know. But the facts are that these "debate" rules make it almost impossible for the already error-prone Kerry to succeed tonight.

Keep your fingers crossed!

We Have a "Situation"

Andrew Sullivan reports on the preferred Iraqi terminology for the incredibly chaotic mess that passes for their country these days.

Meanwhile, Sullivan also elaborates on why he isn't buying the Conservative mantra that we're "winning" in Iraq right now. To boot:

Maybe I need to be clearer. The reason I believe things are dire in Iraq is pretty simple. The evidence is accumulating that the insurgency - fostered by Baathist thugs, al Qaeda murderers, and other Jihadists - is gaining traction. That would be a manageable problem if the population despised them and saw a way through to a better society. But the disorder and mayhem continues to delegitimize the Iraqi government and, by inference, the coalition occupation. And the inability or unwillingness of the U.S. to seal the borders or effectively counter the terror contributes to the general view that the insurgents are going to win, and therefore the notion that the U.S.-led liberation may make matters even worse than they were before. And this is a vicious cycle. In other words, one reason the insurgency is spreading is because it has tacit support or merely passive acceptance among the general population. And once the general population turns against an occupying power, then things get really ... Algerian. The key moment was probably when George W. Bush blinked in Fallujah. That was when the general population inferred that we were not prepared to win. It's amazing, really. This president has a reputation for toughness and resolution. Yet at arguably the most critical moment in this war, he gave in. He was for taking Fallujah before he was against it. I cannot believe the situation is beyond rescue. But this president's policies have made it much much more difficult than it might have been. Elections are now more vital than ever - because they are the sole means of gaining the advantage in the legitimacy stakes. With those must come a relentless guerrilla war against the enemy, a massive increase in troop levels (whether Iraqi or America), and a huge effort for reconstruction. But we have thrown away a year's worth of opportunity. By incompetence and lack of will. Fallujah was a kind of Dunkirk. And Bush is no Churchill.

Blinked in Fallujah? Oh I remember that! That's when President Bush decided that American votes are more important than American lives! What leadership!

Defensive Lapse

Former co-blogger Greg Ihrie has tipped me off that our new missile defense system is ready to be deployed. Now, by that statement, you might think that it would stand some chance of, I don't know...working? But you'd be wrong!

The paucity of realistic test data has caused the Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator to conclude that he cannot offer a confident judgment about the system's viability. He estimated its likely effectiveness to be as low as 20 percent.

"A system is being deployed that doesn't have any credible capability," said retired Gen. Eugene Habiger, who headed the U.S. Strategic Command in the mid-1990s. "I cannot recall any military system being deployed in such a manner." (Washington Post, 9/29/04)

At least we have a 20% chance of being protected from...the USSR? Russia. Or whoever it is that has ICBMs these days.

Oh right, North Korea! The Bush administration says that this system is necessary to counter the North Korean nuclear missile threat, which is admittedly a serious concern. But as Michael Levi points out, a missile defense system isn't going to fix the problem.

Against a quickly evolving threat, though, isn't some defense better than none? If such a threat existed, perhaps; but it's not clear that the threat the new missile defense is designed to meet is anywhere close to existence. Near-term worries center around nuclear-armed rogue states, especially North Korea. Jane's Defense Week caused a big stir last week when it reported that North Korea was in the advanced stages of developing two new long-range missiles, based on obsolete but still useful Soviet motors. The first missile, a land-based rocket, could not have reached the United States. The more worrying scenario involves engines for old Soviet submarine-based missiles used to build a new submarine-based rockets. Mated with several first-generation Soviet submarines that North Korea has purchased, those missiles could, theoretically, carry nuclear warheads and be used to attack the continental United States.

If the reports are true, they mean that North Korea is on its way to assured targeting for the American homeland. Doesn't that justify the Alaska deployment? Well, no, since the defense, even if it worked according to plan, wouldn't be able to protect against these missiles. The Alaska defense is optimized against North Korean missiles fired from North Korea, not all missiles North Korea happens to control. In contrast, the new missiles reported by Jane's would be carried away from North Korea on submarines and be fired from considerably closer to the United States. Most likely, the Alaska system would be ill-placed to intercept them. (TNR 8/11/04)

Levi doesn't think that the placement in Alaska will necessarily HARM the US, just that it won't actually do us any good and is a giant waste of money. This is partially true, but what it neglects is the further antagonization the shield will have on an already antsy North Korea. I doubt that they'll do anything extreme like attack us while our system is still vulnerable, but it could spur them to research countermeasures against such a system, which only makes the US less safe. Furthermore, by sending the message that the US will continue to focus solely on nuclear weapons, rather than the situation holistically, what we're really telling North Korea is that Nukes are still a bartering chip. After all, if we're willing to plunk down $100 billion on shoddy technology, it has to mean something to us right?

A program that wastes money in order to make the US less safe while not actually fixing the problem it's targeted at. It would be the worst form of liberal excess. Except, as is so often the case these days, it's President Bush who's doing it.

Debater on the Debate

Jed Glickstein, the 2004 National Forensics League champion in Lincoln-Douglas debate, gives his advice to candidates for their forthcoming debate. Considering that he's a more talenting speaker AND analyzer than either of the two candidates (or virtually any politician for that matter), they should listen up.

I particularly liked this soundbite:

"High school debate is a bunch of kids who dress up in suits on the weekend, and they pretend to talk about issues, but they really don't have any power. And political debate takes place between two of the most powerful people in the world, but they essentially don't talk about the issues, it's all very surface level."

Ironically, though I've spent four years spending the majority of my time researching, analyzing, writing, and debating about issues, I don't want to go into politics. I find it all fascinating, but after observing politics for so long I've realized that knowing information and having coherent arguments is at best irrelevant to the electoral process and at worst harmful (ex: Gore 2000). Being knowledgable and insightful makes you "the class nerd," "aloof," "unable to connect to the average American," and worst of all, might force you to take a position that doesn't pander to the right interest group. I can guarentee you that the best high school debaters, if they debated the way they did in rounds, would never win a single election anywhere in the country. It's not because they know too little, its because they know too much, and they aren't afraid to let it be known.

Deaniac

The New Republic's Etc. blog tipped me off to TNR editor Peter Beinart's musings on what the election would be like if Howard Dean was the Democratic candidate.

