Wednesday, March 31, 2004
The news from Iraq is a chilling reminder of the barbarity that plagues the Middle East. And it should be a reminder of what needs to be done to defeat the people who would behave so barbarically toward a corpse, or a living person. If our troops are ever called upon to stop the abuse of a fallen comrade (civilian or military) they should react as though the assailants were attacking a live person. No one who would do something like this would hesitate - except out of cowardice - to actually attempt to kill someone. We're past the point of being able to elicit love from such people. Fear is a good second prize.
The New York Times reports that Nader is still in a fantasy land of his own making, claiming that he will primarily attract disaffected Republicans and will help Kerry win.
Lest we think that this is novel or new, remember that he claimed that Gore was likely going to win in 2000. And the notion that he will somehow "show" Democrats how to beat Bush is bizarre. It bears mentioning that when people are polled twice on their presidential choices and Nader is included the second time, his voters come almost entirely from Kerry's respondents, while Bush respondents stay at almost exactly the same level.
As before, he simply can't understand criticism, so his response is to demean the many people who have tried to address him sympathetically: "I realized that we are confronting a virus, a liberal virus. And the characteristic of a virus is when it takes hold of the individual, it's the same virus, individual letters all written in uncannily the same sequence."
Note to egomaniac: they're in the same sequence because these people are trying to say that they respect you, because in order to appeal to you they have to stick to a fairly established formula of writing. Once that respect goes out the window, expect a wide variation of letters.
But it bears mentioning again that Ralph Nader is too high on himself to concede real intelligence or ideals to anyone other than himself. Disagreement with him isn't a mark of different ideas, it's a "virus." What else could lead people to question the immortal Saint Ralph?
Lest we think that this is novel or new, remember that he claimed that Gore was likely going to win in 2000. And the notion that he will somehow "show" Democrats how to beat Bush is bizarre. It bears mentioning that when people are polled twice on their presidential choices and Nader is included the second time, his voters come almost entirely from Kerry's respondents, while Bush respondents stay at almost exactly the same level.
As before, he simply can't understand criticism, so his response is to demean the many people who have tried to address him sympathetically: "I realized that we are confronting a virus, a liberal virus. And the characteristic of a virus is when it takes hold of the individual, it's the same virus, individual letters all written in uncannily the same sequence."
Note to egomaniac: they're in the same sequence because these people are trying to say that they respect you, because in order to appeal to you they have to stick to a fairly established formula of writing. Once that respect goes out the window, expect a wide variation of letters.
But it bears mentioning again that Ralph Nader is too high on himself to concede real intelligence or ideals to anyone other than himself. Disagreement with him isn't a mark of different ideas, it's a "virus." What else could lead people to question the immortal Saint Ralph?
Sunday, March 28, 2004
The Charlotte Observer finds that the Senate races in North Carolina, South Carolina and Oklahoma may not be slam dunks for the GOP.
I'd be particularly hopeful about the North Carolina race. Liddy Dole's victory over Bowles in 2002 masked the fact that he was starting a late surge. North Carolina is a state with a burgeoning tech sector - exactly the kind of voters that new Southern Democrats want to reach.
I'd be particularly hopeful about the North Carolina race. Liddy Dole's victory over Bowles in 2002 masked the fact that he was starting a late surge. North Carolina is a state with a burgeoning tech sector - exactly the kind of voters that new Southern Democrats want to reach.
After a week of incessant attacks, the Washington Post reports that Bush's efforts to damage the credibility of Richard Clarke are stymied. This has been a sobering experience to watch the gradual escalation of these attacks. To my regret a number of my favorite bloggers have chosen to join in.
The case against him seems to hinge quite a bit on accusing him of hypocrisy or deceit for speaking in praise of the administration while he was a member of it. This rather confuses the question of what his role was - one component of that would be to highlight administration successes. One really does not expect government officials to denounce an administration while part of it - this is in explicit contravention to their role in drafting, implementing and furthering policy.
Also he seems to have been charged with the failures of the Clinton administration. This drags in the problems of hindsight - up until the last years of it, Al Qaeda was simply and plausibly seen as one problem among many. Also it makes him responsible for decisions made above his head, often against his own advice.
Charles Krauhammer blasts him for not resigning during the Clinton years - this is a strange argument for making a symbolic response. One doesn't usually see conservatives arguing this way. Or being so scornful about Clarke's alarm at "increased chatter" in May and June of 2001. Somehow I doubt that Krauthammer would be so scornful were the Bush administration to issue a national alert based on increased chatter today - and today we are much more jaded about such things. Krauthammer takes the party line when he attributes Clarke's frustration to petty career ambitions - in the last paragraph of his attack dog piece.
David Brooks at the New York Times also falls into the hindsight camp. There seems to be particular scorn over the administration's involvement in Yugoslavia after the Kenya and Tanzania bombings. Let's turn back the clock, shall we, and reconsider how much of a threat that the atrocities in Kosovo and potential for regional instability posed to the NATO alliance. There were broad - and we now know - justified fears of violence spreading into Albania and eventually involving Greece and Turkey, though not on the same side. Plus the possibility that a refugee population would be susceptible to Islamic fundamentalism. Brooks is willing to concede that the blame goes around, but then assigns the administration's share of it to its willingness to get into the mud with Clarke. How about its actions before 9/11, when it prioritized missile defense over anti-terrorist initiatives? That's not a question he wants to ask, just like most of the conservatives who inhabit our op-ed pages.
