Obsidian Wings

Facing Facts

by hilzoy

Megan McArdle thinks that liberal bloggers need to acknowledge the good news coming out of Iraq:

"Lately, however, the anti-war side is beginning to sound a lot like the boosters they were so angry at. This is the particular example that caught my eye, but there is an increasingly rich body of blog posts and other writing that are the collective equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la la la la I can't HEAR you!""

Since I have only begun to catch up on the blog reading I missed while I was playing dead, I have no idea whether McArdle is right about the liberal blogosphere (though I can't see what she thinks is wrong with Thoreau's piece.) However, speaking only for myself: consider the good news acknowledged. As Charles noted, casualties, both coalition and civilian, are down. Moreover, things like electricity are up:

"For the week ending December 8, availability of electrical current rose in all but one of nine sites where Slogger's sources estimate average daily power supply from the grid each week.

While no Baghdad area reports a full and uninterrupted power supply, the increase is remarkable in some areas when compared to the data from previous weeks."

Obviously, this is good news. Even one fewer casualty would be a blessing; drops of a thousand a month are really wonderful. That said, it would be nice if more conservative bloggers acknowledged some of the following:

First, it should not surprise us that casualties are down. We have an excellent army. Our soldiers are good at what they do. It is predictable that putting more of them in places where armed groups are fighting one another might cause an initial rise in casualties, as more of those combatants are engaged, but would ultimately cause those combatants to at least defer their conflict until we leave. That would bring civilian casualties down.

Second, that is not a good enough reason for us to deploy our troops somewhere, especially if the result of deploying them is simply to postpone conflict, rather than bringing it to an end.

Third, for this reason, reducing casualties was never the point of the surge. The point was to provide the breathing space needed for political reconciliation. This hasn't happened:

"The U.S. troop buildup in Iraq was meant to freeze the country's civil war so political leaders could rebuild their fractured nation. Ten months later, the country's bloodshed has dropped, but the military strategy has failed to reverse Iraq's disintegration into areas dominated by militias, tribes and parties, with a weak central government struggling to assert its influence.

In the south, Shiite Muslim militias are at war over the lucrative oil resources in the Basra region. To the west, in Anbar province, Sunni Arab tribes that once fought U.S. forces now help police the streets and control the highways to Jordan and Syria. In the north, Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens are locked in a battle for the regions around Kirkuk and Mosul. In Baghdad, blast walls partition neighborhoods policed by Sunni paramilitary groups and Shiite militias.

"Iraq is moving in the direction of a failed state, a highly decentralized situation -- totally unplanned, of course -- with competing centers of power run by warlords and militias," said Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group. "The central government has no political control whatsoever beyond Baghdad, maybe not even beyond the Green Zone."

The capital's Green Zone mirrors the chaos outside. Once the base of Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime, it is now the seat of Iraq's fractured and dysfunctional representative government. The U.S. troop buildup was intended to help Iraq's national leaders overcome differences and give them space to pass compromise measures to end the country's sectarian war, but lawmakers remain divided and continue to harbor suspicions about each other's motives.

In the summer, the country's Sunni Arab minority quit the coalition government, leaving Shiites and Kurds with a razor-thin majority in parliament. They appear unable to push forward any solution to the country's problems, whether a national oil law, a review of Iraq's new constitution or legislation defining the powers of provincial councils. All efforts to define relations between Baghdad and outlying regions are stalled."

Fourth, noting that political reconciliation has not happened is not the "equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la la la la I can't HEAR you!"" It's more like this: suppose I had a friend who insisted that he couldn't kick his crack habit because he was under too much financial pressure, so I agreed to pay his bills for a few months, on condition that he use that time to actually try to quit. Liberal bloggers thought this was a bad idea: my friend had no apparent interest in kicking his crack habit, and thus it seemed pretty likely that I was just throwing my money away. No, I assured them: I have made it clear that my commitment is not open-ended. I've said: it's time for you to perform, and I will judge you now less on your words and more on your performance. I'm not just giving this money blindly; my friend has adopted benchmarks for success, and I plan to hold him to them, though I won't say how.

Now suppose that while I paid my friend's bills, to no one's surprise, his financial problems got better, but he made no effort to stop smoking crack. Liberal bloggers said: well, of course it's good that your friend isn't feeling as much financial pressure, but the fact remains that the whole point of this was to let him kick his crack habit, and not only has he not done that, he hasn't even tried. That would not constitute sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "La la la la la la la I can't HEAR you!", or refusing to take yes for an answer. It would just be basic common sense.

