Libertarian Leanings

The Favor

In the first of his four part series on the Future of Iraq, Michael Totten questions whether the relative calm is permanent and sustainable, or if it's just an extended lull in the violence.  My own conclusion is there is more reason for optimism than pessimism for the future of Iraq.  But I was struck by this quote from Totten's Spanish colleague, Ramon Lobo.

'The Bush Administration has done a big favor for the Obama Administration. Obama arrived with everything fixed. If the situation is okay, you can go. And if it's not okay, the Iraqis may ask you to stay a little bit more.'

And Obama to his credit is keeping his options open, with troop drawdown going forward according to conditions on the ground in Iraq, just as Bush had insisted.  This newfound flexibility on Obama's part is diametrically opposed to what he promised on the campaign trail, for which we should be thankful.  That this one is among the many Obama campaign promises that have expired is reason for optimism.   

Panetta fires back. Pelosi has problems.

Thursday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the Central Intelligence Agency of lying to congress, which is a criminal offense, by the way.   

'QUESTION: Madam Speaker, just to be clear, you’re accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002?

PELOSI: Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States, misleading the Congress of the United States. I am'

Friday Leon Panetta, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, took issue with that reply. 

'WASHINGTON -- The Central Intelligence Agency's chief fought back Friday against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that the CIA "was misleading" Congress, issuing a memo defending the integrity of its employees and contradicting her assertion that she wasn't told about agency's use of waterboarding to interrogate suspected terrorists.

[...]

"CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'" Mr. Panetta wrote in a memo to agency employees. He was referring to an alleged senior al Qaeda detainee in CIA custody in September 2002, when Ms. Pelosi attended a briefing in her capacity as the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

"Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress," he wrote. "That is against our laws and our values."

Other intelligence officials also contradicted Ms. Pelosi's account of the briefing, saying her assertion that she wasn't told waterboarding was in use at the time is wrong. "That's 180 degrees different from what the CIA's records show," an intelligence official said. Mr. Zubaydah was waterboarded, which critics say is torture, 83 times during the month before Ms. Pelosi's briefing in September 2002.'

Ms. Pelosi's press conference bordered on the incoherent.  Quite frankly, the old broad needs new tricks, but there she is back at the same old well, which is beginning to show signs of running dry.  She accused the Bush administration, which is out of office by they way, of trying to shift attention away from the real issue.

'So -- so let’s get this straight. The Bush administration has conceived a policy, the CIA comes to the Congress, withholds information about the timing and the use of this subject. They -- we later find out that it had been taking place before they even briefed us about the legal opinions and told us that they were not being used.

This is a tactic, a diversionary tactic to take the spotlight off of those who conceived, developed and implemented these policies, which all of us long opposed.'

It's true that former Vice President Dick Cheney has recently stepped up in defense of Bush administration policies, but he isn't diverting anybody from anything.  Far from it.  When he decided it was time to speak up, he said straight out, putting a wet hanky on Abu Zubaydah's face isn't torture.  I for one, agree with him.  And if it is, so what?  American lives were at stake and American deaths were prevented.  The Bush administration got the information out of him, and they're proud they did.  I am too.  No diversions there.

But this has all caught poor Ms. Pelosi by surprise.  I'd be willing to bet she thought that resuscitating the old torture story was going to be just another routine smear -- a chip-shot Bush-bash, a gimme, an easy nail in the Republican coffin. 

But something wasn't quite right.  Unusually pointed questions coming from reporters -- her own team for the love of god -- were bewildering.  She tried to remind them of the good times, murmuring their special words.  "Imminent threat?" she offered.  It used to work every time.

'So let me say this: Of all of the briefings that I had received, at this same time, they were misinforming me earlier. Now, in September, the same time as the -- as the briefing, they were telling the American people there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and it was an imminent threat to the United States.

I, to the limit of what I could say to my caucus, told them the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that this administration is contending.'

But the magic isn't there anymore.  Where did their love go?  The words "imminent threat" were always like a potion, sweet nothings guaranteed to set press hearts aflutter, so she thought.  Or maybe it was never quite like that.  Maybe it was the prim and proper looking Pelosi who was the one seduced.  It's almost tragic. 