The campaign against Clarke was foredestined to go into the gutter because this administration cannot cognitively deal with critics any other way. That it has lashed out against the man most responsible for alerting the government to the threat of Al Qaeda is a sorry measure of its irresponsibility and brittle character.
The case against him seems to hinge quite a bit on accusing him of hypocrisy or deceit for speaking in praise of the administration while he was a member of it. This rather confuses the question of what his role was - one component of that would be to highlight administration successes. One really does not expect government officials to denounce an administration while part of it - this is in explicit contravention to their role in drafting, implementing and furthering policy.
Also he seems to have been charged with the failures of the Clinton administration. This drags in the problems of hindsight - up until the last years of it, Al Qaeda was simply and plausibly seen as one problem among many. Also it makes him responsible for decisions made above his head, often against his own advice.
Charles Krauhammer blasts him for not resigning during the Clinton years - this is a strange argument for making a symbolic response. One doesn't usually see conservatives arguing this way. Or being so scornful about Clarke's alarm at "increased chatter" in May and June of 2001. Somehow I doubt that Krauthammer would be so scornful were the Bush administration to issue a national alert based on increased chatter today - and today we are much more jaded about such things. Krauthammer takes the party line when he attributes Clarke's frustration to petty career ambitions - in the last paragraph of his attack dog piece.
David Brooks at the New York Times also falls into the hindsight camp. There seems to be particular scorn over the administration's involvement in Yugoslavia after the Kenya and Tanzania bombings. Let's turn back the clock, shall we, and reconsider how much of a threat that the atrocities in Kosovo and potential for regional instability posed to the NATO alliance. There were broad - and we now know - justified fears of violence spreading into Albania and eventually involving Greece and Turkey, though not on the same side. Plus the possibility that a refugee population would be susceptible to Islamic fundamentalism. Brooks is willing to concede that the blame goes around, but then assigns the administration's share of it to its willingness to get into the mud with Clarke. How about its actions before 9/11, when it prioritized missile defense over anti-terrorist initiatives? That's not a question he wants to ask, just like most of the conservatives who inhabit our op-ed pages.
The campaign against Clarke was foredestined to go into the gutter because this administration cannot cognitively deal with critics any other way. That it has lashed out against the man most responsible for alerting the government to the threat of Al Qaeda is a sorry measure of its irresponsibility and brittle character.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
One apparent attempt to retaliate for the killing of the individual we'll call Saruman has been halted. The perverse way by which the would-be bomber was manipulated is revealing:
Also reported - the boy's brother claims that he is mentally impaired.
'Blowing myself up is the only chance I've got to have sex with 72 virgins in the Garden of Eden,' a 14-and-a-half-year-old Palestinian boy told his Israeli investigators after being caught wearing an 8kg explosives belt.
Husam Muhammad Bilal Abdu from Masahiya neighborhood in Nablus was captured Wednesday afternoon by IDF troops near the Hawara roadblock near Nablus, the same place an 11-year-old boy was caught with a bomb last week.
Also reported - the boy's brother claims that he is mentally impaired.
A note to John Kerry
I'm sure the skiing is terrific this time of year, and the Corbusier and the cheery fire are as enchanting as ever. But aren't you running for president?
I'm sure the skiing is terrific this time of year, and the Corbusier and the cheery fire are as enchanting as ever. But aren't you running for president?
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies has hit #1 on Amazon's top sellers list.
Monday, March 22, 2004
This just in: "a great Eye, lidless, wreathed in flame" has been sighted hovering over Arafat's compound in Ramallah.
Oh wait, it's not the lord of Mordor. It's only Christiane Amanpour.
Oh wait, it's not the lord of Mordor. It's only Christiane Amanpour.
Bad news for Saint Ralph: Left wing blowhard Noam "I swear I didn't think the Khmer Rouge had it in them" Chomsky has reportedly endorsed John Kerry, with his own semantic reservations. The last time out Chomsky supported Nader. The grudging tone of Chomsky's endorsement won't do much for Kerry, but the old coot's failure to do anything for Nader is yet another indicator of how far the onetime success story has fallen.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
A Political Bombshell
Richard Clarke, counterterrrorism chief of the national security staff under both Clinton and Bush (II) is about to denounce the Bush administration's handling of the war on terror tonight on 60 Minutes. My own feeling about this is that it's going to be a huge bombshell. Clarke is well known within the political community as the guy advocating greater vigilance against Al Qaeda in the months before 9/11, and he did play a key role in the Bush administration's response. His denunciation of the administration (coupled perhaps with John McCain's vouching for Kerry's security credentials) will make this a very bad week for the Dubya House. I'd recommend watching it.
