2003

Turkey: The Adults are Back In Charge

Anyone remember when George Bush claimed US Foreign Policy would be more humble under his watch?

He was wrong and the perfect example is Turkey. How strong of an ally is Turkey? Despite 94% public disapproval of the Iraq War, allowing the US to use Turkey to stage attacks came within a handful of votes of passing. Reading the article it is clear that Turkey miscalculated as well, but the essential lesson for the US is that we were arrogant and assumed their cooperation when it wasn’t a sure thing. Instead of massaging the relationship, we tried to push them around and it didn’t work. The Northern Front would have been helpful and it was doable.

Link Via Talking Points Memo

Bring On the Loons

Via Berger:

Happy Times are here again…Head St. Louis GOP Loon Bill Federer is considering another race for the 3rd District.

In the same article, it looks like Carnahan might be entering the race making it a three-way with Stoll and Favazza. Of course, does one count Favazza as one person? Given his heft he might be worth three people or none given his lack of political heft. The interesting aspect of the development is that Carnahan had been rumored to be recruited for a state-wide run. His comments suggest he is headed for a try at Congress.

Back to the loon. One of Federer’s more amusing tactics was to sue Gephardt for breaking into his and his brother’s office. Who broke in on behalf of Gephardt? Unidentified individuals. Uh-huh.

He got into a tussle with a student intern that taped him at a parade–though he was acquitted of assault.

From the P-D 2000 coverage some other irregularities include:


* Mr. Federer’s former campaign manager has met with Gephardt aides and allegedly told them that Mr. Federer had failed to report political gifts.

* St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch has asked federal authorities to investigate Mr. Federer’s failure to report the proceeds from the sale of a book of religious quotes from national leaders.

* Attorney General Jay Nixon is investigating allegations of self-dealing between Mr. Federer, a Catholic charity his family runs and the Federer real estate company.

The Post-Dispatch did a good piece of investigative reporting in October of 2000. The last bullet above is the most interesting. The family runs a Catholic Charity and essentially what is a fundamentalist Catholic charity that owns a building which brings in income for rents of around $226,000. Those rents go directly to the Federer family real estate management company. Non-profits are prohibited from paying directors for services. Duh. The Federer’s don’t seem to understand the conflict and actually tried to defend the relationship. And Bill Federer was paid significantly for managing the property, yet many tenants claim not to have seen him for quite some time.

But he sued Gephardt for break-ins by unknown assailants. Uh-huh.

Federer is a social conservative who rails against teaching evolution and the usual litany of social ills. On top of that, he is a complete loon. I hope the Republicans run him becaue he is great political theater. And the Democratic candidate will have it even easier.

Quote of the Day

I’m having a hard time deciding who is stupider. Is it people who have their tongues split or legislators who feel the situation is in desperate need of being outlawed.


Rep. Ron Stephens, R-Troy, was the only legislator who did not vote "yes" to the bill. He voted "present" because the bill had no merit, he said.

"There is no necessity for this," Stephens said. "If this gets carried away and needs to be regulated like we do the tattoo parlors, then I’ve outlived my usefulness in the General Assembly."

Double-Down on the Middle East

Chris Mathews has made the argument that the Iraqi invasion will bring about 1,000 years of hatred of the west by Arabs. For a variety of reasons, I don’t buy this argument. The war will be short enough and even a botched reconstruction will result in a better outcome than Saddam. It won’t win us many friends either, but wars generally don’t.

Josh Marshall has written an excellent article that explains the neo-cons plans for the Middle East and sums it up quite well:

The audacious nature of the neocons’ plan makes it easy to criticize but strangely difficult to dismiss outright. Like a character in a bad made-for-TV thriller from the 1970s, you can hear yourself saying, "That plan’s just crazy enough to work."

But like a TV plot, the hawks’ vision rests on a willing suspension of disbelief, in particular, on the premise that every close call will break in our favor: The guard will fall asleep next to the cell so our heroes can pluck the keys from his belt. The hail of enemy bullets will plink-plink-plink over our heroes’ heads. And the getaway car in the driveway will have the keys waiting in the ignition. Sure, the hawks’ vision could come to pass. But there are at least half a dozen equally plausible alternative scenarios that would be disastrous for us.

How are these two bits connnected? Well, the neo-cons apparently like to do things big, such an effort would not lead to 1,000 years of hatred, but 2,000.

Of course, this entire endeavor would be the US alone. Blair and Great Britain seem to have some sense of history and remember when they got booted out of the region and they aren’t looking for a rematch. Beyond that it is hard to imagine such an effort being tolerated by the US public. Iraq was a tough sell and trying to convince the public that the entire Middle East is a threat isn’t going to go very far.

Why I am Liberal

The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.

(quote via Kaus)

Attacked for pointing out that unstable homes in the African-American community reinforced poverty and above all, kept children from reaching their full potential as human beings, Daniel Patrick Moynihan died yesterday.

For some time he has been seen as a liberal icon for intelligent discourse on a variety of issues ranging from social security reform to foreign policy. But his true legacy will be changing welfare and policy for the poor from one of entitlements versus doing nothing to a debate about how to empower poor families to achieve a meaningful and joyous lives. He fought liberals when the refused to see the cultural problems leading to generations of poverty and he fought conservatives when they didn’t care.

He reformed welfare in 1988 into a program that encourage work for the sake of the recipient. That reform fundamentally changed the system regardless of what conservatives want to claim. Work became part of the process as was education. The states were forced to deal with day care and single mothers in a constructive way for the first time.

He fought welfare reform in 1996 because he saw that reform as punitive. He was right. While a good economy has mitigated the impacts, the likely long run effect for those mired in the worst poverty is a revolving door of low-wage low-skill jobs with little opportunity for advancement. Despite what some have claimed, having a job that goes nowhere isn’t necessarily an improvement in the long run. The 1996 reform was a cheap and easy way out of dealing with some of the most difficult issues any society faces. As a liberal, I still believe we can create a system that looks to improve lives over punishing them.

Iraqi Strategery

Kos is doing a bang up job summarizing the state of the war and battles within the larger war. He points out one of the most fortunate aspects of this war, the Iraqi incompetence on the battlefield. Reports yesterday indicated a thousand vehicle convoy left its positions and was moving towards the US forces. More recent reports are a bit less clear, but this may be repositioning. Either way, it is really stupid. Schwartzkopf, on MSNBC last night, seemed to forget his famous appraisal of Saddam, and seemed befuddled that any army would do something as stupid as give up its secured positions when it was vulnerable.

Apparently, you can’t fix stupid.

While I hope we don’t face significant casualties and McCaffrey is wrong about the consequences of going forward without more forces, if he is right, we need to be looking for a different Secretary of Defense who is more concerned about troops and not doctrine.