The Next Hurrah

Zogby: Military Wants Us To Leave Iraq

by DemFromCT

Zogby has an unusual new poll on military attitudes toward Iraq.

The U.S. should pull out of Iraq "within the next year," said 72% of the 944 U.S. military personnel in Iraq who were surveyed for a LeMoyne University/Zogby International project, which was published today. Just under a quarter - 23% - said U.S. forces should stay "as long as they are needed."

At the Pentagon, spokesman Bryan Whitman told The Financial Times that U.S. personnel in Iraq are not unhappy about the way things are going in Iraq. That conclusion is “certainly not born out in our recruiting and retention statistics,” he said.

Columnist Nicholas Kristof, who previewed the poll today in The New York Times (available to Times Select subscribers), disagreed. He called the 72% result "one more bit of evidence that our grim stay-the-course policy in Iraq has failed."

Mystery Pollster dissects the poll mechanism:

Here is what I can say: 

• The Center for Peace and Global Studies paid Zogby to conduct the study but otherwise played no role in conducting interviews or gathering the data.

• According to the procedure Zogby described, respondents were intercepted randomly (e.g. they were not self selected) at multiple locations throughout Iraq (e.g. not just in the so-called "Green Zone") and interviewed using a paper questionnaire that they filled out with the assistance of an interviewer. 

• Zogby was willing to share the specific geographic locations where they collected data on the condition I not repeat them.  I passed on the offer as my knowledge of Iraq and military operations there is cursory at best, but I have no doubt his offer was genuine.

• Zogby provided Nick Kristof and others reporting on the poll full details about his methodology on an "off-the-record" basis. 

So in short, I can tell you that Zogby found a creative solution to the difficult problem of polling troops in Iraq, but I promised to say no more than that.   I asked Zogby what advice he would offer data consumers who find this all puzzling.  In this case, he said, "you have to trust me."

Well, okay. But for the military to overwhelmingly want out is pretty amazing. Even if we trust Zogby, the folks in uniform don't trust all the happy talk and 5 o'clock follies from this Administration. Welcome to the reality-based community.

Were the 527’s Really Failures?

By DHinMI

Hotline On Call tells us that AFSCME President Gerald McEntee says that the Dem-allied 527’s dedicated to get out the vote (GOTV) efforts in 2004 were "‘trounced’ by the GOP's ‘neighbor-to-neighbor strategy.’” 

I’m not so sure if you talked with McEntee in depth that he would so sweepingly dismiss the 527’s that did GOTV like America Coming Together (ACT), which received a huge portion of its funding from labor unions like AFSCME. There are two key differences between Democratic needs and funds that made ACT a good move for Democrats in 2004.

Parse This Paragraph and Win a Prize!

By DHinMI

The Financial Times has an article about George W. Bush again speaking about the need to limit the US dependency on foreign oil.  Within the article was an odd quote from Bush about elections and the Middle East.  I wasn't quite sure what to make of the excerpt of Bush's speech to the National Association of Governors, so I looked up the text of the full speech.  And it made me even more confused:

It's an interesting debate that's going to take place here in Washington, or is taking place in Washington:  Do elections cause radicalism or empower radicals?  My answer is, the status quo empowered radicals.  This notion that somehow the Middle East was a safe place for the last 30 years -- because we didn't see, kind of, the turmoil that happens with elections meant we were safe.  I just totally disagree with that, kind of the -- beneath the surface that appeared placid, the policymakers, was resentment and hatred and planning and plotting, all of which came home on September the 11th.

I've read that paragraph five times, and I still don't know what he's saying.  I realize that any time Bush invokes September 11th, it's typically to decieve and confuse.  But in this case, I think he's saying something about elections being either good...or bad...or inconsequential...or, well, something.  Is he arguing that the lack of elections are a problem, and that's one of the reasons we should allow the United Arab Emirates to operate terminals in US ports  um, threaten to cut off aid to Egypt unless Mubarak opens up the political system say bad things about Syria as long as it's a repressive regime?  Is he saying that Palestinian democracy is bad when it leads to Hamas taking control of  the Palestinian parliament democratic elections are why everything is all of a sudden so peaceful in Iraq   Or is he saying that elections in repressive states with corrupt governments will often result in strong showings by radical parties, which in the Middle East and North Africa will typically be Islamist parties? Is he saying anything that's coherent? 

If anyone can decipher that paragraph, please post your interpretation in the comments, and you'll earn my gratitude, plus a year's free subscription to The Next Hurrah.

Excuses

by emptypockets

(with apologies to Shel Silverstein.)
    (and Iraqis.  also, New Orleans.)
       (oh, and apologies to James Whittington.)
           (and the entire world.  And our great-grandchildren.)
               (and the Scottish police.)