Richard Clarke, counterterrrorism chief of the national security staff under both Clinton and Bush (II) is about to denounce the Bush administration's handling of the war on terror tonight on 60 Minutes. My own feeling about this is that it's going to be a huge bombshell. Clarke is well known within the political community as the guy advocating greater vigilance against Al Qaeda in the months before 9/11, and he did play a key role in the Bush administration's response. His denunciation of the administration (coupled perhaps with John McCain's vouching for Kerry's security credentials) will make this a very bad week for the Dubya House. I'd recommend watching it.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Zapatero has come out of the gate with his guns blazing, effectively calling Bush and Blair liars and pledging to withdraw Spain's troops from Iraq. He claims that they need reflection and self-criticism - this from a man intent on reaping the maximum political capital from a terrorist atrocity without concern about how his capitulations will spur further terrorism. Writing in The Scotsman Spanish journalist Ramon Perez-Mauria observes that, unlike his predecessor who asserted Spain's political independence of France:
Presumably this will mean accepting the reduced share of votes that France and Germany attempted to force down the throats of Spain and Poland a few months ago - in contravention to promises made to both countries earlier. At the same time, Zapatero seems happy to play the anti-American crowd, with no particular regard for the impact that this will have in Spain. You see, as Perez-Mauria notes, the US has given Spain crucial support in its dispute with Morocco, and also in its efforts against ETA (Spain had reciprocated by being a willing partner in the global effort against terror, including in its interception of a North Korean missile shipment to Yemen).
If this is how the new Spanish government wants to play things, well fine. The next time Morocco comes knocking at their door, let them work without us. Actually, Morocco is a fine ally of the US and an enhanced military assistance program would be a good reward for their support against Al Qaeda. Also, why should we take the slightest risk against ETA by classifying it as a terrorist group? After all, aren't we just arousing their righteous anger and risking attacks against our own cities? No, as Euro-guru Romano Prodi has stated, " "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists. Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago." As Zapatero might say, the occupation of Euskadi has been a disaster and the US shouldn't be sticking out its own neck to protect such an untenable suppression of Basque sovereignty. ETA wouldn't be the way it is without powerful root causes, after all.
(The above is basically in angry jest.)
On the contrary, Mr Zapatero is determined to put Spain back into the fold of France - back, in fact, to where Spain’s foreign policy had been for 200 years until Mr Aznar decided to stand up and give Madrid its own voice. Spain will now, once more, be infantilised as France’s junior partner - or, to put it bluntly, will become France’s Sancho Panza.
Presumably this will mean accepting the reduced share of votes that France and Germany attempted to force down the throats of Spain and Poland a few months ago - in contravention to promises made to both countries earlier. At the same time, Zapatero seems happy to play the anti-American crowd, with no particular regard for the impact that this will have in Spain. You see, as Perez-Mauria notes, the US has given Spain crucial support in its dispute with Morocco, and also in its efforts against ETA (Spain had reciprocated by being a willing partner in the global effort against terror, including in its interception of a North Korean missile shipment to Yemen).
If this is how the new Spanish government wants to play things, well fine. The next time Morocco comes knocking at their door, let them work without us. Actually, Morocco is a fine ally of the US and an enhanced military assistance program would be a good reward for their support against Al Qaeda. Also, why should we take the slightest risk against ETA by classifying it as a terrorist group? After all, aren't we just arousing their righteous anger and risking attacks against our own cities? No, as Euro-guru Romano Prodi has stated, " "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists. Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago." As Zapatero might say, the occupation of Euskadi has been a disaster and the US shouldn't be sticking out its own neck to protect such an untenable suppression of Basque sovereignty. ETA wouldn't be the way it is without powerful root causes, after all.
(The above is basically in angry jest.)
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
A word to John Kerry: no foreign leader in their right mind will make an endorsement public. You know that. So don't make a claim that you can't verify, even if you know it's right.
And even if they could, "Vote Kerry - Chirac Approves" ain't gonna hack it in West Virginia.
And even if they could, "Vote Kerry - Chirac Approves" ain't gonna hack it in West Virginia.
Monday, March 15, 2004
The Spanish Socialists are in a rush to appease - PM-elect Zapatero has announced the imminent withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq before June 30. I'm sure the Iraqis will understand.
Doesn't everyone in the picture look so somber over the national tragedy that has just occurred?
Doesn't everyone in the picture look so somber over the national tragedy that has just occurred?
Sunday, March 14, 2004
A word of advice to Spanish voters
Don't think that you've bought Al Qaeda's goodwill. As the Telegraph reports, Al Qaeda makes a curious statement in its purported dispatch claiming responsibility for the Madrid bombings:
The loss of Muslim Spain is a uniquely painful memory for many Muslims. Bernard Lewis noted at one point that he had "met Muslims in Spain who felt that southern Spain was old Muslim territory. They see it as their duty to recover it - by conversion, not by conquest." If these are the moderates, what might Al Qaeda be thinking, now that it has scored a grand coup with its first action in Spain?
Don't think that you've bought Al Qaeda's goodwill. As the Telegraph reports, Al Qaeda makes a curious statement in its purported dispatch claiming responsibility for the Madrid bombings:
This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader and America's ally in its war against Islam.
- The tragedy of Al-Andalus shall not be repeated
The loss of Muslim Spain is a uniquely painful memory for many Muslims. Bernard Lewis noted at one point that he had "met Muslims in Spain who felt that southern Spain was old Muslim territory. They see it as their duty to recover it - by conversion, not by conquest." If these are the moderates, what might Al Qaeda be thinking, now that it has scored a grand coup with its first action in Spain?
The Benefits of Lashing Out
Sometime after the 9/11 attacks, The Onion published one of it's "Point-Counterpoint" features. One author wrote "We Should Retaliate With Blind Rage" and the other wrote "We Should Retaliate With Measured Focused Rage". This was, I think, one of the few places where retaliating blindly was advocated in print. There was also Ann Coulter's article, but she's truly nuts.
