If Baghdad looked like most of the rest of the country, we wouldn’t be having this conversation

Shrub started a Black History Month event today talking about how in this “special month... we reflect on the many ways African Americans have shaped our nation’s history,” and then immediately started talking about... the Super Bowl.

During the event, he got sleepy and decided to use a black woman as a pillow.


That’s Xernona Clayton, executive director of something called the Trumpet Awards. “Xernona” is my new favorite name. Say it with me: Xernona.

And then he had a little moment with New York subway hero Wesley Autrey, who I’m guessing just by looking at him used to be in the Navy. Also, he’s wearing a sailor suit.


In an interview with C-SPAN today, Shrub was asked what the next president will inherit in Iraq. Said Bush, “A society in Iraq that is learning to live with themselves... a country that’s heading toward more unity”. But it won’t be all heading toward more unity: “There will be violence. There will be criminality. But they will also see a country in which the security forces are better equipped and better adapt at dealing with the extremists.” So that’s more unity and better adapt.

He says that in 20 years Iraqis, “if we can help this government be able to create the conditions so that a mother can raise their child in peace, I think people will look back and they’ll be thankful of America.”

Asked if he will watch any of the Congressional debate on Iraq on C-SPAN, he acknowledged Congress’s authority as a co-equal branch of government said he’ll be busy and “it’s not as if the world stops when the Congress does their duty” and anyway “I already know what the debate is.” Yes, he knows what people are going to say before they even say it, he’s just that good. When you laughed at those grammatical errors earlier in this post, he knew you were going to do that.

He put the whole Iraq thing in perspective: “Most of the country is in good shape. The truth of the matter is, if Baghdad looked like most of the rest of the country, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.” And if Baghdad looked like Neptune, everyone would be breathing hydrogen and resemble giant squids, what’s your point?

He said again that “if one of those endless opinion polls reached into the White House and said, are you approving of Iraq? I would say to you, Stephen, no, I’m not.” I don’t think Iraq is particularly approving of you either, George.

He called the talk of war with Iran “noise” and “endless chatter” and said it was “political.”

He said, “The Iranian people are good, decent, honorable people. And they’ve got a government that is belligerent, loud, noisy, threatening”. I wonder what that’s like. Actually, he makes it sound like those obnoxious neighbors we all had in the apartment above us in the first place we lived after college. Quiet up there, Ahmadinejad! “And so our objective is to continue to keep the pressure in hopes that rational folks will show up and say, it’s not worth it, it’s not worth the isolation.” So we’re waiting for some rational folks to show up. That’s the plan.

The interviewer started to ask a question about Goldwater Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans and Reagan Republicans, and Bush began laughing at the very notion of people still following ideologies from the past, and warned against “stereotyping mentalities in a constantly changing political dynamic.” Thing is, this was right after he’d been asked whether the presidency had changed him and he’d said that he had exactly “the same set of principles that I came with and I’m going to leave with.” I guess adapting to a changing political dynamic and learning from experience are for lesser beings.

Says he’d like his presidential library to go to Southern Methodist because “it’s a great school, and really fine academics are taught there and I would like to contribute.” OK, you can clean the chalkboards.

Evidently American occupation is making Iraqis stupid

Patrick Cockburn: “Then [4 years ago] President Bush and Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device. Washington is now saying that Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.”

A habit of blunt speaking

Secretary of War Robert

was exposed to a blistering attack on American world dominance and unilateral military actions by a cranky Vladmir Putin. “Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity?” he asked. I assume that’s a trick question.


Gates dismissed that as Cold War rhetoric. “Old spies,” he said, “have a habit of blunt speaking.” He added that the problem with America’s reputation in the world couldn’t possibly be American policies but that we haven’t explained them well enough. He said that in the 20th century, most people believed that “while we might from time to time do something stupid, that we were a force for good in the world.” Now, of course, they think that while we might from time to time do something good, we are a force for stupid in the world.

A NYT article about politicians finding new ways to circumvent rules about taking money from lobbyists contains this reassuring comment from Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA): “Only a moron would sell a vote for a $2,000 contribution.”

Audacity

I read Barack Obama’s announcement of candidacy, but skipped watching the video. I’m hoping to postpone at least until spring the moment when I am heartily sick of hearing Obama praise his own “audacity.”

He made his announcement at the very spot where Abraham Lincoln made a speech in 1858 in a failed run for the Senate in which he called for the nation not to split. How’d that turn out again?

He mentioned his time in the Illinois State Senate, where he learned that “it’s possible to compromise so long as you know those principles that can never be compromised; and that so long as we’re willing to listen to each other, we can assume the best in people instead of the worst. It’s why we were able to reform a death penalty system that was broken.” Because when you think of uncompromised principles and assuming the best in people, you think death penalty.

Explosively foreign

Today Secretary of War Robert

held a press conference in Seville. He was asked about the much-postponed public presentation of the “proof” of Iranian assistance for Iraqi insurgents. He blamed Iran for the new bugaboo, the “explosively formed projectile,” which he seems to have called “explosively foreign projectiles.” That may be a transcript error, but I do love the idea of a projectile, or indeed anything else, being explosively foreign. [Update: it is a transcript error.]

He admitted that the evidence is “very ambiguous,” and went on to add some ambiguity of his own: “In terms of the particular, it’s the sophistication of the technology. I think that there are some serial numbers. There may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found.” That’s a lot of qualifiers about a form of evidence as specific as serial numbers. And wouldn’t you think they’d have filed the serial numbers off?

Asked if he was consciously adopting a different style than Rumsfeld’s with our Old European partners at the NATO [correction: international security] meeting, he claimed not to be familiar with the man: “I wasn’t in Washington, so I don’t know very much about the style of my predecessor, by golly.” I may have added the last two words.

Gen. David Petraeus, aka Colonel Combover,


has been talking up Fallujah as the model for Baghdad. He evidently means not the part about bombing it into rubble, but the part about treating it like the Gaza Strip, with restricted access to what they’re laughingly calling “gated communities,” fingerprinting, i.d. cards, etc. Petraeus’s deputy, British Lt-Gen. Graeme Lamb (not really the butchest name, is it?), says that we know Fallujah is doing well now because the city’s Business Association now has 340 members. So it was all worth it.

