Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
When I wrote yesterday's column ("What, Exactly, Was Pelosi Supposed To Do?") I expected a certain amount of debate, but I had no idea what direction it would take (which is the whole fun of the blogosphere). To be perfectly honest, I thought some Pelosi defenders would take me to task for being too hard on her.
As is frequently the case, I was wrong about that.
Listening to the news over the past week, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that Nancy Pelosi was personally responsible for torturing prisoners. Because that's how the storyline seemed, if you had just beamed in from Mars and didn't know anything else about the debate on prisoner interrogation. The problem is, we have not just arrived on this planet, and Nancy Pelosi will ultimately wind up in the history books with a footnote (if that) in the description of what took place under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But her critics in the past few days have remarkably failed to answer a very basic question (not that the media is really asking, but maybe they'll get around to it) -- what, exactly, was Nancy Pelosi supposed to do?
In other words, set aside for a moment the relative culpability of Pelosi versus others involved. Assume the worst her critics are charging her with in the "what and when did she know?" debate -- that she was told a month or so after waterboarding had happened that it was being used. And then answer the question: "What would you have done in her place?" Any critic of the Speaker of the House today should be able to come up with an answer to that, or else their criticism should be discounted as sheer partisanship and political games.
I have to start by saying that in all honesty, President Obama and the Democrats didn't have a great week.
Obama started the week out by cracking a few jokes at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, which was actually pretty funny (as even just reading the transcript of his remarks shows). Then, early in the week, Obama held a photo op with the heads of the health care industry, where there were smiles all around as they announced the industry would be voluntarily cutting back their growth (not their absolute size, mind you, just their growth) over the next ten years by one-and-a-half percent. This would lead to a savings of a whopping two trillion dollars.
But by week's end, the industry was walking back this commitment -- which never had any hint of accountability or oversight in the first place. It took them four days to go back on their promise. This doesn't exactly bode well for sweeping health care reform being embraced by the industry.
President Obama recently reversed his position on an appellate court ruling which orders the release of hundreds of torture photos, and is now saying he will fight the decision. Since the court in this case is already a federal appellate court, this would seem to mean that the Obama administration will file an appeal with the Supreme Court. The practical effect of this filing will be to delay any action until October, when the court's next session begins. And since the court does not rule immediately in most instances, it will likely delay it at least until the end of the year. This leads to the question of whether this delay is precisely the desired outcome for Obama -- six months of breathing room on the matter.
Others have deconstructed Obama's statement on why he was reversing course, including Dan Froomkin of WashingtonPost.com who breaks Obama's words down to six indefensible positions. But I'd like to put aside much of the torture debate itself and concentrate on two facets of Obama's policy. The first is the political and military effects of kicking the can down the road for at least six months. The second is the stark inconsistency in the way Obama is treating two groups of people involved in the scandal -- the CIA and the military.
America is approaching an important date for our military involvement in Iraq. By the end of next month, American combat forces are supposed to pull out of Iraqi cities. Little attention has been paid to this first withdrawal deadline in the American media, but as the date gets closer hopefully they'll realize what is about to happen. Because the next phase of America's military presence in Iraq could determine how fast President Obama can draw down the total number of American troops in the country.
As always in Iraq, things could go either way at this point. The chaos of sectarian violence could come back, or relative stability could give the central Iraqi government enough support to finally address the contentious issues they have been stalling on for years -- what to do with the oil revenue and the Kurdish situation in the north, among others.
I realize that this is a bit off the beaten path for me. Of course, I could try to write about the political implications and overtones of the new Star Trek film, but that would be even more boring than the column I'm about to write. So, other than quickly pointing out the remarkable similarity between Barack Obama and the Vulcan character Tuvok (from the Star Trek: Voyager television series), we will move right along.
Almost two years ago I wrote a column titled "A Frivolous Summer Column On Science Fiction" where I listed the four top things most science fiction movies (and television shows) get laughably wrong. I return to the subject today to honor a movie that got at least two of these things right. If the entire subject bores you, then I suggest you check back here tomorrow, where we'll be back to politics, as usual (but definitely not "politics as usual"). I provide this warning in advance so the sheer geekiness of this column will not waste anyone's precious time.
Last week, a lot of attention was focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, since the leaders of the two countries were visiting President Obama in Washington. But nobody seems to be talking about an obvious (if difficult) solution to at least part of the problem Pakistan finds itself in currently -- solving the Kashmir problem once and for all.
Pakistan certainly has enough problems on its plate, and without getting into their internal political and military situation too deeply, part of the problem with the Taliban and other extremist groups having a safe haven in northwest Pakistan is that the Pakistani military is reluctant to engage too many of their troops with the militants, because of their long obsession with India. The militant groups are expanding their influence from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) to the Swat Valley and beyond. This is a little too close to the nation's capital city for comfort, and the Pakistani troops are now pushing back.
But reports are that they're only sending about 15 percent of their army to do the job. This is because most of the Pakistani army is busy with their traditional foe, India. And since the two nations are now both nuclear-armed, things can get tense along the border. This tension is at its highest point in the Kashmir region.
I realize that, as a political blogger, I am supposed to be talking about President Barack Obama's preferences in cheeseburgers today. Sigh. The "What kind of mustard?!?" debate currently raging (which followed the intense "Medium-well?!?" debate -- I wish I were kidding about this, I really do) among the right wing of the blogosphere is no doubt historically important (right up there with George H.W. Bush's aversion to broccoli), but I would instead like to talk about something a little more serious today. To the purveyors of the burger debates, I would like to say one thing first, though. This is America. We value our freedom here. And that includes the freedom to eat your burger any damn way you want to -- without having to apologize to anyone for your choices. You can even eat your burger with broccoli on it if you want, it makes no difference to me. That is the nature of freedom, and I'm surprised I even have to point this out.
The intraparty struggle within the Democratic Party over what exactly to do with Arlen Specter now seems to have been worked out. For the time being, at least, Specter will not get to keep his overall seniority (which was apparently promised him by Majority Leader Harry Reid), but as a consolation prize will chair the Crime and Drugs Subcommittee, part of the Judiciary Committee Specter used to chair as a Republican. This struggle may wind up being re-fought after the 2010 election, but for the next year and a half the dust appears to have settled on the issue.
These problems always arise at the edges of party membership. But it is telling that Specter is being treated a bit differently than the last time Democrats had to deal with a similar issue -- with Joe Lieberman. The two situations aren't exactly the same, which may explain why the outcome was different for the two, though.
President Barack Obama made an announcement last week just after Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his impending retirement. In it, the president spoke of the qualities he is looking for in his first nominee to the highest bench in the land. He used the word "empathy" which, strangely enough, Republicans pounced on. They lost no time in denouncing "empathy" as a "code word" meaning Obama was about to appoint Michael Moore to the court. Or something. Their logic, at times, gets a wee bit confusing, I have to admit. But seriously, conservatives are gearing up for a confirmation battle (which they will lose), and this was the first pre-emptive strike in that battle. But in my own opinion, if Obama was speaking in "code" (which is debatable in the first place), I think everyone missed his point. Because by speaking of "empathy," I think Obama was doing nothing more than signaling he's about to put a woman on the Supreme Court.