But the notion that blind retaliation is being considered by some as a policy option seems to linger. To some degree, this is because we are engaged in war against terrorism. Against all terrorism? Not really. But calling it a war against "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamist terrorism" would damage the prospects of winning the war in the name of defining it more precisely - a semantic and Pyrrhic victory. The US and allied countries are primarily trying to destroy a specific network of terrorists - Al Qaeda and affiliated organizations. No serious effort has been initiated against Hezbollah, which also has a frightening global network. Ask the average American what kind of terrorism we're fighting and they're not going to think of the Irish variety. Americans generally know who is being targeted, even if the war retains a very vague label.
Does terrorism have root causes? Sure. Should those be addressed? Of course, once you go beyond platitudes. (It's like the realm of law enforcement - you want to put rapists away but you also want to eliminate the child abuse that helps to create future offenders) But addressing them is distinct from appeasing them. The terrorists that attacked the United States on September 11 were the products of a milieu that taught them to despise the West even while they lived there. They were radicalized in mosques funded by Saudi money, trained by a terrorist organization funded by Saudis and abetted by the Taliban and its ISI sponsors. Breaking this cycle will mean breaking the financial and political structures that are so intent on generating violent nihilist hatred. It will also mean assisting in the development of a new Middle East. The ideological kin of the Madrid bombers are intent on slaughtering Shiites in Iraq and Pakistan. If you ask the killers, the root cause of this rage is the existence of Shia Islam and its own (legitimate) political aspirations. Their hatred of Shiites is as unconditional as their hatred of the West. But it is not up to the Shia to somehow ameliorate the causes that are leading to their being targeted - it is up to all of us to assail structures of intolerance (be they Islamist or otherwise) and aid those advocating tolerance. This will require offensive action and taking the struggle across foreign borders.
Sometime after the 9/11 attacks, The Onion published one of it's "Point-Counterpoint" features. One author wrote "We Should Retaliate With Blind Rage" and the other wrote "We Should Retaliate With Measured Focused Rage". This was, I think, one of the few places where retaliating blindly was advocated in print. There was also Ann Coulter's article, but she's truly nuts.
But the notion that blind retaliation is being considered by some as a policy option seems to linger. To some degree, this is because we are engaged in war against terrorism. Against all terrorism? Not really. But calling it a war against "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamist terrorism" would damage the prospects of winning the war in the name of defining it more precisely - a semantic and Pyrrhic victory. The US and allied countries are primarily trying to destroy a specific network of terrorists - Al Qaeda and affiliated organizations. No serious effort has been initiated against Hezbollah, which also has a frightening global network. Ask the average American what kind of terrorism we're fighting and they're not going to think of the Irish variety. Americans generally know who is being targeted, even if the war retains a very vague label.
Does terrorism have root causes? Sure. Should those be addressed? Of course, once you go beyond platitudes. (It's like the realm of law enforcement - you want to put rapists away but you also want to eliminate the child abuse that helps to create future offenders) But addressing them is distinct from appeasing them. The terrorists that attacked the United States on September 11 were the products of a milieu that taught them to despise the West even while they lived there. They were radicalized in mosques funded by Saudi money, trained by a terrorist organization funded by Saudis and abetted by the Taliban and its ISI sponsors. Breaking this cycle will mean breaking the financial and political structures that are so intent on generating violent nihilist hatred. It will also mean assisting in the development of a new Middle East. The ideological kin of the Madrid bombers are intent on slaughtering Shiites in Iraq and Pakistan. If you ask the killers, the root cause of this rage is the existence of Shia Islam and its own (legitimate) political aspirations. Their hatred of Shiites is as unconditional as their hatred of the West. But it is not up to the Shia to somehow ameliorate the causes that are leading to their being targeted - it is up to all of us to assail structures of intolerance (be they Islamist or otherwise) and aid those advocating tolerance. This will require offensive action and taking the struggle across foreign borders.
The Poll triumph of Spain's Socialists against the outgoing Jose Maria Aznar's government is undeniably related to the Madrid bombings. The government seems to have been held responsible for the bombings or blamed for the rush to judge ETA responsible after they occurred. No definitive answer is forthcoming.
As a result, the new Spanish government may well live up to the Socialist Party's pledge to pull Spanish troops from Iraq. This would be a body blow to American efforts to internationalize the peacekeeping mission there.
Worse would be the precedent set for Al Qaeda. If Al Qaeda is behind this bombing - and they do look to be so at this point in time - they have successfully inserted themselves into a European political process and shaped the ultimate outcome. A Spanish withdrawal from Iraq may well encourage the group to attack other countries with troops in Iraq or impending elections. To some degree these attacks may have shown European opinion that there is no sideline to the war against Islamist terror, but I wouldn't expect Al Qaeda to think so. Hamas once successfully premised its 1996 set of attacks in Israel on electing a Likud government; Al Qaeda may well have this precedent in mind. Whatever the new Spanish government does - and fighting terror is the first priority of the incoming prime minister - Al Qaeda has opened a front in Europe.
As a result, the new Spanish government may well live up to the Socialist Party's pledge to pull Spanish troops from Iraq. This would be a body blow to American efforts to internationalize the peacekeeping mission there.