Beinart essentially makes the argument that Dean would be doing better off than Kerry because the focus of the election would be on Iraq, rather than flipflops. And he reasons, not without justification, that a continued focus on Iraq would help any Democratic candidate immensely. That being said, I think there are a few flaws in Beihart's argument.

First, Beinart seems a bit too dismissive about the likely impact of the GOP branding Dean as "the second coming of McGovern." Beinart argues that Dean can play defense by noting that he supported the Gulf War, and can turn the tables by getting aggressive on homeland security or the Saudis. In a just world, this would work, but it labors under the mistaken assumption that truth has any bearing on how voters percieve candidates. As TNR's own Jonathan Chait has pointed out, the media covers politicians in such a way to reinforce the existing storyline, regardless of whether the surrounding facts back it up or not (subscription only). The storyline on Dean is that he is a peacenik hard lefty, despite his commitment to a balanced budget and "A" rating from the NRA, neither of which is characteristic of your prototypical leftwinger. Since the press had already labeled him the liberals darling, he wouldn't be able to shift center during the election and make the voters believe him, because Americans had been told for months by their local newspapers that Dean was the favorite son of the hippie wing of the Democratic party.
Second, I don't think Dean's Iraq stance is an asset. The best attack the Democrats have on Bush still isn't that he decieved us, or missing WMDs, or anything like that. Its that Bush refuses to fight the wars he gets us into. Dean can't attack Bush on his Iraq policy failures because his solution--withdrawal--wouldn't fix the problem, it'd make it worse, and everyone knows it.
Third, even if Dean could translate his Iraq war opposition into electoral gains, I'm disturbed by the ethical implications. Regardless of whether or not its good politics, Dean's position on Iraq--that we should withdraw--is flatly wrong. Its bad for America, and its bad for Iraq. Isn't the subordination of principles to politics one of things we DISLIKE about Bush (subscription only)? Call me a hopeless idealist, but I don't think that Democrats should stoop to that level.

The REAL question is what the election would be like if Joe Lieberman was the Democratic nominee (subscription only).

Ralph Reed on The Daily Show

I was pleasanty surprised with Jon Stewart's interview of Ralph Reed on "The Daily Show" last night. For those of you who don't know, Ralph Reed is the former head of the Christian Coalition and currently Bush's Southeastern Regional Campaign Chief. Stewart managed to elucidate some very good points about our political process amidst his questioning ("So Ralph, would you like to lower expectations about Bush's performance in the debate?" Mr. Reed immediately obliged). Stewart clearly showed a liberal bias, and to Mr. Reed's credit he took it in good humor. But in the midst of everything Stewart managed to throw in some tough allegations
1) Iraq was a diversion for the War on Terror
2) North Korea is and was a greater threat than Iraq was
3) The Bush campaign loves to spin.

All in all, an impressive performance.

Kerr's Challenge Episode Two: The Response

Earlier today I wrote a response to Orin Kerr's challange to pro-war bloggers. Prof. Kerr has now posted the first grouping of responses to his challange (in which you can find my original post). I'd like to just share my thoughts on what was said by others.

The first thing I'd like to note is that I apparently was absolutely right when I guessed that I'd be the only liberal responding to this. Virtually all the posters appeared to be rockribbed conservatives, and no one seemed to have any doubts as to the original validity of the war (Relgious Middle being perhaps the sole exception, and to be fair, most formerly pro-war bloggers who have changed their minds probably wouldn't have responsed to the challange at all). And WAY too many bloggers blindly asserted that Kerry would be worse on Iraq without saying anything to back it up, or even addressing Kerry's Iraq Plan.

Another fascinating thing was the continued reliance on security issues rather than humaniterean/democratization reasons to justify the war (Cafe Hedonistix and Justus for All are happy exceptions, One Fine Jay uses both). Now, I realize that the latter justification probably holds more appeal to liberals like me than it does to your average Republican. But I thought that the record had more than borne out that Iraq was not a threat to the US per se. At best he was a regional threat, but Iraq never was close to possessing the capabilities to get whatever WMDs he did possess to US shores. Alot of these posters seem to conflate the statement that "Saddam Hussein was a brutal thug" (true) with "he has the ability to destroy America" (absurd). The point that Saddam supported terrorists is true and salient, but has been overhyped. Muslim extremists posed as much of a threat to Saddam's secular regime as it did to America. In terms of supporting terrorists, Hussein was a small fish in a very big pond.

Along the same lines, far too many posters were willing to declare our "mission accomplished" simply because we had kicked Saddam Hussein out of power. This strikes me as absolutely absurd. If Iraq forms a new government that is run by radical extremists, we're no better off just because our enemy has a name change. The people who did recognize that Democracy was important (Olive Tree for example) seemed to briefly gloss over it or phrase it in terms of "Iraqi quality of life." They didn't appear to recognize the fact that the lack of a functioning democracy in Iraq would profoundly discredit the United States and likely undo any gains we made from the war in the region. Democracy isn't an optional bonus to US involvment (as Moonage Political Webdream implies) but a pre-requisite to any and every other reasonable measure of success in Iraq. Unfortunately, pretending like democracy isn't relevant gives Bush the political cover he needs to run from Iraq before we finish our job. Doing that will end up making the US less safe than when we started.

Another trap many bloggers fell into was saying that "Iraq isn't that bad, look at how fast we conquered it!" A good example comes from from Pete the Elder

Here is an Andrew Sullivan quote from one of his less hysterical days that sums up my thoughts well: 'If someone had said in February 2003, that by June 2004, Saddam Hussein would have been removed from power and captured; that a diverse new government, including Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, would be installed; that elections would be scheduled for January 2005; and that the liberation of a devastated country of 25 million in which everyone owns an AK-47 had been accomplished with an army of around 140,000 with a total casualty rate (including accidents and friendly fire) of around 800; that no oil fields had been set aflame; no WMDs had been used; no mass refugee crises had emerged; and no civil war had broken out... well, I think you would come to the conclusion that the war had been an extraordinary success.'

