Semi-Daily Journal

Indeed.

One other thing about Senator Miller, who has said he will vote for Bush next year. The 3rd ID at Fort Stewart are his constituents, and evidently he is so enthused about the pointless sacrifices of this unit, whose morale had sunk to such levels they were noisily demanded to be repatriated from Iraq, that he will vote for more of the same.

One other thing about Senator Miller, who has said he will vote for Bush next year. The 3rd ID at Fort Stewart are his constituents, and evidently he is so enthused about the pointless sacrifices of this unit, whose morale had sunk to such levels they were noisily demanded to be repatriated from Iraq, that he will vote for more of the same.

All this adds up to why can't we ask more questions of this administration and get more answers without the unpatriotic or it's political bullshit?

This movie I watched this weekend called "The Italian Job" where a huge safe, that must weight tons literally, is theoretically drop from a lofty perch into a small motorboat, somehow without sinking it???

The boat speeds merrily away with this supposedly very heavy cargo--of course instead the safe really DID sink into the water in boat house and is being heisted by frogman as the propaganda filled boat is being chased -- so now if we ask questions, I guess that ruins the movie. Reminds me of the all the conservatives right-wings that just love to point out how oartisan we liberals must be when we asked for proof. Could Bush please show us his intelligence or his energy task info or would that be ruining the movie for the right-wing ideology.

So all that Bush is doing - sort of looks to me like the ultimate heist.

Bush gets his 87 billion dollar “Grant” as Rumsfeld accidentally leaks a memo about the “long hard slog”, and I’ve noticed that Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) is now tell us that "Every document we (we meaning the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) want will be made available."

Of course the White House says “while the committee's jurisdiction does not cover the White House, we want to be helpful, and we will continue to talk to and work with the committee in a spirit of cooperation.”

We are NEVER going to see that info until Bush is long gone.

I half-way expect this administration to get out of Iraq in March aor there about, and I’m sure Halliburton will get it’s 3 point something billion dollars (something about instablity not their problem worded into contract "grant" whether or not they get anything accomplished in Iraq).

What we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. Bush never was a conservative but he sure had all those right-wings idiots going his way didn’t he.

From:

“20 Questions for Matthew Yglesias” by Will Baude at Crescat Sententia, on September 1, 2003.

In the answer to question #14:

“Clean air and clean water are things I'm all for, but stuff about endangered species, the rainforest, pristine wetlands, etc. don't seem like compelling reasons to restrict economic development to me.”

This, after positing that the proper question about morality is about “the ontological commitments to moral discourse” (in the answer to question #11) and, next I am paraphrasing, that people’s philosophies do not impact their politics (no, really, in the answer to question #12). [Or is it textbook academic philosophies? Then we have, in that same answer, “I doubt that many people are actually being convinced by sound metaphysical arguments.” Because presumably, they do not think in terms of “space” and “time”? Or does “metaphysics” here mean theology?]

Mr. Yglesias could use some complex adaptive systems science, ecology, biogeochemistry, economic growth theory,...and start it off with Aristotle. Until then, please continue to reserve your right to your own informed opinions.

But really I agree: on politics and policy, he is highly informed and often very amusing. I find lots of new things in him. He is also a good writer. We need more like him!

Matthew Yglesias exemplifies everything that is wrong with shrill paritsan liberal journalism.

Fatalities

American soldiers 238
British soldiers 18
Coalition soldiers 5
---
261 Since May 2

American 377
British 51
Coalition 5
---
433 Since March 20

Wounded

American soldiers ~2169 Since March 20

Note: American forces have fallen to 130,000
British forces have risen to 11,000

Matthew Yglesias exemplifies everything that is wrong with shrill paritsan liberal journalism.

Kaus Hackula:

"Matthew Yglesias exemplifies everything that is wrong with shrill paritsan liberal journalism."

Did you mean to say "Parisian"?

Of course.