Worse would be the precedent set for Al Qaeda. If Al Qaeda is behind this bombing - and they do look to be so at this point in time - they have successfully inserted themselves into a European political process and shaped the ultimate outcome. A Spanish withdrawal from Iraq may well encourage the group to attack other countries with troops in Iraq or impending elections. To some degree these attacks may have shown European opinion that there is no sideline to the war against Islamist terror, but I wouldn't expect Al Qaeda to think so. Hamas once successfully premised its 1996 set of attacks in Israel on electing a Likud government; Al Qaeda may well have this precedent in mind. Whatever the new Spanish government does - and fighting terror is the first priority of the incoming prime minister - Al Qaeda has opened a front in Europe.
One of the most annoying features of the 2000 election is resurfacing: the debate about having debates. Team Bush will probably follow precedent and try to avoid them to the extent that it can. There were some particularly asinine antics on their part the last time around and I expect no better of them this time. Team Kerry wants monthly debates. I can appreciate the spirit of that but I wonder if that would really be beneficial or if having them would simply water down the importance of debates. Three seems to have been the usual number of debates in the past, plus one for the vice presidential candidates. I don't see a great reason to go beyond that number, but I wouldn't say that it's wrong for Kerry to try.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
A Senate Race to Watch
With former Democrat "Benedict" Nighthorse Campbell having announced that he will not seek reelection this year, there is an open Senate seat in Colorado.
If you go by the theory that the South is hopeless for Democrats, the Southwest - and Colorado in particular - gain real importance. A strong Democratic candidate and the current absence of a clear Republican choice may make this a particularly important race for both determining the Senate and testing the party's fortunes in the region.
Currently, the Democratic frontrunner is Ken Salazar - the state attorney general. The Republican governor, Bill Owens, has declined to run for the seat. Galvanizing Hispanic voters for Salazar may help the Democrats bridge the registration gap in Colorado - there are about 150,000 fewer registered Democrats than Republicans. Three Hispanic-Americans have served in the Senate, all coming from New Mexico. The last retired in 1977.
With former Democrat "Benedict" Nighthorse Campbell having announced that he will not seek reelection this year, there is an open Senate seat in Colorado.
If you go by the theory that the South is hopeless for Democrats, the Southwest - and Colorado in particular - gain real importance. A strong Democratic candidate and the current absence of a clear Republican choice may make this a particularly important race for both determining the Senate and testing the party's fortunes in the region.
Currently, the Democratic frontrunner is Ken Salazar - the state attorney general. The Republican governor, Bill Owens, has declined to run for the seat. Galvanizing Hispanic voters for Salazar may help the Democrats bridge the registration gap in Colorado - there are about 150,000 fewer registered Democrats than Republicans. Three Hispanic-Americans have served in the Senate, all coming from New Mexico. The last retired in 1977.
MEMRI, an organization dedicated to analyzing Arabic-language media, including Al Qaeda declaractions, does not think that the statement claiming Al Qaeda's responsibility for the Madrid attacks is an authentic Al Qaeda document - by their analysis it is linguistically and conceptually inconsistent with prior confirmed statements by the group.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
A Theory
One last thought on the perpetrator of the bombings, while an investigation of them yields conflicting clues. All this speculation is probably useless until more evidence is released, but I'm trying to make sense of this somehow.
Sectors of the Spanish government are convinced it was ETA. Maybe this is from habit. Or maybe it's because they see some telltale signs - the type of dynamite was apparently the same as prior ETA actions and ETA was known to be targeting Madrid rails.
If ETA wanted to stage a major attack that would damage the government and if they didn't want their fingerprints on it, it would not be a hard thing to mask it as an Al Qaeda attack. Plant a van with Arabic-language materials in it? No problemo. Heck, it would be easy to hire a North African immigrant to drive it. Mimic the Al Qaeda style of large simultaneous explosions? Again, no problem. It's only a style and it sure isn't copyrighted. If you have adequate resources to do this, it's only a change of method. Send an anonymous e-mail claiming responsibility as an Islamist group? Easy as Hotmail.
The argument has been made that ETA would be hesitant to kill so many working class people. Yes, but that only works if ETA is blamed for it. Attacking an atypical target is yet another way to mask it.
To do this, ETA would have needed significant resources, and they have been under pressure for a while. But maybe they were capable of it logistically. They certainly were capable of it ideologically. Until more information is on the table, they should remain a strong suspect.
One last thought on the perpetrator of the bombings, while an investigation of them yields conflicting clues. All this speculation is probably useless until more evidence is released, but I'm trying to make sense of this somehow.
Sectors of the Spanish government are convinced it was ETA. Maybe this is from habit. Or maybe it's because they see some telltale signs - the type of dynamite was apparently the same as prior ETA actions and ETA was known to be targeting Madrid rails.
If ETA wanted to stage a major attack that would damage the government and if they didn't want their fingerprints on it, it would not be a hard thing to mask it as an Al Qaeda attack. Plant a van with Arabic-language materials in it? No problemo. Heck, it would be easy to hire a North African immigrant to drive it. Mimic the Al Qaeda style of large simultaneous explosions? Again, no problem. It's only a style and it sure isn't copyrighted. If you have adequate resources to do this, it's only a change of method. Send an anonymous e-mail claiming responsibility as an Islamist group? Easy as Hotmail.