Excuses

"Today I cannot go to work," Said courageous Captain Smirk. "My nerves are shot, my brain ain't right, I think my crown is on too tight. Iraqis face a civil war, My ratings sunk to thirty-four. My bestest buddy Michael Brown Let New Orleans flood and drown. Miers poofed without a trace, Dick Cheney shot me in the face, I'm laying eggs and sneezing too - I think I've got the chicken flu. I'm seeing spots, I'm filled with fear, A transmitter's hidden in my ear, I even missed my evening nap! Osama has me wiretapped, My privatizing scheme don't look so hot, I rode my bike into a Scot, They're splicing foreign genes in me, My stem cells want to go live free. Libby's cooked, Delay's been booked, We're on the take and all got tooked, I've sold our ports to emirates, I'm in a vegetative state, and -- What?  What's that you claim? You claim... it's midterm time again? ...G'bye! I'm gonna go campaign!"

Port Politics and Polls

by DemFromCT

[UPDATE}: Mystery Pollster has more details.

Interesting polls today:

The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.

Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement.

The troubling results for the Bush administration come amid reminders about the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina and negative assessments of how the government and the president have handled it for six months.

And

Port Poll Points Up Problems: A poll conducted for the Cook Political Report and released Monday helps explain why the Dubai Ports World deal has drawn such vigorous opposition from lawmakers in both parties. By 61%-27%, respondents said, Congress should take special action to prevent the company from taking over management of terminals at several major U.S. ports, rather than trusting the Bush administration's decision. Resistance came from 81% of Democrats, 67% of independents and 32% of Republicans.

The poll of 1,000 adults, conducted Feb. 23-26 by RT Strategies, suggested that adverse developments such as the ports controversy, Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident, and violence in Iraq may have further dented President Bush's national standing. It showed the president's approval rating at 40%, down from 47% a month earlier. The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points. --John Harwood

Worst. President. Ever. And Mardi Gras in New Orleans just rubs it in. You can fool some of the people some of the time... From CBS as well:

In a separate poll, two out of three Americans said they do not think President Bush has responded adequately to the needs of Katrina victims. Only 32 percent approve of the way President Bush is responding to those needs, a drop of 12 points from last September’s poll, taken just two weeks after the storm made landfall.

Theodore Draper, a Teacher for our Times

by emptywheel

Via Laura Rozen, I see that Theodore Draper, author of A Very Thin Line, has passed away. I quoted from Draper just the other day (in a post currently on ice in the Typepad fridge) and again just a few weeks ago, so it goes without saying that I believe Draper offers us some very important insight for our times. But I'd like to make the case again. Draper's work is still relevant because the same goons he chronicled in A Very Thin Line are back at it again, with even more ambitious goals.

I shared some of my concerns with a civilian who had been remotely acquainted with the Luti-Feith-Perle political clan in his previous work for one of the senior Pentagon witnesses during the Iran-Contra hearings. He told me these guys were engaged in something worse than Iran-Contra. I was curious but he wouldn't tell me anything more. I figured he knew what he was talking about. I thought of him when I read much later about the 2002 and 2003 meetings between Michael Ledeen, Reuel Marc Gerecht and Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar -- all Iran-Contra figures.

And he's still relevant because he cataloged an approach that the goons are still using. Here are some excerpts from the final chapter of A Very Thin Line, presciently titled, "Unfinished Business."

Katrina Aftermath

by DemFromCT

Monsters and Critics has a nice Katrina summary, bringing the scandal back where it belongs: the WH.

Washington - US President George W. Bush's frequent trips last year to the area devastated by Hurricane Katrina were not just visits by a concerned leader, but also damage control by a commander- in-chief whose administration badly bungled its disaster response.

While the political damage to the White House cannot be compared to the devastation that Katrina caused in the US Gulf Coast, many believe that Bush's handling of the catastrophe is one of the defining moments of his presidency.

'People all over America' feel that Bush will be judged by how he dealt with Katrina, US Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa. 'It showed how ineffective this administration has been in protecting the homeland.'

Reid's assessment is widely shared throughout the world, where people watched in amazement how the hurricane - after building up for days over the Gulf of Mexico - left the world's wealthiest nation paralyzed and unable to help its citizens. And even some in Bush's own political party agrees.

'If this is what happens when we have advance warning, we shudder to imagine the consequences when we do not,' members of Bush's Republican Party said in a report released in mid February.

That was the beginning of the sense that Bush was not up to the job of protecting us at home. Whatever happens with the ports deal with Dubai, the reason the doubts about it resonate have everything to do with Katrina.

The Katrina aftermath hurt Bush severely,' said Larry Sabato, head of the Centre for Politics at University of Virginia, in a telephone interview. 'It destroyed the image of Bush as a leader who could protect us.'

Bush has yet to recover from the Katrina fallout, Sabato said, and has failed to deliver on promises to rebuild the region, wasting the chance at a 'historic accomplishment'.

The bottom line was delivered by Conan O'Brien:

Yesterday President Bush made his fifth visit to the area that received the most damage from Hurricane Katrina - in other words, the White House,' O'Brien joked.

