On Iraq and a Draft

It’s hardly a new or unique insight, but it’s all too obvious that we should never have left Saddam in charge of Iraq after Gulf War I. George Bush senior has been quoted as saying that at the time, the Arab members of the coalition forces objected to Saddam’s removal from power so he was left in place. I wonder sometimes, how much would have been different if was had told those allies, “No, he’s going down”.

The road ahead is grim, and the growing rumblings in the blogosphere and the press about the possible need to re-institute the draft are worrisome. I try not to make too much of the rumblings, but then I picture my 21 year old cousin with a draft card of his hand and it’s not so simple.

It’s been 30 years since the draft was last a reality. A lot has changed since then. One thing that hasn’t changed is that no matter how they try to write the rules, the richer, more well-connected, and smarter kids will find ways around any draft.

I am not, by the way, convinced that a Kerry victory means we will not have a draft instituted. It is not clear whether even with the best intentions we will be able to draw down significant troops out of Iraq in the near future. No matter who wins in November, it’s possible we will have to change how we build our military. But I am sure that a Kerry administration would not be so reckless with the lives of our soldiers as this administration has been.

Do-Not-Call is Constitutional

They may be overrun by partisan hacks but at least the Supreme Court got it right with regard to telemarketers:

The Supreme Court let stand a lower-court ruling that telemarketers’ rights to free speech are not violated by the government’s nationwide do-not-call list.

Without comment, the justices rejected an appeal by commercial telemarketers against the lower-court ruling, which upheld as constitutional the popular program in which consumers can put their names on a list if they do not want to be called by telemarketers.

“We hold that the do-not-call registry is a valid commercial speech regulation because it directly advances the government’s important interests in safeguarding personal privacy and reducing the danger of telemarketing abuse without burdening an excessive amount of speech,” the appeals court said.

Actually, reading further into the article, maybe I should take back the ‘partisan hack’ comment. The Justices also:

  • let stand a ruling that a Catholic charity in California must include prescription contraceptives in its employee health insurance plan
  • rejected an appeal from ousted Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who lost his job after defying a federal order to dismantle a Ten Commandments monument.

Cybersecurity Chief Gives One Day’s Notice to DHS

This is weird:

The government’s cybersecurity chief has abruptly resigned after one year with the Department of Homeland Security, confiding to industry colleagues his frustration over what he considers a lack of attention paid to computer security issues within the agency.

Amit Yoran, a former software executive from Symantec, informed the White House about his plans to quit as director of the National Cyber Security Division and made his resignation effective at the end of Thursday, effectively giving a single’s day notice of his intentions to leave.

I’m sure there’s a story there we’re not hearing, but no clue what it is.

What I Would Ask Bush

There’s a website that offers a substantial reward to the person who asks George W Bush “How many times have you been arrested?”but that is not the question I most want to ask Bush. Mine’s pretty simple:

“Are there any cases when it is acceptable for the President of the United States to deliberately lie to the American public?”

Friday Kitten Blogging

Too cute!

Gimli can be a total nutball, attacking anything that moves, especially loving to ambush your feet as you walk by him. He can also be very cuddly, too – the last two nights I’ve woken up to find him playing with my hair, then cuddling up against my head and going to sleep. I hope he doesn’t push me off my pillow entirely when he’s full-sized.

Bring On The Pundits

Some of the better morning-after commentary:

Josh Marshall:

What occured to me somewhat while I was watching the first time and even more on the second go through was just how long it’s been since President Bush had to face someone who disagrees with him or is criticizing.

Every president gets tucked away into a cocoon to some degree. But President Bush does notoriously few press conferences or serious interviews. His townhall meetings are screened so that only supporters show up. And, of course, he hasn’t debated anyone since almost exactly four years ago.

Frankly, I think it showed. It irked him to have to stand there and be criticized and not be able to repeat his talking points without contradiction.

Ezra from Pandagon:

Fact is, 9/11 didn’t change Bush, it just changed his rhetoric. And while the smirk now floated above terra-fightin’ and tyrant-smashin’, it was still the same smirk that had accompanied social security privatization and medicare reform. But while we all knew and understood that he had been a lightweight in the days of domestic policy — at least, we tittered, he hadn’t been an atrocious dullard like that Gore — we began pretending that something had snapped in George W. Bush and he was now a somber leader prepared to face down a time of grave danger.

But tonight the curtain lifted and Bush was back onstage with a competitor, without a teleprompter, and facing a barrage of unfamiliar and even unfriendly topics. But the way George debates — rigid adherence to message, down-home charisma, a quick grin and general geniality — was sadly unsuitable for the occasion. Past confrontations have been reasonably light, occurring in times of relative prosperity and in opposition to barely-liked incumbents whom the public liked seeing taken down a few pegs. But tonight, George was supposed to be serious, to be somber, to show himself the sort of timeless leader appropriate for such a crucial stage in history. Instead, he was like a glitchy boombox machine-gunning the phrase “mixed messages”. Where Kerry had calm presentation and logical progressions, George jumped from story to quote, personal attack to platitude (“I know how the world works”). Where he was supposed to run on a record, he instead ran on an ethic (“It’s hard work”). Where he was supposed to act dignified, he was draped over his podium. Where he was supposed to be the country’s commander, he was instead a mediocre candidate.

Matt Yglesias:

The main thing that lends debates — as opposed to normal speeches — some interest is that even when the candidates aren’t allowed to directly address one another, they still set up their charges in such a way as to clearly imply that the other guy ought to be responding to his opponents’ attacks. In that light, it’s worth highlighting one charge Kerry made several times that Bush never responded to directly — namely that the reason Osama bin Laden is at large threatening the United States rather than dead on the battlefield was the Bush administration’s decision to “outsource” the battle of Tora Bora.

I’ve never heard any of Bush’s allies offer a convincing defense of this decision, and it’s a critique Kerry’s been leveling on-and-off ever since the day it happened. Tonight, Bush didn’t even try. A tacit admission, perhaps, that Kerry was right. I think that means Kerry ought to press the assault forward and start bringing this up more often. Force the president to either admit he was wrong and puncture his self-cultivated mystique of infallibility or else offer some kind of defense. I don’t see what he could possibly have to say for himself.

Finally, I can’t find the quote now, but this is one other observation I saw that I found particularly apt — Bush’s loopy assertion that the simple act of saying “This is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time” (an observation the majority of Americans currently agree wtih, by the way) somehow rendered him unfit to be Commander In Chief. I can’t begin to understand the weird brain alchemy by which that is seen to be legitimate criticism of a candidate.

Does he seriously think that unless you are always right, always positive, you can’t be in charge? That actually might explain Bush’s inability to admit to a mistake.

Anyway, kitten blogging to follow.