Finally, one major difference between the example I just made up and the actual surge is that the surge doesn't just involve spending a lot of money. It involves sending people off to fight and die. If we are going to ask our soldiers to risk their lives, the very least we can do is make sure that we are doing so for a good reason. In the case at hand, that means asking not just whether our troops can reduce casualties in Baghdad -- which, of course, they can -- but what strategic goal that reduction is supposed to serve. Are we planning on keeping our troops in Iraq forever, at their present levels? Of course not: we don't have that many troops, and this administration has shown no interest in taking the steps it would have to take to change that basic fact. Is there any reason to think that once we reduce the levels of troops, and even more so once we leave altogether, the violence we have damped down won't just resume? Not really: that was what political reconciliation was supposed to achieve, and it hasn't happened. Moreover, as best I can tell, one reason why casualties have dropped is simply that various parties have decided to wait us out, and to spend the surge retooling their militias, jockeying for position, and preparing for the coming civil war.

Megan McArdle may think that liberal bloggers who point out that while the surge has reduced casualties, it has not achieved its stated goals, are just refusing to acknowledge good news. As I've said, I disagree. But conservative (or other) bloggers who point to the reductions in casualties as though they made the surge worthwhile, without asking whether the surge is likely to achieve any lasting improvements in Iraq, look to me as though they were more interested in being able to point to something that looks like success for their side than in the actual outcome in Iraq. But those who go further and belittle people who ask what strategic goals the surge was meant to serve, and whether it is achieving them, are doing something worse.

As I've said, we owe it to those we ask to fight and die for us to make sure that we never ask them to do so without a very good reason. Anyone who tries to paint the question what strategic goals an undoubted tactical success actually serves as a sign of a politically motivated inability to acknowledge good news makes it more difficult for the rest of us to try to live up to that responsibility. Given a choice between "sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la la la la I can't HEAR you!"" and undermining our ability to ask the questions we need to ask if we are to do right by our troops, I know what I would choose.

They Come To Casablanca ... And Wait ... And Wait ...

by hilzoy

From the NYT, h/t Gary:

"Steadily lengthening delays in the resolution of Social Security disability claims have left hundreds of thousands of people in a kind of purgatory, now waiting as long as three years for a decision.

Two-thirds of those who appeal an initial rejection eventually win their cases.

But in the meantime, more and more people have lost their homes, declared bankruptcy or even died while awaiting an appeals hearing, say lawyers representing claimants and officials of the Social Security Administration, which administers disability benefits for those judged unable to work or who face terminal illness.

The agency’s new plan to hire at least 150 new appeals judges to whittle down the backlog, which has soared to 755,000 from 311,000 in 2000, will require $100 million more than President Bush requested this year and still more in the future. The plan has been delayed by the standoff between Congress and the White House over domestic appropriations.

There are 1,025 judges currently at work, and the wait for an appeals hearing averages more than 500 days, compared with 258 in 2000. Without new hirings, federal officials predict even longer waits and more of the personal tragedies that can result from years of painful uncertainty.

Progress against the backlog, if it happens, cannot undo the three years that Belinda Virgil of Fayetteville has worried about her future since her initial application was turned down. Tethered to an oxygen tank 24 hours a day because of emphysema and life-threatening sleep apnea, Ms. Virgil lost her apartment and has alternated between a sofa in her daughter’s crowded house and a friend’s place as she waits for answer to her appeal."

One of the things that tends to get lost in the wrangling over domestic appropriations is that there are plenty of cases, like this, in which it ought to be uncontroversial that we should raise spending. If appeals to decisions to deny benefits take over 500 days on average, that is simply too long. The obvious way to address this problem is to hire more appeals judges. This will cost money, but it will save people who will, in fact, eventually be found to deserve benefits from losing their homes, their credit ratings, their everything. Hiring more judges ought, therefore, to be a complete no-brainer, and the fact that it is caught in the political crossfire should be a source of shame to us.

While we wait for politicians capable of addressing these problems, we can take at least one simple step to help alleviate the consequences of this nightmare: give money to Gary Farber, who is caught in it. Gary has convenient buttons at the top of his blog that allow you to donate once, or (preferably) subscribe for the amount of your choice. Either will help him survive the appeals process. They will also help to postpone the day when he has to ask again, and if you think about what begging for money must be like, minimizing it is in itself a good reason to give. So if you haven't already done it, now would be a good time.