Seeking to take comfort from their misunderstanding of the dialogue in this country

Ian Richardson has died. You might think that sucks; I couldn’t possibly comment.

At Wednesday’s Armed Service Committee hearings, the alliterative Peter Pace generously conceded that Congress might discuss Iraq policy (as long as it continues to obediently provide every cent asked of it and restricts itself to non-binding resolutions) (by the way, is there any sillier senatorial debate than the one over whether a non-binding resolution should be deemed to have passed, non-bindingly, with 50 votes or 60?). But he did add that “There’s also no doubt in my mind that just like we look out to our potential enemies to see division in their ranks and take comfort from division in their ranks, that others, who don’t have a clue how democracy works, who are our enemies, would seek to take comfort from their misunderstanding of the dialogue in this country.”

Speaking of taking comfort from their misunderstanding, George Bush... okay, I have nothing about George Bush right now, but I couldn’t let that segue get away.

BBC headline: “Violence at Jerusalem Holy Site.” You never hear about holiness breaking out at a Jerusalem violence site.

Fantastic places in which to learn things

A military investigation has totally and completely disproved the claims of a Marine sergeant that Guantanamo prisoners are commonly hit by guards. The investigation was thoroughly investigated by the appropriately named Col. Richard Basset, who followed up all leads, except actually talking with any prisoners. But the guards say they didn’t do it, and that’s good enough for Col. Basset, who is therefore accusing the paralegal who reported that she’d overheard guards bragging about the beatings of filing a false report.

I just found a letter to the New York Times Magazine from 7/3/05 from one Anne M. Shattuck, which I must have torn out meaning to blog, which asks if the reason gay marriage arouses such hatred is that its egalitarian model of a family, without gender-based tasks, where each partner’s paid work is valued equally, poses a threat to sexist gender roles.

Bush went to Shenandoah National Park today to praise the National Park System. He pointed out that the White House is managed by the National Park System and said that parks “are fantastic places in which to learn things”. Not that he’s learned a damned thing in the last 6 years living in a building run by the park system, of course. Bush, as is his custom, expressed his commitment to the environment by traveling to a site of natural beauty using an assortment of environmentally friendly vehicles.


But, really, Bush is quite concerned about global warming, as demonstrated by this article on the White House website purporting to demonstrate that he has supported efforts to address global warming since the very start of his presidency – only they call it climate change in the article because of course they’re not allowed to use the term global warming.

Focusing on the air in the balls, or lack thereof

In supporting the Republican refusal to allow a debate on Iraq, Joe Lieberman played his usual “not in front of the children” card: “We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that Americas will is breaking.” If the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria are hearing Joe Lieberman’s annoying droning voice, it jolly well serves them right, I say.

Al Kamen points out an LA Times correction to its review of the PBS series on the Supreme Court. The review “said there was a justice named Hamburger. There was a chief justice named Warren Burger.” Clearly they were mistaking him for Perry Mason’s perennial courtroom opponent Hamilton Burger.

Cute Salon story about a 2004 US army effort to win Iraqi hearts and minds by handing out flat soccer balls to children. They weren’t supposed to be flat, but the army was supplied with uninflated balls and no pumps or needles with which to inflate them, so that’s what they gave out. A spokesmodel for the division said, “To focus on the air in the balls, or lack thereof, undermines the American spirit of generosity and completely misses the point of giving.” What was that point again?

It makes it different to deal with the slices of the pie

Shrub visited Micron Technology (a company which manufactures microns, I presume) to push his proposed budget, and especially tax cuts: “I believe it is not only possible, we have proven it through a document, that by keeping taxes low and being wise about how we spend your money, we actually achieve balance in the budget.” He has proven it through a document, so it must be true.


And the time to do this is now, when the economy is totally perfect in every way. “Three months ago, we’ve added -- over the last three months, we added a million jobs*.” That asterisk was the website people indicating that what he really meant to say was half a million jobs. Any number above 5 is just “a bunch” as far as George is concerned.

And how did we create all those jobs? “It’s all due to the entrepreneurial spirit.” But it’s also all due to tax cuts. And he explained the logic of this persuasively but succinctly: “so there’s a big debate. There’s always somebody -- do tax cuts work? They work.” He then digressed to explain the politics of the issue: “I understand the politics of cutting taxes. Some like it, some don’t.” He then returned to flesh out his already persuasive case for the efficacy of tax cuts: “I just asked the American people to look at the facts. Since we cut taxes a second time in 2003, we’ve added 7.4 million new jobs. Tax cuts equaled new jobs.” See, when one thing follows another thing, the two things equal each other. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Then it was back to the pie metaphor: “we debate the size of the pie. In other words, in order to balance the budget, we need this much top line spending. But a lot of times, we don’t -- it makes it different to deal with the slices of the pie. And I believe there needs to be a process where the President has got the capacity to work with Congress to say well, maybe this slice of the pie doesn’t meet a national priority”. Dude, this is America: pie always meets a national priority. He wants a line-item veto, and to get rid of earmarks. He brought along a visual aid, which he said was all the earmarks. He did not bring any pie.

We’re going to jail, dude

I implore, nay command, my readers in the state of Washington to sign petitions for 957, the Defense of Marriage Initiative, which would annul marriages that don’t produce children within three years. It’s just common sense.

The British tabloid The Sun has video of cockpit footage from a US plane that shot up a British convoy in March 2003. It has the pilots laughing as they saw wounded soldiers being dragged out of burning vehicles and then not so much when they finally figure out who they’ve been shooting at. “Fuck. God fucking shit,” says one. “Fuck me dead,” says another. “This sucks.” “We’re going to jail, dude,” says one pilot, with a touching naivete.

The pilots (who were not court-martialed, and have not been identified) did everything wrong, and recklessly: when checking on whether there were friendly forces in the area they gave the wrong grid references; they were talking amongst themselves while on another frequency the convoy was trying to tell them to stop shooting; they saw the orange panels identifying the vehicles as coalition but decided they were orange rocket launchers; they attacked without permission.

The inquest into the death of a British soldier killed in the incident is going on now, with absolutely no cooperation from the US military (they refused, for example, to turn over this video, and the British Ministry of Defence won’t release it because “this recording is the property of the United States government”). Big story there, not so big here. Arguably, that sentence explains America’s image throughout the world: big story there, not so big here.