Bush never frightened anybody with wild stories of imminent threat, but saying he did made for a great story.  If only somebody could give it some legs.  Can you help us with our story, Nancy?  Can you push it?  Oh, yes.  Yes.  I can do that.  I love to do that. 

Well, they got their story but now it's old news, and there was never anything to it to begin with.  Let's just go back a few years for a peek at who said what about the "imminent threat" from Iraq.  This is from Ira Sharkansky's Shark Blog, October 21, 2003.  The emphasis below is his, and not all of his links work anymore, but the quotes are accurate.

'Al Gore September 23, 2002

President Bush now asserts that we will take preemptive action even if the threat we perceive is not imminent.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi October 3, 2002

"As the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I have seen no evidence or intelligence that suggests that Iraq indeed poses an imminent threat to our nation. If the Administration has that information, they have not shared it with the Congress.

(It's fair to assume that if the administration did not share such information with the House Intelligence Committee, it is because the administration was not trying to tell Congress that Iraq posed an imminent threat)

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz December 6, 2002

Some people said [during the Cuban Missile Crisis] that Kennedy should have waited until the threat was imminent. We hear that again today. But we cannot wait to act until the threat is imminent. The notion that we can do so assumes that we will know when the threat is imminent. That wasn't true even when the United States was presented with the very obvious threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba. As President Kennedy said 40 years ago, "We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." If that was true in 1962, facing a threat that was comparatively easy to see, how much more true is it today against threats developed by terrorists who use the freedom of democratic societies to plot and plan in our midst in secret.

Stop and think for a moment. Just when did the attacks of September 11 become imminent? Certainly they were imminent on September 10, although we didn't know it. In fact, the September 11 terrorists established themselves in the United States long before that date - many months or even a couple of years earlier. Anyone who believes that we can wait until we have certain knowledge that attacks are imminent has failed to connect the dots that took us to September 11.

President George W Bush, State of the Union speech January 28, 2003

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Senator Edward Kennedy January 28, 2003 [in reaction to the State of the Union speech]

[The President] did not make a persuasive case that the threat is imminent and that war is the only alternative

New York Times on the State of the Union, January 29, 2003 [archive only]

The heart of Mr. Bush's argument, however, is that America and the world cannot afford to wait until it is clear that Iraq will attack America, or its allies.

''Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent,'' he said, a clear reference to European nations that argue that Mr. Hussein is contained.

Los Angeles Times January 29, 2003

THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS; Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat

The above front-page headline in the L.A. Times is the earliest media report that I can find which claims that the administration called Iraq an imminent threat.'

Leave it to the LA Times to be the first to jump on the imminent threat meme, even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.  Maybe Ms. Pelosi took that as a pledge of press loyalty:  Yes Nancy, we know it's BS but the stakes are so high.  If you run with it we'll back you. 

But that was then and this is now, and the old sweet phrases don't mean that much anymore.  The press can't be depended upon to protect her flank.  Her's is the story that's going to sell the papers, if it's still possible to sell any.  Pelosi has problems.

Pelosi's Real Job

In the latest version of Nancy Pelosi's tale of the CIA enhanced interrogation briefings, not only was she not told about them, she also claims that it was not her job to protest the methods anyway.

'"My job was to change the majority in Congress and to change --- to fight to have a new president because what was happening was not consistent with our values, certainly not true and something that had to be changed. We did that. We have a new president. He says he's going to ban torture," she said. 

"But no letter could change the policy," Pelosi said. "It was clear we had to change the leadership of the Congress and the White House. That was my job."

Republicans' jaws dropped at her statements.'

It can't be news of her job description that has Republicans flabbergasted.  It's pretty obvious that politics is her job and it always has been.  These minor issues, like how to defend the nation, are distractions from the real objective which is to elect Democrats.  Nancy Pelosi's job, and Barack Obama's for that matter, is to fashion government policies that will guarantee a permanent Democratic majority.  National defense, the economy -- these are issues the have no importance in themselves.