He's absolutely right about that, our ability to win the war quickly and relatively bloodlessly was an incredible statement about the efficacy and talent of our armed forces. However, the reason I'd have announced the above scenario a great success a year in a half ago is that I wouldn't have dreamed that, under those circumstances, we'd be facing a large and growing insurgency, an inability to control the country, and the prospect of a functional democracy rapidly spiraling out of reach. It doesn't matter if we don't have a single new casualty, we've still failed in Iraq if there isn't a functional democracy at the end of the day. Whether or not the news is good or bad is directly a function of how likely a democracy is going to develop under the current circumstances, and under THAT framework, we're doing worse every day. Yes, many Iraqi voices claim that things are getting better, which is a positive development. But bodycounts and bombs talk pretty loudly in of themselves, and it can't all be chalked up to media bias.

One thought that only occured to me just now is that alot of bloggers seem to be almost too objective in creating the criteria for success. The problem, as I see it, is that we could be doing everything "right," but if the Iraqi's still see us as "wrong" then we're still going to lose. Its that simple. That's why perception is as important is reality. Take for example, attacking insurgents in Najaf. I think that, objectively, that's important in the war against the insurgency. But the Iraqis could interpret it several ways:
1) A critical battle against anti-democratic insurgents
2) Liberating a religious holy place from armed rebels, so that its safe for pilgrims to travel there
3) US infidels descrating sacred ground
4) The central government crushing opposition and consolidating power
...etc etc.
How well we do in making it so that Iraqi's percieve our actions as "good" is essential to our prospects for success.

To sum up, while many of the bloggers had some excellent arguments, a few characteristics were common:
1) Too much emphasis on what we've already done while minimizing how the current situation puts it all in jeopardy.
2) A general minimization of the immense importance of a functioning democracy.
3) Very quick dismissals of negative news from Iraq while hyping the positive (even positive news from months ago)
4) A failure to see any middle ground between "staying the course" and "abandoning Iraq." Can't we shift policy but stay in Iraq, using the lessons we've learned thus far to make our mission more successful?

Kerr's challenge

Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy has challenged pro-war bloggers to answer a few questions:

First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?

Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?

Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?

As the sole liberal who remains in favor of the Iraq War (or so it seems), here's my take:

1) Honestly, it depends on the criteria you use, and I think the original reasons given by the Bush administration have been discredited. However, my reasons for supporting the war were always humanitarian based. I think that the US has an obligation to bring about positive change in the world, by removing oppressive dictators and promoting democratization. Unfortunately, this blurs the issue, because I think that if President Bush had used this justification then we'd have gotten considerably more international support (or at the very least, less animosity) than we are seeing today, and that in turn would have translated to a more support and less animosity on the ground as well. For the war on terror to be won, Muslims must see the world is as concerned with improving their lives as it is with ending them. The fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator, that he was a threat to regional stability, and that he was one of the worst human rights violators of our time remain true today, and gives the US all the reasons it needed to intervene.

2) Clearly, the war has been bungled. That's beyond a doubt. The Bush administration has decided to put its head in the sand, and worse yet, its placing political concerns over the necessary actions that we need to win in Iraq. The next administration, be it Bush or Kerry (though given past performance, I don't have much faith in either to do it), has to hold two seemingly opposing things in balance. The first is a renewed, aggressive effort to crush the terrorists in their strongholds, like Najaf and Fallujah. The second is regaining the trust of an Iraqi people who seem to view the US occupation more and more negatively every day. How can we do this? By aggressively courting the elements in Iraqi society that a) aren't affiliated with the extremists and b) still have credibility with the Iraqi people. That means that the interim government (and the US) has to work really hard to make Ayatollah Sistani an asset, not a liability. Firing one of his top allies in the government and provoking a boycott is a bad place to start. A good place to start would be making a renewed effort to show how we're acting for the Iraqis, rather than in our own selfinterest. If the Iraqis don't see tangible benefits from American projects, they'll naturally get suspicious of our motives. But if we show them how the insurgency makes them worse off and that we can provide a better path, we can win back the vast majority of the population that wants to live in a democratic state.

3) The ultimate criteria for success can only be Iraq as a functioning democracy. This can't be stressed enough. If Iraq is stabilized, but under an authoritarian government, then the Islamic world will see that at best, working with the US will mean trading one dictator for another. At worst, they'll see it as trading an Islamic dictator for an American patsy, which will increase the already swelling tide of anti-American extremism present in the region. Though obviously stability is important, the key point is that it must be made clear to the Iraqis that the possibly heavyhanded tactics necessary to bring about stability (for example, taking out the hornets nest of terrorists in Fallujah) are being done in order to make democracy possible, not just to strengthen the hand of the central authorities. All the polls still show that Iraqis are optimistic about the prospect of democracy, and that positive mentality needs to be harnessed by the allies and interim government. If Iraq collapses into civil war, as the National Intelligence Estimate thinks could be likely, then it will become the biggest breeding ground for terrorists in the world, and probably will ruin any chance of stabilizing the region for decades. Unlike Afghanistan, which is geographically isolated from most of its neighbors, a civil war in Iraq would almost certainly draw in Turkey, Iran, and Syria, and possibly Jordan as well. And for anyone who isn't scared at that prospect, imagine Lebanon, but multiplied by 10 and entirely blamed on the US. In the short term, success can be measured based on how enthusiastic Iraqis are taking to coalition actions to bring about democratic reform, and how willing the interim government is to implement it. If our pro-democratic actions are not seen that way, but seen (correctly or not) as building blocks to dictatorship, then we're doing something wrong. Longterm success is measured by a reasonably stable, pluralistic democracy that manages to balance the rivalry between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds.

Fire away!

Not a Flipflop

Yet another great explaination for why Kerry hasn't flipflopped on Iraq comes from Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig:

As with most Americans, at the start, Kerry supported the war in Vietnam. Unlike almost all Americans of privilege (see, e.g., George Bush and Dick Cheney), Kerry demonstrated his support by volunteering to serve in that war. But after his experience, he—as almost all Americans—came to believe that war was a mistake. Our government had lied to get us into the war; it had lied about its prosecution of the war. Based upon the facts, he changed his mind.

The same is true about the war on Iraq. As with most Americans, Kerry supported giving the President the authority to go to war. As with most Americans, Kerry expected the President would exercise that authority in a way that did not unnecessarily put America at risk. But after his experience, he—as with most Americans—came to believe that war was a mistake. Most of us believe our government lied to get us into the war; most believe it has lied about its prosecution of the war. Based upon the facts, Kerry is now critical of a war he supported at the start.