A good sign

Bush released his dead-on-arrival budget today. He says “I strongly believe Congress needs to listen to a budget which has no tax increase”. Also, he wants a line-item veto because “It’s one thing to get the size of the budget pie right; it’s another thing to make sure that the slices in that pie meet national priorities.” So the budget is a pie, and we need to listen to that pie.

Mmm, pie.

Asked about Iraq: “I appreciate the fact that the Iraqi government is anxious to get security inside the capital of the country. That’s a good sign. It’s a good sign that there’s a sense of concern and anxiety.”

A lesson in intellectual honesty

John McCain has attacked the non-binding resolution against the McCain Plan as intellectually dishonest, saying that Congressional opponents of the “surge” should do more than just vote resolutions of disapproval (which he opposes), but cut off funds (which he opposes). He says it would be demoralizing to the troops, but criticizes it for not going far enough. Or something. Evidently that’s what intellectual honesty is like. This is a bit like when Shrub distinguishes between “true” Muslims who don’t engage in violence and extremism and “false” Muslims, although he presumably believes that they’re both wrong in their religious beliefs and are all going to hell.

McCain even invoked George Orwell, saying that the compromise resolution (which actually is intellectually dishonest, but I have standing to say that, unlike McCain) with its listing of military objectives and benchmarks, imposes “a degree of micromanagement which is absolutely Orwellian.” Yes, I’m sure this is precisely what Orwell was warning against.

At the movies with Holy Joe

A New Yorker piece by Jeffrey Goldberg reports on some length on the fact that Joe Lieberman is a dick. Probably you already knew that, so you can skip the article. The only new thing in it is something the author observed personally:

A few years ago, I was in a movie theatre in Washington when I noticed Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah, a few seats down. The film was “Behind Enemy Lines,” in which Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and said, “Yeah!” and “All right!”

Hmm, do you think Hillary bribed David Brooks, and Biden fell into her trap? Oh, she’s good, alright.

I signed up for the Biden campaign email list, and today he sent a video link, which I did not watch, because it was a video of David Brooks. Evidently Brooks praised Biden’s record on Iraq on one of the Sunday talk shows. Here’s the very definition of an out-of-touch politician: he thinks people can be persuaded to support him by watching David Brooks say nice things about him.

Bush plans to finance his wars and his tax cuts in part through massive cuts in Medicare and Medicaid spending. One way he plans to structure these cuts is by letting inflation do his dirty work for him, quietly and without the need for open debate, leaving no fingerprints. This will be done by 1) not altering the income threshold over which Medicare users (and people enrolled in the drug plan, if Bush has his way) pay higher premiums to keep up with inflation, so that more and more people will have to pay more, 2) not raising hospital and nursing home payments – ever. This would mean that vitally important decisions over what to pay for health care, and who should pay what premium, would be made not by our elected representatives, or indeed by any actual human being, but by the vagaries of the economy. This is an abdication of responsibility; it is political cowardice.

A post for a boring weekend

Radio Farda, which is run by Voice of America and Radio Liberty and broadcasts into Iran, is suggesting that Mossad has killed an Iranian nuclear scientist. This is either a) true, or b) a psyop.

If you missed Thursday’s McNeil-Lehrer, they re-broadcast this 1986 Molly Ivins segment on Texas art.



I’ve really got nuthin’ today. So here’s a picture of Bush addressing the House Democratic Issues Conference (House-DIC).

A monkey with a razor blade

The NYT obit of her still couldn’t bring itself, decades later, to repeat the phrase she used that led to her separation from that paper, her description of a communal chicken-killing festival as a “gang-pluck.”

A British judge decides not to imprison a pedophile, telling him instead to pay his 6-year old victim £250. “If it buys her a nice new bicycle, that’s the sort of thing that might cheer her up.” Astonishingly, the judge is married to a professor of educational psychology at Oxford.

Hugo Chavez says Bush is “more dangerous than a monkey with a razor blade”. I don’t know if this is true, but I’d pay good money to see the cage match on pay-per-view.

Speaking of dangerous, Chewbacca was arrested in front of Grauman’s Chinese Theater after head-butting a tour guide. Superman was interviewed by police as a witness. My favorite bit is that they blurred Chewy’s head in this picture.


Gambia’s President Yahya Jammeh cures AIDS (Mondays and Thursdays) and asthma (Fridays and Saturdays). Possibly with magic herbs, possibly with his magical healing touch. Can George Bush do that?

The best plan is to have this plan succeed

Brent Scowcroft, testifying on Iraq before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, used a familiar obnoxious analogy: “When you’re training your child with training wheels on the bicycle, how do you know when to take the training wheels off? I don’t know.”

Bushies are beginning to use admission of the mess that Iraq has become to their own advantage, by suggesting that it’s so completely impossible to comprehend what’s going on there that there’s no point in even trying to set up standards to measure whether we’re making progress or not. Chuck Hagel repeatedly asked Scowcroft for such a standard, getting this response: “It would be nice to be precise and to have all these benchmarks that everybody can see and so on. This is not that kind of a problem. We’re in a mess, and we’ve got to work our way out of it.” He went on to list various things that needed to be accomplished to work our way out of it. “Then,” responded Hagel, “how do you measure that?” Scowcroft: “The way you measure anything.”

Such a disconcertingly unhelpful response has not been heard since Rumsfeld last trod those halls.

The em-messification of Iraq is also now being used as a reason not to call it a civil war. Last year, it wasn’t a civil war because it wasn’t that bad yet; now it’s just too messy. Secretary of War Robert

this morning said that civil war is “a bumper sticker answer to what’s going on”.


Naturally, he couldn’t comment on the new National Intelligence Estimate, because he held a press conference without having read it, an old Rumsfeld trick. The NIE’s summary (pdf), the only part we’re allowed to see, while saying Iraq is actually more fucked up than the term civil war implies (“does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict”), does say that the term “accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.”

National Security Adviser Stephen “Boo” Hadley also squirmed his way out of using the term civil war at a press briefing today:

Q: Can you call it a civil war, and why haven’t you?

