1 Boring Old Man

Socialist thugs are better at creating private sector jobs
DailyKOS
by Jed Lewison
Dec 04, 2009

In light of the good news in today’s jobs report, here’s something that the Republican loons who call President Obama a socialist thug should wrap their minds around: since 1959, the average private sector job growth under four-year Democratic administrations is 11.7%. Under Republican administrations, it’s 5.4%. In other words, during the four years of a Democratic administration, private sector job creation has, on average, grown more than twice as quickly as it has under Republican administrations. Take a look at the numbers:

Data source: BLS.gov

That’s right: the communist-fascist-socialist thugs trying to destroy America are actually better for its private sector economy than the freedom-loving teabaggers who claim to be trying to save the nation from tyranny. Keep in mind this are just private sector jobs, so even if you believe Michael Steele’s nonsensical declaration that government jobs aren’t real jobs, you have to admit, Democrats do it better when it comes to creating jobs. If you’re still skeptical, the raw numbers are here. Check ’em out. Meanwhile, I’m just looking forward to hearing Glenn Beck’s conspiracy theory on why these numbers are false.

The Analytic Mode
New York Times
By DAVID BROOKS
December 4, 2009

Obama … cloaked himself in what you might call Niebuhrian modesty. His decision to expand the war is the most morally consequential one of his presidency so far, yet as the moral stakes rose, Obama’s emotional temperature cooled to just above freezing. He spoke Tuesday night in the manner of an unwilling volunteer, balancing the arguments within his administration by leading the country deeper in while pointing the way out. Despite the ambivalence, he did act. This is not mishmash. With his two surges, Obama will more than double the number of American troops in Afghanistan. As Andrew Ferguson of The Weekly Standard pointed out, he is the first Democratic president in 40 years to deploy a significant number of troops into a war zone.

Those new troops are not themselves a strategy; they are enablers of an evolving strategy. Over the next year, there will be disasters, errors and surprises — as in all wars. But the generals will have more resources with which to cope and respond. If the generals continue to find that stationing troops in the villages of Helmand Province leads to the revival of Afghan society, they will have the troops to do more of that. If they continue to find that order can be maintained only if social development accompanies military action, they will have more troops for that. We have no way of knowing now how those troops will end up being used. And we have no clue if it will be wise to withdraw them in July 2011.

The advantage of the Obama governing style is that his argument-based organization is a learning organization. Amid the torrent of memos and evidence and dispute, the Obama administration is able to adjust and respond more quickly than, say, the Bush administration ever did. The disadvantage is the tendency to bureaucratize the war. Armed conflict is about morale, motivation, honor, fear and breaking the enemy’s will. The danger is that Obama’s analytic mode will neglect the intangibles that are the essence of the fight. It will fail to inspire and comfort. Soldiers and Marines don’t have the luxury of adopting President Obama’s calibrated stance since they are being asked to potentially sacrifice everything. Barring a scientific breakthrough, we can’t merge Obama’s analysis with George Bush’s passion. But we should still be glad that he is governing the way he is. I loved covering the Obama campaign. But amid problems like Afghanistan and health care, it simply wouldn’t do to give gauzy speeches about the meaning of the word hope. It is in Obama’s nature to lead a government by symposium. Embrace the complexity. Learn to live with the dispassion.

Those new troops are not themselves a strategy; they are enablers of an evolving strategy. Over the next year, there will be disasters, errors and surprises — as in all wars. But the generals will have more resources with which to cope and respond. If the generals continue to find that stationing troops in the villages of Helmand Province leads to the revival of Afghan society, they will have the troops to do more of that. If they continue to find that order can be maintained only if social development accompanies military action, they will have more troops for that. We have no way of knowing now how those troops will end up being used. And we have no clue if it will be wise to withdraw them in July 2011.

It’s a pity the Republican Party isn’t functional these days. Obama really is a moderate, and as bipartisan a Democrat as they will ever see. They’re so dead set on being crazy that they are missing opportunities rarely offered to a minority Party. 2010 will be interesting in that regard. The Republican Party is purging reasonable people and trying to collect even more crazies than they’ve got already. We have no choice but to fight them tooth and toenail. There’s no room right now for anything resembling a true conservative among them.

What a year 2009 has been. Like most of us, I’m disappointed that we don’t have the kind of Financial Reform I’d personally like either in place or in the works. I’m disappointed we don’t have a Public Works job core either in place or in the works. On the other hand, I’m pleased Obama got his Stimulus Program through Congress, and I’m impressed that Health Care Reform is still in play. I don’t like Geithner. I do like Holder. I’m loving Hillary as Secretary of State and I am impressed with Biden’s bringing dignity back to his office.

In spite of my disappointments with some of Obama’s timidity, primarily in the economic realm, I love having him in the White House. He’s exactly what I want him to be – an honest, careful, right-thinking person. How he’s managed to even get out of bed in the morning in the face of the onslaught from the Republicans, the Fox Network, hate radio, and even the Progressives in beyond me. He carries himself with respect and maintains a cool head at times when he has every right to lash out. And in spite of the epidemic bad faith politics that is rampant in Washington today, I think he’s beginning to grow on the people who have opposed every breath he’s taken in the past. His policies are too moderate for my tastes, but I said "vote competence, not ideology" and the man is both principled and competent. We can ask for nothing more than that.

