P8kice8zq6szrqrmqxag

Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

I must confess that the current state of affairs on Iraq fills me with equivocation and no small bit of uncertainty. This is one reason I'm eager to hear what Ken Pollack has to say in the interview TPM will be running with him later this week. (As you know, Pollack is the author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, which TPM reviewed quite favorably here in The Washington Monthly.)

Here, I think, is what we know about the current situation.

1. Iraq isn't complying with the relevant UN disarmament resolutions. It's doing the minimum necessary to avoid an open breach with the UN. There's a big difference.

2. The conversation we're having is about "weapons of mass destruction." But this term of art -- WMD -- obscures the vastly important distinction between chemical and biological weapons on the one hand and nuclear weapons on the other. As I said in my review of Pollack's book "One theme running through this book is Pollack's belief--no doubt accurate--that nuclear weapons are the real issue, with chemicals and bioweapons running several laps behind. Frightening as they are, it is simply very difficult to kill large numbers of people with chemical or biological weapons."

Nuclear weapons capacity is intrinsically more difficult to conceal than chemical and biological weapons capacity. Therefore inspections are a more credible response. And from what we knew going in and even more from what we know from the IAEA inspections, it seems very unlikely that Saddam currently has a serious nuclear weapons programs in place now. I don't say that as a matter of certainty because I don't have all the evidence at hand. But from everything I know about the subject it's what I think is true. Does Saddam want nukes? Absolutely. If left to his own devices would he eventually get them? More than likely. But to the extent that we're talking about today, and the certainty that Saddam hasn't given up his WMD programs, I think we're really talking about chem and bio. That doesn't exonerate Saddam but it speaks to the question of timing.

3. Waiting indefinitely isn't necessarily as easy as it sounds. One of the arguments I found most convincing in Pollack's book was that Saddam's ability to play the inspections game is inherently more elastic than ours. His freedom of action is far greater and far more sustainable.

Simply put, he's there. We're not. Or, at least, not in strength. Here's the argument: We've now mobilized a big force to the region. And as long as we're there with our finger at the trigger, he's going to lie very, very low -- as he's doing now. But we can't keep those troops there indefinitely. For money and preparedness reasons we'll eventually have to draw down. Then Saddam can start gaming the system again because our ability to retaliate will be greatly diminished. Then we build up again and Saddam draws back again. That could go on forever. Unfortunately, it's easy for Saddam to go back and forth, but very hard for us. We can't just send a quarter million drops back and forth to the Gulf a couple times a year. It's easy for him but it'll eventually bleed us dry.

Eventually, we'd just have to say, 'Okay, this is lame. We're going to have to settle this once and for all.' Folks like Pollack, certainly the hawks in the administration, and possibly now Colin Powell too, think we're already at that point. And I'm not at all certain they're wrong.

4. It's hard to ignore the fact that Norman Schwarzkopf isn't convinced we should go to war right now. And believe me, he speaks for lots of career officers at the Pentagon whose job it rightly is -- since they're still in uniform -- to give candid advice in private but follow the orders of their civilian superiors.

5. We signed on to inspections. Like it or not, we did. It's very hard for us to say the process has run its course. Hard to say primarily since it's not true. That just raises a problem of consistency for the US. The point of going this route is to push the process hard enough that -- in concert with good data from US intelligence agencies -- the inspectors either find something or we get to some point where the Iraqis stand in the doorway of some factory or building and don't let them do their work. Then the process has broken down. There are reasons I've noted above that weigh heavily against waiting. But for the moment I think it leaves us with a problem of logic if not of policy. If we've got evidence from our intelligence sources that will advance the ball and prove our contentions -- and I'm sure we do -- we need to go as far as we can to make it public.

This list isn't meant to cover all the bases or arrive at any conclusions. It's just meant to address some basic points. I think we're still back to the same basic point. If the issue is whether Saddam is an immediate threat, we've got time and there's no need to act now. Forget Ken Adelman's hokum about a mushroom cloud over an American city. But if we've made the decision that Saddam is a longterm threat to the region and that we have to remove him, maybe it's no time like the present.

I'll stand on what I wrote in this article a few months back.

In the January 25th issue of The Economist, in article on Republican 'outreach' to minorities, the author notes that "the Democrats will fight like hell to hold on to minority voters, who are the only people saving the party from oblivion."

One hears this line a lot, phrased in a variety of ways. And it is unquestionably true, so far as it goes. But what precisely does this mean? I'd figure that taking away 20% or 30% of a party's voters would pretty much always knock it on its heels. What's the subtext of this remark?

I don't think that I've ever heard anyone say that white men from the South and Mountain states are the only thing keeping the GOP from slipping to third party status. Have you heard that? I doubt it.