HADLEY: We know what kind of fight we’re in. We know the facts. That is described well in this NIE, and we have a strategy to deal with those facts and to try to succeed.

Q: Is it a civil war?

HADLEY: I will tell you what this NIE says.

Q: I want to know why you avoid using that term.

HADLEY: Because it’s not an adequate description of the situation we find ourselves, as the intelligence community says. ... And what we’re doing is saying, if you’re going to run policy, and if you’re going to explain it to the American people, we need to get across the complexities of the situation we face in Iraq, and what is our strategy to deal with that.”

Because the Bush administration is all about getting across complexities. Known for it, really.

Hadley continued to embrace sophistication and complexity when summing up the NIE: “one of the things you should conclude from this NIE is the best plan is to have this plan succeed.”

Can we call Obama a warlord, and the Afghan warlords clean?

The warlords in the Afghan parliament have voted to make it illegal to call them “warlords.” Oh, and a complete amnesty for all crimes committed by anyone who fought against the Soviet occupation.

Joe Biden has spent all day apologizing for calling Barack Obama “clean.”

Say what you like about Biden, the race will be less entertaining when he drops out.

I’m worried about the diminution of democratic institution

Atrios pointed out the hilarious comments on Joe Biden’s blog. So very... articulate.
(Update: a few hours later, some negative comments are showing up, although possibly they were just posted after the censor went home for the night. [Update to the update: and have mostly disappeared this morning.] Here’s how you know there’s something unnatural about this comment section: almost no misspellings.)

Chavez has his powers to legislate by decree, and not just legislate: he can set taxes and compensation for nationalized industries, he can equalize income, whatever that means, and he can set the terms of a “transformation of the institutions of the state” (the powers surrendered to him by the legislature are exceedingly vague).

And Bush, in an interview yesterday on Fox with Neil Cavuto, who spoon-fed him most of his answers, agrees with me (I typed that with gritted teeth. Which I can tell you is pretty painful): “And I’m worried about the diminution of democratic institution, as well as — as well as nationalization efforts that may or may not be taking place.”

This morning Bush had an event about childhood obesity. This followed a hearty National Prayer Breakfast. That sanctimony goes straight to your thighs, you know. He exclaimed that America is “an amazing country, isn’t it, when people from all walks of life gather to recognize our dependence on an Almighty God, and to ask him for blessings in our life.” Yes, an amazing country – we invented prayer, you know. He also finds it “interesting” that “you’re working a rope line and people come up and say, ‘Mr. President, I am praying for you and your family to get a fucking clue.’” I may have added the last five words.

He also said – prepare to vomit – “During this time of war, we thank God that we are part of a nation that produces courageous men and women who volunteer to defend us.”

And, lo, the Dragon Lady sat down with the Maverick.


There was even musical entertainment. I swear to you, that’s the head of the Human Genome Project.


What is this man laughing about?


Full of prayer, or full of gas, you be the judge.

Molly

Molly Ivins has died. Grr. Some quotes:

“It’s quite difficult to convince people you are killing them for their own good. That’s our basic problem in Iraq.”

The question she’d like to hear GeeDubya (that’s one of hers) asked: “Are you the worst president since James Buchanan, or have you never heard of him?”

Her term for the Texan justice system: the cowboy gulag.

“I had a slightly insane discussion the other day with a winger who wanted urgently for me to understand that the Haditha massacre is the kind of thing that happens in war. Whereas I was trying to point out to him that the Haditha massacre is the kind of thing that happens in war.”

“Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous.” (From her final column, and it might be this blog’s motto, as well.)

“Democracy... is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion.”

“I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth.”

“During a recent panel on the numerous failures of American journalism, I proposed that almost all stories about government should begin: ‘Look out! They’re about to smack you around again!’”

“Next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please pay attention.”

Does anyone else have some quotes they’d like to share with the class?

Wherein an entirely rhetorical question is asked

Today, we are informed, George Bush will bring to Wall Street the message that CEO pay should be related to how well they do their jobs. Okay, even Chimpy can’t be so oblivious that he can say that, out loud, without giggling, can he? Can he?

You’re making interesting product

Bush went to a Caterpillar plant in East Peoria today. They let him play with a tractor.


The Chimpy Word of the Day is “product”:

• “Caterpillar can employ new people because it makes good product that people want.”
• “People say, I like what the workers are doing, I like the product that’s being put together, we want to invest”
• “a lot of the product you make here, you sell to somebody else”
• “In other words, when I talk about numbers, behind the numbers is people who are providing the service and/or making the product.”
• “Trade is an important subject here at Caterpillar, and the reason why is because a lot of the product you make here, you sell to somebody else, sell overseas to another country. That’s trade.”
• “In other words, because we lowered trade barriers, and said, you treat us the way we treat you, it has enabled this company to sell more product than ever before, which means people are working, when you have to make the product.”
• “And people want Caterpillar product.”
• “I’m confident in our ability to sell American product and services overseas if the playing field is level.”
• “When you’re dependent on a product, and you import that product, if somebody were to inflict damage on a energy infrastructure, it could cause the price of your energy to go up. Or if you’re dependent upon product from a hostile regime, it means you’re in a position of vulnerability.”
• “Fifteen years ago, or 20 years ago, if people stood up here and said a lot of people would be using a corn product to drive their cars, they’d have said, man, what -- the guy has kind of lost it, hasn’t he?”
• “In other words, you’re not only making Cats, you’re making interesting product”

Product!


And what to do with all that product? Trade it! “The temptation is to say, well, trade may not be worth it, let’s isolate ourselves. Let’s protect ourselves. I think it would be -- I know it would be a mistake for Caterpillar workers to do that.” So what you’re saying, if I understand you, is that Caterpillar workers should sell their tractors rather than keep them all for themselves. Interesting. Tell me more. “One way to look at trade is this: We’re 5 percent of the people in the world; that means 95 percent live outside of America, and shouldn’t we try to put ourselves in a position where we can sell goods and services to those 95 percent? I think it makes sense to do so.” And to sum up: “Again, I repeat to you, I strongly believe that if we can compete with people on a level playing field, nobody can compete with us.” So we’re competing, but no one else can, so we win, because it’s a forfeit, right? (Who says I don’t understand sports metaphors?)