"God! Just think if he'd been an Economics or a Social Studies rather than a Philosophy major!"

Nah, then he'd probably just be a right-winger :)

"Glenn Reynolds has another of these posts where he notes that in the aftermath of world war two the press felt that our efforts in postwar Europe were failing. As I've noted before, this is not even close to being a valid form of argument. Moreover, it continues to miss the point that America's European policy underwent a drastic change between the time period when these articles were written and when the occupation was successfully resolved. I have little doubt that we could make our policy work if we changed our policy."

I'd suggest that the Professor re-evaluate his opinion of Mr. Yglesias.

There's a good reason why the U.S. was left with egg all over its face in the wake of the surrender of Germany. We were actively trying to throttle their economy. It was called the Morgenthau Plan for the "pastoralization" of that country.

It was actually the Harry Dexter White Plan, aka the Stalin plan. It was very far from being "the most unsordid act in history". Pace Paul Krugman, we might call it, crony communism. And it took Harry Truman's administration about a year and a half to realize the monumental blunder they'd made.

Which makes it just about 180 degrees in the opposite direction from where the Bush administration is after six months in Iraq. I.e., we don't need "a drastic change". We just need to persevere. That, and ignore the ignorant criticisms being offered, by people who "can't root for America".

He is a sharp cookie - he has joined the select list of people I read every time they write - Kinsley, DeLong, Krugman, Conason, Saletan, and now Yglesias.

He is a sharp cookie - he has joined the select list of people I read every time they write - Kinsley, DeLong, Krugman, Conason, Saletan, and now Yglesias. Almost forgot Juan Cole.

Rooting for America: We won the war, Iraq is no threat to us or to neighbors; time to leave and let the Iraqis build by themselves, we could even offer financial assistance. Bring the soldiers home.

It's like graduating took the governor off his engine or something. He used to be good, but not this good.

Getting paid for what you do sometimes increases production.

Patti Sully ever more rightee-looney.
How about sending Patti Sully to Iraq?

"God! Just think if he'd been an Economics or a Social Studies rather than a Philosophy major!"

Brad, such prejudice against fellow humanity members!

Matt writes and thinks as well as he does BECAUSE of his philosphy background, not in SPITE OF it. Although SocStud and Economics are important, either can be done in the hands of fools (Anyone? Luskin?). Philosophy beats the fool (for the most part) out of you.

Patrick, persevere in exactly what? We had no plan, we invent new plans on the fly, and the backbone administration is in a state of denial so extreme as to claim that the increasing number of attacks is a good sign. In addition, there is no reconstruction concept, there is no clear understanding of the enemy forces, and most importantly, there is no definition of what "done" means.

This is what you want to persevere with?

Let's all root for America! Go Team! Let's hit that tar baby even harder! We're not stuck! Now let's kick it!

Now, now, Professor De Long...

Matthew frequently forays into questioning the Supreme Wisdom of the Perfect Policies of our divine Dear Leader. As you know, this form of heresy undermines our standing at home and emboldens our enemies.

Surely, you don't mean to praise THIS aspect of the writing of Mr. Yglesias (who is like 20 years younger than me, damn him) DO YOU?

"Too busy carving pumpkins to follow the news?"

Okay, I sense some missing data here. Mr. Yglesias was needed, and no houses were tp'd, no outhouses tipped over, and no leaves stuffed into mailboxes? Very bad showing.

Sen Miller on why Dems will lose in '04.

"I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign--the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost--with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign--watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes.

"George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country."

cont
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004250

Indeed.

spend like Carter, pander like Clinton ????
Carter was a tightwad compared to Reagan, Johnson and Nixon.