Selective leaks will destroy her

That's the assessment Charles Krauthammer offers on FOX News

This is sure to go over well with the CIA.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, epitomizes the iron fisted party leader.  She apparently believes she is immune to the repercussions that would plague lesser creatures when caught contradicting themselves.  In her compulsion to discredit the Bush administration, Ms. Pelosi has joined in on the frenzy of accusations that Bush officials resorted to torture to defend the U.S. from terrorist attack.  But having been forced to contradict herself several times as to what she learned in the enhanced interrogation briefings she received, Ms. Pelosi has decided that her new defense is to charge that the CIA lied to her in those briefings.

'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (Calif.) assertion at a press conference this morning that the Bush administration and the Central Intelligence Agency misled her and the Congress regarding the treatment of suspected terrorists adds further fuel to the fire on an issue that has been on a low boil for weeks.

Asked whether she was accusing the CIA of lying to her during a 2002 briefing on the use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques," Pelosi said: "Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States, misleading the Congress of the United States. I am."'

I don't get how anybody can think that the current Democratic leadership, particularly Speaker Pelosi, is in any way at all honorable.  It's also hard for me to imagine that the CIA will be bashful about payback in the face of this insult.  But who knows?  Maybe with her better read on the situation Ms. Pelosi has reason to be confident that party loyalty within the agency will be her salvation.

Not This Republican

The top headline on the Washington Post home page trumpets, As Cheney Seizes Spotlight, Many Republicans Wince.  One minor problem with the story -- reporter Dan Balz can't find a Republican who will wince out loud.  Presumably, the price of disagreement with the former Vice President is too high.  

'Cheney entered the arena this winter in a politically weak position after that election. His personal favorability ratings were and are still low. A Gallup poll in late March found that 30 percent of respondents gave him a favorable rating, while 63 percent rated him unfavorably.

That is why his high-profile defense of controversial Bush administration policies has caused queasiness among Republican political strategists. But Cheney remains powerful enough that most of his GOP critics are not willing to take him on in public. "The fact that most people want to talk [without attribution] shows what a problem it continues to be," said one Republican strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid. "Cheney continues to be a force among many members of our base, and while he is entirely unhelpful, no one has the standing to show him the door."

[..]

Another GOP strategist, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, pointed out the conundrum for Republicans over the former vice president's current role. "Even if he's right, he's absolutely the wrong messenger," this strategist said. His main worry, he added, is that Cheney keeps the public focused on the past, rather than the future. "We want Bush to be a very distant memory in the next election. The more Cheney is on the front burner, the more difficult it's going to be."'

If there really are such Republicans, Republicans who wish Cheney would stop defending Bush administration policies, they should stop being Republicans.  Either that, or grow some balls, for crying out loud.  If you disagree with Cheney, just say so and be part of the debate.

It is an important debate, and aside from Dick Cheney there are almost no Republicans out there willing to make the case.  The mainstream press has already convicted the Bush administration of torture and they write their stories, like this one, as if the case closed.  And then we get these anonymous dolts in the Republican party who are unwilling to push back.  Excuse me, but the case is not closed.

We've got a politically motivated press corps smearing the Bush administration for pouring water on the guy who made a video of Daniel Pearl's murder.  Further, our "torture victim" was not injured in any way nor was his life was ever in any danger.  It's not torture.  And on top of that, four directors of intelligence have said that the information gained in his interrogations saved thousands of American lives.

For this we're supposed to condemn the Bush administration?  Richard Cheney is supposed to keep quiet over this?  I don't think so.  Sorry, but the self righteous posturing over this supposed torture is beyond sickening.

Remember when...

The "Bridge to Nowhere", an earmark project with a price tag of a mere $320 million, was the symbol of the Republican culture of corruption.  In those days when the mainstream media were fixated on it, making it a centerpiece in their campaign against Sarah Palin -- a campaign which continues, by the way.  What did she know and when did she know it?

Well, earmarks aren't so bad anymore.  The good people, the Democrats, are in charge so earmarks are good now.

