perfidy

Many people have been whining lately about how the US is a Police State. This cry has come from several quarters - libertarians worried about privacy and surveillance, leftists worried about whatever they worry about, and fundamentalists trying to immanentize the eschaton. 

Somehow, I have failed to notice that I live in a Police State(tm). Certainly, liberty must be defended. I oppose parts of the Patriot acts, and worry about things like face recognition software and Poindexter's evil laboratory. (A well argued counterpoint to those worries can be found here.)

But what chance, really, is there that the freest nation in the world would come to resemble the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Cuba or even Great Britain?

I was pondering today, "Under what circumstances could there be a coup or totalitarian takeover in the US?" This may seem an odd thing to ponder, but this is how I spend my days.

I came up with several groups that would have at least the desire, if not necessarily the ability to rule the American people with an iron fist.

• Fundamentalists
• the Far left
• Environmentalists
• Charismatic Personality Cult

Another group has the ability, but in all likelihood will never have the desire: The US Military.

The problem with fundamentalists on one side, and with the leftists/greens on the other is that their positions are completely unacceptable to huge numbers of people on the opposite end of the political spectrum. It is unlikely that they could ever get close to the levers of power and pull a Hitler. If they have to get in legitimately, they never will, because the American people are naturally centrist, and because our political structures encourage that.

The only other way that we could have a takeover would for there to be some sort of monumental catastrophe that created a collapse in the existing government, creating a power vacuum that some small group could exploit.

The German Weimar government, weak as it was, was able to resist many attempts on its life - communist, the beer hall and other putsches, and so on. It was only when Hitler gained a significant popular following that we was able to take power - after being legally elected.

The Communists under Lenin were able to take power largely because of the total collapse of almost every cultural and political institution in Russia. And even then, they almost collapsed on several occasions.

The chance, short of massive asteroid strike, of the US government collapsing is very close to nil. Which rules out the shortcut to power.

I have ignored two options. One I mentioned above, and the other is creeping fascism. Libertarians talk about the ratchet effect, where once an invasion of our liberty is in place, it never goes away. In this manner, we slowly stagger towards totalitarian oblivion. I don't think this is really true. In many cases, repressive laws have been removed - especially after both world wars. The experience of the civil rights movement flies in the face of this. For every patriot act, there is a EFF and a hundred other organizations fighting against it. In the society we have, it is so easy to organize to oppose the actions of our government. These two forces will oppose each other, and I think in the end will cancel each other out.

The only chance of creeping fascism actually happening is if the government gets its hands on technology that allows it to suppress the people. David Brin talks about this in his book, The Transparent Society. But the flip side of that argument is that the government is notoriously slow to adopt technology. I work in the government, I should know.

In this era of amazing technological change, it is people in general who will be getting the cool stuff first. For all that the government might spend, there are hundreds of thousands of engineers designing for the consumer market. The military is slowly realizing this, and has begun in the last decade to gear its procurement toward the civilian market. Technology can be abused by governments (see A Deepness in the Sky, by Vernor Vinge) but if it is also in the hands of the far more numerous public, that cancels out as well.

The last option, now that is the only one that at all worries me. Imagine a combination of a Huey Long's political skills, a Lincoln or Martin Luther King's oratory, the charisma of Washington, set in a Kennedy like charm and vigor (viga), and guided by a ruthless and amoral mind with power as its only goal. Imagine that he is a democrat, but a professed Christian - he is a hard core environmentalist, but calls it "stewardship." He calls for every kind of social program, but uses biblical imagery and Christian charity instead of neo Marxist and class warfare rhetoric. He satisfies the fundamentalists by calling for bans on pornography, but does not offend the left by castigating gays and lesbians. He is a foriegn policy hawk.

Someone like this could convince enough people, and get a big enough following to win an election. If enough of his followers got into congress, he could conceivably pull a Hitler, or at least a Hitler lite, and push through some sort of totalitarian agenda. Every policy could be justified in some part of American society's desire to control other people.

Other than that, I don't think it's possible.

In response to this statement from Gephardt:

"George Bush has left us less safe and less secure than we were four years ago."

William Kristol had some things to say.

Are we not even a little safer now that the Taliban and Hussein are gone, many al Qaeda operatives have been captured or killed, governments such as Pakistan's and Saudi Arabia's are at least partly hampering al Qaeda's efforts instead of blithely colluding with them, the opposition in Iran is stronger, our defense and intelligence budgets are up and, for that matter, Milosevic is gone and the Balkans are at peace (to mention something for which the Clinton administration deserves credit but that had not happened by July 1999)?