Well, well. Looks like I have a kindred spirit running for president:

" 'We have to prevail,' Mr. Gephardt told reporters. 'We have to bring democracy to Iraq. We cannot fail. If you think Afghanistan was a terrorist training camp, you wait. If you leave Iraq, it will be a terrorist training camp the likes of which would make Afghanistan look simple. In our own deep self-interest, to prevent future acts of terrorism, we have to succeed.' "

And a non-candidate on my side too. For the enjoyment of the usual suspects:

http://ae.bayarea.com/entertainment/ui/bayarea/stage.html?id=15843&reviewid=18080

Q How much pressure has there been for you to run for political office? You have been mentioned as a possible Republican candidate against Sen. Barbara Boxer.

A There's been some. But I'm not interested.

Q Why not?

A I don't know. It's boring. I don't know. I'm lazy. (He laughs.)

Listen man, I'm turning 50 next week (on Nov. 3). I'm looking to have fun. The big thing on my mind is I'm going to pick up my boys, and we're going to play soccer on the lawn at night with this ball that glows in the dark. I'm not thinking about getting in a college theater somewhere and talking to Barbara Boxer, of all things. Barbara Boxer is not a person I'd talk to at a party, much less a debate. Do you find Barbara Boxer inspiring? She's a drag.

Q Who in politics do you find inspiring?

A George Bush. In a second-guess world, he took a first guess. I think he's a handshake guy in an air-kiss world. I admire that about him.

Yglesias is very good, but so are you, and frankly I'm a bit envious of all you academic types who get to think for a living. We dilettantes are at a real disadvantage.

From The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2173583

---------quote----------
The southern capital, Basra, for example, got only two-to-four hours of electricity a day before the war—and now has a power surplus. Baghdad still works to a regime of three-hours-on/three-hours-off, but the country as a whole is producing as much power as before the war. By spring it will be up by 25%. Within three years, if America sticks to its plan of sinking $5 billion-plus into the sector, power output should have more than doubled.

The repair trajectory for telecoms is even steeper. By February, promises Clifford Mumm, who heads Bechtel's operations in Iraq, all ten bombed Baghdad exchanges will be working, as well as the national trunk system and an international satellite link. By then, three private cellphone networks should be operating.

Oilfield repairs have also proceeded apace. Production capacity, reduced to one-third of pre-war levels by May, is now up to 75% and on target to match them by March. Exports, now at 1.2m barrels a day, have been held up by sabotage, but Iraqi oilmen see this as a temporary obstacle. It will take years, and billions in investment, before Iraq reaches its full potential. But even if it hits the modest target of 2m barrels a day in exports by mid-2004, its crude could be earning $20 billion a year.

Mr Mumm admits that his giant American engineering firm, like others contracted by USAID to kick-start Iraq's infrastructure, made a slow start. Bechtel, whose array of contracts, worth $1 billion, covers repairs of everything from ports to railroads to sewage plants, soon dropped its idea of selecting big international subcontractors and has now funnelled half the value of its work to Iraqi firms.

With Bechtel in the running for a planned second raft of big-time repair jobs worth another $1.5 billion, Mr Mumm enthuses over the challenge. Patching up the old, rather than installing new equipment, is what he calls a “geek's dream”. As for charges that the whole process has been too cumbersome, he asks how long it took Germany to knock its former communist eastern part into shape. “Iraq is far worse, and they weren't getting shot at.”
-------------endquote----------------

We went to war so that Basra could have more electricity? Gosh, where were these brave electrical engineering souls when California was suffering power outages?

We went to war so that Basra could have more electricity? Gosh, where were these brave electrical engineering souls when California was suffering power outages?

Matthew Yglesias' misses pretty far with his criticism of the Administration's position on Ansar al-Islam. The Administration may well be right about their claims about Hussein and Ansar regardless of the location of Ansar al-Islam's base.

Were the Kurd's in a position to root out Ansar if Ansar did have Saddam's support as the Administration claims? Matthew needs to know the answer to make his case. He clearly doesn't know. I would bet my lunch money that fear of Saddam would have been enough to keep Ansar safe in the Kurdish controlled lands.