'In the course of explaining his way through this contradiction, Mr. Obama dropped a hard truth of modern American politics: "Individual members of Congress understand their districts best, and they should have the ability to respond to the needs of their communities."

This is the Murtha earmark defense. Rep. John Murtha, Democrat from Johnstown, Pa., is the current holder of what we might call the Ted Stevens Trophy, a rotating award for whichever Member of Congress the press is vilifying most for earmark abuse. Mr. Murtha's stock defense of the budget loot he has earmarked and shipped to Johnstown is that if he didn't do it, bureaucrats who know nothing about the real America would decide where to spend the money. That's what President Obama just said. Murtha himself calls the $787 billion stimulus package the Obama earmarks bill.

Mocking this presumed hypocrisy is good sport, but the Murtha example deserves a closer look. You just might find that you are staring at a Pogo problem: We have met the enemy, and he is us.

[...]

For the longest time, we were able to believe that these corruptions were the inevitable but petty price of politics. But I agree with John Murtha. It isn't petty anymore. It isn't just about amusing "pet projects." The whole system has become an earmark. The politicians have been shaping the system so that more and more people have to buy in to the earmark philosophy -- we pay, they decide -- or get left out.

Barack Obama isn't a reformer. He's the president of Earmark Nation. We are about to enact the Obama federal health-insurance entitlement, which on top of all the other entitlements and their limitless liabilities will require pulling trillions of dollars more into the federal budget. Whatever nominal public good this is supposed to achieve, it means that they, these 535 pols, most of them gerrymandered for life, will decide in perpetuity the details of how to dole it out.'

We are losing our country, if we haven't lost it already.  Legalized bribery -- earmarks -- on the grandest scale is rampant.  This is what the tea parties are all about -- regaining some semblance of citizen control over government.

I like my Ford Ranger

A Weekly Standard article by Henry Payne and Richard Burr explores the potential impact the UAW  takeover of Chrysler.

'In an extraordinary abuse of government power, the Obama administration has run roughshod over bankruptcy law, bullied Chrysler investors, and orchestrated a takeover of the Auburn Hills-based automaker by the United Auto Workers union, a key Democratic party constituency that gave $5 million to the Obama campaign in 2008.

As a result, Chrysler is poised "to emerge from the process as early as next month," reports the Wall Street Journal, on schedule with Obama's predicted two-month bankruptcy. The power play has secured Chrysler's short-run viability, but it begs the long-term question: What future investor will commit money to a UAW-run automaker knowing the federal government can rewrite the rules whenever it wants?'

My very first car was a '57 Chrysler Windsor.  What a boat.  I called it the Ark.  It had those huge tail fins and it got about 13 miles to the gallon at its very best.  But I loved that car.  I've driven mostly Chryslers ever since, but the '01 Chrysler Sebring that my daughter now drives is going to be my last.  I'm a Ford man now.  I like my Ranger, but more importantly, I would rather not contribute to the Democratic party by buying one of their cars.

Wage control

The Obama administration and congress are now looking into ways to regulate employee compensation in the financial industry, including firms that did not receive any TARP money.

'WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter.

The initiative, which is in its early stages, is part of an ambitious and likely controversial effort to broadly address the way financial companies pay employees and executives, including an attempt to more closely align pay with long-term performance.

Administration and regulatory officials are looking at various options, including using the Federal Reserve's supervisory powers, the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and moral suasion. Officials are also looking at what could be done legislatively.

Among ideas being discussed are Fed rules that would curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank -- such as paying loan officers for the volume of business they do, not the quality. The administration is also discussing issuing "best practices" to guide firms in structuring pay.'

The politics of envy, triumphant?  It will be interesting to see how this works out in a world economy that has been turning away from central control, assuming Obama is able to push this scheme through.  If he is, will high powered executive talent be drawn to foreign companies to the detriment of the U.S. financial industry?  Will there be a recovery in the U.S. in the face of Obama's constant meddling in the market? 

Hoping that Obama fails is not the same thing as hoping that the U.S. fails.  In fact, it's quite the opposite.

The Standup Economist

I found this over at Greg Mankiw's blog.