Is it reasonable to criticize aspects of the Bush administration's foreign policy? Sure. The initial failures in planning for postwar Iraq, the incoherence of its North Korea policy, the failure adequately to increase defense spending or reform our intelligence agencies . . . on all of these, and other issues as well, the administration could use constructive, even sharp, criticism. But that we were safer and more secure four years ago?
Gephardt has made a claim that will come back to haunt him and his fellow Democrats...

There are plenty of legitimate grounds to criticize the Bush administration's foreign policy. But the American people, whatever their doubts about aspects of Bush's foreign policy, know that Bush is serious about fighting terrorists and terrorist states that mean America harm. About Bush's Democratic critics, they know no such thing.

This is some amazingly ridiculous thinking, from someone I've come to consider almost synonymous with ridiculous thinking. I think Kristol hits it here. If by some freak of nature Gephardt got the nomination, this would come back to haunt them.

But how many democratic candidates either believe or will say this in the future? If this is any measure of the Democratic leadership's mindset, they are in for a rude shock when they realize how far to the margins they've been pushed. And Gephardt is a centrist democrat!

It is not good for the Republic for one of its two major parties to go traipsing off into lala land. When you add in the conspiracy theories, virulant Bush hatred, and all the rest - you worry. Why can't we have a sane Democratic party, like we had back before '68?

Ralph Peters, an insightful military commentator (and former Army officer) said that the truism on military plans was reversed in the Iraq war - no Iraqi army was surviving contact with our battle plan.

The remarkable success of the war phase may have led to confidence that other plans were equally good. Of the things that Wolfowitz mentions, many could not have been easily foreseen, given the closed nature of Iraqi soceity before we arrived, and the precedent of the first gulf war.

Adaptability is key in winning wars, likewise in peacetime. As long as we don't delude ourselved, we will be able to adjust our plans and our thinking to meet problems as they are.

Once Iraqi oil starts flowing, that may reduce the financial burden somewhat. And 29.5 billion compared to the total US budget is not a deal killer.

Keep in mind though, Wolfowitz and others have often said that it would cost money, and problems would have to be detected and solved. This statement isn't the first. (Still welcome, though.)

Hopefully, the mudville nine will not fall over themselves criticizing the administration for problems that would have had to be solved regardless of whether they had been accurately foretold or not. Openness and accountability are all good, especially in this phase.

(As a side note, Clueless has a new post on why we never should have and still shouldn't reveal long term plans. This reasoning wouldn't apply to the civilian administration of Iraq, though.)

The Washington Post is reporting that US Forces in Iraq have dental record matches and several eyewitness IDs on the two sons of Saddam. 

Meanwhile, in In Baghdad, people break curfue to celebrate the news that Uday and Qusay were pushing up daisies. It seems that the most common regret was that because they were dead, no further harm could be done to them.

Good riddance.
 

From Nordlinger on NRO:

Three Americans and an Israeli soldier are caught by cannibals and are about to be cooked. The chief says, "I am familiar with your Western custom of granting a last wish. Before we kill and eat you, do you have any last requests?"

Dan Rather says, "Well, I'm a Texan, so I'd like one last bowlful of hot, spicy chili." The chief nods to an underling, who leaves and returns with the chili. Rather eats it all and says, "Now I can die content."

Al Sharpton says, "I'd like to have my picture taken, as nothing has given me greater joy in life." Done.

Judith Woodruff says, "I'm a journalist to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here, and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job to the last." The chief directs an aide to hand over the tape recorder, and Woodruff dictates some comments. "There," she says. "I can now die fulfilled."

The chief says, "And you, Mr. Israeli Soldier? What is your final wish?"

The solider says, "Kick me in the behind."

"What?" says the chief. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"

"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the behind."

So the chief unties the soldier, shoves him into the open, and kicks him in the behind. The Israeli goes sprawling, but rolls to his knees, pulls a 9mm pistol from his waistband, and shoots the chief dead. In the resulting confusion, he leaps to his knapsack, pulls out his Uzi, and sprays the cannibals with gunfire. In a flash, the cannibals are all dead or fleeing for their lives.

As the Israeli unties the others, they ask him, "Why didn't you just shoot them? Why did you ask the chief to kick you in the behind?"

"What?" answers the soldier. "And have you SOBs call me the aggressor?"

Heh.

You ask, you recieve. Bush is in general a conservative. And he is certainly vastly more conservative than android-American Gore, or any of his likely opponents in the next election. I was upset by his trade policies, when he went protectionist. I am upset with the prescription drug thingie. (Thingie!) I am bothered that he has not increased the size of the military. The tax cuts are insufficient. The airline safety agency is a nauseating joke, and the Homeland Security agency... sheesh. Arguably, this is because I am more conservative than he is.