This is not flip-flopping. It is evidence of a functioning brain. When you learn that the premise of your action was false, you should rethink your action. When you learn that the premise of a war was false, you should rethink the justification for the war. Being stubborn in the face of reality doesn't make you principled. It makes you Chairman Mao.

Another good indicator of a functioning brain is that you recognize the fallacy of the "Kerry flipflopped on Iraq" argument. But then, we knew that the far right had sacrificed its brainpower to the altar of dittoheadedness long ago.

Democracy/Rights Link

Democracy and Human Rights are inextricably linked
UN Human Development Report 2000: "Inclusive Democracy Secures Rights."

Democracy is the only form of political regime
compatible with respecting all five categories of
rights—economic, social, political, civil and
cultural....
Four defining features of a democracy are
based on human rights:
• Holding free and fair elections contributes to
fulfilment of the right to political participation.
• Allowing free and independent media contributes
to fulfilment of the right to freedom of
expression, thought and conscience.
• Separating powers among branches of government
helps protect citizens from abuses of
their civil and political rights.
• Encouraging an open civil society contributes
to fulfilment of the right to peaceful
assembly and association. An open civil society
adds an important participatory dimension,
along with the separation of powers, for the
promotion of rights.

Justice DeLay-ed

Of course, no one with half a brain is really surprised to learn that some of Tom DeLay's minions have been indicted on counts of illegal fundraising and money laundering. But it still feels good to know that someone, somewhere still cares about democracy.

Tragically, that place isn't US Congress, where an ethics complaint filed against DeLay is likely to get ignored and/or buried. Why? Because if you out one corrupt congressman, then you have to start outing them all, and pretty soon...there are no congressmen left.

Rivkin/Casey v. Martinez Debate

I've made a decision on the Rivkin/Casey and Martinez debate over the question: "How should the U.S. try suspected terrorists?" In a very close decision, I give it to Martinez, though if this was a debate tournament it would be on a low-point win.

Rivkin and Casey cream Martinez on the legal aspect, doing a great job proving that these tribunals are legal under international law (news to me). At first glance, this was going to be enough for me to vote for them. But on closer reflection, the resolution is a question of morals, how SHOULD be try them, not how CAN we. The question then became whether or not Martinez focused enough on the "should" part in her first post to make that the framework (as it is closer to the original text of the question). Though she did get dragged into the legal debate more than was strategically wise, I concluded she focused enough on the "should" to make that a voter. Unfortunately, her best arguments were made only in the last post, but this quote from the first post is money.

The first week of proceedings before the military commissions was a travesty. The commission members (all but one of whom have no formal legal training) seemed perplexed when asked about basic legal concepts like "due process of law" and "reasonable doubt." One member confessed that he did not really know what the Geneva Conventions were—which is quite troubling given that the Conventions are the cornerstone of the modern laws of war. Even if he was not familiar with the Geneva Conventions before being appointed to the commission (though the Conventions are a mandatory topic in basic training) you would have thought this high-profile assignment might have caused him to study up. The presiding officer of the commission—the only lawyer in the bunch—was little better prepared. He reacted like a deer caught in the headlights when one defendant asked to represent himself or have a lawyer from his home country assigned to work with him. This type of request is hardly unusual, and both the civilian courts and courts martial have established legal standards for evaluating them. Because the military commissions are starting from scratch, however, every new issue of procedure or evidence will cause this kind of paralysis. And then there were the problems with the translators—apparently, they were so inadequate that the defendants and Arab-language journalists had to struggle to figure out what was going on. It's a good thing the government is not allowing audio or video recordings of the trials—it would be far too embarrassing.

It rather unfortunately seems that Martinez was flailing and just happened to catch a lucky break. But sometimes that's the way it works in debate. And I want to say that I was very impressed by Rivkin and Casey's ability to argue, persuasively, a position that I thought was both morally and legally untenable.

Of Politics and Principle

Matthew Yglesias shows yet another example of how President Bush cares more about his political prospects than he does about the safety of the American people.

Bush has adopted policies designed to keep the death count low, primarily by avoiding ground combat in the Sunni triangle. Good campaign tactics, needless to say, but, as ever, the Bush team seems better at winning elections than winning wars. By delaying any assault on the wily Salafi terrorists...lurking in Fallujah, Samarra, Ramadi, and Baquba until after November, we give them more time to dig in, prepare defenses, and strengthen their forces before the attack.

An important point comes next, so it gets a paragraph of its own: This plan will get people killed. If an assault is to be mounted, it should be done as soon as possible, before the adversary has been given months to prepare for it. The Marines and soldiers serving in Iraq volunteered for the military, but they've been conscripted into the Bush campaign. Decisions, as Lieutenant General James Conway recently stated, are being made on the basis of narrow political considerations rather than military ones. It's appropriate for generals to be subordinate to civilian politicians, but not to civilian campaign strategists. We're waging war as an extension of an electoral campaign, exposing our soldiers to harassing attacks right now and to a more difficult fight later on in order to help secure the president's re-election.

This is merely another link in the Bush train of letting his political concerns get in the way of unimportant things like safety. From Homeland Security to hunting terrorists to protecting our agents to Iraq today, President Bush has consistently opted to score political points at the expense of the American people. And now it appears that he's going to withdraw from Iraq as soon as he gets the electoral all-clear sign. The stakes are simply too high to let that continue.

Past Problems, Future Results

John Kerry just gave a major Iraq Speech at New York University.

TNR's "etc" says that Kerry hit a Triple. I think that its more along the lines of a Double. On the one hand, I really like Kerry's proposal on what he'd be doing in Iraq right now:

First, the President has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don’t have to go it alone. It is late; the President must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.
...
The President should convene a summit meeting of the world’s major powers and Iraq’s neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq’s borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq’s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq’s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this President may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.

Second, the President must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces.

But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration’s own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can’t stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

The President should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.

Third, the President must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority … 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical … 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we’re paying the price.

Now, the President should look at the whole reconstruction package…draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects… and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

Fourth, the President must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.

Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.

Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the President agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad… and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission… the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.

The President should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won’t be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone.

I think its very clear that this proposal is vastly superior to Bush's head-in-the-sand approach. Indeed, if you asked me, I couldn't tell you what Bush's strategy for Iraq is at the moment, beyond empty phrases like "winning the war" and "creating a healthy democracy." With all due respect, that's rhetorical crap, and Bush has not done one thing that would suggest he is serious about these or any other goal he's set for Iraq.