The argument has been made that ETA would be hesitant to kill so many working class people. Yes, but that only works if ETA is blamed for it. Attacking an atypical target is yet another way to mask it.
To do this, ETA would have needed significant resources, and they have been under pressure for a while. But maybe they were capable of it logistically. They certainly were capable of it ideologically. Until more information is on the table, they should remain a strong suspect.
I had thought it was ETA because the Spanish government seemed so convinced of it in their initial response. What if they were wrong and yet were hasty to blame ETA? How will this redound if they're seen as trigger-happy on blaming a Basque faction?
Now it looks like Al Qaeda was indeed responsible for it - Arabic materials were found in a nearby van and a London newspaper has received a letter from an Al Qaeda affiliate claiming responsibility. Did Al Qaeda time this for the Spanish election? Or the two and a half year anniversary of 9/11?
The AP report in the New York Times offers a couple of reasons for thinking that this may indeed be ETA's work:
1100 pounds of explosives would make a pretty massive bomb and these folks do seem to be targeting the rails in Madrid. An ETA-linked politician is denying that they were responsible:
I'm amused that ETA is malicious enough to perpetrate these attacks but strives for consistency as to how they're reported. What if they decided to change their MO? What if they want an attack blamed on Al Qaeda? If the government has been taking a strong anti-ETA position, an ETA-blamed attack would probably help it (the government) make its case. An attack attributed to Al Qaeda would reopen the question of whether Spain should have participated in the Iraq war, thereby damaging the government's prospect. It does seem that this Otegi wants to pose with his comment about "Arab resistance elements." Even if ETA didn't do it, Otegi's sneaking praise of Al Qaeda speaks volumes about the character of ETA and its mouthpieces.
On Feb. 29, police intercepted a Madrid-bound van packed with more than 1,100 pounds of explosives, and blamed ETA. On Christmas Eve, police thwarted an attempted bombing at Chamartin, another Madrid rail station, and arrested two suspected ETA members.
1100 pounds of explosives would make a pretty massive bomb and these folks do seem to be targeting the rails in Madrid. An ETA-linked politician is denying that they were responsible:
Other Spanish officials and media also blamed ETA. But Arnold Otegi, leader of Batasuna, an outlawed Basque party linked to the armed separatist group, denied it was behind the blasts and suggested ``Arab resistance'' elements were responsible.
Arnold Otegi told Radio Popular in San Sebastian that ETA always phones in warnings before it attacks. The interior minister said there was no warning before Thursday's attack.
I'm amused that ETA is malicious enough to perpetrate these attacks but strives for consistency as to how they're reported. What if they decided to change their MO? What if they want an attack blamed on Al Qaeda? If the government has been taking a strong anti-ETA position, an ETA-blamed attack would probably help it (the government) make its case. An attack attributed to Al Qaeda would reopen the question of whether Spain should have participated in the Iraq war, thereby damaging the government's prospect. It does seem that this Otegi wants to pose with his comment about "Arab resistance elements." Even if ETA didn't do it, Otegi's sneaking praise of Al Qaeda speaks volumes about the character of ETA and its mouthpieces.
News from Spain of an set of rail bombs responsible for at least 173 deaths is deeply shocking. Spain is blaming ETA, the Basque separatist organization, for what is probably the worst terrorist attack in continental Europe since 1945.
ETA is extremely bestial but as an American I must confess some initial doubt that they'd be behind this - seeing the high death toll, my first thought was Al Qaeda. Still, this does conform with Spanish fears of an ETA campaign and coincide with Spain's general election. Just as the Bali attacks were Australia's September 11, this cannot fail but be that for Spain. If the ruling party wins - which it was already favored to do - the campaign against ETA may escalate and the United States should do everything it can to help.
ETA is extremely bestial but as an American I must confess some initial doubt that they'd be behind this - seeing the high death toll, my first thought was Al Qaeda. Still, this does conform with Spanish fears of an ETA campaign and coincide with Spain's general election. Just as the Bali attacks were Australia's September 11, this cannot fail but be that for Spain. If the ruling party wins - which it was already favored to do - the campaign against ETA may escalate and the United States should do everything it can to help.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Sometimes it seems that if you give Tom Friedman enough oxygen, he'll talk himself into a full circle. After a few columns where he has tried to allay American worries about high-tech outsourcing, his latest - The Great Indian Dream - says the following:
So if you are worried about outsourcing, I've got good news and bad news. The good news is that a unique techno-cultural-economic perfect storm came together in the early 1990's to make India a formidable competitor and partner for certain U.S. jobs - and there are not a lot of other Indias out there. The bad news, from a competition point of view, is that there are 555 million Indians under the age of 25, and a lot of them want a piece of 'The Great Indian Dream,' which is a lot like the American version.
Embrace Germany
An article at The New Republic - which is currently inaccessible due to serious problems with that site's interface - notes a warming trend in US-German relations. Schroeder has gotten all the benefit he was going to get from playing the anti-American card and it wasn't that much. With the failure of the Franco-German axis apparent, he and Bush have mended fences to a significant extent. Meanwhile, a Franco-American force works toward a shared mission in Haiti.
