Thursday, June 05, 2003
A NEW MAGAZINE!
. . .
IF THEY HAD LIED, WE’D HAVE FOUND THEM
In the comments section of my Krugman post from yesterday, I argued that if the Bush Administration had lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction to justify the war, then we would already have found WMDs in Iraq:
I think it is highly unlikely that the Bush Administration lied about Iraq having WMDs. The reason is that if they did lie, we'd already have found WMDs in Iraq. Now, you may be saying "What!?" but follow my logic for a minute. Suppose that the Bush Admin did lie about WMDs for the purpose of getting us into a war with Iraq. Do you think that an Admin that had no compunction about lying to put our soldiers in harms way would have any compunction about planting WMDs in Iraq so that no one knew they were lying? The Admin has had ample time to plant them, but still nothing but mobile labs have been found.
“dh” responded:
David, David, David. You're digging your own grave. Planting WMD is no small feat. It would be HIGHLY risky to do so, especially given the scrutiny that would be given. Plus, you don't really want to rest your argument on the basis that "My guys are so deceitful they would have fabricated evidence" just to prove their case, do you? Or do you?
First let me address the “my guys are so deceitful” part. No, I wouldn’t want my argument to rest on that, and it doesn’t. My point is that if they were deceitful enough to lie about WMDs, then they’d be deceitful enough to plant them. Having not found WMDs shows that they are not deceitful enough to plant them. That, in turn, casts doubt on the argument that they were deceitful enough to lie.
Regarding dh’s argument “It would be HIGHLY risky to do so, especially given the scrutiny that would be given.” Yes, it would be risky. But wouldn’t it be even riskier to lie and have no way of “covering your ass”? If the Bush Administration had lied, surely they would have anticipated what the press coverage would be like (as it is now) when WMDs were not discovered. Given the potential fallout, it seems highly unlikey they wouldn’t have planned long and hard on how to sneak some WMDs into Iraq—again, that assumes that they did lie.
Of course, I don’t think they did. After all, the same charge of “risky” that dh leveled at planting weapons applies to lying. Getting the enormous number of people in the American intelligence community to go along with such a lie—not to mention foreign intelligence—seems next to impossible. Someone would have blown the whistle. The risk of lying would hardly seem to be worth the political fallout that would follow the lie being revealed.
So, where are the WMDs? Right now, I think there are two likely possibilities:
1. Saddam sent most of them to either Syria or Iran, much like he sent his air force to Iran during the first Gulf War. This article in National Review has an interesting take on that.
2. They are very well hidden. There are still hundreds of sites that have not been searched—the military search team only searched the 100 most likely. I’d bet that within the next 6 months the civilian search team begins to find them in small amounts hidden all over Iraq.
That said, I’m not one to dismiss the WMD question. Yes, the awful nature of Hussein’s regime does provide a lot of justification for what we did. But WMDs were a large part of the justification for invading in the first place. We need to know what happened to them. And if by some bizarre fluke there really were none, then we need to know how our intelligence community broke down.
. . .
Wednesday, June 04, 2003
A NEW BLOG
Well, new to me anyway. A gent by the name of Royce Dunbar runs a blog called Iowa Libertarian. He his blog is “dedicated to the pontification of my own peculiar Libertarian ideas and the "Fisking" of the editorial stance of the Des Moines Register.” Well, that’s my type of blogger!
He also has a great post about Rekha Basu’s silly Jessica Lynch column. Unfortunately his perma-links aren’t working, so you’ll just have to visit his page and scroll down (2nd post from the top).
So, welcome to my blogroll, Royce!
. . .
KRUGMAN AND IMMINENT
A reader named David French sent this interesting email about Paul Krugman’s column yesterday:
I'm sure others have picked up on this, but in the off-hand chance they haven't, there's a major problem with Krugman's most recent column. He says:
"The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran- contra."
