Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

"No one, absolutely no one, is getting out of this administration with even the shreds of a reputation."

I sure hope that is true. But there were a stunning number of criminal indictments of members of the Reagan administration, and they seem to continue to, you know, get work in goverment.

"No one, absolutely no one, is getting out of this administration with even the shreds of a reputation."

I sure hope that is true. But there were a stunning number of criminal indictments of members of the Reagan administration, and they seem to continue to, you know, get work in goverment.

But Colin Powell may receive a nice portion of the country to rule in the coming dictatorship. I think you don't understand their goals yet, Brad.

But Colin Powell may receive a nice portion of the country to rule in the coming dictatorship. I think you don't understand their goals yet, Brad.

"No one, absolutely no one, is getting out of this administration with even the shreds of a reputation."

Brad, I can't imagine what you mean: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_25.php#002898"

It's interesting that Joseph Wilson is fingering Elliot Abrams as one of his, and his wife's, nemeses. Many of us hoped that repugnant man would simply slink off into some swamp after Iran/Contra. His revival, like Poindexter's, is a testament to the increasing pointlessness of our media.

Did you see the piece yesterday (I can't remember if it was Kevin Drum or Atrios' site showing the exact parallel between the Japanese puppet state Manchukwo and the 'New Iraq'? It's uncanny. History does repeat itself. Precedent doesn't bode well for the new 'state' retrieving its seat at the UN.

Powell has a future doing a stand-up routine in Vegas, shurely?

I mean, how was his timing with that "That's a sovereign decision"?

"Not enough evidence to indict Sharon" (or Ken Lay for that matter), and FIOA now PA2's, what makes you think the new Racketeer Act lawsuit against the Bush Administration for complicity in 9/11 WTC will be more than another coverup?
Or Cheney's Energy Policy Act con-job either?

They took down mobsters only AFTER they had them on tax evasion. Today, they're risking spurious action toss-outs in the vain hope of discovery.
It's all process driven now, a reciprocating chess match between sumo wrestlers in Armani.

Maybe Colin's adopted Orwellian circular double-speak to let us know that he knows that we know.
The important thing to remember though, the mob isn't run by Powell, and thugs and mouthpieces come and go. The mob goes on. The Don survives.

Where's Ari Fleischer to lay good spin on this,
now those rat-bastards suckered us into Iraq?

I will say this again: we are giving sovereignty to Iraq in the same reason that a minor is declared an adult for purposes of trial.

KW, that piece was over at Billmon the other day.

On our friend, Super Colon Blow Powell, he lost my respect when he failed to resign after it became clear there were no WMDs in Iraq. His whole tenure to date has been covering for war criminals. Disappointing would put it mildly.

If I didn't agree with CalDem that Comic Powell will be given a tiny fiefdom in the coming dictatorship (ruled by the holy trinity, i.e. Managerial-Aristocracy + Religious Right + Republican party), he would have a promising career as a dead pan comic.

Perhaps the new Iraqi government will issue a retroactive decision inviting the USA to invade in the first place.

It's not colin powell, his body has been taken over by a creature from outer space, this is the start of their mission to take over our planet.

Colin, we hardly knew you. but you know what, 20 or 30 years from now, Colin will be hailed as the only adult among the kids.

"Colin, we hardly knew you. but you know what, 20 or 30 years from now, Colin will be hailed as the only adult among the kids."

Perhaps, but the kids decided to go on a rampage and insult everyone around the block. Colin at first tried to dissuade them, and then decided to join them. Then he tried to convince the neighborhood that the rioting kids were in fact on some kind of clean-up drive, with a piece of dirty spounge in his hand as proof. The funiest thing is that a majority of people in the neighborhood actually cheered the vandals for a while...

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/120/world/Powell_acknowledges_U_S_losses:.shtml

Hmm. No mention in the Boston Globe of this "quote". I smell a rat.

Same question, same day (interview with CNN's Chris Burns):

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/31923.htm

-----------quote------------
QUESTION: Now, on June 30th there will be a hand-over of sovereignty. But Paul Bremer is talking about total sovereignty and his successor, John Negroponte, is talking about some kind of limited sovereignty. How would you describe it?