While I have been occasionally frustrated, especially on matters economic; overall, I am happy with his performance in the war on terror. This is the overriding issue in this time, and I support him and the administration. The mudville nine have so far offered nothing that looks like a real foriegn policy.

I also support the administration because Rumsfeld is fucking awesome.

I also support the administration because it irritates people like Hesiod.

The 101st Airborne and Special Operations troops killed Uday and Qusay in Mosul. Two other Iraqis were also killed, according to this Centcom News release.

Drudge has posted the transcript of his appearance on Crossfire, and its some interesting stuff. Arianna Huffington possibly jumping in the California governor's race, politics and what not. But what was really interesting is the discussion of Mel Gibson's new movie. Drudge, and apparently most of those attending the small screening at Jack Valenti's place, were in tears at the end of it. Drudge said it was:

This is the ultimate film. It's magical. Best picture I have seen in quite some time, and even people like Jack Valenti were in the audience in tears at this screening. There was about 30 of us. It depicts a clash between Jesus and those who crucified him, and speaking as a Jew, I thought it was a magical film that showed the perils of life on earth.... those of us, every single person in there, and I'm not talking about tears, I'm talking total tears. It is something Mel Gibson stood back at the end and took questions for about an hour, and he is -- he told me he's tired of Hollywood. That this is it. He's going to do it. He's going to do it his way, and this film, I tell you, is magic. It's a miracle. It's a miracle...

Effusive praise. Drudge also didn't think it was anti semitic. But another interesting quote at the end was this, after the mention of Huffington in CA:

Well, it's going to be progressive with her and Schwarzenegger. I vote for Mel Gibson, however, to run for the governor of California, and he will correct that state in a heartbeat.

In support of Pythagosaurus' views on the RIAA. Well, some of them. Check it out. The King of Pop, el supremo freako, has something in common with our beloved Johno. Whooda thunkit?

Instapundit's alterego, Glenn Reynolds, had this to say about the utility of the Homeland Security agency. I agree completely:

Now Tom Ridge is proving me right, with a new plan to pervert Homeland Security from its antiterror mission to an unrelated one: "The initiative, dubbed Operation Predator, will target pornographers, child prostitution rings, Internet predators, immigrant smugglers and other criminals."

What can we learn from this? Two things. One is that the Department of Homeland Security apparently thinks the War on Terror isn't important enough to occupy its full energies anymore, and that -- in the interest of bureaucratic survival -- it's branching out into the kind of operations that have generally been associated with, well, ordinary law enforcement, even if the targets, in this case, are foreigners...

Since Ridge has, with this initiative, essentially admitted that Homeland Security is no longer urgent enough to occupy the Department of Homeland Security, let's abolish the Department, and pass the savings on to the taxpayers. Not only will this save money, but it will serve as a salutary warning to future Tom Ridges that overstepping the bounds of a mandate is politically dangerous.

Of course, that isn't going to happen.

In a recent comment, NDR (loyal reader #0010) says:

However I think that people examining the current scandal need to reflect how scandals are, in general, seldom about specific actions and events but the things they represent. The hubbub over Iraq-Niger focuses the disappointment felt as few of the war?s goals have been met: the Iraqis are not thankful to the US, their plight has worsened, US troops will not be coming home soon, the US commitment to nation-building will be extensive, Hussein did not pose the threat that the government claimed, and that the intelligence community cannot be relied on to safeguard Americans and concentrate activities related to the war on terror itself.

He is certainly right that the people who are exercised over this scandal probably don't really care about the specifics, and likely don't know where Niger is either. Further, I think that Pythagosaurus' complaints about transparency get to the rest of the issue. The administration, while not lying, has not laid out the case very well, and seems reluctant to talk about why it's doing what it's doing.

If this hubbub is indeed the result of this discontent over the factors that NDR mentions, how justified is it, and why are they complaining?
Much has been made of the discontent of the Iraqi people. Most Iraqis probably want us to go home. But the question is really when - right now, or after we have contributed to the formation of a responsible government, fixed the infrastructure, and generally settled things down. I think most Iraqis would prefer the second option. From reports by reporters actually in Iraq, the word is that they are very happy that Saddam is gone, and they recognize that we got rid of him. They are thankful for that. But, like anyone, they don't want to be ruled by someone else. Happily for them, we don't want to be there forever. Much of what is reported as ungratefulness could more properly be termed impatience.