I did some checking and found the text of the President's most recent State of the Union address. Here's the exact quote regarding the "imminent" threat:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"
Here, it's crystal clear that Bush is not making the claim that the threat was imminent. He's striking before the threat is imminent -- and that was the gamble Bush took. A strike against an imminent threat would not have generated the controversy the Iraq invasion generated.
At first I thought that Mr. French was making a mistake by limiting his search to this year’s State of the Union Address. So I did a Google search using the terms “Bush” “imminent” and “Iraq”. I did find news articles claiming Bush was saying the Iraqi threat was imminent. For example, one article referred to the State of the Union speech, while another referred to the October 7th address. But, as Mr. French pointed out, Bush didn’t say the Iraqi threat was imminent in the State of the Union. And Bush never used the term in the October 7th address. The same held true for Bush’s speech last year to the United Nations, his speech/press conference of March 6th, and his speech as the war was beginning. Either Bush didn’t use the word “imminent,” or he used it to argue that we should not wait until the threat is imminent.
Looks like media spin, not anything Bush specifically said. And it looks like Krugman’s quote problem continues…
UPDATE: Some of you are arguing (see the comments section) that with regard to "imminent," Krugman is referring not to something Bush said, but was referring to the Administration in general. You also note that some other Administration officials like Ari Fleischer and Don Rumsfeld did say that the threat was imminent. That's a good point and pretty much negates most of this particular post. Me: 0 You: 1.
. . .
IOWA INCOME TAX CHANGES
Joe Kristan has a good summary of the proposed income tax changes for Iowa.
. . .
MORE ON THE IOWA VALUES FUND
My boss, Dave Stanley, wrote a column for the Des Moines Register the other day opposing the Iowa Values Fund. Go. Now.
. . .
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
GOOD OL' MICHAEL MOORE
My new column at the American Prowler.
. . .
I LOVE THE BUSH TAX CUT!!!!!
I love it, I love it, I love it, oooohhhh, I love it so, I do! Why does it make me so ecstatic? Because it will leave more money in my paycheck? Because it will stimulate investing and job creation?
Those are nice, but here’s the real reason: It gives the left apoplexy!
Yes, I know it’s impolite to gloat, but, well, um, well, AH SCREW IT!!! I’m going to enjoy it for a little bit!
Even though Bush has already signed the bill, they just can’t give it up. The Des Moines Register and the Washington Post are now crapping a brick over the fact that the child credit for low-income folks isn’t sped up like other portions of the tax cut in fast enough (it is phased in by 2005). Bob Herbert of the New York Times is having another cow (after his one just a few days ago):
It was a mean-spirited and wholly unnecessary act, a clear display of the current regime's outright hostility toward America's poor and working classes.
Funny, but I don’t recall them griping about this during the first Bush tax cut of 2001. And even if they did, all I can say is “SUCK IT UP!” You’re the ones who griped and moaned about the cost in the first place. Guess that $3.5 billion had to wait. Oh, and you’re not fooling anyone: if that $3.5 billion had been included, you would have given no kudos to Bush anyway. You would have griped that the tax cut cost $3.5 billion more than the $350 billion Bush, the Senate and the House had agreed on. So quit your whining and take it like a man!
Okay, that’s enough. Gloat time is over.
. . .
ON A MORE SERIOUS NOTE…
In that Des Moines Register editorial linked in the above post, the editorialists wrote:
What's more important:
Lowering taxes investors pay? or,
Giving struggling families the expanded child credit?
Answer: the former. Here’s why. If we assume that children are better off when their parents are employed, then we need tax cuts that promote job creation. And job creation comes from investment.
You can see this by looking at this table on Gross Domestic Product from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. I recommend that you switch the dates to 2000 as the first year and 2003 as the last year. Now, you’ll notice that GDP is broken down into three main categories, personal consumption, gross private domestic investment, and government consumption. You’ll also notice that of the three categories, only private domestic investment has declined since 2000. That is the primary cause of the 2001 recession and the continued sluggish economy.
So if the best thing for families is a strong economy, then we need tax cuts that stimulate investment.
. . .
