Books reviews, current events, and other musings

The New York Times published some excerpts from Bush's interview, to be broadcast tomorrow on Meet the Press.

Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi leader, "was dangerous, and I'm not just going to leave him in power and trust a madman," Mr. Bush said.

As it turns out, that's my opinion of George Bush and why I'll do whatever I can to ensure his defeat in November.

"For the parents of the soldiers who have fallen who are listening, David Kay, the weapons inspector, came back and said, in many ways Iraq was more dangerous than we thought," Mr. Bush said.

Huh? Kay didn't find anything, and that's more dangerous than Bush thought? Well, the absence of WMD is dangerous to Bush's political future, which has always been his top concern. Or maybe Bush is referring to the fact the 500 American soldiers have died and 10,000 have been seriously injured in Iraq, when the entire operation was supposed to be a cakewalk.

In any case, I won't watch the interview, since I can't stand W's voice or smirk. Instead, I'll probably read the transcript, since it will give me a clue about how the Republicans hope to counter Kerry's lead. Besides, Bush is bound to present plenty of opportunities to mock him.

posted by Julian at 11:05PM

Talking Point Memo mentioned an interesting development in the Valerie Plame investigation.

Federal law-enforcement officials said that they have developed hard evidence of possible criminal misconduct by two employees of Vice President Dick Cheney's office related to the unlawful exposure of a CIA officer's identity last year. The investigation, which is continuing, could lead to indictments, a Justice Department official said.

According to these sources, John Hannah and Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were the two Cheney employees. "We believe that Hannah was the major player in this," one federal law-enforcement officer said. Calls to the vice president's office were not returned, nor did Hannah and Libby return calls.

The strategy of the FBI is to make clear to Hannah "that he faces a real possibility of doing jail time" as a way to pressure him to name superiors, one federal law-enforcement official said.

You've got to wonder who those superiors might be.

However, Google News only turned up a single reference to this story, appearing in Insight on the News, a publication that I'd never heard of. We should find out fairly soon whether it leads anywhere.

posted by Julian at 9:45PM

While we've distracted by politics, the war in Iraq continues (from Cursor).

American soldiers are dying at a rate of more than one a day in Iraq, despite some commanders' recent claims to have broken the back of the insurgency.

The toll in January was 45 - five more than in December - despite hopes that deposed President Saddam Hussein's capture would stop the killings from roadside bombs and other attacks.

The number of deaths in January will rise to 47 when the Pentagon changes the status of two soldiers who are missing and believed to have died in the Tigris River on Jan. 25. That would make the second highest monthly total since last April when daily combat from the U.S.-led invasion was under way.

All told, 528 U.S. troops have died in the war, including three so far this month.

I sympathize with everyone involved in the Iraqi mess. The American death toll is a concrete measure of how things are proceeding in Iraq. With the situation deteriorating several months after Saddam was toppled, what could turn it around now? It's so depressing.

posted by Julian at 11:45PM

As a follow-up to my last post, I have a few thoughts about Dean's impact on the 2004 campaign.

First of all, he promoted the strategy of aggressively criticizing the disasters of the Bush administration, instead of meekly trying to be a lame quasi-Republican. Kerry and Edwards stole that approach, which seems obvious in hindsight, and have made great headway with it. If it weren't for Dean, the other Democrats (besides Kucinich, who nobody pays attention to) would have continued to be the wimps who have gone along with Bush's terrible initiatives in Congress. Nobody knows what the candidates will do if elected, but at least they're starting from a stronger position.

Dean continues to be a lightning rod for unfair media criticism. Though the mainstream media treats Democrats far more harshly than they treat Republicans, there are limits to their partisan bias. While they overreact to Dean's activities or highlight his deteriorating chances, they're holding off any over-the-top criticisms of the remaining candidates. That's probably why the latest USA Today / CNN / Gallup poll gives Kerry a whopping 7% margin over Bush. The longer Dean remains in the race, as a sideshow if nothing more, the better Democrats are going to do.

Besides, even if Kerry continues his winning streak, it will take him a while to build up a majority of the delegates, as long as Edwards and Dean remain in the race. The airwaves are full of the competing candidates presenting their alternate versions of how Bush is destroying the country. Democrats are becoming more involved in the political process, and nobody is paying attention to Bush. The Democratic Party seems more invigorated than at any time in the last decade.

Even though my favorite candidate isn't doing so well, things are looking pretty good overall.

posted by Julian at 8:45PM

Over the last couple of weeks, I've been trying to figure out what happened to Dean's campaign. Here's what I came up with.

First of all, activities before the primaries start are totally different than what happens once the primaries begin. Dean had the most money, enthusiastic supporters, and top-notch endorsements, but that doesn't, and shouldn't, ensure him the nomination. The old adage that "no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy" also applies to elections.

One odd thing about this primary has been the obsession with electability. In the past, the media has only focused on electability when discussing candidates on the political extremes or those without any campaign funding or support. For example, in 2000 John McCain, who almost everyone views as a well-informed and principled war hero, was much more electable than George Bush. Still, as far as I can remember, no news stories analyzed Bush's electability, even when he was pumping umpteen million dollars into a desperate effort to curtail McCain's insurgent campaign. It's unprecedented for the mainstream media to call a candidate unelectable when he has the most money, moderate views, a respected record, strong grass-roots support, and no hint of scandal.

Of course, the media is the main culprit in Dean's decline. They portrayed him as unsuitable to be President, even though the worst issue from his past was sealing his gubernatorial papers for a few extra years. They diagnosed his criticism of Bush's disastrous policies as pathological anger, despite the fact that nobody who spent time with Dean considered him angry and that every effective leader is eager to change the status quo. It's disgraceful how the media treated Dean's Iowa scream as a bigger deal than Bush's misleading statements about WMD in Iraq. When most voters first started tuning in, they mainly heard Republicans, other Democrats, and the pundits proclaiming that Dean was unfit to lead and unelectable.

The media kept repeating the lie that Dean's ideas were too liberal for the general population. For example, Dean stated that Saddam Hussein's capture didn't make America any safer, and he was widely criticized for that remark. However, subsequent events in Iraq have shown Dean to be correct. Besides, politicians routinely downplay any successes of their adversaries; how often have Republicans praised Clinton for balancing the budget or fostering the economic boom of the 90's? Similarly, Dean's plan to cancel the Bush tax cuts was considered politically unacceptable, despite that fact that, on average, Americans believe that Democrats can handle the budget deficit and tax policy better than Republicans can.

As a result of all this, many Democratic primary voters, who desperately wanted to evict Bush from the White House, believed that Dean was less electable than the other candidates. Because of the bad press that Dean received, they may have been right, for now. However, if Kerry, or whoever the eventual nominee is, receives the same harsh media coverage as Clinton, Gore, and Dean, he may not do any better. In any case, if it weren't for electability concerns, Dean would received a lot more votes in Iowa and would have won New Hampshire.

Dean and his campaign bear some of the responsibility. I've heard that his TV ads were rather ineffective. The campaign spent too much money in Iowa and New Hampshire, depleting funds that should have lasted a longer. Some people didn't like Dean's personality, though that seems odd to someone like me who despise everything about George Bush. Perhaps his campaign could have done a better job of countering the media bull, though I have no idea what they could have done. If the media had only treated Dean fairly, he would still be the frontrunner. Sigh.

Anyway, I hope that Dean does well in today's primaries, but I'm not too optimistic.

posted by Julian at 12:40AM