But Obama isn’t the big story from 2009. It’s the Sarcasticrats that deserve top billing – O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Rove, the Fox News blondes, Limbaugh, and any number of Republican Congressmen. And among that group, the principle player is Dick Cheney – spewing his contemptuous venom at any opportunity. He may well occupy a unique spot in American history – a Former Vice President from the worst Administration that ever was, a man who really deserves jail time [or at least exile], who criticizes everything that his successor does to try to deal with the mess he and President Bush left behind. Even the other Sarcasticrats avoid Dick Cheney, yet he speaks as if he’s a pundit, a hero from a glorious age whose duty is to keep us on the path to nowhere carved during his eight years as King.

Our future is down to just one number now. The Market’s up. Things are settling down somewhat in lots of areas. The politicians are winding up for the mid-terms. But there’s this one nagging number, and the monthly figures came out December 4 at 8:30 AM EST:

Seasonally Adjusted

Unemployment Rate: 10.2% in Oct 2009 Historical Data

Unemployment Rate: 10.0% in Nov 2009 Historical Data

It ain’t great, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the alternative! Even the "jobs lost" data [lower graph] looks good…

^{Tip for 2010: Avoid stock in Dubai…}

• I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law.
• I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt.
• I cannot support a movement that so abandoned government’s minimal and vital role to police markets and address natural disasters that it gave us Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008.
• I cannot support a movement that holds torture as a core value.
• I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.
• I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.
• I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.
• I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government.
• I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs.
• I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.
• I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.
• I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.
• I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.
• I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending.
• I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.
• I cannot support a movement that believes that the United States should be the sole global power, should sustain a permanent war machine to police the entire planet, and sees violence as the core tool for international relations.
• Does this make me a "radical leftist" as Michelle Malkin would say? Emphatically not. But it sure disqualifies me from the current American right.
• To paraphrase Reagan, I didn’t leave the conservative movement. It left me.
• And increasingly, I’m not alone.

Chilcot inquiry: US said Iraqis would welcome invasion
guardian.co.uk
by Richard Norton-Taylor
1 December 2009

^{British attempts to persuade the US to plan for the consequences of an invasion of Iraq foundered on a "blind spot" in Washington where senior officials thought "everyone would be grateful and there would be dancing in the streets", the Chilcot inquiry into the war was told today. There was "a touching belief [in Washington] that we shouldn’t worry so much about the aftermath because it was all going to be sweetness and light", added Edward Chaplin, head of the Middle East department of the Foreign Office at the time. It was assumed that all would be well, especially if power was handed to an exiled opposition spokesman such as Ahmed Chalabi. "We said [to the Americans] they had very little credibility in Iraq," Chaplin told the inquiry. It is known that Chalabi was feted by the neocons in Washington, including those in the Pentagon who took over the job of deciding how Iraq should be run after the invasion…}

^{Today, Chaplin and Sir Peter Ricketts, then political director at the FCO, said they were dismayed by the way the Bush administration failed to take the issue seriously, despite personal appeals from Tony Blair to George Bush. Evidence at the inquiry continued to paint a picture of a British administration led by Blair desperately trying – and initially persuading Bush – to go down the UN route to achieve international consensus on Iraq. But if that were to fail, Blair would join the US-led invasion. "If the UK was to be part of a military operation, it was essential we exhausted every [diplomatic] option," said Ricketts. "The threat of force became more and more obvious," he added.}

^{In further evidence of the advice to Blair before his crucial meeting with Bush at the president’s ranch at Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, 11 months before the invasion, Ricketts said there were "very serious doubts there was any legal basis for [military action] at that time". He referred to a leaked document in which Jack Straw, the then foreign secretary, warned Blair: "The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few. "The risks are high, both for you and the government. I judge that there is at present no majority inside the PLP [parliamentary Labour party] for any military action against Iraq."}

^{One inquiry panel member, the historian Sir Martin Gilbert, referred to a Cabinet Office paper drawn up at the time. It warned: "A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers’ advice, none currently exists. This makes moving quickly to invade legally very difficult. We should therefore consider a staged approach, establishing international support, building up pressure on Saddam, and developing military plans". The inquiry heard that shortly after the Crawford meeting, in late April 2002, Blair asked the MoD to start contingency planning for military action in secret.}

^{In the event of military action, Ricketts told the inquiry, Lord Boyce, then chief of the defence staff, needed the agreement of the government’s law officers. That was an "absolute requirement", said Ricketts. On 7 March 2003, less than a fortnight before the invasion, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, advised that British commanders could be arraigned before the international criminal court if they joined the US-led invasion. Boyce, who is giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry later this week, subsequently demanded "unequivocal" advice that an invasion would be legal.}