SECRETARY POWELL: We are all talking about the same thing – sovereignty. We want to give the interim government as much sovereignty as they are able to handle. But they know as well as we do, whoever this interim government turns out to be – because we have a Governing Council now that gives us some insight into what Iraqi thinking is -- but we are confident that the interim government will realize that security has to be provided by coalition forces. And those coalition forces have to be under the command of an American commander. So to some extent, they are yielding part of their sovereignty for their own sound purposes, and that is to make sure that the nation remains secure.

And this is an interim government. Remember, this is a caretaker government to get it through elections at the beginning of next year, so I don’t think this is that big a problem. It will be worked out on the ground between the Coalition Provisional Authority, a new Ambassador coming in, Ambassador Negroponte, and the interim government. And it will be worked out to the satisfaction of all.
----------endquote----------

I hate to admit it, but P Sullivan does have a point. The caretaker government is a caretaker government, and it really shouldn't be making big decisions about stuff -like whether peacekeeping, or occupation, troops come or go.

But I wonder if the Iraqi people will agree when it comes to the caretaker government's responsibilities and limits thereof? Or, if the recent polls regarding their opposition to US troops are correct, whether their notion of thelimits of sovereignty will match ours.

What both De Long's and Sullivan's quotes put together do show, is that things have been so totally messed up, and so much is being made up moment to moment that no one can really keep track. Not even the poised Powell can hide it. And it also shows that there are many booby-traps in the jury rigged contraption.

This kind of thing was predicted, as we should keep reminding ourselves, by many experts before the troop buid-up began.

So, Patrick, coming around to the correct view of most of us here?

I have seen one letter to a UK newspaper suggesting that a sovereign government is required to sign reconstruction contracts. Sounds plausible, but I have seen no follow up. Any ideas?

If you "smell a rat", it's only because you're not using enough deoderant, Patrick. MaxSpeak quoted this from Reuters, which in turn quoted it from an interview Powell did with CNN -- NOT from Powell's press conference described by the Globe. He may not have intended it to come out sounding the way it did, but what he told CNN was that the Iraqi government does NOT have the power to tell the US troops to leave. Which, of course, it doesn't. Limited sovereignty, to put it mildly. We'll see what the Iraqi popular reaction is if and when the new "sovereign" government DOES ask the US to leave and we tell them to stick it.

Remember, we invaded Iraq to destroy their weapons of mass destruction. Now that we have found out that they didn't have any left, we are in search of a reason to leave. Pulling out of Iraq the day after the provisional government asks us to is going to win Bush some votes. I'm not saying that it is a good idea, just that his voting base has no objections. It's the liberals who will complain about the lack of freedom and democracy in Iraq, and they won't vote for him anyway.
So June 30 is a win/win situation for Bush.

Reputation is in the eye of the reputers.

Well, all of this is now superfluous. As the New Republic notes, we probably lost the war -- all the war -- today:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd?pid=1618

Be sure and follow the URL links both to the pictures and to the enraged commentary by "Sgt. Stryker", conservative Republican hawk. And when you read Stryker's comments, note the real money passage in the middle of it, in which Master Torturer Chip Frederick says that US military intelligence has been enthusiastically encouraging him to do this sort of thing from the time the war started -- and that he's ready to name names.

Surely you josh Stirling. Even a minor declared an adult in the American trial system has a right to a jury of their peers, a grand jury inquiry to justify charges against them, the right to a defense, due process / habeus corpus protections, the right not to incriminate themselves, and protection from 'cruel and unusual' punishment.

Granted some of these things are observed more in the breach than the practice, but at least they have the nominal right to these things. The Iraqi minor doesn't have any of these at all. Right about now the Iraqis are probably quite envious of that minor declared adult for purposes of trial.