To suggest that Hussein was clearly not helping protect Ansar because they were somehow out of his reach is flatly wrong. This doesn't confirm the Administration's claims, but it does undermine Matthew's criticism.

As for the notion that Ansar al-Islam operating in Kurdish areas automatically made them not associated with Saddam (as opposed to, say, a nasty auxiliary force propped up by Saddam to attack the Kurds)... oy. I'm not saying that Ansar al-Islam/Saddam link is definitive yet, but the notion that they're clearly independent is completely unproven, and based on the evidence at hand less likely.

I can find, in history, thousands of auxiliary forces operating in alliance with a government outside the territory of that government, and do so easily. Probably without even leaving the last century, if we're only looking for "supported by", as opposed to "controlled by".

That they operated in Kurdish territory means only that the linkage becomes probable (>50%), instead of definite.

Cato is intellectually honest? Does that assessment include Senior Fellow Stephen Moore?

Yglesias is looking forward to the restraint in spending that this deliberately profligate era will necessitate?

It's amazing what we will overlook if we approve of a writer's conclusions.

My assessment of Matthew Yglesias is that he is far less cynical than the situation requires. But he's young.

"God! Just think if he'd been an Economics or a Social Studies rather than a Philosophy major!"

Of course, he could have been a REAL scientist, too... :-)

*The chemist ducks the incoming brickbats ---and bricks*

I have to say, though, there are 2 other strikes against him... he's from Hahvahd, and, plus, he's a YANKEE FAN for goodness' sake! :-)

Stan and Craig: Remember that the U.S. and Britain were flying missions in Iraq policing the no-fly zone and striking Saddam-controlled targets before the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" onset. If Ansar al-Islam was known to be a Saddam-controlled terrorist organization why didn't we strike their base then?

cafl, I really haven't a clue? I do not claim to be a military analyst. I assume that airstrikes alone wouldn't have been effective. I understand that they were in a mountainous area, and that Special Forces went in with the Kurds to call in the strikes.

Even then, it is quite possible that the Kurds wouldn't have made a move unless they knew we were taking Mosul from Saddam. Kurds continued to live under Saddam's control. Saddam likely had plenty enough leverage for this relationship claim to be true.

One can't help but notice something in the Economist article above that it does not appear to say whatever Suklkivan thinks it says. It primarily reports plans and goals. What actually exists is a power grid that was not really a target during the war has returned to prewar levels. That oil production, which was not a target during the war, and was undamaged, is at 75 percent capacity. And that exports are only a little over half of pre war levels. All the rest are plans. "If five billion goes into..." Or "By february telecom will..." Or "Bechtel admits it got off to a slow start BUT?" These are all promises about the future and fit into a line of incredibly optimistic forecasts about what "will" happen in Iraq. Like within 30 days oil production would be back up and the Iraqi's could pay for their own reconstruction. At what point do you stop believing what Bechtel, or the administration, says and accept what actually exists. With P. S. never, but others retain some critical faculties.

One can't help but notice something in the Economist article above that it does not appear to say whatever Suklkivan thinks it says. It primarily reports plans and goals. What actually exists is a power grid that was not really a target during the war has returned to prewar levels. That oil production, which was not a target during the war, and was undamaged, is at 75 percent capacity. And that exports are only a little over half of pre war levels. All the rest are plans. "If five billion goes into..." Or "By february telecom will..." Or "Bechtel admits it got off to a slow start BUT?" These are all promises about the future and fit into a line of incredibly optimistic forecasts about what "will" happen in Iraq. Like within 30 days oil production would be back up and the Iraqi's could pay for their own reconstruction. At what point do you stop believing what Bechtel, or the administration, says and accept what actually exists. With P. S. never, but others retain some critical faculties.

Regarding Young Yglesias's choice of major---

There is still time enough for graduate school,
he may make something of himself yet.