He added, “I’m very optimistic about meeting the future, because of new technologies.” And the Rapture, that’ll be neat too.

What do you get for the dark overlord who has everything?

Today is Dick Cheney’s 66th birthday. I hereby proclaim a contest, in comments, for the most appropriate gift for the occasion, and I will make the first entry: combining the most famous description of his office with Bush’s description of him as a glass half-full kind of guy, I suggest a bucket half full of warm piss.

Farewell, Emma Faust Tillman, we hardly knew ye

A 114-year-old Connecticut woman (the daughter of slaves) dies just 4 days after becoming the oldest person in the world. For those wondering how some people manage to live so long, in this case one need go no further than her name: Emma Faust Tillman.

Speaking of (arms) deals with the devil, some of you may have been confused by the WaPo story about the State Dept’s report to Congress that Israel may have used cluster bombs bought from the US in ways that violated the terms of sale because it doesn’t make clear that the US is refusing to say whether those terms included a ban on their use against civilians. That’s classified. There is no possible legitimate reason for that to be classified.

The war on prepositions

I think it’s important to acknowledge when George Bush gets something right. In an interview with NPR, he said that he has “no intent upon incur – going into Iran,” and so I’m pointing out that one of those prepositions was used correctly.

He is shocked that people “ascribe, you know, motives to me” of wanting to invade Iran.

Asked about the still-thoroughly-unbelievable reports out of Najaf, he said that he’s learned not to react to first reports off the battlefield. And then he went on to react at some length to first reports off the battlefield, saying that it shows that Iraqis are taking the lead “to do in some extremists” and are “beginning to show me something.”

Asked about tomorrow’s Senate vote on the non-binding resolution, he says that “my feeling to the Senate” (he got a preposition right earlier, wasn’t that enough for you people?) echoes what “Tailgunner Joe” Lieberman said, adding, “legislators will do what they feel like they’ve got to do, and, you know, we want to work with them as best we can to make it clear what the stakes of failure will be, and also make it clear to them that I think they have a responsibility to make sure our troops have what they need to do the missions.” My, doesn’t “working with them” sound an awful lot like “telling them what to do”?

He says of Cheney’s over-confident predictions about Iraq that Cheney has a “glass half-full mentality.” Half full of strychnine.

Bush, whose glass is empty because he drank all the Kool-Aid, says that if we pull out of Iraq, “the country could evolve into a chaotic situation.” Imagine! And the Middle East would go to shit, and “people would look back at this era and say, ‘What happened with those people in 2006? Why couldn’t they see the impending threat?’” We’re being lectured about not seeing the future by someone who forgot to turn the page on his calendar.

Asked about his failure to mention Katrina recovery in the SOTU, he said, “Well, I gave a speech I thought was necessary to give.”

Asked if it was necessary to refer to the “Democrat majority,” he claims it was an “oversight.” “I didn’t even know I did it. ... I’m not that good at pronouncing words anyway”. Or defining them, or spelling them, or using them in a sentence. Especially prepositions.

And then he went on to complain about there being “a lot of politics in Washington,” indeed, “needless politics.” “And it’s almost like, if George Bush is for it, we’re against it, and I – and if he’s against it, we’re for it. And the American people don’t like that.” Yes, like when Nancy Pelosi came out in favor of the correct use of prepositions. “And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I’m sorry it’s the case, and I’ll work hard to try to elevate it.” Yes, yes he will.

He explained economics to the NPR audience: “The budget is going to be balanced by keeping taxes low. In other words, we’re not going to raise taxes.”

At the end, he asked “Camera’s off? (Chuckles.)” Yes, moron, the radio cameras are off.

Hoorah

Here’s what we’re supposed to believe: in Najaf American and Iraqi soldiers killed 250 militants from a group that no one’s ever heard of before this very day.

The Japanese health minister has graciously apologized for referring to women as “birth-giving machines,” saying, “I’m sorry to call them machines.”

On one of the Sunday talk shows, Joe Biden described the presidential race as a marathon. Just like one of your speeches then, Joe?

Newsweek has interviewed Dick Cheney. He said of the Middle East, “I think most of the nations in that part of the world believe their security is supported, if you will, by the United States. They want us to have a major presence there.” By “nations... believe their security is supported,” what he actually means is, “unelected, corrupt, authoritarian governments... believe their security is supported”.

You’ll remember that in the Wolf Blitzer interview Cheney referred to a question about his credibility as “hogwash.” In this interview, he once again reached into his Big Bag O’ Old Timey Homespun Sayings (possibly left behind by Donald Rumsfeld), saying of the non-binding anti-surge resolution, “what’s ultimately going to count here isn’t sort of all the hoorah that surrounds these proposals so much as it’s what happens on the ground in Iraq.” Hogwash and hoorah.

He says the war against “the threat [of] extreme elements of Islam on a global basis” will “occupy our successors maybe for two or three or four administrations to come.” So, including the next two years, and given that an administration can last one or two terms, that’s 10 to 34 years, somewhere between 2017 and 2041.

Asked again about his credibility, he said, “Obviously there was flawed intelligence prior to the war. ... [but] we should not let the fact of past problems in that area lead us to ignore the threat we face today and in the future.” I totally agree with that. Assuming that by “the threat we face today and in the future,” he also meant “Dick Cheney.”

Asked about Gerald Ford’s criticism of him, he insinuated that Bob Woodward made it all up. Newsweek pressed on, asking about criticism of him by Brent Scowcroft and others, saying, “You wouldn’t be human if it didn’t have some reaction.” He did in fact have a reaction – “Well, I’m Vice President and they’re not. (Evil laughter.)” (I may have added an adjective, just to make the transcript more accurate) – but I don’t know where Newsweek got the idea that he’s human.

Of cluster bombs and cluster f... well, you know

Still waiting for an explanation of why the Pentagon initially lied about those 4 soldiers who were abducted in Karbala, taken 25 miles away and executed, saying that they were killed “repelling” an attack, and why it let that lie stand for 6 days until the AP discovered the truth.

Actually, I’m still waiting for any hint that any reporter has even asked why they were lied to.