Glutton for punishment Bruce Moomaw, demonstrates his commitment to "appallingly sloppy reading", yet again:

"MaxSpeak quoted this from Reuters, which in turn quoted it from an interview Powell did with CNN -- NOT from Powell's press conference described by the Globe. "

This is simply wrong. The Reuters story prefaces the supposed "Orwellian" quote with:

" ....Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told a news conference after talks with Powell.

" Powell said...

" He also urged ...

" Powell said ..."

So clearly the "quote" comes from the same press conference the Boston Globe reported on. However, what did Bruce think I meant when I wrote:

"Same question, same day (interview with CNN's Chris Burns):"

And had Bruce managed the energy to click on the url I provided for him:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/31923.htm

He could have read the one line Reuters quoted from that interview:

"That will be over, and we can get on with the process of getting ready for the transition to a sovereign government"

As well as the previously quoted answer to the same question supposedly asked in the press conference. Which I now repeat, because I know Bruce is either too lazy or stupid to retrieve for himself:

-----------quote------------
QUESTION: Now, on June 30th there will be a hand-over of sovereignty. But Paul Bremer is talking about total sovereignty and his successor, John Negroponte, is talking about some kind of limited sovereignty. How would you describe it?

SECRETARY POWELL: We are all talking about the same thing – sovereignty. We want to give the interim government as much sovereignty as they are able to handle. But they know as well as we do, whoever this interim government turns out to be – because we have a Governing Council now that gives us some insight into what Iraqi thinking is -- but we are confident that the interim government will realize that security has to be provided by coalition forces. And those coalition forces have to be under the command of an American commander. So to some extent, they are yielding part of their sovereignty for their own sound purposes, and that is to make sure that the nation remains secure.

And this is an interim government. Remember, this is a caretaker government to get it through elections at the beginning of next year, so I don’t think this is that big a problem. It will be worked out on the ground between the Coalition Provisional Authority, a new Ambassador coming in, Ambassador Negroponte, and the interim government. And it will be worked out to the satisfaction of all.
----------endquote----------

Btw, we're winning not only the larger war, but the battle in Fallujah. Witness the four Iraqi generals taking responsibility for patrolling the streets there rather than have the Marines kill more of the dwindling number of insurgents.

Max, bad boy. Very naughty:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/31975.htm

---------quote-----------
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, what would you put in the U.N. resolution in order to convince other countries, for instance France, that the new Iraqi government is having full sovereignty after June 30?

SECRETARY POWELL: The resolution, I hope, will contain elements that would recognize that an interim sovereign government has been set up. I hope that there will an element that talks about the need for additional contributions to the military force, additional economic contributions, and provide a mandate for the Brahimi plan and provide a mandate for the plan moving forward especially toward elections to a national assembly early next year, a transitional government and then a full government at the end of 2005, early 2006. Those are the elements in common that everyone is talking about. I think there will be strong support for these elements. You mentioned France. France and Germany, and the others who disagreed so strongly with us last year, have indicated that they want to be part of this reconstruction effort. They don’t what to see us go back to the days of Saddam Hussein. They know it is in their interest, as well as in our interest and the interest of the Iraqi people, for us all to work together going forward.

The government will be given sovereignty. Obviously, because a large foreign military presence will still be required, under U.S. command. Some would say well then you are not giving full sovereignty, but we are giving sovereignty, so that that sovereignty can be used to say: We invite you to remain. It is a sovereign decision. It is not that unusual. It happened in Europe where U.S. forces remained for many years under U.S. command but with another sovereign in charge of the country that we were in. The same was the situation in Korea for many years. I think those kinds of arrangements can be worked out. I think France and the other nations will recognize that we have given sovereignty when they see an Iraqi president, an Iraqi prime minister, an Iraqi deputy president, and a full Iraqi cabinet that is actually running the country and the CPA is no longer there, and an American Ambassador is there performing as American ambassadors do everywhere else around the world.
------endquote------

For Bruce Moomaw's edification (since I know he won't bother to read the entire thing) this is not from a CNN interview, but from, as I told you, a press conference.