As for claiming that their plight has worsened, I don't think you can make that argument. One, no more brutal fascist dictator. If their electricity went out for a while, that is a hardship - but its back on now. And certainly lacking electricity does not compare to mass graves.

As for Saddam not posing the threat that was claimed, this is closest to being true. But keep in mind how certain elements would have reacted if Bush had said, in effect, "Saddam is a weakling, his army is pathetic, and we are going to go through him like shit through a goose." He would have been called arrogant (well, more arrogant) and contemptuous of Islam and whatever. He was right to err on the side of caution - he said be prepared for a long war, but we're gonna win. Nothing really wrong there.

As for the WMD part of that equation, see my other posts.

The administration has always said that this would be a long war, and that Iraq was but a single aspect of it. Nation building was not a surprise, nor was the lengthy tours of duty for our soldiers. Since the end of "official" hostilities, the media have reported over and over the attacks on US servicemen, and military morale problems, and so on. But considering that 25 million people who until a couple months ago were under the heel of a brutal dictator are now free - they are behaving well, all things considered. Even though there are several attacks a week, this represents an absolutely miniscule portion of the Iraqi population. And, what the media doesn't mention, most of the attacks are in Saddam's home territory. (I plan on addressing the manpower issue sometime soon.)

Finally, we have known that we couldn't rely on our intelligence services since the early morning of September 11, 2001. That nothing serious has been done is abominable.

The administration has failed to tell people the things that they should know. But overall, things are going well in Iraq. The media is going to report on every soldier or marine killed, but the administration needs to make the case better that progress is being made in other areas. Whenever a problem that the media is bleating about is solved, they don't report that, "Hey, there's electricity now!" Instead, they move onto the next disaster.

So, back here in the states, people are upset about the sixteen words in the SOTU because Bush screwed the pooch in Iraq and is generally falling down on the war on terror. Since that isn't really the case, they are either misinformed, for which we can blame both the administration and the media, or they are pursuing purely partisan advantage by picking at nits.

I think that there are serious issues that can be raised, issues that for the Democrats might have a lot more traction with the general public than, ?Bush lied.? For one, the Saudi thingie. Others include the Homeland Security department, the Patriot acts, and so on. The war happened. If Democrats want to be taken seriously on National Security, they should talk about how we are going to rebuild Iraq, where to go next in the war on terror, and how to apply our principles in a coherent foreign policy. And the current administration needs to be a lot more open about what it is doing.

Brad Templeton has compliled a history of the word spam. Joe-Bob says, "Check it out."

While I'm on an Instapundit kick, he excerpts a report from the Telegraph saying that Newsweek says that a joint congressional inquiry found that Saudi Arabia was deeply involved in the 9/11 attacks. (How's that for a chain of references?) The administration has apparently not released an entire section of the congressional report that has all the juicy details of how individuals working in Saudi consulates were intimately involved in the plot.

This, not to put to fine a point on it, is wrong. The administration should not be coddling the Saudis for at least ten reasons right off the top of my head, but certainly not if they were involved in the worst assault on America since the Second World War.

Though I have consistently defended the the decision to invade Iraq, and in general support the administration (I am a conservative, after all) I most certainly do not approve of this. This information needs to be disseminated, the American people (and everyone else, for that matter) need to know. There are good reasons for what we are doing in the war on terror. But it should not be me (God forbid) or the USS Clueless or other warbloggers pointing this out. The Bush administration should be out in public, letting us know and making the case for taking the fight to these terrorist sickos.

And while I'm on a roll, I hear that Adm. Buster Poindexter's TIA got its funding zeroed by the Senate. Good. The Patriot Act: I, II and N is a bad idea. Not increasing military funding or the size of the military when you're in a war is a bad idea. Not taking a really close look at how our intelligence system is working (and in terms of human intelligence, not working at all) is a very bad idea. There are questions, and I think the administration should be a lot more vocal about either answering them (if only to shut certain people up) or saying flat out that we don't know the answers yet. And with the Saudis, its time to call a spade a spade.

Instapundit is reporting that Reuters is reporting that American forces may have put the finger on Uday and Qusay Hussein. If true, this is very good news.

"There was a shootout in Mosul, and there is a number of dead people and a couple of them could be Uday and Qusay," the official said, but added it had not been definitively confirmed.

I think those two would qualify for just about anyone's pre-decease list. 

[Update] MSNBC has a bigger story, and mentions that sources believe there is a 90-95% chance that the two brothers have gone to their eternal reward.
 

