Bush's inaugural speech
 

I don't think that's fair at all. Look at my post, and you'll see that in places like Ukraine and Palestine, my question was, what have we done? Not, what was the result, but what have we done?

If you look back at my post, you'll see I acknowledged what's happened in both countries. Although perhaps I'm less optimistic than you are about what's going to happen. Because neither country's government has authority throughout its territory.

Clearly, Iraq and Afghanistan are different cases, because installing a new government is easier if you actually go in militarily to remove the prior government.

It's not clear to me that freezing out Arafat forced any change, since the election happened only when he died. Not that I'm saying there weren't good reasons to freeze him out. The other things you mention are nice, but isn't there any part of our foreign policy that isn't about setting conditions for people around the world to move towards a meaningful democracy? 'Cause free trade and security both do that.

If you're saying that we're going to keep doing all of the things we've been doing for fifty years, that's fine and good. I just figured that for a subject that's the centerpiece of the Bush inaugural, there be something else there, but I guess not.

I wasn't trying to suggest that we do nothing to promote democracy. Duh. It's just that we often put those principles on the back shelf while something else is on the front burner, and so I wanted to know what Bush was going to different. You seem to be saying, not much. Maybe he just didn't have any other big ideas to talk about.

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

What the hell is the "International Republican Institute?" A place to keep GOP pollsters off the streets between elections?

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

I don't know, but it was good enough for WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan20.html

Speech
 

I haven't seen it yet, but my girl Peggy didn't like it:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110006184

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

I was just making a joke, but this post has a lot more from and about that poll.

Speech
 

I read the text of the speech this morning. Gerson writes beautiful rhetoric. Would that Bush could deliver it well.

Speech
 

On the pro-democracy stuff, Yglesias points out that Bush gave essentially the same speech 14 months ago, criticizing our past policy for preferring stability to democracy, but hasn't done anything differently since then.

Noonan says:

• To the extent our foreign policy is marked by a division that has been (crudely but serviceably) defined as a division between moralists and realists--the moralists taken with a romantic longing to carry democracy and justice to foreign fields, the realists motivated by what might be called cynicism and an acknowledgment of the limits of governmental power--President Bush sided strongly with the moralists, which was not a surprise.

Indeed, not a surprise. But then why does he let the realists working for him keep doing things the same way? Where are the actions to match the words?

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

Interesting.

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

Let's hope everyone who wants to vote, can.

• VOTING IN IRAQ....On ABC News tonight they had a report about preparations for voting in the city of Mosul. The original plan was to have 100 polling places, but because of the violence there that's been cut down to 40.
  
  The population of Mosul is 2 million, and you can probably figure that about two-thirds of that number are eligible to vote. That means each polling place will have to handle 33,000 voters. Even if turnout is only 50%, that's still about 16,000 people per polling station.
  
  Even 100 polling stations sounds like far, far too few. But 40?

Drum

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

Only?

Curious - if turnout is, say, 45%, will that signal to you that democracy didn't work there?

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

There are no doubt going to be logistical problems, but the extent of them is an unknown. I recall a lot of the same issues being raised before the Aphgan elections, and those came off better than expected.

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

I'm still waiting for answers to the questions about democracy I asked you yesterday that you have been ignoring since then, but in the spirit of amity and bipartisanship, I think that whether or not democracy "works" in Iraq will have very little to do with the level of voter participation. Obviously, the higher the turn-out the better, but the problem right now is not that most Iraqis do not want to vote -- I think they do -- but that a significant minority is well-armed and using violence to thwart the kind of government we'd all like to see there. And one election does not a democracy make.

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

Do you think an election might provide a government that the people can rally behind? Isn't that really the first necessary step?

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

In many of the former British colonies, the elections were about the last step. Had we installed people with more popular support, this might not be an issue, but I think the bigger problem is that the Ba'athists are killing people who participate in the government in an incredibly ruthless way. Hard to install democracy if we can't keep this from happening. And so far we can't. We are having a hard enough time keeping them from killing us.

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

Sorry. Not willfully - situations change, posting/reading time vanishes, life goes on . . .

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

Board motto.

torture
 

This account of the obstacles faced by Gulf War veterans who were tortured and their familymembers who tried to recover damages from Iraq is really awful. Shame on the people in our government who let this happen.

torture
 

Odious debt.

I'm not trying to be callous about the suffering these people saw, but they say they started the lawsuit to "make the bad guys pay". Well, the bad guys are either in prison, or dead, or on the run. Justice has been done, in that regard. If they truly just want bucks, well, we need to start looking at the questions of, how do we compensate our soldiers who went through hell, and, who gets to rank the respective hells, and, do we pay enough to the soldier who lost a leg, or an eye, or a psyche, or a marriage, or . . . .?

Hook 'em
 

*sigh* I think we should invade Norway.