I believe sovereignty would include the power to decide whether or not a foreign power can have military bases on your soil. My understanding is that Iraqis will not be given a choice about that--the Bushies intend to have a number of permanent military bases in Iraq (to replace those they have abandoned in Saudi Arabia, in part). What little I have been able to find about what the actual "handover" means suggests that Iraq will not be sovereign nation. The US (through its embassy) will be calling many of the shots in most important areas. I believe the US intends to privatize the Iraqi economy--without asking the citizens if that's what they want of course (the Bushies know what's "best" for everyone and it's usually: (1) increases profits for Bush cronies and donors and/or (2) pleases fundamentalist Christians). And to remain in control of various other aspects of Iraqi sovereignty. One article I read said that US troops were expected to be there until at least 2005 if not 2008 and who knows how long the US taxpayers might be footing the bill for a mercenary army? I think the much ballyhooed 06/30 handover is about as real as Bush's May "mission accomplished" strut--it's designed to give a lift to his re-election campaign. Of course, the Iraqis may have different ideas . . .

Ah, Patrick:

"So clearly the 'quote' comes from the same press conference the Boston Globe reported on."

Quite the contrary, Patrick. The Reuters article is completely indeterminate on whether that particular quote from Powell (and some of the others it includes) came from the press conference or from his CNN interview. So: if that quote ain't in his press conference, I really think even you could figure out that either (A) Reuters made it up out of thin air (which seems somewhat unlikely), or (B) Powell said it in his CNN interview rather than in the press conference. (Still no word on this from CNN itself, but I have my eyes peeled.)

Hmm. Well, that's what I get for not reading to the bottom of this thread to see if Patrick is going to elaborate on his earlier accusations. So, what we still have -- although Powell DID say it at the press conference, although there was no way at all to tell that from the Reuters article -- is a situation in which "sovereignty" is defined as "doing what the US tells you to do" -- not as "telling the US to stay or leave, as you see fit". And, as I said before, it will be very interesting to see the Iraqi people are willing to fall for that particular brand of hysterical Newspeak.

By the way, Robert Kagan in tonight's Post ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59795-2004May1.html ):

"All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow, much less a month from now. Consider Fallujah: One week they're setting deadlines and threatening offensives; the next week they're pulling back. The latest plan, naming one of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard generals to lead the pacification of the city, is the kind of bizarre idea that only desperate people can conjure. The Bush administration is evidently in a panic, and this panic is being conveyed to the American people."

So, don't blame Powell for spouting idiotically self-contradictory definitions of "sovereignty" -- at this point, it's all he can do, since everyone around him also has absolutely no idea of what to do now.

Well, that was an interesting exchange. To paraphrase:

PATRICK: This 'quote' can't be found! There's no report of Powell saying it in the press conference! What rat invented this 'quote' to make Powell look bad?
BRUCE: It must have been in another interview.
PATRICK: Bruce, you fool, you dolt, you ignorant incompetent, prepare to cringe as I destroy your entire case: here is a transcript of the press conference, showing Powell using that exact quote, word for word!

You make each day a little more surreal, Patrick.

Apparently Jeffrey Kramer is as lazy as Bruce Moomaw. I specifically told Max Sawicky that his "quote" was either or bogus or "wildly out of context". When a transcript of the press conference was made available it turned out to be the latter. There is nothing "Orwellian" about Powell's remarks to the question of "sovereignty". Which is why the Boston Globe didn't not report them; they are entirely unremarkable when read in context.

Now, maybe you'd like to tackle the amusing inconsistency of Bruce Moomaw's latest:

"...although Powell DID say it at the press conference, although there was no way at all to tell that from the Reuters article..."

With his original:

"If you "smell a rat", it's only because you're not using enough deoderant, Patrick. MaxSpeak quoted this from Reuters, which in turn quoted it from an interview Powell did with CNN -- NOT from Powell's press conference described by the Globe."