Everything that happens now will be seen from that prism, including Iraq. If he can't protect us at home, and can't competently deal with the WoT™ abroad, what good is he? This is a President who isn't up to the job. And that scares people more than the ports deal.

Flu Stories - Economics

by DemFromCT

As far as the impartial marketplace is concerned, the European experience with H5N1 in fowl and poultry means it's already being felt in the US without a single case being recorded:

Avian influenza is putting a fright into consumers around the globe, with consequences now being felt in the vast U.S. poultry industry. Prices are under pressure, particularly for leg quarters and other dark-meat chicken cuts, as demand begins to flag overseas.

Much of the worry focuses on the virus spreading from human to human, touching off a dreaded pandemic. But, so far, the disease has spread solely from bird to bird and from bird to human, with the biggest impact on the world's producers of chickens and turkeys.

At least 92 people have died, and the marketplace is feeling the pain as shoppers from Austria to India begin steering clear of this cheap and abundant meat.

"The real concern is that it is spreading," said Don Roose, president of U.S. Commodities in West Des Moines, Iowa. "We have not been able to put the fire out yet, and to think we can sit here isolated, you would have to be naive."

For export nations such as the United States, which typically ships about 14 percent of its poultry to overseas buyers, the latest scare comes at an inopportune time, coinciding with a period of increased production. While the white meat-dominated domestic market has held its own, dark cuts have started piling up.

Those not paying attention need to. A US recession because of dropping poultry prices is not out of the realm of possibility, though a sector effect is more likely. And that's a possibility even without sustained H2H, though obviously human cases would have an effect several orders of magnitude worse.

In any case, the next month or two are bound to bring unanticipted surprises, given what's already happened. Whatever your sense of what's probable or possible, there's a reason to watch what's happening in Europe.

[UPDATE]: excellent summary of where we're at with bird flu by the reveres today at Effect Measure. I look forward to tomorrow's post.

The Incredible Story of Mahdi Obeidi, Conclusion

by emptywheel

Summary: In this series of posts, I examine some funkiness regarding the story of Mahdi Obeidi, the Iraqi nuclear scientist who claimed to have buried a nuclear centrifuge under his rose plant. In part one, I lay out a timeline for his story. Parts two and three examine some problems with the materials he turned over. Part four questions the stories Obeidi and Pitzer told about their meeting. Part five looks the WaPo article that is a central prop in Obeidi's story. Part six examines some of the tensions within the intelligence agencies dealing with Obeidi. This post summarizes the evidence presented in the other posts, then speculates on what may have actually happened.

Finally! My much-delayed conclusion to my series on Mahdi Obeidi. In this post, I'll review everything I've presented before (note, I'm not putting links for stuff covered earlier--if you want a particular link, ask me for it in the comments), then provide two different speculative scenarios for what might really have happened. As I've been saying throughout this series, I don't think I've disproven the story of Mahdi Obeidi. I think his story--as told--is possible. But I do think it improbable.

I speculate below that one of two things happened with the Obeidi story. I think it possible that Obeidi had something less spectacular to turn over, and that the CIA simply fluffed up the story to serve their needs. But I also think it possible that the the CIA contacted Obeidi during the war, encouraged him to defect, had him contact Pitzer as his first intelligence contact, then made up the centrifuge and blueprint story out of thin air. If either scenario were true, it would suggest one of the Bush Administration's biggest pieces of proof of Saddam's ongoing intent was completely made up. But before I flesh out these scenarios, let me lay out the evidence I've given so far.

Supreme Dereliction of Command Pt. II (The McCain Campaign Edition)

By DHinMI

It shouldn't be surprising to see a liberal opponent of the Iraq war like myself assert that the Bush administration has screwed up the war.  But now possibly the most important neoconservative publicist and sophist is making the same assertion, on Fox News no less:

BILL KRISTOL: There would not be civil war if Zarqawi had not spent the last 2 1/2 years - had ex-Saddamists with him, very skillfully going on the offensive slaughtering Shia in Karbala, now blowing up the mosque.
CHRIS WALLACE: They're there. There are going to be more mosques to blow up. What do you do about the terrorists?
KRISTOL: Kill them. Defeat them.
CHRIS WALLACE: We've been trying.
KRISTOL: We've been trying, and our soldiers are doing terrifically, but we have not had a serious three-year effort to fight a war in Iraq as opposed to laying the preconditions for getting out.
CICI CONNELLY: I think that really begs the question then: what have we been doing over there for three-plus years? You say there hasn't been a serious effort to rid that region of the terrorists. I just wonder what secretary Rumsfeld would say in response to that or all the U.S. soldiers who have been over there all this time.
KRISTOL: Secretary Rumsfeld's plan was to draw town to 30,000 troops at the end of major activities.

[Transcript via ThinkProgress; video available at Crooks and Liars]