• Norwegians Confused by Bush Salute
  
  
  OSLO, Norway - Many Norwegian television viewers were shocked to see U.S. President George W. Bush and family apparently saluting Satan during the U.S. inauguration.
  
  But in reality, it was just a sign of respect for the University of Texas Longhorns, whose fans are known to shout out "Hook 'em, horns!" at athletic events.
  
  The president and family were photographed lifting their right hands with their index and pinky fingers raised up, much like a horn.
  
  But in much of the world those "horns" are a sign of the devil. In the Nordics, the hand gesture is popular among death metal and black metal groups and fans.
  
  "Shock greeting from Bush daughter," a headline in the Norwegian Internet newspaper Nettavisen said late Wednesday above a photograph of Bush's daughter, Jenna, smiling and showing the sign.
  
  Bush, a former Texas governor, was simply greeting the Texas Longhorn marching band as it passed during a Washington D.C. parade in the president's honor, explained Verdens Gang, Norway's largest newspaper.
  
  Just the same, the Internet was abuzz Thursday with speculation about what the Bushes really mean by the sign.

torture
 

(1) They should recover for the same reasons that other tort victims should recover. Money cannot make them whole, but it compensates. And it sounds like these folks suffered more than your average (G.I.) Joe, and in a different way.

I understand that reptilian insurance-defense types and Chamber of Commerce shills would say otherwise, but please.

(2) More importantly (to me, anyway) is the principle of vindicating these rights. The position our government is taking adds up to less than full opposition to torture. I have no idea whether it's because of the optics of the juxtaposition of this and Abu Ghraib, or what, but it's wrong.

You have posted in the past about how people want their government to reflect their values, regardless of the efficacy of a policy initiative. Well, here you go. Whether or not it really helps these vets to get money as compensation for what they endured, the bigger point here is the moral one. We ought to be against torture.

torture
 

Speciesist fuck.

torture
 

But, recover from whom? SH? I hear he's broke. The Iraqi people? They've got their own butcher's bill to submit. A central concept of tort law (well, in the olden days) was that you can only recover from a tortfeasor. If these guys should prevail, why should any government go along with the odious debt concept and cancel Iraq's debts incurred for the aggrandizement of SH?

We are against torture. We deposed SH partly on that basis. In other words, we got the "social justice" that the plaintiffs claimed to be seeking already. Now, you want the co-victims to pay for our guys' verdicts? I can't reconcile a discussion of rights with that approach. If Joe runs me down with his car, yeah, I should have a "right" to compensation, but not from Sally, who Joe ran over last week. The "right" doesn't trump the "just".

torture
 

How about recovering from Bob, the owner of the car that Joe drove? Even though Bob's a nice guy, and he doesn't have the car anymore (your kids and the skink trashed it after they chased Joe into one of the 10,000 lakes)?

The fact that any payment made by the Iraqi government means that there will be less money for the Iraqi people doesn't change, regardless (hi, TM!) of whether SH is still in charge or not. Do you think that he would have cut a check from his personal account to pay any judgment? When the US as a tort defendant pays damages, does the president pay from his personal account at Riggs Bank?

torture
 

Think about what you're saying. The only reason governments are negotiating to "cancel" Iraq's debts is because the debts are owed by the nation, not just by Hussein, and the nation is still on the hook. Indeed, the article I linked to makes this clear, and suggests that our own government is supporting the claims of (e.g.) Kuwait against the Iraqi government. Why Kuwait and not U.S. soldiers who were tortured?

To answer your last question, other governments are cancelling Iraq's debt out of beneficence (i.e., it's a form of aid), and realism (some of those debts are huge).

I understand your rationale, but it doesn't have anything to do with what the court decided or what our own government is saying in this case. Those soldiers were not tortured by a private conspiracy. They were tortured by agents of the Iraqi government. And subordinating those debts in the way that our own government has advocated sends a pretty clear message that opposing torture is not its highest concern.

torture
 

What if Joe stole Bob's car, through no fault of Bob's, and then ran me over? I think that analogy is closer than yours. I doubt that SH was driving Iraq with the knowledge and permission of its owners.

The whole point is that SH essentially held the country hostage through force. There are certain debts (?) incurred by SH that benefitted the people not at all. He's gone, the "Iraqi government" that did the wrong is gone, and there's a common recognition that this was a freeing of a people. And, yes, SH would have written his own personal check - since everything was his, by forceful expropriation.

If these guys are owed anything, (and I think they are - let's not turn this into another "Bilmore hates the injured" theme), they are owed it by us. Our country, in whose service they were hurt. Their torture in no way benefitted the Iraqi common guy.

torture
 

It depends on whether you view a nation as more akin to a car or to a corporation -- or, more accurately, more like property or entities. If Joe hits you with his car and then sells his car to Sally, you don't sue Sally. If Joe's corporation steals from you, and he sells his shares to Sally (or she gets them in a hostile takeover), you sue the corporation even though Joe will not suffer.