You took the words out of my mouth, Jeffrey. Fool that I am, I assumed that Patrick knew what he was talking about when he initially said it wasn't in the press conference -- since it's absolutely impossible to take a statement like that "out of context", and I couldn't believe that Patrick could be dumb enough to really believe that could be done. (See below.) Ergo, Powell must have said it in the CNN interview (which I couldn't find at the time on the Web), since -- as I said -- that short Reuters article is completely indeterminate as to which conversation that particular quote came from.

What I should have done, of course, is read the press conference transcript in spite of what Patrick told me. I mean, by now I know Patrick. But Powell DID say it in the press conference: the coming Iraqi government will have "sovereignty to invite us to stay" but not "sovereignty to tell us to go". A very strange kind of sovereignty. What Powell could ahve said at the press conference, of course, was the truth: the new Iraqi government will have sovereignty in some matters, but NOT on that particular very big question. But that would have been giving the game away too obviously -- especially before an international body of reporters -- so instead he decided to resort to Newspeak and in the process made himself look like a fool, which makes him fit right in with the rest of this administration.

And, speaking of Newspeak, from today's NY Times:

"Gen. Richard B. Myers insisted that only 'a handful' of U.S. troops were to blame [for the torture], but said he could not rule out that this was part of a wider pattern."

At this point the Administration reminds me of that Fisher-Price toy commercial recounting the various bizarre excuses kids come up with for how their toys got broken. It ends with an infuriated mother snapping at her daughter, "Teresa, what's happened to this dollhouse?" (The dollhouse is completely caved in in the middle like a saddle.) Teresa, who's about four, sticks her finger in her mouth, thinks hard for a few seconds, and then says tentatively, "Nothin' ". Teresa obviously has a future with the Bush Administration.

Ignore PaddyWhackJob: he can conjure quotes from his 4x4 ass any ady.

"What Powell could ahve said at the press conference, of course, was the truth: the new Iraqi government will have sovereignty in some matters, but NOT on that particular very big question."

In fact, that is exactly what Powell did say. But Reuters didn't quote that part, taking only one sentence out of the middle of his answer:

"The government will be given sovereignty. Obviously, because a large foreign military presence will still be required, under U.S. command. Some would say well then you are not giving full sovereignty, but we are giving sovereignty, so that that sovereignty can be used to say: We invite you to remain. It is a sovereign decision. It is not that unusual. It happened in Europe where U.S. forces remained for many years under U.S. command but with another sovereign in charge of the country that we were in. The same was the situation in Korea for many years. I think those kinds of arrangements can be worked out."

Now, we still need an answer from Bruce as to how he could read the Reuters article as definitely quoting Powell's remarks from a "CNN interview" (even using caps for emphasis):

"from an interview Powell did with CNN -- NOT from Powell's press conference"

And change his story to it being "completely indeterminate" where it came from.

BRUCE: What Powell could have said at the press conference, of course, was the truth: the new Iraqi government will have sovereignty in some matters, but NOT on that particular very big question.

PATRICK: In fact, that is exactly what Powell did say.

No, that is exactly what Powell carefully avoided saying; and because he was tying himself into rhetorical knots in order to avoid saying it, he ended up expressing himself in a ludicrous, Orwellian phrase. That is of course the main point which Max and Brad were making, and which Patrick alone seems studiously unwilling to recognize. Notice the part of Powell's speech Patrick quotes:

"The government will be given sovereignty. Obviously -- because a large foreign military presence will still be required, under U.S. command -- some would say 'well then you are not giving full sovereignty'; but we are giving sovereignty, so that that sovereignty can be used to say: We invite you to remain."

Patrick would have us believe that Powell IS saying "the Iraqis WON'T have full sovereignty" and points us to a passage in which Powell is actually saying "SOME PEOPLE say the Iraqis won't have full sovereignty, BUT they are wrong"!

(Patrick will now rise up to quibble with this paraphrase: for Powell never used the words "they are wrong"! But of course in a sentence with the structure "Some people say X, but..." everybody understands that everything following the 'but' is there to *refute* what "some people say"; to show that "some people" are wrong. I would be happy to consider any counter-example to this.)