Stan and Craig,

If you are going to take on somebody (Yglesias) that a guy who thinks for a living (Brad) touts as smart, don’t go in light. Load up on facts and logic first. Brad gave you a big hint – this guy is gonna be right about a lot of things. Loading up on facts and logic in the age of the internet is somewhat easier than it once was, but all you brought to back your doubts was the “could and would” approach to argumentation. There is a ton of stuff written on Ansar al-Islam. Let’s see what Human Rights Watch says:

“Ansar al-Islam came together as a group in September 2001, initially under the name of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), but its constituent factions have existed for several years. Espousing an ultra-orthodox Islamic ideology reminiscent of Wahhabism…”

OK, we know that Saddam was a secularist. So a bunch of religious nuts operating outside his reach and diametrically opposed to secularist Arab states (Wahhabism, ya know) like Saddam’s Iraq are really Saddam’s guys? Seems unlikely.

Next:

“Human Rights Watch has not investigated the alleged links between the Iraqi government and Ansar al-Islam, and is not aware of any convincing evidence supporting this contention. On the other hand, the location of the group's bases very close to the Iranian border, taken together with credible reports of the return of some Ansar al-Islam fighters to Iraqi Kurdistan through Iran, suggest that these fighters have received at least limited support from some Iranian sources.”

So, Human Rights Watch finds more evidence of a connection to Iran, which fought a war with Iraq under Saddam’s regime and which has ties to the Iraqi Shiites that Saddam oppressed, than with Iraq’s government.

Most of the suggestions that Ansar is linked to Saddam seem to come from the Kurdish PUK, on the logic that both Asnar and Saddam were opponents of the PUK, so must be allies (the "everybody's picking on me" school of analysis). Beyond that, little evidence emerges. But the same folks making the accusation (PUK commanders) report overhearing radio chatter between Ansar commanders and Iranian forces. So again, there is actual evidence of an Iran connection, but none to Saddam.

Reports of official US views of Ansar note that the US until recently knew little about them (no surprise, given the relative newness of the group). There were assertions, though, that they harbor or are affiliated with al-Qaeda, with what seems pretty specific intelligence that al-Qaeda actually had a hand in Ansar’s creation. Only intelligence-challenged senior officials on propagandizing missions (like Colin Powell when he was arguing that Ansar was the link between al-Qaeda and Saddam) have claimed a link. Much of that pre-war linkage effort has become imbedded in ditto-head thinking, but much of it has also proved wrong. There is no reason to lend credence to the particular pre-war claim about Ansar and Saddam that was pretty clearly made in service of saying war with Iraq would be part of the war on terror.

There are pre-war reports (http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact%2F030210fa_fact) that the CIA was taking claims of a connect between Saddam and Ansar “more seriously” but without any evidence cited. The main connection may be the suspicion that Mussa’ab al-Zarqawi’s destination upon departure from a Baghdad hospital was an Ansar camp in Kurdistan, but again, with no evidence cited. Since the war, there has been plenty of opportunity to gather physical evidence or testimony from actual participants in these events. As far as I have been able to discern, none has been reported to support a link between Ansar al-Islam and Saddam's regime.

Now, if you take what I say here as support for your own positions, you have to be getting pretty close to insisting that Yglesias prove the negative, that he prove there was no link between Saddam and Ansar. He knows from his first class in logic that you ought not go around trying to prove negatives. If you are going to call on him to do so, you and he will not be in the same discussion.

I agree with The Talking Dog: if the study and practice of analytic philosophy can't turn you into a clear-thinking, lucid writer, there's a good chance nothing can.

" 'Who in politics do you find inspiring?'

" 'George Bush. In a second-guess world, he took a first guess. I think he's a handshake guy in an air-kiss world. I admire that about him.' "

Wow. Now, THAT'S intellectual analysis: a leader must be good just because he bulls ahead without asking himself any questions. What would we do without Hollywood figures (right-wing as well as left-wing) to provide us with their penetrating political insights?