The Bush administration has often handled alliances badly, but it would be unfair to ignore their successes as well. At this point, with the prospect of meaningful German help with Iraq at hand, it's only fair to credit them for making significant gains with Germany in the wake of the Iraq war. A certain Democratic challenger will need to ensure that his rhetoric tracks with reality on this score. If the Bush administration can answer charges that it has isolated America by citing revitalized or mended alliances, it will retain the advantage.
An article at The New Republic - which is currently inaccessible due to serious problems with that site's interface - notes a warming trend in US-German relations. Schroeder has gotten all the benefit he was going to get from playing the anti-American card and it wasn't that much. With the failure of the Franco-German axis apparent, he and Bush have mended fences to a significant extent. Meanwhile, a Franco-American force works toward a shared mission in Haiti.
The Bush administration has often handled alliances badly, but it would be unfair to ignore their successes as well. At this point, with the prospect of meaningful German help with Iraq at hand, it's only fair to credit them for making significant gains with Germany in the wake of the Iraq war. A certain Democratic challenger will need to ensure that his rhetoric tracks with reality on this score. If the Bush administration can answer charges that it has isolated America by citing revitalized or mended alliances, it will retain the advantage.
An invaluable article by Daniel Serwer, director of the United States Institute for Peace - Doing Right By Iraq - notes the considerable progress being achieved in Iraq in spite of terrorist attacks and then comes to term with our own domestic debate over the causes of the war:
Read the whole thing, as we say.
This has particular significance as we enter an American presidential race. Administration policy in Iraq is quite properly being questioned: Was it right to go to war? Did doing so increase U.S. security? Would we have gone to war had we known that there were no large stocks of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Was it a good idea to go to war without U.N. or NATO backing? These are tough questions that need to be asked, and answered, in the upcoming presidential election campaign and in years to come.
But there is the risk that those who oppose the administration on the Iraq war will now inadvertently undermine the building of the peace. Whatever the answers on prewar Iraq policy, we are in Iraq now and need to stay the course, with as many allies as we can muster. There is no turning back.
Read the whole thing, as we say.
Friday, March 05, 2004
How do you see Ralph Nader? As a noble idealist? There's not many left who hold that view. As a self-righteous blowhard? Join the club. But wait, there's a third category of views about Nader: that he's a lifelong liberal who has fallen into self-destructive spasms in his declining years.
Jonathan Chait's profile of Nader's career - Make You Ralph - serves as a powerful refutation of the notion that Nader's fits of egomania, self-righteousness, and paranoia are a recent phenomenon. Chait chronicles the paranoid and liberal-hating side of Nader and shows how far back it goes in his life.
By Chait's account, Nader savaged Edmund Muskie - one of the Senate's early voices for environmental protection - and consistently worked to defeat bills to create a consumer protection agency. People who criticized him could only be personal enemies in his feverish mind.
A new and invidious wrinkle in Nader's thinking emerged by 1980:
It's funny because he said the same thing during the 2000 election. Of course the 1980 election ushered in an era of strong conservatism, deeply unbalanced budgets, and a rightward shift in the electorate. The Democratic Party rode to defeat when it ran liberals in 1984 and 1988, only succeeding with the center-left Clinton, whose own efforts were further hampered by the consolidation of right wing power in 1994. Nothing from this early flirtation with Leninist notions of "heightening the contradictions" should have told Ralph that electing another conservative Republican in 2000 would produce a boost in liberal activism, and a consideration of the outcome of 12 years of Republican rule might have caused a less hard-hearted person to wonder if the cost was worth it. What liberal coalitions exist now are not so much geared toward expanding civil, consumer or environmental protections as shielding those that remain from further onslaught.
Of course, one of the time-honored definitions of insanity is the notion that you can try the same thing repeatedly and get different results. In that sense, Ralph has very much left this world.
Jonathan Chait's profile of Nader's career - Make You Ralph - serves as a powerful refutation of the notion that Nader's fits of egomania, self-righteousness, and paranoia are a recent phenomenon. Chait chronicles the paranoid and liberal-hating side of Nader and shows how far back it goes in his life.
By Chait's account, Nader savaged Edmund Muskie - one of the Senate's early voices for environmental protection - and consistently worked to defeat bills to create a consumer protection agency. People who criticized him could only be personal enemies in his feverish mind.
A new and invidious wrinkle in Nader's thinking emerged by 1980:
In the summer of 1980, Jonathan Alter (now a Newsweek columnist) worked on Nader's voting guide for the presidential election. Alter came away amazed by Nader's fury at Carter. "He didn't seem overly distressed at the idea of Ronald Reagan becoming president," Alter later told Martin. As Nader addressed a gathering of supporters in 1981, according to The Washington Post, "Reagan is going to breed the biggest resurgence in nonpartisan citizen activism in history.
It's funny because he said the same thing during the 2000 election. Of course the 1980 election ushered in an era of strong conservatism, deeply unbalanced budgets, and a rightward shift in the electorate. The Democratic Party rode to defeat when it ran liberals in 1984 and 1988, only succeeding with the center-left Clinton, whose own efforts were further hampered by the consolidation of right wing power in 1994. Nothing from this early flirtation with Leninist notions of "heightening the contradictions" should have told Ralph that electing another conservative Republican in 2000 would produce a boost in liberal activism, and a consideration of the outcome of 12 years of Republican rule might have caused a less hard-hearted person to wonder if the cost was worth it. What liberal coalitions exist now are not so much geared toward expanding civil, consumer or environmental protections as shielding those that remain from further onslaught.