Also, this line particularly struck me:

In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: “The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”

How many world leaders have that same trust in America’s president, today?

That loss of trust is both true and deeply tragic. I think Sen. Kerry is right to emphasize it.

The negatives in the speech come in two areas. First, Kerry continues to muddle his position on whether or not we were right, originally, to go into Iraq. Ideally, this should be tangential to the main point, which is 'what do we do now that we're there?' But the Bush campaign has seized upon this as the trump example of an indecisive Kerry, and I'm not happy that Kerry seemed to make Bush's job easier.

The other problem comes with regards to troop deployment. Kerry appears to simultaneously argue that Bush didn't commit enough troops to Iraq to stabilize it (which is true), and that Iraq drew our attention and manpower away from Al-Qaeda, enabling Osama Bin Laden to escape (which is also true). Both of these are accurate criticisms, but they are mutually exclusive in terms of remedy. In terms of political realities, we could only deploy enough troops to do one of these jobs, not both. This isn't to absolve Bush of his incompetence on the matter, since he allocated too few troops to BOTH projects. But I'm confused as to Kerry's proposed solution here, though ultimately it doesn't take away from the positives of his plan as a whole.

What I like most about this speech is that it attacks Bush on his home territory. The Accountability President? Then why were the only people fired over Iraq those who made accurate predictions? The need to be tough against terrorists? Then why is Bush flailing blindly at the "main front" for the war on terror? The need for solid, argumentative coherency (as opposed to "flipflopping")? Bush gave 23 reasons for the war in Iraq, the majority of which are discredited.

The more I think about it, the more I'm voting for Kerry because of all the reasons Bush strategists say I should vote for Bush. I want a President who stand solidly against terror, will aggressively move to target them, knows the importance and utter paramounce of homeland security, and above all, does not subordinate the safety of American people to score quick political points. On all of these fronts, President Bush has objectively been a disaster, and Sen. Kerry appears to have a remedy. That's enough for me.

Troop Movements

I want more troops in Iraq, but I don't think this is the way to do it.

Bipartisan Critique

CNN reports on Republican criticism of Bush's Iraq policy. These aren't backbenchers either, but the heavy hitters: McCain (AZ), Lugar (IL), and Hagel (NE). All have the reputation of a maverick streak, but rarely have they been this blunt criticizing the President. Sen. Lugar even went so far to label Bush "incompetent" when spending reconstruction money. Senators Kyl (AZ) and Graham (SC) also had more mild criticism for the Bush administration, but this is perhaps more telling as they are both considered GOP loyalists.

And while it wasn't from a Republican, this quote was on the money.

"The president's going to the United Nations [Tuesday]," [Delaware Senator Joe Biden] said. "You know what we list as our priorities for the United Nations General Assembly? Dealing with sex trade, which is important. Dealing with cloning. Dealing with spread of democracy.

"Not one word of Korea. Not one word with regard to Iraq. Not one word with regard to Iran. It's like Wonderland," said Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Maybe President Bush has also been paying a bit too much attention to Rathergate compared to foreign and domestic policy.

In any event, its good to see that some Republicans are breaking away from the "support Bush at any cost" mentality.

Blogger Code of Ethics

This is something I've toying around for a long time. As I've been reading the blogosphere, I've noticed that ALOT of the blogs out there are not behaving like they want an objective search for truth, or a reasoned political discourse. Instead, they are partisan bombthrowers who only wish to score a quick 2 points for their preferred political allies. This, I think, is a negative trend, and one I think we should counteract before the internet turns into Cass Sunstein's "Republic.com". That being said, I give you my (very personal) take on the "blogger code of ethics" (keep in mind this really only applies to political blogs).

1) I will not be a partisan hack, nor will I engage in hatchet jobs on my political opponents that are grounded weakly or not at all in facts.
2) I will focus predominantly on issues, not personal lives or other tangents. While instances such as Rathergate deserve some attention, they don't deserve ALL of our attention and certainly don't outweigh the pressing issues that face our country.
3) I will do my best to present issues with as much factual grounding as possible.
4) If evidence turns up that proves I'm wrong, or casts my point in substantial doubt, I will either address the criticism or admit error.
5) If a political opponent says something that I think is smart, wise, well-advised, or I otherwise agree with, I will point it out.
6) I will at all times conduct myself in a manner that seeks to further, not hinder, intellectual debate on the issues.
7) Recognizing that full compliance with the above is often a case of judgment, I will make a good faith effort to comply with this code.

Do I expect this to have much effect? Probably not. But this, at least, is the code that I'm going to write this blog on.

Wow...Comments

I guess the Powerline plug has actually gotten me my first "real" (as in, from people I don't know) comments of this blogs existance. How cool! And considering that most of them seemed to center around me being foolish and wrong, I guess I need to tighten up my arguments.

Now, I won't normally do this (or if I do, it will be via e-mail), but I'm going to take this time to answer some of the comments personally, on the front page of the blog! That's YOUR prize for being an early reader!

Starting with the comments in my "Thank You" post. This centered around my boredom with Rathergate and other topics of that nature.
Skb argues that 1) its presumptous to claim what is and is not relevant in this election and 2) that he wouldn't vote for Kerry if he lied about his wounds or Bush if he lied to get into the Guard. In a way he is correct, but I do think that these issues should be of secondary importance in the election. What our politicians did or didn't do 30 years ago is not particularly relevant to how they'll govern our country today. While I can perhaps see these issues as being relevant to the electoral decision as a whole, what I'm seeing (and condemning) is that these issues are seemingly pre-empting a rational discussion on the issues that face our nation, and I think that is deeply unfortunate.
Rmcleod argues more directly about the importance of Rathergate. I agree that it is an important issue. But the question is, should it be covered to the virtual exclusion of all others? As Orin Kerr puts it, it should have gotten a few blog posts, but it shouldn't have dominated the discussion. Even the debater in me, who, as Rmcleod points out, appreciates the need for legitimate, honest argumentation, also recognizes that between a case of bad factchecking and arguments over Iraq, Tax Cuts, Terrorism, and a myriad of other pressing issues, the precedence clearly should go to the latter.

