Obama disagrees with Edwards and Clinton, says of debates, “the more the merrier.” That and other political news of the day in today’s Election Central Sunday Roundup.
With an opening sentence like this …
Former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) used to cut seedy political deals over well-done steak at the posh Capital Grille. Jim Black had to settle for the bathroom at the local IHOP.
How can you not read it?
This might put a crimp in the White House’s talking points.
Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.
About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.
Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq’s Sunni Arab insurgency.
He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.
The LA Times’ report suggests this reality has left the U.S. in an “awkward position,” because the Saudis are ostensibly a key ally in the region, which apparently has been unsuccessful in preventing its citizens from committing acts of terror in Iraq.
Or, put another way, Andrew Sullivan explains, “The Saudis, of course, are among the Bush family’s closest friends, so we neither mention nor tackle this. The gulf between the reality in the Middle East and the president’s account of it grows wider and wider.”
Speaking of classic opening sentences, William Kristol takes the unusual step in a Washington Post piece of anticipating mockery: “I suppose I’ll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush’s presidency will probably be a successful one.”
Kristol’s argument is surprisingly weak, but he got one point exactly right: he exposed himself to ridicule. Here’s his pitch:
Let’s step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let’s look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil — not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy — also something that wasn’t inevitable.
And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where — despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless “benchmark” report last week — we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.
It’s probably not necessary to highlight Kristol’s errors in too much detail, but let’s take a moment to point out some of the more glaring problems with the basic pitch.
First, Kristol credits Bush with preventing a post-9/11 terrorist attack. That’s false — about a month after 9/11, someone sent weaponized anthrax to two Democratic senators and several news outlets. Five Americans were killed and 17 more suffered serious illnesses. If the administration has made any headway in bringing the terrorists to justice, it’s been awfully quiet about it.
For that matter, while the U.S. has thankfully not suffered any major terrorist attacks since 2001, Kristol neglects to mention that terrorist attacks around the world have gone up every year since.
Second, Kristol touts a “strong economy.” His timing could have been better — Kristol’s boasts ran on the same day the New York Times highlighted the modern-day “Gilded Age,” in which the United States has the most dramatic concentration of wealth at the top since the 1920s. All the while, poverty has increased, Bush has run the largest budget deficits in American history, and economic growth has been sluggish, at best.
And third, Kristol, of course, believes we’re “on course to a successful outcome” in Iraq. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
If the handful of Americans who still approve of the president’s job performance hope to persuade others to their way of thinking, they’ll have to do better than this.
As weak as the Lugar/Warner amendment is, it’s still too tough for the White House.
President Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said Sunday the administration’s “very orderly process” for reviewing its Iraq plans should be allowed to play out despite a hurry-up initiative from two respected GOP senators.
Hadley’s reply was “No” when asked whether Bush could live with the proposal by Sens. John Warner of Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana.
It’s a toothless measure that basically amounts to a stern suggestion — and it’s unacceptable.
The president said this week, “Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That’s their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops.” Any steps to change the policy in any way will be vetoed.
It’s time for a gut-check among congressional Republicans — are you anything more than the president’s ATM?
It seems like the kind of comment that warranted some follow-up.
During a panel discussion of the 2008 presidential election on the July 15 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, syndicated columnist Robert Novak asserted: “Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don’t see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, ‘OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before.’ And it gives the Republicans hope.”
And why is that, exactly? The all-white, all-male panel on the program didn’t follow-up.
The president sat down on Friday with a small group of sympathetic conservative journalists — Bush is generally at his most comfortable around those who already convinced how right he is — and offered some insights into his perspective on Iraq.
“[L]ast fall, if I had been part of this polling, if they had called upstairs and said, do you approve of Iraq I would have been on the 66 percent who said, ‘No I don’t approve.’ That’s why I made the decision I made. To get in a position where I would be able to say ‘Yes, I approve.'”
Mark Kleiman translated the remarks for the rest of us.
“I’m not nearly as stupid as my supporters. Back when I was telling the world that things in Iraq were going well, and you folks were helping me by calling anyone who said otherwise a traitor, I knew we were all lying.”
It was an odd thing for Bush to concede, wasn’t it? Last fall, the White House was insisting, aggressively, that critics of the war were confused and misguided. To disapprove of the war, the president and his aides said, was to support a dangerous agenda that would necessarily undermine national security.
Except now the president is prepared to argue that he was with the unsatisfied majority. Here’s a follow-up: what does that say about Bush’s opinion of the one-third of Americans who bought into the White House line and told pollsters that they approved of how the war was going?
Donât look now, but a certain third party candidate is considering a fourth presidential campaign.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader told the Green Party’s national convention that he is considering a 2008 presidential run and accused Democrats of trying to shut smaller parties out of the political process. […]
Nader said before jumping into the 2008 presidential race he would have to put together an organization of thousands of volunteers and pro bono lawyers to defend him against the “Democratic quadrennial assault.”
“We’re going to be ready for them. We will confront them on every level,” Nader told a news conference.
What’s unclear at this point is why Nader wants to run. He recently conceded that he doesnât expect to win a presidential race, he doesnât expect to change the Democratic agenda, he doesnât expect to appear in the debates, and he doesnât even expect to make the ballot in every state.
Asked what the point of a fourth unsuccessful campaign would be, Nader told the Politico, âWhat third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people. And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties.â
It’s hardly a persuasive pitch. Major parties can and do bring young people into the process, Naderâs multiple efforts have never affected election standards, and his campaigns have generally done a poor job of promoting progressive ideas (preferring instead to focus on his disdain for the two major parties).
As for âtweakingâ candidates, thatâs a pretty shallow reason to launch a presidential bid.
What an amazing thing.
I must confess that it simply hadn’t occurred to me until now to look for live performances of my favorite music on Youtube. Given who I am and what I do, Youtube has pretty much just been a vehicle for distributing video material from TPM. Oh, and finding Elmo videos for my son, but that’s sort of a niche interest.
I think I could spend the whole evening just digging up old Dylan and Rolling Stones videos. I’ve gotta get out more, figuratively if not literally.
As Osama bin Laden regroups in Pakistan’s Waziristan province, the locals declare an all-out war on Pervez Musharraf.