The Bush administration will admit to Congress that Israel violated its agreement with the US by using American-bought cluster bombs in Lebanon. However, according to State Dept spokesmodel Sean McCormack, “It is important to remember the kind of war Hezbollah waged. They used innocent civilians as a way to shield their fighters.” For the life of me I can’t figure out how that is supposed to justify the use of cluster bombs. Surely the presence of innocent civilians is a reason to refrain from using munitions designed to kill indiscriminately over a wide area.

We would like to make utmost efforts

AP headline: “Dems, Bush Call on One Another to Be Bipartisan.” Well, when both sides are accusing the other of being partisan, isn’t that pretty bipartisan all by itself?

Bush, for example, in his weekly radio address, complained that “some” congresscritters “gave a reflexive partisan response” to his State of the Union speech, although he did say that others were more willing to “reach across the aisle,” quoting remarks sort of to this effect by Barack Obama and Ben Nelson, not of course that he uttered their names while taking their comments out of context.

Japan’s Health Minister Hakuo Yanagisawa calls on Japanese women, whom he calls “birth-giving machines,” to have more babies, or as he put it, “do their best per head”. Last month he commented that “There are many young people who want to have children. In order to meet such a wish, we would like to make utmost efforts.” I’ll bet.

Certainly emboldens the enemy

Secretary of War Robert

attacked the Senate’s non-binding resolution, saying it “certainly emboldens the enemy.” Wouldn’t their emboldenedness also be non-binding? And just how emboldened would they be, on a scale of 1 to 10 on the emboldenometer? “I think it’s hard to measure that with any precision, but it seems pretty straightforward that any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks.”

In that press conference, a member of the press asked for the first time (as far as I know) about the US bombings in Somalia. Gates didn’t answer. And about whether the bombings killed the people they were supposed to kill, he really didn’t answer.

Asked several times about the policy of killing Iranians in Iraq, Gates tried to give the impression that there was nothing new or even very interesting about this, that it was always US policy to “go after... any foreign fighter in Iraq who’s trying to kill Americans.” But the Iranians are not armed “fighters” like the individual foreign jihadis killed in the heat of battle; they are (allegedly) support personnel, and killing them would not be a straightforward act of self-defense (“force protection”), as Gates is trying to suggest.

There’s been a fight in Britain over whether Catholic adoption agencies, financially supported by the state, would be allowed to discriminate against gay couples. The Catholic Church has been supported by Anglican and Muslim religious leaders. It looks like the government, overriding Tony Blair, won’t allow the Church to discriminate. Those agencies may close down rather than follow the law. The interesting thing is that they’re willing to place children with single homosexuals, but not homosexual couples.

The Decision Maker

The Senate voted to approve David Petraeus’s promotion to general (he will always be Colonel Comb-over to me) and to be Commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq. So there was a press conference with the Decision Maker (he will always be Chimpy to me), who proclaimed, “And in that I’m the decision maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster. In other words, I had to think about what’s likely to work. ... And the implementor of that plan is going to be General Petraeus.”


The D.M. was amazed: “One of the amazing things about our country is that we’ve got military folks who volunteer to go into a tough zone to protect the American people from future harm, and they’ve got families who stand by them.” Yes, isn’t it amazing, and indeed an amazing thing unique to our country, that “military folks,” “whether you be a general or a private,” have families, when all other countries grow their soldiers in laboratories.

The Decision Maker scoffs in the face of non-binding resolutions: “One of the things I’ve found in Congress is that most people recognize that failure would be a disaster for the United States. ... I understand, like many in Congress understand, success is very important for the security of the country.” So what I think he’s saying – and see if you can follow this – is that failure is bad and success is good.

Asked about his order to assassinate Iranians inside Iraq, or as he termed it, “helping ourselves in Iraq by stopping outside influence from killing our soldiers,” D.M. Bush said, “We believe that we can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically”. Yes, shoot-to-kill orders are the first thing they teach you in diplomat school.

D.M. Bush knows what the Iranians really want better than the Iranians themselves do, he’s Just. That. Good. “As you know, the Iranians, for example, think they want to have a nuclear weapon.” Also, “we want their mothers to be able to raise their children in a hopeful society.” Their fathers, on the other hand, we may have to kill. “My problem is with a government that takes actions that end up isolating their people and ends up denying the Iranian people their true place in the world, driving taxis and running 7-11’s.” I may have added that last clause.

License to kill

So Bush has authorized killing or capturing Iranians inside Iraq. Not civilians or diplomats, although presumably any members of the Revolutionary Guard, to say nothing of members of spy agencies, would not be in uniform, so there might be the occasional little fatal mistake. The story is based on leaks, and the infuriating WaPo refuses to even hint at the motives of the leakers – people worried this will provoke a wider war? people who want this known so that it will provoke a wider war?

And what exactly do they mean by this sentence: “Though U.S. forces are not known to have used lethal force against any Iranian to date, Bush administration officials have been urging top military commanders to exercise the authority.”

A spokesmodel for the NSC says that “Our forces have standing authority, consistent with the mandate of the U.N. Security Council.” One wonders if other members of the Security Council think they gave authority for this policy. And if they did, why was it kept secret? It will be interesting to see what Maliki has to say about this.

Because I told them it had to

Last night I watched the “The Libertine,” a movie set in the 17th century. There was a credit for the company that supplied the mud.

According to AP, the US has been conducting more air strikes inside Somalia this week. Funny how that wasn’t mentioned in the SOTU. How many countries have we actually had military operations in since 9/11? Does even the Pentagon remember? Forty years from now American Marines they completely forgot deploying are going to be coming out of jungles in the Philippines or Yemen or wherever, asking if The War Against Terror (TWAT) is over yet, like those Japanese soldiers they were still finding in the 1970s.

Nancy Pelosi says that Bush, asked why this “surge” would work when the previous ones didn’t, told her, “Because I told them it had to.” Makes you wonder what he’s been telling him the last four years.

Today Bush went to a hospital in Missouri to talk about health insurance. He talked about how doctors practice “too much medicine” for fear of “frivolous lawsuits,” but made no mention of how one should deal with incompetent doctors.