Well, we know that millions of dollars were going from Saddam's government to Palestinian terror groups, and to the families of suicide bombers. I think we can safely assume that Bremer has not continued those payments. How deep an effect this will have remains to be seen, considering that the EU sends millions to the PA, at least a goodly chunk of which probably ends up in the hands of Al Aqsa or other terror groups; and Iran and Syria are still sending home the bacon to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. On the flip side, America and other nations have seized or frozen millions from the accounts of suspected terrorists. That's gotta hurt.

But, as I might have mentioned, we are still in the early stages of the war. Lots more work to do.

Apropos of nothing, I am feeling happy today that I own a Savage Arms 1300 12 gauge double barrel shotgun and a Kimber custom .45.

Steven den Beste has a lengthy (even by his standards) discussion of the whole iraq invasion thingie. (Thingie! Thingie!) It sums up, no it explains in great detail most of what I think about the subject. That sounds pathetic, but it is convenient having someone like Clueless around - as he has vastly more time available than I do, and can write these articles while I am reduced to saying, "Yeah, what he said!" 

Despite Clueless' exhaustive treatment of the subject, I do have some comments.

If we are not complaining about the sixteen words in particular, but are saying that this is indicative of a larger misdirection-spin-maybe even lying pattern on the part of the Bush administration, there are certainly arguments that can be made.

But the reason that all of the rhetoric coming out of the Bush administration back before the livervasion centered on WMD is simple - because the diplomatic battles were being fought in and around the UN. I remember the administration saying that WMD was not the only reason to invade. I also remember that they were discussing WMD as a direct result of the decision to go to the UN for a resolution, and then a second.

Even from the bully pulpit, there is a limit to how much you can address. Given the international political situation (the domestic was never much of an issue - Congress had signed off months before) it is understandable that much of what they were saying was all about WMD. And they were trying to make the most persuasive case that they could.

I also remember that there was little if any debate over the fact that Saddam had WMD - those who were against intervention were saying that inspections could solve the problem - but they agreed that it was a problem. And Saddam was in clear violation of countless UN resolutions.

I never thought that going to the UN was a good idea, and one of the reasons was that we would end up here, having this argument. This is a war on terror, not on Iraq, or on Al Qaeda in particular. This is one part of it. And one reason we are there is because Iraq is low hanging fruit.

It is indeed a mystery where the WMD went, because we know for a fact that Iraq had them as recently as five years ago. But this was never the primary issue. It was merely the most convenient reason to focus on, of many. So, this doesn't bother me because I never thought it was the primary reason. (Although, it definitely was a reason.)

Moving on to some other issues, we have gotten terrorists in Iraq, and closed terror training camps. Most of this related more to the Palestinian terrorists than Al Qaeda, but that is not an issue - terrorism is terrorism. The ultimate fate of the WMD is important, and I think we'll eventually figure it out.

Heads should start rolling in the intelligence community. More on that later. We don't have enough troops, and more on that later. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are still allies, but look how Pakistan has altered its behavior for the better. I think some have hoped that the Saudis would do the same, but I think that given their internal politics that is unlikely. I fervently hope that the day of reckoning for those bastards is near.

Drudge is reporting that Cleveland's favorite ex-mayor was sleeping during Blair's speech to congress. Kucinich insists that he was taking notes. I used to give that excuse in High School.

Maybe he was planning the Department of Peace that he's going to create when he becomes President.

My favorite drink that I never enjoyed is the Marion Berry - which I mentioned once in a previous blog life. The recipe:

1oz Bourbon
1oz Jaegermeister
1oz Kahlua
1oz Coke

This drink was invented by Jonah Goldberg and his friends, who wanted to create a drink, "So black, not even the man can keep it down."

Aside from that, I have always enjoyed this nasty concoction - the gin gimlet - which I picked up from Raymond Chandler:

3oz Devil Gin
1oz Rose's Lime
mix, shake with ice, strain, drink and grimace

The Lord's Prayer has been translated into many languages. Until five minutes ago, I was unaware that it had been translated into what Will Smith once referred to as, "The Ebonic Plague." The site that hosts this abomination (along with many, many other translations of the Lord's Prayer) describes Ebonics as a "slang dialect used by certain groups of the African-American community." Without further ado, the prayer:

Yo, Big Daddy upstairs,
You be chillin
So be yo hood
You be sayin' it, I be doin' it
In this here hood and yo's
Gimme some eats
And cut me some slack, Blood
Sos I be doin' it to dem dat diss me
Don't be pushing me into no jive
Ang keep dem crips away
Cause you always be da man, G
Straight up.
Aa-men.

For some reason, I do not feel closer to God.

(thanks to Memepool for the tip.)