Now to the Pledge Comments. These seem to fall into two broad categories, so I'll address each in turn.
First, saying the pledge in general. This is a complex issue. I'll admit I'm a bit torn, because I can see the validity of the points being made. At the same time, the general point about freedom vs compulsion still holds true. Call me anti-essentialist, but I'm going to honor my country on my terms, not the ones dictated to me by the government. However, that point I have to admit is far less important to me than the religious nature of the pledge.
My critique of the "under God" clause in the pledge seemed to be misunderstood. Terry actually gets my position backwards: I don't like "under God" BECAUSE I find it religiously demeaning. It implies that my faith can be reduced to a one-size-fits-all statement like "one nation under God," which is degrading. And the implication that my religion will somehow suffer if "under God" is taken out suggests that my faith can't survive without government training wheels, which is incredibly offensive. And I think that statements of many of the religious leaders who have fought against UG's removal have indeed characterized their position in terms of the need to protect America and organized religion against the ensuing wave of Godlessness. In any event, the fact that people like me can find fault in the pledge on pro-religion grounds is yet more proof that when government wades into religious messages, the result is invariably negative.
Matt points out specifically that the Pledge is merely an affirmation of certain values or ideals. That's great and laudable, but it only strengthens my argument as to the religious aspect. As Judge Reinhardt wrote in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in US v. Newdow (328 F.3d 466, 2002)

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation "under God" is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation "under God" is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase "one nation under God" in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and--since 1954--monotheism. A profession that we are a nation "under God" is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation "under Jesus," a nation "under Vishnu," a nation "under Zeus," or a nation "under no god," because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. The school district's practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, including the religious values it incorporates.

That innoculation of religious values, along with the obvious coercive attribute of a schoolhouse setting (that Mr. Mirengoff aptly describes) should make for a clear establishment clause violation, though there are many, many other reasons on which the UG clause falters constitutionally. The 9th circuit opinion gives an excellent analysis of these reasons (as the Supreme Court ruling focused on standing, it had a far less in-depth analysis of the constitutional issues at hand).

Finally, the statement that "I must be doing something right" in my writings on the pledge (considering all the wonderful benefits it got me) was intended to be humorous. I would HOPE that Carleton didn't let me in simply because it liked my politics (if they did, they'll be sorely mistaken, as I'm probably one of the most conservative students on campus, not that that says much).

Anyway, cheers to y'all!

Kerry on Iraq

Anthony Cordesman echoes a claim that I've been hearing alot recently: That while President Bush has unquestionably screwed up Iraq, Sen. Kerry has not articulated anyway to solve the problems Bush has created. This is a fair point, and for the most part, its an accurate criticism. However, there is at least one key point of differentiation between Kerry and Bush on Iraq policy. I blogged earlier on Spencer Ackerman's articulation of this difference, namely, that Sen. Kerry can secure international cooperation and support--even if its not of the military variety--that the reviled Bush cannot. That's an important plus for Kerry, and Bush is not helping matters by burying his head in the sand and pretending nothing is wrong.

I'd like to think this is the first step in answering Powerline's challenge for me to find Conservative reasons to vote for Kerry (as opposed to just voting against Bush). In fact, since I think a clear articulation of POSITIVE reasons to vote for Kerry is severely lacking, I'm going to start compiling positive reasons to vote for Kerry.

Starting off with...his education plan!

The folks at Powerline are very nice...and wrong

The folks at the Powerline Blog have been nice enough to mention my blog on their site. This marks the first time a major blog has linked to my own site. So thank you Powerline!

And what better way to repay them than to take issue with one of their posts?

Mr. Mirengoff remarks that no one at his daughter's school, Walt Whitman High School stands for the pledge. As a former student, I can vouch for the accuracy of this claim, but I would hardly ascribe the nefarious motives Mr. Mirengoff does.

Mr. Mirengoff says there are three reasons given by the students for this:

Three main reasons are cited. First, school starts early, and kids don't feel like standing up. Second, Bush is evil and the U.S. is pretty bad too. Third, with hardly anyone else standing, some feel uncomfortable doing so.

First of all, I would bet money that the first issue is far and away the most prevalent. We're teenagers. Ergo, we are lazy. That's just the way it is. And I'd bet a sizable portion of the people in groups two and three are really "ones" but think that laziness is a pretty poor reason and are embarrassed to say so.

For the second, I can't speak for most Whitman students. However, I do know that I have not stood for the pledge for a LONG time, dating well back into the Clinton admin. It has nothing to do with my (very real) dislike of Bush, because I think it is very important to distinguish between a nation and its government. I'll admit that at the start I didn't stand for the pledge because, yes, I was too tired. Now I don't recite the pledge on principle (more on that in a moment). I think that, to the extent that people are really not standing as protest against the administration, that's an unfortunate expression. However, if you believe that this administration has made a mockery of "liberty...for all" (Federal Marriage Amendment) and "justice for all" (Guantanomo Bay, Patriot Act, Hamdi/Padilla/Moussaoui), then I can see where they're coming from. I don't agree with their methodology (hell, I don't even agree with all they're protesting against), but not everyone has the type of time or energy to craft sophisticated and eloquent protests against authority. Sometimes, simplicity works.

The third I think is very interesting. I am very much inclined to believe that there is a sizable portion of the student body at Whitman who would stand but does not want to ostracize themselves by being "different" from the vast majority of the student population. Mr. Mirengoff is ABSOLUTELY right to point this phenomena out. Unfortunately, I doubt that he would be so quick to embrace the flipside of his argument, that in regions where the vast majority of students stand for the pledge, those who would prefer not to (let's assume out of true political or religious conviction) would feel pressured into standing. In the words of Lee v. Weisman they (the students who would stand but feel pressured not to, and those who wouldn't stand but feel pressured to) are being "psychologically coerced." The same people who are ready to jump down the throats of the liberal pinkos who are making young patriots uncomfortable about honoring their country are utterly dismissive of claims that people who object (religiously or otherwise) to the content of the pledge are "coerced" into participating in it by the patriotic majority. Mr. Mirengoff aptly though inadvertently illustrates the power of the "participate or protest" dilemma faced by so many children and teenagers every day. It just so happens that at Whitman, the "protesters" are in the majority. And the power of this psychological force, now recognized by Mr. Mirengoff, forms the linchpin of my opposition to the pledge in general. This type of coercion can be a force for good or for evil, and we'd all do well to remember that.