Neither did he see anything wrong with the practices of insurance companies, although several small-business owners stood up to talk about how they couldn’t get insurance for their employees. No, the problems in American medicine are 1) the tax system, which doesn’t encourage enough people to give their money to insurance companies, and 2) sick people, who are all like, me me me, without giving a thought to what their sickness is costing those poor insurance companies. “And our view is, is that in order to have -- to worry about health care costs, the more a consumer is involved, the more likely we’ll be able to deal with the increasing cost of health care.” Those sick people just aren’t worrying enough, they’re all, la la la, I’m sick, cure me.

By the way, Bush claims that his proposal is revenue-neutral. It’s amazing how he can always solve all our problems without spending a cent of federal money.

I’ll leave the summation in Bush’s own words, which is cruel of me, I know: “we’ve got to level the playing field, from a taxes perspective. It is by far the most hopeful and fair option of any medical health care option out there today, unless, of course, you want the federal government providing it all, saying, okay, we’ll provide you insurance, but we’ll provide everybody insurance, which would be a mistake.”

It won’t stop us

TPM has the transcript of Dick Cheney’s interview on CNN before CNN does. He insists that the world is “much safer” because we invaded Iraq, and claims that Saddam was “not being contained” and had in fact “corrupted the entire effort to try to keep him contained.” He emphatically denies Wolf Blitzer’s comment that there is a terrible situation there: “No, there is not. There is not. There’s problems, ongoing problems, but we have, in fact, accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime, and there is a new regime in place that’s been there for less than a year, far too soon for you guys to write them off.”

Asked about Maliki cozying up to Iran and Syria rather than “moderate” but Sunni-dominated nations, Cheney says, “He’s also an Iraqi. He’s not a Persian. There’s a big difference between the Persians and the Arabs, although they’re both Shia.” So what we’re counting on is that ethnic bigotry will be more powerful than sectarian hatred.

Asked whether the Bushies’ credibility is hurt by their blunders, Cheney says, “I simply don’t accept the premise of your question. I just think it’s hogwash.” In fact, he spends most of the interview saying that various things are wrong, that he disagrees with them, etc. A lot of blank refutations, “that’s dead wrong”s, not a lot of rational discussion.

But then, when he did try that, he compared Iraq now to Afghanistan, where the US was “actively involved” in the 1980s but then just “walked away,” which led to Taliban rule, which led to the Cole and 9/11: “That is what happens when we walk away from a situation like that in the Middle East.” Osama has lived in all sorts of countries, and planned and coordinated terrorist attacks in each one. Should we have invaded all of them? Also, rather than “walk away,” what is it he thinks we should have done in Afghanistan in the 1980s and ‘90s?

He says of the Senate non-binding resolution, which I think hadn’t passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee when the interview was taped, “It won’t stop us, and it would be, I think detrimental from the standpoint of the troops”.

He again says that the reason Iraqi Shiites don’t “stand up and take responsibility” is that Saddam had hammered them into submissiveness.

Bush did this too: asked whether he thinks Maliki will go after Sadr, Cheney evaded: “I think he has demonstrated a willingness to take on any elements that violate the law.” Asked twice point-blank if Sadr should be arrested, he finally said, “Wolf, you’ve got to let Nouri al Maliki deal with the situation as he sees fit. And I think he will.”

Cheney insisted that Wolf was “out of line” to ask about the Christian Right’s criticism of Mary Cheney getting herself knocked up. So Wolf was out of line, but Cheney didn’t bother to work up any indignation towards Focus on the Family. Neither did he stand up for his daughter.

So, George, how’d the speech go over?

They preach with threats

Headline of the day: “Diver Used Chisel to Fight off Shark That Swallowed His Head.”

Bush in the SOTU, about the, you know, bad guys: “They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs...” But they grade on a curve, so that’s cool.

Click here for a screenshot of the Miami Herald “Americas” section, with ironically dueling headlines: “Bush Emphasizes Support for Freedom Cause in Cuba” and “Leftist Protesters Accuse Exiles of Assault,” the exiles in question having beaten up some opponents of their rally in favor of anti-Castro terrorist Luis Posada Carriles.

The Guardian ran a competition for a Gordon Brown t-shirt. “My mate was prime minister for 10 years and all he left me, other than a terminally hostile electorate, was this lousy T-shirt” beat out “Brown knows.”

John Kerry will not run for president in 2008. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions no one was actually asking.

State of the Union: I ask you to give it a chance to work

6:14 “I congratulate the Democrat majority.” He just couldn’t bring himself to say Democratic, could he? (Update: it was Democratic in the prepared version.)

6:15 Evidently they must still “guard America against all evil.” Dude, Cheney’s sitting right behind you, with a hurt expression on his face.


6:19 He’s against earmarks, which I can’t quite recall being mentioned in earlier SOTUs. The time has come to end this practice. I wonder what happened in, say, November that makes this the time.

6:20 I’m watching in high definition and, holy shit, I just caught a glimpse of Ted Kennedy....

6:26 Patrick Leahy is not a high-def kind of guy either.

6:22 A disguised proposal, which I wouldn’t have even recognized had AP not predicted it. Bush’s words: “giving families with children stuck in failing schools the right to choose something better.” What that meant is that he plans to propose letting them use public money to pay for private schools. This is obviously one of those obligatory no-chance-in-hell proposals that so enliven SOTU speeches. He might as well suggest letting them transfer to private schools on Mars.


6:23 Speaking of DOA proposals, here’s his health insurance tax-deduction scheme (order now and get free switch grass!). No reference here to “gold-plated” insurance policies, although poor people will supposedly be helped to get “basic” private insurance.

6:31 We will reduce gasoline use by 20% in 10 years, without a single American having to get out of their car and step on a smelly bus or walk or bike to work.


6:34 “Yet one question has surely been settled - that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.”

6:37 Who have “shoreless ambitions”.

6:40 “What every terrorist fears most is human freedom”. And spiders.

“Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies”. Dude, Cheney is still right behind you.


6:42 John McCain is adorable when he’s sleeping.

6:43 “This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it’s the fight we are in.” If it’s not the fight we entered, shouldn’t there be a new vote in Congress?

6:47 “the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching.”

6:48 Shia or Shiite, make up your mind.

6:50 “Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq - and I ask you to give it a chance to work.” I repeat: you mean give it a chance to fail.

6:50 “The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others.” Notice the shift: when he first started talking about this being the “struggle of a generation,” he meant a fight that fell to one particular generation. Now he uses “generational” to mean a fight that will last at least a generation.