Even if it's not meant this way, I think the obvious subtext is that the Democratic party can't come close to winning elections in the white electorate and has to make up the margin with minority votes. I don't want to press the point too far. But I can't help feeling like the idea here is that minority votes are in some sense, well, how else to put it?, second-class votes. It's as though a party's political viability and health are best judged by how it fares in the white electorate.

We're going to be getting back to the Confederacy, treason and other related matters. But first we wanted to share with you an email we received this afternoon from Jim B.

Mr. Marshall,

Perhaps the denizens of Washington, D.C. will take no offense at your diatribe regarding the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans in the subject article(s), but those of us who are Southerners, with ancestors who served the Confederacy certainly will. Judging from your picture and the derived age of the person photographed, you probably never received any instruction in our countrys history other than the revisionist garbage now taught in our wonderful, diverse education systems. Slavery was certainly an issue that led to the War of Northern Aggression (who invaded who?), but it was not until lincolns second run for the presidency that it took the fore-front. I'm betting you've never read any of lincolns personal correspondence. He was a racist of the worst sort. So, please don't tar us with the racist brush. After all, it was you yankees that imposed Reconstruction, put thousands of blacks in judgeships, state houses, and positions of authority. Positions they largely were totally unsuited for. In the South, blacks used to be part of the family. Now we are enemies; enemies because you yankees imposed your views and values to the benefit of no one but yourselves. It was not and is not illegal to secede. In fact, the Constitution specifically mentions that we as citizens can turn out the government when it becomes oppressive. Mr lincoln decided the Souths secession was illegal. That's the reason for the war. But, you will never read or research or examine facts and conditions that led to that unfortunate war. You've got your pious, one-sided view and that's that. You know, you would have served well in the Catholic Church during the Inquisition.

So, lay off. You yankees have a history of racism and disrespect for blacks which far exceed that in the South. If anything, your legacy is much more shameful because your racism was calculated and cloaked in 'the law of the land'.

Finally, the Sons of Confederate Veterans is not racist. We do demand that you not label us or restrict the public display of our ancestors flags and symbols. And that's a fair demand. Oh, by the way, what the heck is a neo-confederate?

Jim [** last name suppressed by the editor **]

Alas, the unfinished work of Reconstruction ...

Please pardon the paucity of posts of late. The 17th century is monopolizing much of TPM's attention this week. We should be back to the normal frequency after the weekend. For the moment, don't miss this article on Colin Powell and Iraq policy in today's Post. Interesting reading. Also, don't miss the Post's article on what -- to TPM's lights -- is an especially nasty angle the administration is adopting on prescription drug benefits. Want a prescription drug benefit? No problem. Just give up your Medicare coverage in exchange for entering an HMO! Finally, with Iraq again moving to center stage, next week will be bringing you an interview with Kenneth Pollack, author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.

Well, it just goes to show you can't trust a fly-by-night website to get its facts right on an important news story! You may have heard of the operation: Time.com.

A few days ago TPM picked up a Time.com story about President Bush's resumption of the tradition of sending a wreath to a commemoration of the Confederate war dead -- an apparent pay-off to presidential friend and neo-confederate Richard T. Hines. Now there's a story in Washington Times saying the tradition never stopped under either the first President Bush or President Clinton. Now it was a little unclear to me from the Times story whether Time.com and the Times were actually talking about the same event. Vague as it was, the Times seemed to be talking about something general while Time.com was talking about a specific commemoration tied to Jefferson Davis. Given that, I was inclined to trust Michael Weisskopf and Karen Tumulty at Time.com. But when I went back to read the Time.com story I noticed it's been yanked off their site, with no apparent explanation, though the press release announcing the story is still up.

What gives?

Late Update: Time.com has now retracted the story. That's web journalism for ya! Sheesh ...

Busily working away as I was yesterday writing about seventeenth century New Englanders, land distribution, Indians and warfare, I already had the post about Don Rumsfeld forming in the back of my mind. About two weeks ago, in response to a question about reinstituting the draft, Rumsfeld said draftees had added "no value, no advantage really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time."

It's a standard part of the political game. You say something stupid. Your political foes call you on it and seek political advantage by demanding an apology. But sometimes what you've said is really so stupid and so offensive that you've really gotta apologize. At this point in the post I was going to say, Don Rumsfeld's gotta apologize.

I see in tomorrow morning's Post that he has.

Hundreds of thousands of military draftees served over the years with great distinction and valor -- many being wounded and still others killed. The last thing I would want to do would be to disparage the service of those draftees.
There's a bit of wiggle toward the end of the letter.

