One Problem With American Democracy :: ... a list of problems ensuring that there will likely be a continuing role for "Rovian Politics", eh? (And providing an explanation of why candidates don't try to win "on the issues", possibly.)
Unserious About al Qaeda "It's one of the mysteries of the Bush administration." :: During the Rumsfeld years, I put a lot of this on the flaws with Rumsfeld himself. It's hard to describe, but they wanted to wage "new war", but do it "their own way". Some have called the self-imposed constraints 'on the cheap', but there is probably more to it than that.
Burns on Anbar "... - instead of trying to hold together a country that no longer effectively exists." :: What is the source of wealth in Anbar? Its own oil? No. See, 'the country', a.k.a. the central government, has a serious role in distributing the wealth of the country, as it is developed, currently. Therefore, it's less whether the country exists, than who is at the head of handing out jobs and money. The need for a central government will abide, either soft partition or hard partition, because of the oil, yes?
Why She Still Rocks "...a vast, global musical concert can celebrate the freedom to sing and dance in that city, two freedoms Islamists hate and want to destroy" :: yeah, it was all about Islamists, and not your carbon footprint. Gulp. Still, I can see why global music events change minds and thereby frighten the conservative power-stasis rangers...
Powell On Iraq :: *sigh* Despite his ongoing popularity, the worst Secretary of State in modern history, bar none.
Bush's End Game :: as I was writing some time ago, extremes of opinion are always dangerous for democracies, because they can be exploited, in the wrong ways. We had one after 9-11. We have another one, now. (Not sleeping well at night).
"Continuing The Path Of Progress" "...exposing and hopefully acting against Iran's influence" :: This formulation also comes from Henry Kissenger. Of course, few want to see more Iranian-styled religious police and worse. But, someone please check to see if it is cost-effective for us to continue to 'counter Iran's influence' at prices running over $6 billion $10 billion a month? We could buy "influence" the old-fashioned way with that kind of money, right? Also, I wonder if Fareed Zakaria's notion of actually spending some money to get the old state-run Iraqi companies up and employing people has been funded, or if that is still too "politically incorrect" for this administration who probably have spent 100 times the cost of doing so by now on other things.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Monday a.m. Roundup