Thanks.

More Fine Work from the Politico

by publius

Hillary Clinton apparently joined the Politico staff this week, writing a longish (for the Politico) piece attacking Obama as – wait for it – too liberal. This devastating, devastating piece is based on a single questionnaire provided to a random voter group in Illinois in 1996 (the famous “Independent Voters of Illinois — Independent Precinct Organization”). To top it off, it was written by a then-campaign manager.

If Clinton, err, I mean Mike Allen and Ben Smith wanted to do something other than water-carrying for oppositional research teams, they might, you know, provide some other public statements corroborating the wild communist positions in the questionnaire. They provided, however, exactly none.

Regardless, the blunt statements of his earlier views, preserved on a questionnaire he filled out for an Illinois voter group that later endorsed him[trigger Psycho music], would allow a Republican opponent to paint him as being way to the left of the nation’s electorate on questions that have historically been potent wedge issues.

That’s all you got? Just the questionnaire? I assume if they had more they would have said “preserved on a questionnaire and several other public speeches,” etc. Clinton’s got some crack oppo researchers in Chicago it seems.

But the more ridiculous part of the story is how Team Allen uses this slender reed to launch a hackneyed “too liberal” narrative that is apparently scalded on DC journalists’ minds. I mean, far be it from me to belittle such penetrating insights as “Republicans will call him too liberal” and “Grover Norquist will say mean things about him.”

Pretty weak stuff - but nonetheless, it's the "TOP POLITICAL NEWS."

I'm Not Dead

by hilzoy

Hi, and sorry for my absence. It has been an interesting fall, and about -- two weeks ago? -- I just let blogging slip away, what with one thing and another. It's nothing drastic, just a lot of things piling up on top of one another, and my not realizing how long it had been, and then my thinking: gosh, there sure is a lot to catch up with, and trying to catch up, and failing. In any case, having just tried to get through the most recent bout of comments, I decided to write before I actually finished, on the grounds that the comments to Charles' post alone are pretty daunting.

Also, to apologize.

It has been an interesting fall. But I think winter will be better.

Consider this an open thread.

Facing Vader

by publius

YODA

No more training do you require. Already know
you that which you need.

LUKE
Then I am a Jedi.

YODA
Ohhh. Not yet. One thing remains: Vader. You
must confront Vader. Then, only then, a Jedi
will you be.

The Dems’ latest unwillingness to fight on Iraq funding is hardly surprising. In fact, it’s only the latest example of a larger pattern of behavior on nationalism-tinged security issues – early ostentatious vocal opposition followed by capitulation. On issue after issue, the pattern repeats itself. This sorry state of affairs got me thinking about Star Wars. Continuing to dodge the battle won’t necessarily harm Dems in the short term – indeed, it may help them. But at some point, they’re going to have to stand their ground and fight Vader.

I’m not entirely sure why Luke had to fight Vader again to be Jedi. The characters are so archetypal that the fight lends itself to several interpretations. Maybe it’s Freudian – Luke had to take a stand against his father to become an adult. Maybe it’s psychological – Luke had to conquer his own inner demons (fear, hatred) before he could take the next step. I’m sure there are many other interpretations as well. Regardless, the larger point is that he had to confront his opponent to be rid of him.

On national security issues, the Dems (or at least the leadership and a decent chunk of the caucus) continue to battle their own inner demons. Privately, I think nearly all of them disagree with Bush’s policies on the merits. And to their credit, they do at least initially criticize them. But when push comes to shove, they remain (unlike Bush) too afraid to play the game of chicken that will ultimately be required. That’s why we see the pattern noted above – early opposition followed by grudging acquiescence.

The upcoming Iraq appropriations bill illustrates the pattern, but there are numerous other examples. Most obviously, the Dems have acquiesced on every Iraq spending bill – they have yet to impose any sort of meaningful constraints on the war. On surveillance and FISA, the Dems initially talked a big game, but have yet to actually do anything. Same deal on Mukasey and waterboarding. And let’s not forget the atrocity that was the Military Commissions Act. As Glenn Greenwald explains well, the Dems preferred to hide behind McCain and Warner, hoping these men – unlike them – would hold strong. And let’s also not forget the Iraq War itself – the granddaddy surrender of them all.