Yep, Jeff. Patrick can squrim around as much as he wants, but the fact remains that Powell did say in that sentence that we are giving the Iraqi government "sovereignty to invite us to stay", but NOT "sovereignty to order us to go." Which, of course, ain't sovereignty on that subject at all -- a fact that Powell frantically tried to avoid saying, and in the process made a public fool of himself.

As for his continued (and deliberately, if ridiculously, distracting) attempts to rant about what Sawicky, Reuters and CNN actually said and when they said it: see my response in the "Meaning of the Fallujah Force" thread above.

By "him" in that last paragraph, I mean of couse Patrick, not Powell. Powell at his worst wouldn't do anything quite that moronic.

Well, let's give Patrick's response a fair hearing, so we can dismiss it; after that we can give him a fair trial, so we can hang him.

Geniuses, I've quoted Powell's answer IN FULL. And you still can't read:

"It is not that unusual. It happened in Europe where U.S. forces remained for many years under U.S. command but with another sovereign in charge of the country that we were in."

Which (when quoted with his preceding sentences) is exactly what Bruce is claiming Powell didn't say.

Speaking of Orwellian, it's sad that Bruce can't read a simple (and short) news article that clearly references a news conference as the source of a statement. But not as sad as not being able to read Powell's statement even when it is spoonfed to him.

Dear Supergenius:

Do you understand the difference between

"Powell SAID 'They have sovereignty but it is limited'"

and

"Powell said 'They have sovereignty, so that that sovereignty can be used to say: We invite you to remain,' as happened in Europe after WWII,' which, when you think about it, IMPLIES that their sovereignty will be limited"?

If you still don't see the point, try seeing if you understand the difference between

"John admitted he had told lies"

and

"John said 'it is regrettable that a situation has developed which presents a contradiction between certain past statements of mine and current investigations into the documentary record regarding the facts surrounding those past statements,' which -- if you think about it -- pretty much inescapably leads to the conclusion that John's past statements were lies."

Of course it's self evident that Powell is speaking of an arrangement which does, effectively, grant a limited sovereignty. So you can stop "demonstrating" it by pointing again and again to the same paragraph. Nobody has denied that Powell is speaking of an arrangement which does, effectively, grant a limited sovereignty. What has been said, again and again, is that it is a shameful piece of sophistry on Powell's point to speak AS IF sovereignty WERE going to exist in the very area -- control over foreign troops -- where he is determined to DENY that sovereignty.

In short, the point is that instead of speaking the truth straightforwardly, Powell has wrapped the unpleasant (to Iraqis, at least) facts in layers of weaseling and double-talk. Because it is doubletalk to say "They have sovereignty, so that that sovereignty can be used to say: We invite you to remain." It's doubletalk no matter WHAT kind of "context" follows it.

Do you deny that it is doubletalk? Then tell us what's the meaning of "so that" in that sentence. Tell us how it's different from "I gave the slave his freedom SO THAT he would continue to bring me breakfast in bed" or "We are granting him freedom of speech SO THAT he can go on singing our praises."

Or give the job over to your fellow supergenius, Wile E Coyote: like yourself, he doesn't mind running over the same cliff again and again and again and...

No matter how disingenuously you try to paraphrase Powell's remarks, when they are read in their entirety it is clear Reuters tried to pull a fast one; they took a sentence out of the middle of his explanation (and ignored a similar answer in the CNN interview that furthers clarifies). Just as I predicted to Max Sawicky.

That you two are so far gone in Bush hatred that you can't read simple English sentences, isn't my fault.

Not even a shadow of a pretense of addressing the issues or acknowledging the arguments shoved in his face again and again. That's our Patrick.

Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.

Get WWW.I-DISH-NETWORK.ORG rid of cable and upgrade your living room by clicking here!

Find your www.ALL-FIORICET.COM here, 100% discrete!

go to WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM for great deals!

Online Casino Directory

Now you can Play Poker online any time!

you can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com

you can play blackjack online here!
http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide you should be in a god position to play poker.

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free!

2812 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

91 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

1195 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

2654 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com