I always have had the highest respect for [draftees'] service and I offer my full apology to any veteran who misinterpreted my remarks when I said them ... [italics added]

Let's at least admit one thing. If a Democratic Sec Def had said such a thing there's a very good chance it would have cost him his job. (The outrage expressed yesterday in a letter from three congressional Democrats -- Evans, Daschle, and Kerry -- was undoubtedly sincere.) It was always kind of clear what Rumsfeld meant: draftees get relatively little training and are then cycled out of a conscript army relatively quickly. (There's an argument -- and not at all an unreasonable one -- that on these grounds the all-volunteer army is more efficient -- other issues of equity, and civic values notwithstanding. See a contrary argument here.) But Rumsfeld's words were clearly more than a simple slip of the tongue.

At a minimum they demonstrated a serious lack of sensitivity and respect for not only the sacrifice but the heroism and valor of hundreds of thousand of American draftees who've died in the service of the nation. (Remember World War II? Conscript armies didn't do half bad in that little skirmish, did they?) That's of course not to mention even more who've been wounded and the lucky ones who managed to get through their years of service in one piece. (The official percentage of draftees in WWII, Korea and Vietnam actually understates the effect of conscription since many guys enlisted knowing they'd soon get drafted anyway.) I think the best you can say is that this was a case in which Rumsfeld's sometimes entertaining and sometimes admirable shoot-from-the-hip, no-nonsense style did him, the country, and millions of vets a serious disservice. It's almost unimaginable, for instance, that Colin Powell would have ever made a similar statement.

At least he apologized.

One thing you can say for Rumsfeld is that unlike so many other members of the hawkish wing of this administration, Rumsfeld is himself a veteran. A real one. He served as a Navy Aviator in the mid-1950s and then in the Navy Reserves for a couple decades after that.

Like I said, at least he apologized. To me, I'd say it's the end of the story. But then, I've never served a day in uniform, voluntary or otherwise. So I'm going to leave it to others to judge.

For a couple weeks now, TPM has been pressing the question: what did the Bush administration know about the North Korean uranium enrichment program and when did they know it? Obviously, TPM's reporting resources are nothing compared to those of Seymour Hersh and The New Yorker. Now he's got the goods. And it's not pretty.

Last week we discussed the most recent publicly-aired GOP debate about whether the Northern victory in the civil war was, on balance, a good thing or a bad thing. A member of the Board of Directors of the California GOP, Randy Ridgel, wrote an open letter to fellow Board member Bill Back, taking him to task for apologizing for republishing an article which was a touch soft on slavery. (Back is a candidate to lead the California GOP). Ridgel saw no reason for the apology since ...

The main thrusts of the article was that our rights under the 10th Amendment began to erode chiefly as a result of the South losing the Civil War (true) and that blacks suffered far more from reconstruction than they did from the war. Of course they did; they suffered the destitution and starvation imposed by draconian Northern Reconstruction laws even worse than whites, and most of the poor devils had no experience fending for themselves, so they fared worse than before the war and during the war.
Well, now we bring you the Ridgel Letter in its entirety -- just added to the TPM Document Collection.

Yesterday, you'll remember, we discussed Richard T. Hines, a political ally of President Bush, who provided key support in mauling John McCain in South Carolina in 2000. According to Time.com, he is also the likely force behind the President's decision to resume the practice of sending a wreath to honor the memory of Jefferson Davis on Memorial Day.

Now if you think back to your high school or college American history classes, you may remember the caning of Charles Sumner, one of most infamous moments in the lead-up to the Civil War. Sumner was Senator from Massachusetts and an ardent anti-slavery 'Whig' -- a soon to be defunct political party which was in some ways the predecessor of the Republican party.

In any case, in the Spring of 1856, Sumner delivered a long and explosive speech entitled 'Crime Against Kansas' on whether Kansas should be admitted into the union as a free or slave state. Three days later a South Carolina congressman, Preston Brooks, came into the Senate chamber while Sumner was at his desk and proceeded to beat him over the head with a gold-topped cane. For the key few moments it took Brooks to inflict the first blows Sumner was partially trapped under the desk where he was at work franking copies of his speech -- staffs weren't quite so large as they are these days. After that Brooks proceeded to beat the now thoroughly bloodied Sumner into unconsciousness. It took Sumner years to recuperate -- the Bay State left his seat unoccupied during that time -- and he was partly disabled by the incident for the rest of his life. In most of the country the incident became a symbol of the barbarity of the 'slave power' and its propensity to resort to violence in defense of the 'peculiar institution.' Among Southern 'fire-eaters', Brooks was embraced as a hero.

Here -- just added to the TPM Document Collection -- is President Bush's political ally Richard T. Hines' celebration of the attack ("The Caning of Charles Sumner: Blows Struck for the South") in -- where else? -- the Southern Partisan magazine.

"Mr. Hines, a member of the Reagan administration, tells us how Southerners handle Yankees who don't treat us with respect," says the intro ...

TPMLivewire