To be fair, the Dems lacked the votes on some of these issues. On others, it probably made political sense to go along. But on others, it was simply a lack of will. In these instances, they either had the votes, or at least could have sustained a filibuster. But regardless, they’ve never stood firm on security issues – and the reason is because they’re afraid. They’re afraid of backlash in marginal states and districts. Some of these fears are justified, but some aren’t.

To the extent the Dems have a strategy, it seems to be duck, bob, and weave until they can be saved by the 2008 election bell. They are avoiding a high-level security battle (i.e., a game of chicken) in the hopes that a Democratic President is just around the bend. This strategy, however, is short-sighted. It won’t work even if it works. That is, even if a Dem wins in 2008, the Congressional leadership won’t “win,” they will simply postpone the fight for another day.

To ultimately win, you have to stand your ground at some point. Iran-Contra is before my time, but it seems like Reagan critics had a similarly short-sighted strategy. They focused more on procedure than on the merits of the underlying motivations and political ideology that led to Iran-Contra in the first place. (There’s an article somewhere in the ether that makes this point – feel free to provide a link if you know what I’m talking about). Rather than squarely fight abuse of executive authority and ultra-nationalist anti-communism, they bobbed and weaved and focused on the procedural margins. They never squarely confronted the real demon.

As a result, it’s back – both figuratively and literally. Not only has the Bush administration fanned the nationalist flames, not only has it committed grotesque abuses of executive authority, it’s hired the very same people involved in the 1980s (Negroponte, Addington, etc.).

The Dems can’t make the Cheney worldview go away by dodging it and winning an election. It will come back. The Imperial Forces will retreat to AEI for four or eight or twelve years – however long they must. But eventually, they’ll be back. They always come back.

That’s why the Dems must ultimately go all in on a national security battle. They need to pick their battles of course. But to rid ourselves of the Cheney worldview, there has to be a political fight against it – a final showdown. A game of chicken. Rank-and-file Dems need to know that their alternative worldview (no torture, rule of law, etc.) are politically viable. Every time one of these issues comes up, vulnerable Dems will rightly fear juvenile ultra-nationalist attack ads – that is, until the Dems stand, face them, and win. Success on one front – any front – will breed further success.

Yoda was right. You can’t get there unless you stand and fight. I’m not saying this particular Iraq bill is the place to do it. But at some point, they’ve got to face Vader.

Looks like a trend

by Charles

[Upate at the end.]

There are clearer signs that Iraq is becoming less violent, perhaps sustainably so.  Civilian casualties are one measure for gauging the success or failure of a counterinsurgency operation, and they have dropped for the third consecutive month.

(Hat tip to Engram for the graphs.)  The three-month moving average shows a similar trend.

The source for the above is the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, which takes its data from independent media reports. Al Qaeda will still get away with spectacular suicide bombings, but the above doesn't look like statistical noise to me. It's a noticeable trend, and it doesn't take the willing suspension of disbelief to see it.  For one thing, al Qaeda is losing its gambit.  Here's what Strategypage says:

Al Qaeda appears to be moving its main effort to Afghanistan, after operations in Iraq, North Africa, Somalia and Europe (not to mention North America) have all largely failed. But continued Taliban activity in Pakistan and Afghanistan has provided al Qaeda with one area where they might be able to have a little success. But that will require a change in methods. In the rest of the world, al Qaeda has caused itself lots of problems by using terror tactics against Moslems (who refused to support the terrorists). This approach worked, for a while, but eventually the Moslem victims had enough and turned on al Qaeda. There have already been some clashes in Pakistan, between angry tribesmen, and al Qaeda groups that tried to use force to get what they wanted. To many of the Pushtun tribes along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier, the al Qaeda gunmen are seen as haughty foreigners, who look down on Pushtuns, and are quick to use force on anyone who gets in their way.

To take advantage of this, U.S. forces are talking to Afghan tribes about opposing al Qaeda, and letting the Americans help them do it. The news of what al Qaeda did in Iraq gets around, as does the eventual angry reaction of Iraqis. The U.S. is offering the potentially anti-al Qaeda tribes weapons, equipment and other aid. This might work, as the Afghan tribes are amenable to gifts, especially from someone they have shared interests with.