Now moving to my personal reasons for not saying the pledge. Even before the Newdow case, I was deeply troubled by the mention of "under God" in the pledge (indeed, I wrote my college essay and my national merit scholarship essay on it. Since I got into college and got the scholarship, I must be doing something right!). This is not because I'm an atheist. Indeed, I believe in God and consider myself a fairly religious person. Rather, its the implications of including "under God" that I find troubling.

First of all, I have always been confused as to the outcry of religious persons in America when it seemed that "Under God" would be taken out. They honestly seemed to view it as a threat to their faith. But what kind of faith requires government training wheels to be expressed? Maybe its because I'm Jewish and my people have had a lot of practice doing this, but it always seemed to me that the true test of faith was ones ability to hold it even when it wasn't part of the status quo. If your faith is so tenuous as to require governmental mandates to keep it afloat, then I think the problem is with our religious institutions, not with the government.

Second, people express religion in different ways. Religion is a deeply personal matter, and there is tremendous variance amongst Americans, even those who do believe in one God, on how to articulate their faith. Even within the same religious tradition there can be cleavages (for example, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Southern Baptists fall on the extreme opposite ends of the Pledge Case spectrum). So when the government proclaims one methodology of expressing faith to be paramount or proper, it has the effect of commoditizing religion, of turning it into a "one size fits all" proposition. I think that is tremendously patronizing of the deep personal and spiritual bound that religion represents, and I think that's what Justice Hugo Black meant when he said that "a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion. The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country...showed that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had relied upon the support of government to spread its faith. The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its 'unhallowed perversion' by a civil magistrate." (Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421, 431)

At root, I'm going to believe in God because I believe in God, not because my government tells me to. And I'm certainly not going to express my faith in terms of federally codified norms. That's not a celebration of religion, that's a mockery of it.

Thank You!

As usual, Daniel Drezner says aloud what I've been thinking privately, that is, that all the SBVT and typewriter font and Bush National Guard service reports and all that crap are not the slightest bit relevant in this election. Can the media (and blogosphere) at least PRETEND there are issues being debated here?

Presumably, this sort of media fatigue is helping contribute to Mr. Drezner's 60% probability of voting for Sen. Kerry for President and Barack Obama for Senator (Of course, Alan Keyes opposition to to direct elections of senators might also have something to do with it).

Zacarias Moussaoui Decision

The United States 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has handed down a decision in United States v. Moussaoui. I read the (90 page) opinion, and it appears that the court agreed with District Court Judge Robert Doumar that the government's proposed subsitutions for having certain suspected Al-Qaeda witnesses actually appear on the stand were not enough to survive constitutional scrutiny. However, it disagreed with Mr. Doumar in that any form of substitution was a violation of Mr. Moussaoui's rights, and gave guidelines for an alternative form of substitution to be used at trial. It also reinstated the possibility of the death penalty, which Judge Doumar threw out. The panal of Chief Judge Wilkins and Judges Williams and Gregory was unanimous on the unconstitutionality of the government's original proposal, however, Justice Gregory dissented as to the propreity of the alternative substitution method and the reinstatement of the death penalty.

Debate Club

Legal Affairs has just started a debate club featuring prominent legal academics and commentators arguing over important and pertinent legal issues of our time. Currently, Jenny Martinez is debating David Rifkin and Lee Casey on "How Should the US try suspected terrorists?"

In keeping with this sites debate tradition, I will judge the debate at its conclusion.

Anti-Privacy Cards?

I don't know how useful these will be, but they seem reasonably likely to help neg cases on the sept/oct topic (some people might recognize these from Matt Scarola's "rights talk kritik" of CFL Nationals Fame. But I don't know if he used these specific cards, or merely this author).

Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard University, writes in "RIGHTS TALK: THE IMPOVERISHMENT OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE"

[The Plantiff in Roe v. Wade] won the right that had been understood from its earliest appearance in the American legal system as "the right to be let alone." And let alone she was. No one . . . had been willing to help her either to have the abortion she desired, or to keep and raise the child who was eventually born.
...
Buried deep in our rights dialect is an unexpressed premise that we roam at large in a land of strangers, where we presumptively have no obligations toward others except to avoid the active infliction of harm. This legalistic assumption is one that fits poorly with the American tradition of generosity toward the stranger, as well as with the trend in our history to expand the concept of the community for which we accept common responsibility.

Also this quote set (which is a good block against gay rights aff cases):

Neglect of the social dimension of personhood has made it extremely difficult for us to develop an adequate conceptual apparatus for taking into account the sorts of groups within which human character, competence, and capacity for citizenship are formed. In a society where the seedbeds of civic virtue-families, neighborhoods, religious associations, and other communities-can no longer be taken for granted, this is no trifling matter.
...
Because individuals are partly constituted in and through relationships with others, a liberal politics dedicated to full and free human development cannot afford to ignore the settings that are most conducive to the fulfillment of that ideal.

Push Polling

Both literally and metaphorically.

First, the literal. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentiniel reports that the Moore Information Polling Group has been engaged in Push Polling for Bush. For those of you who don't know what that is, Push Polling is when the pollster asks a question that "pushes" the listener to support one side. For example, "Would you support John Kerry even though he kills puppies?" is a push question. A more subtle push question would be "Do you support Liberal Massachusetts Senator John Kerry for President?" This seeks to capitalize on many independent voters reflexive mistrust of the "liberal" label (and especially of the massachusetts sort!). Another push question (the one that allegedly was used by Moore) is "Whose position do you think is closer to the truth - those 'veterans who served with John Kerry' and say that he does not deserve the medals that he received, or John Kerry who disagrees with the veterans that he served with and who appear in the ad?"

Second, the metaphorical. Despite all the hysteria about Bush's rising national polling, on the state-by-state level Kerry is still hanging tough. The latest polls have him ahead in Colorado and Pennsylvania, states he was losing previously. He's also made up ground in Ohio, and Florida and Nevada are virtually tied. So maybe the media should hold off on claiming that Kerry is on the edge of death.

Pledge Update

The pledge might get back into the news with this article running in the Wisconsin State-Journal. While I'm inclined to believe that the administration did not have hostile motives towards the student in question, it still shows how the pledge can be divisive and has very real harms to students even when its recitation is not mandatory.