Of course, one of the time-honored definitions of insanity is the notion that you can try the same thing repeatedly and get different results. In that sense, Ralph has very much left this world.
Oh, that WMD program!
NYTimes: Russian Engineers Reportedly Gave Missile Aid to Iraq:
Quick - someone tell Sean Penn!
NYTimes: Russian Engineers Reportedly Gave Missile Aid to Iraq:
A group of Russian engineers secretly aided Saddam Hussein's long-range ballistic missile program, providing technical assistance for prohibited Iraqi weapons projects even in the years just before the war that ousted him from power, American government officials say.
Quick - someone tell Sean Penn!
The always-excellent EJ Dionne offers a sharp diagnosis of the Edwards campaign:
Edwards also shortchanged himself. By sticking so relentlessly to his stump speech, he only occasionally gave voters a glimpse at the extensive set of policy proposals beneath his rhetoric. This allowed skeptics to see him as slick, even though the substance was there.
Most important, Edwards, like Reagan, managed to offer a searing critique of the status quo while still conveying an unapologetic optimism about his country as a place 'where all things are possible.' Edwards's message will be heard again, because his fellow Democrats would be fools not to steal it.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
This MSNBC report provides this weeks "WTF?!?!" moment - it claims that the US avoided attacking Abu Musab Zarqawi when it had the chance to in the runup before the Iraq war. Why? It might undermine the case for war. If true, what an idiotic idea. Why wouldn't finding and apprehending or killing Zarqawi in Iraq validate the case for war? And isn't taking out Al Qaeda members as or more important? Zarqawi's bombing campaign has been blamed for 700 deaths. This is Tora Bora all over again.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Perhaps it's time to start a pool as to how long it will take Al Gore to issue a new endorsement. Given the proven power of the Word of Gore, the Kerry campaign may ask him to make it on the morning of Wednesday, November 3 2004.
Alas, it appears that Edwards will be leaving the race. It makes sense for him to do so in the wake of Tuesday's results. He really needed Ohio in addition to Georgia - there would have been no better way for him to demonstrate his viability in vying for working class, somewhat conservative Democrats.
His speech to his supporters last night featured him at his best: upbeat, strong and encouraging. At the end I almost expected him to say he was going on, but CNN reiterated their own reporting of his imminent departure.
The Edwards phenomenon outlasted and outperformed the Dean phenomenon for a number of reasons. Firstly, they made the best of their more limited resources. Edwards faced a steep challenge expanding his base beyond trial lawyers, but managed to hold things together long enough to emerge with some reserves, while Dean was blowing his wad in New Hampshire. Secondly, Edwards did what others like to think they did: bring new voters to the Democratic primary. These voters happened to be more centrist in outlook, but those are exactly the voters that the party will need in battleground states. Thirdly, he demonstrated convincingly the power of the personal style of politics - it was said that the campaign's best weapon was Edwards' personality and his ability to win over crowds. Fourthly, he managed to steer the race in a positive direction - and remind other candidates of the power of positivity. He first gained by his refusal to sink into the muck of mudslinging. This may have hampered him later on against Kerry, but it also had clear benefits that Kerry clearly noticed.
The field always tilted against Edwards. Both Dean and then Kerry generally had a home-field advantage: superior financial resources, endorsements of leading local politicians, and entrenched campaign organizations. Given all that, Edwards did remarkably well and Democrats would do well to remember his approach in the post-convention season. It's anyone's guess whether Kerry will take Edwards on as a VP candidate - and some articles note that Kerry doesn't really think he should - but he would do well to enlist him in some way, if only to campaign for him in the fall. John Edwards represents a vital segment of the Democratic electorate, and I doubt that we've seen the last of him.
His speech to his supporters last night featured him at his best: upbeat, strong and encouraging. At the end I almost expected him to say he was going on, but CNN reiterated their own reporting of his imminent departure.
The Edwards phenomenon outlasted and outperformed the Dean phenomenon for a number of reasons. Firstly, they made the best of their more limited resources. Edwards faced a steep challenge expanding his base beyond trial lawyers, but managed to hold things together long enough to emerge with some reserves, while Dean was blowing his wad in New Hampshire. Secondly, Edwards did what others like to think they did: bring new voters to the Democratic primary. These voters happened to be more centrist in outlook, but those are exactly the voters that the party will need in battleground states. Thirdly, he demonstrated convincingly the power of the personal style of politics - it was said that the campaign's best weapon was Edwards' personality and his ability to win over crowds. Fourthly, he managed to steer the race in a positive direction - and remind other candidates of the power of positivity. He first gained by his refusal to sink into the muck of mudslinging. This may have hampered him later on against Kerry, but it also had clear benefits that Kerry clearly noticed.
The field always tilted against Edwards. Both Dean and then Kerry generally had a home-field advantage: superior financial resources, endorsements of leading local politicians, and entrenched campaign organizations. Given all that, Edwards did remarkably well and Democrats would do well to remember his approach in the post-convention season. It's anyone's guess whether Kerry will take Edwards on as a VP candidate - and some articles note that Kerry doesn't really think he should - but he would do well to enlist him in some way, if only to campaign for him in the fall. John Edwards represents a vital segment of the Democratic electorate, and I doubt that we've seen the last of him.