BLAIR, MO DO, KRUGMAN—A NOT SO PROUD TRADITION
As if the New York Times doesn’t have enough problems with Jayson Blair, it has recently been revealed that columnist Maureen Dowd took a Bush quote out of context. I’m beginning to think that what afflicts the Times isn’t incompetence or dishonesty. I hypothesize that it’s a virus, because Paul Krugman has now caught it.
In today’s missive he claims that the Bush Administration is without historical peer in its deception (where was he during the eight years of Clinton?) Anyway:
Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which — to an extent never before seen in U.S. history — systematically and brazenly distorts the facts.
And Krugman’s evidence for this “standard operating procedure”?
Am I exaggerating? [Do you need to ask?] Even as George Bush stunned reporters by declaring that we have "found the weapons of mass destruction," the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households — including a majority of those with members over 65 — get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes.
Well, as you’ve probably guessed, that Bush quote is taken out of context. Here’s what Bush actually said:
We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,'' Bush said in an interview conducted Thursday. ''They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.
''And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.''
As the article in the Sun Times notes:
In an interview with Polish television, Bush provided no details, but he followed his statement with comments about the labs. It was not clear whether he was equating the labs with weapons.
The full quote gives doubt to Bush’s exact meaning, and that’s why Krugman only uses a small portion.
And you’ve also probably guessed that Krugman distorts the “everyone who pays taxes” quote too. Here’s the fuller context:
Who benefits under the President’s plan?
Everyone who pays taxes—especially middle-income Americans — as tax rate reductions passed by Congress in 2001 are made effective immediately. Middle-income families will receive additional relief from accelerated reduction of the marriage penalty, a faster increase in the child tax credit, and immediate implementation of the new, lower 10 percent tax bracket.
So the RNC press release refers to income tax rate reductions--not child tax credits as Krugman suggests. In fact, the quote specifically notes the middle-class families—not lower income families—will benefit from a “faster increase in the child tax credit.” Again, Krugman only uses part of the quote because it “substantiates” his charge of deception. Is it just me, or is there a lot of irony in that last sentence?
Regarding last Friday’s Krugman column I wrote that it was “further proof that the Howell Raines’ era at the New York Times is a disaster.” I now regret not saving that remark for today.
UPDATE: I posted an earlier version of this which claimed Krugman had distorted the date on the RNC press release. Upon further research, I found that claim was wrong, but that he'd taken the quote out of context. Sorry for any confusion.
. . .
Monday, June 02, 2003
BIKE TRAILS = ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
I know this because a Des Moines Register editorial said so. See what you can learn from soft-headed, crunchy liberalism?
The Register thinks that this should be a crucial part of the Iowa Values Fund (IVF):
Spend money for quality-of-life amenities, such as bike trails and destination parks, that make people want to live in and visit Iowa.
State Senator Stewart Iverson tried to bring a bit of common sense to the debate:
Senate Majority Leader Stewart Iverson left the impression Tuesday there is room to compromise on school infrastructure. When asked why the Senate would put no money into quality-of-life improvements, Iverson suggested such spending doesn't belong in an economic-growth package, that Iowa does plenty on that count anyway. In fact, he said, Iowa has more bike trails per capita than any other state.
Yes, if Iowa already has so many bike trails, we should already be the economic dynamo of the Midwest. Perhaps that should tell us something, namely that bike trails probably have minimal economic benefit. But the Register was having none of it:
Perhaps Iowa does have the most miles per capita. But Iowa does not appear to lead in total miles of trail, nor does the state take full advantage of the potential of trail tourism here.
Iowa could become the bike capital of the United States, with more than 1,000 miles of recreational trails in place already and construction of the Mississippi River Trail under way. That trail alone is expected to bring at least $20 million a year to Iowa's economy. The Register's Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa, drawing 10,000 riders each July, has helped establish that national identity. But Iowa has to do much more.
Even if Iverson is right, Iowa is not yet known as the bike-trail state. A statewide trails system with bed-and-breakfasts and other attractions scattered throughout the stunning countryside is just what Iowa needs, among many other efforts to stimulate economic growth.