Since the Supreme Court dodged the main issue in Newdow, this could set the stage for another pledge challenge (obviously a ridiculously premature statement). It certainly seems to fail Justice Kennedy's "psychological coercion" test articulated in Lee v. Weisman (505 US 577, 1992)

[P]ressure, though subtle and indirect, can be as real as any overt compulsion. Of course, in our culture, standing or remaining silent can signify adherence to a view or simple respect for the views of others. And no doubt some persons who have no desire to join a prayer have little objection to standing as a sign of respect for those who do. But for the dissenter of high school age, who has a reasonable perception that she is being forced by the State to pray in a manner her conscience will not allow, the injury is no less real. There can be no doubt that for many, if not most, of the students at the graduation, the act of standing or remaining silent was an expression of participation in the rabbi's prayer. That was the very point of the religious exercise. It is of little comfort to a dissenter, then, to be told that, for her, the act of standing or remaining in silence signifies mere respect, rather than participation. What matters is that, given our social conventions, a reasonable dissenter in this milieu could believe that the group exercise signified her own participation or approval of it.

Finding no violation under these circumstances would place objectors in the dilemma of participating, with all that implies, or protesting. We do not address whether that choice is acceptable if the affected citizens are mature adults, but we think the State may not, consistent with the Establishment Clause, place primary and secondary school children in this position. Research in psychology supports the common assumption that adolescents are often susceptible to pressure from their peers towards conformity, and that the influence is strongest in matters of social convention...To recognize that the choice imposed by the State constitutes an unacceptable constraint only acknowledges that the government may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use more direct means.

GOP Grumblings, Part 2

Just a few days ago, I blogged on the grumblings of some conservatives and their reticence to vote for President Bush.

Now, libertarian columnist Andrew Sullivan has announced he is supporting John Kerry in the 2004 election, joining other prominent libertarian academics who have decided Bush doesn't hold their values anymore.

And that's not all. Clay Risen writes in The New Republic (subscription only) that the normally stalwart CATO institute also may turn to Kerry.

[V]arious strands of criticism--on spending, civil liberties, the war--have come together to convince many Cato staffers that the best vote this fall might be for Kerry. For one thing, there is a growing belief at the Institute that the Republicans--not just Bush, but the congressional leadership as well--have sold out traditional small-government conservatives, spending lavishly to woo cultural conservatives and big business; Cato op-eds note that, during Bush's first three years, nondefense discretionary spending has increased 20.8 percent. Since last summer, scholars have chafed against the administration's fiscal profligacy in op-eds with titles like "overspending is not fiscal responsibility," "the bush betrayal," and "what fiscal discipline?" In contrast, New Democrats may not always talk the small-government talk, but Cato staffers note that, under Clinton, the Democrats reined in government spending and deregulated a broad swath of industries. "Perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton," wrote Cato fellow Veronique de Rugy for National Review Online in 2003, pointing out that Clinton reduced nondefense discretionary spending. At the same time, there is a more philosophical, and more cynical, pro-Kerry argument that has gained credence within the Institute--namely that the best way to limit government spending is to divide the parties' control between the executive and the legislative branches. And, given the GOP's advantage in Congress, the best way to affect such a division is to pull the lever for Kerry. In April, Bandow outlined this view in a widely syndicated column (originally published in Fortune), arguing that "the biggest impetus for higher spending is partisan uniformity, not partisan identity." Therefore, he urged his conservative readers, "Vote Democratic."

The official fracturing of the GOP coalitions has begun. Are the Rockefeller's next?

Washington Gay Marriage, Part 2

Another Washington state court has struck down the state's prohibition of gay marriage. The court in Castle v. State echoed a previous ruling by a seperate state court in Anderson v. Sims.

While overall, I preferred the rhetoric of the Anderson opinion, there was some good stuff to be found here too.

Strange as it seems, today the biological father and biological mother need never meet. One may need a government license to get married but no license is required to father or birth children. The traditional stable heterosexual union for the purpose of having a child does not need government approval and never has. But if the government is going to require that the government approve a civil contract, and approve several benefits that flow from such approval, then it must take care to treat all its citizens in an equal way. Even more important, just as the government is a real, but not named, party to the contract, any children that result are real,
but not named, parties to the contract. Same-sex couples can have children through artificial insemination and same-sex couples can adopt children all with the government’s approval. Where is the protection for these children?

Do we really need a study to understand that children thrive better in a stable family? When children lose family stability we go to great lengths through the use of foster families and adoption to bring them back into a stable family situation. When married parents divorce we take great care to do what we can to provide for the children’s loss of stability in the ‘broken’ family that results. On another level, even without children, surely stable couples as well as families are the foundation for a democratic stable society. If these observations of family are correct, and if the defendants are correct that stable families are the foundation of a stable state, then the question becomes, not what counts as “marriage,” but rather what counts as “family.” If the reason to protect marriage is the need for stable families then we need be clear as to what counts as a family upon which this stability rests. It seems to this court that stable families are a legitimate and compelling state interest for the benefit of the entire community. We, the community, need to come to know ourselves. We need to have the fortitude to see who we are and accept ourselves as we are. If we look at ourselves, and at our neighbors, what do we see that counts as a “family?”

For at least two generations we have understood “family” as something more than a man mating with a woman to have a child. A single parent is a family. Grandparents raising grandchildren without the help of the parents is a family. Adults giving foster children a home are a family. Same sex couples who adopt children are a family. Opposite sex couples who adopt children are a family. Single parents with children who marry each other bring into being a new family. A childless couple, same sex or opposite sex, can be a family. An older child raising his or her siblings is a family. There are other examples. Clearly, it seems to this court, a same sex couple, especially a same sex couple with adopted children, is a family. Is
this the kind of family that the government has an interest in making more stable? If an opposite sex couple without children is a family then on what basis is a same sex couple without children not a family? The community support that provides additional stability to the private vows of commitment of any couple comes into being because the community understands that this is in the best interest of the entire community. The community support for the private vow is to allow the creation of a civil contract. That is what marriage is. It is a civil contract approved by the community that carries with it many obligations, many benefits, and many burdens.

Both cases will almost certainly be consildated for hearing by the state Supreme Court. However, the ball is rolling folks.