^{He was later given that advice on a small piece of paper, after the attorney general’s office contacted Downing Street, which said it was "unequivocally" Blair’s view that Iraq had committed new breaches of UN resolutions. Today, Lord Steyn, a former law lord, said Blair led Britain into an "illegal" war to get rid of Saddam Hussein and expected the inquiry to say so. He said the invasion "encouraged disrespect for the law by authoritarian regimes who copied the words and examples of George W Bush and Tony Blair"…}

Ministers kept Iraq war plan secret, Chilcot inquiry told
guardian.co.uk
by Richard Norton-Taylor
3 December 2009

^{The head of the armed forces at the time of the Iraq invasion said today he had been unable to prepare British troops properly for war because the government did not want the plans to become public knowledge. Admiral Lord Boyce told the Iraq inquiry that Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, banned him from talking to a senior logistics official, and that the timetable was so tight that one unit, the Desert Rats of 7th Armoured brigade, was not operational until the day before the invasion. The former chief of defence staff also described how, after expressing concern about the legality of the invasion, he finally received a "one-liner" from Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, giving him the go-ahead…}

^{Boyce said the defence chiefs "ramped up" planning for possible war after a key meeting between Tony Blair and George Bush at the US president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, 11 months before the invasion. A small group of officials began to draw up contingency plans, he said. More detailed planning was under way that autumn, Boyce explained. He added: "But I was not allowed to speak, for example, to the chief of defence logistics…}

^{"I was prevented from doing that by the defence secretary [Hoon] because of the concern of it becoming public knowledge that we were planning for a military contribution, which might be unhelpful in the activity in the UN to secure a security council resolution"…}

^{He said he had told Blair and the cabinet that the country needed a strong legal basis to go to war, "which obviously a second [UN] resolution would have completely nailed". The Butler inquiry into the use of intelligence to back an invasion heard that Boyce demanded an "unequivocal" view from the attorney general that an invasion would be lawful. Boyce said today he finally got it in a "one-liner" note from Goldsmith. Describing the night of the Commons vote in favour of invasion, Boyce said: "I was absolutely prepared to unhook ourselves [from the invasion]." "Would that have been humiliating for us?" he was asked. "We are living in a democracy," he replied.}

^{Boyce said there was a "complete reluctance" on the part of influential members of a "dysfunctional" Bush administration, notably defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to believe that Britain would not commit troops unless the diplomatic process had been exhausted and parliament approved. No matter how many times British officials said to senior American commanders, and to Rumsfeld in particular, that the UK would not commit itself to military force without going through the UN route, "’we know you say that, but come the day you will be there’ was the attitude," Boyce said…}

^{Boyce said Rumsfeld’s unwillingness to commit more troops to Iraq contributed to the breakdown of order – particularly around Baghdad – following the invasion. "I was always extremely concerned about the anorexic nature of the American contribution. The Americans at that particular stage were very much, ‘we’re going to do the war fighting, not the peacekeeping,’" said Boyce. He added: "Combine that with the obsession that Mr Rumsfeld had with his network-centric warfare and therefore to prove that you can minimise your number of troops because you had clever methods other than using boots on the ground, meant that, in my view, we were desperately under-resourced so far as those forces going towards Baghdad were concerned"}

Donald Rumsfeld: "dysfunctional" "anorhexic" "obsession" "network-centric" "under-resourced" [sounds like a mentally ill person to me].The picture being painted of our leadership is not particularly flattering. But there’s no reason to doubt what’s being said. The British kept pushing for legal justification for the invasion. They apparently had to convince us to even go through the U.N. at all. And in January 2003, before Powell’s speech, Bush told Blair that we were going to war no matter what happened in the U.N.

I saw a car today with an American flag on the antenna. It had patriotic magnetic stickers and those "support the troops" ribbons in a couple of colors on the trunk. There was a time when that’s the way the majority of cars around here looked. I guessed it was someone with a child fighting in the Middle East. As I read these reports of the Chilcot Inquiry, I kept thinking about all those cars back in 2003 and 2004, and the tremendous faith and support Americans put behind President Bush’s War on Terrorism – and his invasion of Iraq. It was such a colossal betrayal. I was a skeptic back then, but like most of us I kept my mouth shut. I wanted to "support our troops" too. I was confused by it all. It was hard for me to even suspect that they would make up reasons to commit us to a war – that they would exploit the people’s support – much of it reluctant – for some kind of idiosyncratic and concealed reason. But that’s exactly what they did. And I had no clue how inept they really were.

• The situation in Afghanistan really is the result of our own failures – inattention to the war because of a preoccupation with our Iraq misadventure; ineptness of our leaders; failure to deal with al Qaeda and the Taliban having havens in Northern Pakistan; corrupt leadership in Afghanistan willing to have us keep him in office.

• A firm statement that we are coming home at some defined point – no matter what.
• Training for the Afghan Forces that are willing to fight. Support for non-corrupt Afghans.
• Sweeping the Taliban again [because they came back].
• Supporting Pakistan in driving their own enemies from Northern Pakistan.