When 40 senior al Qaeda members are killed or captured in one month, it's time to leave. Al Qaeda has irretrievably lost, in my opinion. For another, Muqtada al Sadr have made threatening noises, but he and his Mahdi militias are still on the sidelines.  The violence on the Shiite side has lessened considerably, and Sunni insurgent groups are working with the coalition (for the most part).  Looking ahead, it's easy to foresee increased tensions between Sunni tribes as well as intraparty squabbles between Shiite groups (as well as lots of other squabbles), but for the last several months, there are few signs of a civil war, intractable or otherwise.  In concert with fewer civilian casualties, U.S. troop casualties are also lower despite relatively high troop numbers and despite continuing kinetic operations and despite the fact that more soldiers are on the streets instead of parked in forward operating bases.

More below the fold...

Sweet Memory Lane

by publius

Steve Dunleavy, New York Post, 9/21/99 (no link):

IT WON'T be hard to find Bill Clinton in New York today - just follow the traffic jams that his visits always produce.

But don't look for his conscience. For the past 14 years, you wouldn't have been able to find it with AWAC radar and search parties.

I am not talking about the scandals of lying to judges and juries, or low-jinks in high places, or Whitewater or Travelgate or Filegate.

It has to do with a man called Wayne Dumond, over whose case I have agonized for long more than a decade.

Dumond, now 52, was given conditional parole yesterday in Arkansas after having being sentenced to 50 years in jail for the rape of Clinton's cousin.

That rape never happened.

. . .

The father of the so-called rape victim was one of Clinton's biggest donors in his race for the Arkansas Governor's Mansion.

. . .

I have in the past spoken to Wayne Dumond for hours in his cell, and, apart from never seeing his wife when he gets his freedom, he says: "No, I'm not bitter. I've learned a lot. I think I've become one of those computer nuts while in jail."

We will be able to find Clinton today in New York. But who can find his conscience?

Steve Dunleavy, New York Post, 2/22/1999 (and note Juan Williams reference - still a wanker):

I SURE HOPE BILL'S NO RAPIST

IF I were falsely accused of rape - whether I were Bill Clinton , Prince Charles or Joey Bullets from Brooklyn - I would move like a cougar.

I would whisk my false accuser before a court with such haste, I'd break the speed limit.

Addressing this ugly allegation yesterday on Fox News Channel, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill) said:

"I don't know whether it [the allegation against Clinton] is founded or not. That's something Attorney General Janet Reno should look at for foundation."

Janet Reno? She's too busy trying to nail independent counsel Kenneth Starr to concern herself with mere allegations of rape.

. . .

Just tell us, Mr. President: I didn't rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick.

. . .

Sadly, I have known women who have been raped who would never come forward because of the obvious trauma.

Juan Williams, a prestigious liberal commentator, said about the allegations: "Where is Mrs. Clinton on this? ... It is something you would think feminists would be outraged about."

Britt Hume of Fox television said, "This is far uglier than anything we have ever heard."

. . .

For Bill Clinton's sake, I hope he is proved innocent. In 1989, under Bill Clinton's stewardship, an Arkansas man named Wayne Dumond was convicted in a highly controversial case of raping a relative of Bill Clinton.

Despite overwhelming evidence that Dumond was innocent, Clinton, as governor, refused to review the case and let stand a 50-year sentence which Dumond is still serving.

There would be more. Before going to jail, Dumond almost bled to death after two masked intruders castrated him.

Rapists are not treated kindly in Arkansas.

Peaking Too Early

by publius

In other signs of the apocalypse, watch as I quote Byron York on Huckabee and the NIE:

After Kuhn explained the NIE's findings to Huckabee, Huckabee seemed confused about what it meant. Beyond doing nothing to resolve doubts about his foreign policy qualifications, the exchange underscores the fact that Huckabee doesn't really have much of a campaign, in the sense that Giuliani and Romney have campaigns, with teams of advisers and carefully-thought-out policy positions. In important ways, he has been flying by the seat of his pants, relying on his unequaled talents as a retail campaigner. But now that he is leading in Iowa, and moving up nationally as well, the deficiencies of his campaign might come more and more into the spotlight.

In political campaigns, you often hear that a candidate is “peaking too early.” It’s not entirely clear what the phrase means though. If anything, it's misleading because it subtly implies that campaigns helplessly rise and fall like rhythms of nature. But campaigns rise and fall for specific reasons – not merely because things that go up must come down.

“Peaking too early,” then, may simply be a way of saying that one’s ascent generated too many costs to last. These costs could come at the front end or the back end. For instance, maybe you burned through too many resources on the way up. Think about a sprinter who briefly takes first place in the Boston Marathon before quickly falling back. Alternatively, and on the back end, maybe something about being first (or at least polling higher) generates new costs. This is where York’s point comes in. Huckabee’s ascent makes him more visible and more open to new attacks. These are costs he didn’t have the luxury of facing months ago.