Iowa should become known as the bike-trail state! Yep, that will do loads for economic growth in this state. I’m sure that bed and breakfasts and bicycle shops bring in major profits and creates loads of good jobs. Of course, this might not work out if, say, Illinois, or South Dakota, or Minnesota, or maybe all of those states decide to get in on the action and build lots of their own bike trails. Since the supply of bicyclists wanting to visit the Midwest isn’t limitless, the increased competition could hurt Iowa. That assumes, of course, that other states are smart enough to follow our lead. But unlike us, they don’t have the geniuses at the Des Moines Register to enlighten them:
That's what's appealing about the proposed economic-development fund. It could roll many good ideas into one package and give them a try. Money to lure businesses is risky, but investing in amenities is sure to pay off.
If we don’t have high-paying jobs, but lots of bike trails and parks, workers will definitely come. I think it’s fair to say that the IVF has given the Register editorialists a case of NITS—No Idea Too Stupid.
. . .
AND WHILE I’M ON THE SUBJECT…
Now the Register is telling us that size matters. The headline reads:
Make it BIG. Or don’t do it at all. There’s no point to a little bitty Iowa Values Fund.
Ever suppose they’d say that about a tax cut? “Make it huge—there’s no point to a tiny one.” I know, I know: Dave, what are you smoking and where can I get some?
What’s most interesting about this editorial is that the authors don’t seem to have a clue about the contradictions in their argument. They want a huge IVF, but then they bash a sizeable state income tax because:
The proposal would cut a net $150 million from the state's operating revenue over a four-year period. Yet Iowa already is underfunding education and human services. Iowa needs this revenue.
Funny, but doesn't Iowa also need the money that’s going into the IVF? In fact, if the IVF is in the $800 million range that the Register would prefer (remember, bigger is better) and it is paid back over 20 years, the cost, before interest, is $40 million per year. Using some new math, that comes to $160 million over four years.
So why isn’t that factored into the money that is needed for education and human services? Well, ‘cause, uh, well, that’s different! That’s smart spending by the government that will grow the economy. A tax cut is just a give-away to the rich. Yeah.
. . .
WHAT THE HELL, LET ME BEAT A DEAD HORSE
The most recent editorial by the Register on the IVF portrays the proponents of the IVF as sweetness and light, while the opponents are all a bunch of sticks in the mud. It’s the oldest rhetorical trick in the book.
The editorial claims that the opponents in the State Senate are “mostly satisfied with the way things are and not so eager to risk investing in an economic-development fund whose success is not a sure thing.” And:
The Senate hasn't seemed genuinely interested in any of this. It seems stuck in the 20th century (the early 20th century). The House is trying move the state forward. Which Iowa is it going to be? The Senate should shake its outdated notions of an Iowa that no longer exists and join hands with the House in building an Iowa better than it's ever been, in this century or any other.
Oh, those fuddy-duddy State Senators! What do they know? I mean, it’s not like the 20th century is littered with examples of what happens when governments meddle more and more in the economy. It’s not like there are many instances of economies that became sinkholes because of centralized planning, (And even if there were, it’s irrelevant, because the Iowa Values Fund is different).
The Register favors more government involvement in the economy, while some in the State Senate oppose it. Who is it, exactly, that’s still living in the 20th Century?
. . .
HOW ORIGINAL!
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert ends his post-hoc criticism of the Bush tax cut with the following lines:
What the economy needs is a real stimulus that will create real jobs, not an irresponsible package of tax cuts that will inflate the portfolios of the very wealthy while starving the government of the money needed to pay for essential services and to maintain a safety net for the nation's most vulnerable citizens.
We are closing schools and libraries in America, and withholding lifesaving drugs and medical treatment from the poor. The middle class is struggling ever harder to make ends meet, and reshaping its dreams of the future.
Is there a manual for liberal opinion writers with chapters like How To Bash Tax Cuts, How to Dismiss Social Security Reform, How to Hype Global Warming, etc.?
. . .
|
. . .
|