6:54 We will “continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur.” So, just talking about it, then.

7:02 Instead of the usual God bless the United States of America, or the creepier May God continue to bless, we just got a perfunctory “God bless.”

Oh, I forgot: the state of the union is strong. He really does have a tiny vocabulary, doesn’t he? We’re lucky he didn’t say the state of the union is interesting.

Well, this wasn’t a very interesting post, but then it wasn’t a very interesting speech. No would-be stirring phrases, no new formulations like “axis of evil,” no clarion call to stop human-animal hybrids. No one will remember a word of it tomorrow.

Transcript.

Chimpy needs all the help he can get

The White House has released a list of people who will be sitting with Laura Bush at the SOTU address. It includes Wesley Autrey, the guy who jumped onto the tracks of the NY subway to rescue a man who had fallen in front of an oncoming train.

Nope, no metaphors here.

Courage

More than 24 hours without blogging. Just had nothing to say (well, I had one thing, which I didn’t post because it was a stupid joke). I have created a label for posts on previous State of the Union speeches.


Liz “No, I’m the other one” Cheney has an op-ed in the WaPo in which she bemoans that Hillary Clinton will do whatever it takes to become president but not to win the war. She points to the waffling of Hillary and others about the war and says that Holy Joe Lieberman is “the only national Democrat showing any courage on this issue.” I can think of a few national Democrats who have shown courage in opposing the war, Russ Feingold, for example, but I guess in her definition of the word, courage can only be displayed by people who support wars.

(“It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare.” Mark Twain)

Courage is not the only thing Liz says opponents of her father’s war can’t demonstrate: “And by the way, you cannot wish failure on our soldiers’ mission and claim, at the same time, to be supporting the troops. It just doesn’t compute.” Yeah, that would be like claiming to support Mary Cheney while denying her right to marry.

The LA Times examines just how little evidence has been offered about the alleged Iranian support for insurgents in Iraq.

My legacy will be written long after I’m president

In an interview with USA Today, Bush says that in the State of the Union Address he’ll scold Congress about earmarks. Well how about this? The Bushies have decided to let a student loan company called Nelnet (say that six times in a row and you turn into Jerry Lewis)(not a one of you said that six times in a row, did you?)(if you’re reading this at work, say it six times in a row in a loud clear voice and they’ll probably give you the rest of the day off) keep $278 million in federal money they weren’t entitled to (I don’t really understand the scheme, but the bottom line is that the Education Dept believes the subsidies were improper but isn’t asking for them back). Nelnet, one finds out in the 17th paragraph but suspected in the first, is a major donor to Republicans.

USA Today asked Bush whether he supported Schwarzenegger’s mandatory health insurance plan. He seems rather to have avoided answering, but did say that it was “interesting” that Arnie, Jeb, and Mitt worked on plans to “meet the needs of their particular states,” which suggests that some states don’t need to have children’s health insured.

Bush more or less admitted that the “surge” plan has convinced no one. In fact, he’s still using the “People want to know whether or not we’ve got a plan to succeed” line. Fortunately, “people” are entirely irrelevant: “the best way to convince them that this makes sense is to implement it and show them that it works”. Hmm, I wonder if there’s a more appropriate way of presenting that sentiment?


But just when will all this convincing take place? Will we, for example, be out of Iraq by 2009? “That’s a timetable; I just told you we don’t put out timetables.” So I ask again, when will we know that “it works”? Here’s a hint from elsewhere in the interview: informed that historian Eric Foner has declared him the worst president ever, he says, “My legacy will be written long after I’m president.” Oh, man, that was the sort of straight line that gives me an ice cream headache.

How about LBJ and Vietnam, they asked, any, you know, lessons from that? “Yes, win. Win, when you’re in a battle for the security … if it has to do with the security of your country, you win.” Really, it’s so simple, I don’t know why Johnson didn’t think of it.

Death squads, you say? Why did no one tell me of this before?

In Israel, Richard Perle, who brings a ray of sunshine to any gathering, promised that if Iran gets close to having a nuclear weapon, within the next two years anyway, Bush will launch a military attack on it.

Say, wasn’t the United States fighting in the Somali civil war a couple of weeks ago? Whatever happened with that?

There’s a piece of hilariously transparent spin-doctoring going around. According to the AP version of it, “Iraq’s prime minister has dropped his protection of [Muqtada al-Sadr]’s Shiite militia after U.S. intelligence convinced him the group was infiltrated by death squads”. See, the reason Maliki has hitherto protected the Shiite militias isn’t that he owes his political position to their leaders, or that he personally is committed to establishing complete Shiite domination of the Iraqi state by violently subjugating the Sunnis, no no no, it was that he had somehow been entirely unaware of the sectarian violence until now. I feel so much more confidence in Maliki now, don’t you?

Stressed

Actually, doesn’t “I’m in, and I’m in to win” sound like something Bill Clinton might have said, but in, um, entirely different circumstances, if you know what I mean?

Headline of the Day, from the Sunday Telegraph: “Stressed Doctor Cuts Off Patient’s Penis.” Boy if you think the doctor is stressed...

The London Review of Books has a very good, comprehensive article by Perry Anderson on Putin’s Russia.

She’s in

Hillary Clinton announces for the presidency with the words, “I’m in. And I’m in to win.” Because it’s all about her. And it’s also about Bush, or more specifically, “the bold but practical changes we need to overcome six years of Bush administration failures.” Is anyone’s pulse set racing by the words “bold but practical”? Also, by January 2009, there’ll be 8 years of Bush administration failures to overcome.

She’s going to start a “national conversation” right now. “So to begin, I’m going to spend the next several days answering your questions in a series of live video Web discussions.” That’s Hillary’s idea of a national conversation: her answering questions. I call her Hillary, by the way, because “Clinton” seems to have gone the way of “Rodham” and those headbands she used to wear; by 2008 she may have run out of names. References to Bill in her website are avoided almost as scrupulously as mentions of her original strong support for the Iraq war.

Her statement is full of the usual content-free clichés: renewing the promise of America, the future is calling us, true to our values, etc etc. I should be excited by the prospect of an election that replaces George Bush; Hillary just makes me feel tired.