As of now, both Huckabee and Obama are on the upswing. And it may be that both are peaking too early. But I doubt it. My prediction is that Huckabee is peaking too early, but Obama is not. The difference – which York correctly seizes upon – is organization. Huckabee lacks a real organization in Iowa, or anywhere else for that matter. As York notes, Huckabee doesn’t have sophisticated organizations that can digest breaking news quickly and advise him accordingly.

Huckabee’s NIE failure is therefore a textbook example of the dynamic I explained above. His rise is exposing all-too-clearly his infrastructural weaknesses in ways he never had to deal with before. A few more body blows like the NIE ignorance – completely preventable blows at that – could break Huckabee Fever. If, however, he had peaked two weeks from now, maybe he could have run out the clock before these flaws were exposed.

Obama, by contrast, is a different story. He arguably has the best organization on the ground in Iowa, and in a number of other states too. Because he has constructed a sophisticated, tentacled organization, he's in an infinitely stronger position to maximize his wave and translate it into lasting political gains. To use an analogy, Obama’s camp has spent months meticulously digging the ditches and carving out the irrigation channels, waiting for the flood waters. If and when they come, Obama's campaign can direct and manage them far more systematically. Huckabee, by contrast, doesn’t seem ready for the wave he’s experiencing. He doesn’t have the organization in place to seize this wave and – for instance – recruit new caucus volunteers, inspire people to sign up with local chapters, etc.

The larger, entirely non-novel point here is that organization matters. You must have organizational structures in place to seize the big moments when they come. And this point extends well beyond campaigns. Josh Marshall, for instance, made the effort to transform a popular, yet routine, blog into a new sprawling media organization. As a result, he's ready when the muck comes calling (from Alaska and elsewhere).

Also, Matt Bai’s book – which I’m only now reading – illustrates the same lesson with respect to the construction of the conservative intellectual infrastructure over the past 30 years. From Justice Powell on, conservatives carefully built up organizations and infrastructure that allowed them to seize critical moments (e.g., Bush’s election, 9/11) when they happened.

Of course, things don’t always work out so well. But true political change (good or bad) requires organization-building. Obama’s team seems to understand that at a much deeper level than the others. And it’s beginning to show.

[UPDATE: Scott Lemieux has more. He also introduces me to the phrase "Hair Club for Growth," which I shall incorporate forthwith.]

The End of Days

by publius

Robert Kagan:

Regardless of what one thinks about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- and there is much to question in the report -- its practical effects are indisputable. The Bush administration cannot take military action against Iran during its remaining time in office . . . .

With its policy tools broken, the Bush administration can sit around isolated for the next year. Or it can seize the initiative, and do the next administration a favor, by opening direct talks with Tehran.

Book of Matthew, chapter 24 (slight return):

And as Jesus sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

And Jesus answered and said unto them, ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars.

Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

And there shall be Kagans, and they shall be calling for diplomatic relations with Iran.

Revelation, chapter 6 (slight return):

And when the Lamb had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Kagan (no, the other one), and he was calling for diplomatic relations with Iran.

Stock up on water people.

This Week's Bolton

by publius

There's obviously a lot to say about what one hopes is the timely end of Cheney's war with Iran. And when I get more time, I'll say it. But first, a quick word on the great John Bolton. Given that the Post's Peter Baker can'€™t seem to write a foreign affairs article without quoting Bolton (we need the lunatic perspective for balance), today's quote is unsurprising:

Others favoring a more confrontational approach to Iran were not convinced by the report. "While I was in the administration, I saw intelligence march up the hill and down the hill in short periods of time with no reason for them to change their mind," said John R. Bolton, Bush's former ambassador to the United Nations. "I've never based my view on this week's intelligence."

I'€™m torn on this quote. On the one hand, I respect the veiled reference to Elvis Costello. On the other, I'm somewhat disturbed that Bolton is bragging to a national newspaper that his foreign policy views are impervious to changing facts. Empiricism is for weenies and appeasers, after all.

Much more later.

[PS - And yes, I recognize that I'm stretching for the Elvis reference. But that was sort of a joke -- I seriously doubt the Mustache of Destruction would ever invoke the Second Best Elvis, particularly what is quite clearly his best album.]