Generally, nations are treated as entities. Hence the continuation of debts. The "odious debt" exception is interesting, but hasn't prevented creditors from asking any number of African countries to pay debts incurred by tyrants, for example. If we are to introduce an odious debt concept, it needs to be one that can apply to situations even where the change in regime is not brought about by the US.

torture
 

I've already explained that you are wrong as a matter of law, and that our own government rejects your position. So, without arguing that at further length, I take it that you agree that if we are supporting Kuwait's claims against Iraq relating to the invasion of the former by the latter, it's pretty shitty of our government to tell the torture victims to go pound sand?

torture
 

You switch from justice to legalism way fast, kemo sabe. They are legal debts that are being cancelled on the basis of the moral-based theory of "odious debt".

And that government is dead and gone - replaced by force in a war that rescued the people of Iraq. To make Saddam's other victims pay for this, or for France's architects for their torture-chamber designs, or for Russia's arms used to kill the Kurds, is to value legalism over morality. I can see making Iraqis pay for the debts incurred through the purchase of food while SH was in charge. I can't see making them pay for the bullets that killed them (and which were sold to SH knowingly), and I also can't see making them pay court-ordered millions to some select few other victims of SH while they, also victims, still need basics. Ask your Senator to sponser a bill rewarding them somewhow.

You're really reaching for this connection, aren't you?

torture
 

Through your "it's a debt" soliloquy? Four steps behind, son.

To the extent that there were specific benefits taken into Iraqi society that remain to this day, no, those benefits need to be returned. However, yes, I do object to the measure of damages being supported in that instance. Just as I would support the affirmation of debt based on food purchases for the country, I would support the return of the looted value - but, I do not support holding the new Iraq financially responsible for the simple damage that Saddam did to Kuwait. Again, without a showing of benefit to the co-victims, I wouldn't make them pay. Hell, we let people and corps bankrupt out of debt for far lesser reasons.

torture
 

I agree. I guess the basic explanation is that I don't view the common Iraqi guy as ever having been a shareholder in Saddam's Iraq.

Actually, (and this is based on memory, which is a dangerous statement all by itself), odious debt was first applied in the situations of some small african countries. It's not a new concept.

(ETA - And now, I'm disappearing again - NOT ducking replies.)

torture
 

I understand the logic of your position, but know that combining this with the administration's rather public disaffection with the Geneva conventions, and I'd think that our armed forces will have less confidence about their potential treatment in captivity next time we kick over some third-world popsicle stand.

torture
 

Of course they weren't. But that hasn't made much difference in any number of countries. The average Zairois didn't get much benefit out of the $5 billion that Mobuto siphoned off.

It's not a new concept, but I'm not sure that it's actually been applied. At least not in many instances.

torture
 

Say what? Apparently our government doesn't take the position that Hussein-era debts are "odious." Let me repeat what that article said, since you keep avoiding it:

• The Justice Department argued in its pleadings that it now opposes the POWs judgment simply because it needs the money in question for the reconstruction of Iraq, but it has been unwilling to open talks with the POWs about that issue (despite ongoing payments to Kuwait for Gulf War damage). And it is certainly a dramatic coincidence that its opposition to this historic precedent against torture emerged only during the period of now-repudiated legal arguments, dumbing down the legal definition of torture.

The Justice Dept. says this simply because it needs the money, and Iraq continues to make payments to Kuwait. So what am I "reaching for?"

eta:

Very odd for you to know be suggesting that the role of the legal system is only to shift ill-gotten benefits from beneficiary to victim, and not to also condemn a wrong, when not too long ago you were chiding us for failing to appreciate that people supporting Bush because he expresses their values, whatever their economic interests.

Caption, Please (Inaugural Edition)
 

Caption, Please (Inaugural Edition)
 

"At this booth we have some armadillos and some reasons why it's good to be a Young Republican. Moving right along, here's the stuffed Michael Moore statue..."

Caption, Please (Inaugural Edition)
 

Caption, Please (Inaugural Edition)
 

Jesus fucking christ, you'd think no one's ever seen a road hump before.

That's right, you're not from Texas.
 

I wanna go home with the armadillo....

torture
 

Before we go any further down this road, have you found the pleadings and order anywhere? I'm looking, but nothing so far. I hesitate to respond to an argument based on how Slate characterizes what the JD said, especially when Slate also claims that the court failed to even deal with what Slate said the JD said and merely went off on its own wacky road. When everyone in authority is disagreeing with Slate's version of things, my first impulse is hardly ever to blindly defend Slate, Mickey Kaus notwithstanding.

Caption, Please (Inaugural Edition)
 

But once they touched the skin of the dread orgasmadillo, all they could do was smile dreamily at nothing and moan softly, to the consternation of poor Fenwick who was already regretting opening the cage for them.