JustinLogan.com

More NRO

Jonah Goldberg takes the high road on Fritz Hollings and anti-Semitism. Pretty devastating.

Why Is Everything Ironic These Days?

"[F]oreign affairs are a dirty business, best approached with a certain emotional detachment. Our democratic -- naive? -- tendency to international politics has gotten us into trouble before, and will probably do so again."

Where'd that come from, you ask? Why, the Corner, of course.

Good Blurb to Hit Bush With

"It's the occupation, stupid."

-Stanley Hoffman on Charlie Rose (today)

They Don't Call It the "Republican Palace" for Nothin'

Want to get pissed off? From the WaPo:

When the U.S. government went looking for people to help rebuild Iraq, they had responded to the call. They supported the war effort and President Bush. Many had strong Republican credentials. They were in their twenties or early thirties and had no foreign service experience...

They had been hired to perform a low-level task: collecting and organizing statistics, surveys and wish lists from the Iraqi ministries for a report that would be presented to potential donors at the end of the month. But as suicide bombs and rocket attacks became almost daily occurrences, more and more senior staffers defected. In short order, six of the new young hires found themselves managing the country's $13 billion budget, making decisions affecting millions of Iraqis...

Andrew Burns, 23, a Red Cross volunteer who had taught English in rural China, felt going to Iraq would help him pursue a career in humanitarian aid. Todd Baldwin, 28, a legislative aide for Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), thought the opportunity was too good to pass up. John Hanley, 24, a Web site editor, wanted to break into the world of international relations. Anita Greco, 25, a former teacher, and Casey Wasson, 23, a recent college graduate in government, just needed jobs.

For months they wondered what they had in common, how their names had come to the attention of the Pentagon, until one day they figured it out: They had all posted their resumes at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank...

Several had impressive paper credentials, but in the wrong fields. Greco was fluent in English, Italian and Spanish; Burns had been a policy analyst focused on family and health care; and Ledeen had co-founded a cooking school. But none had ever worked in the Middle East, none spoke Arabic, and few could tell a balance sheet from an accounts receivable statement.

Other staffers quickly nicknamed the newcomers "The Brat Pack."

"They had come over because of one reason or another, and they were put in positions of authority that they had no clue about," remembered Army Reserve Sgt. Thomas D. Wirges, 38, who had been working on rehabilitating the Baghdad Stock Exchange.

Some also grumbled about the new staffers' political ties. Retired U.S. Army Col. Charles Krohn said many in the CPA regard the occupation "as a political event," always looking for a way to make the president look good...

The pay turned out to be good. Ledeen and her co-workers had agreed to come to Iraq without knowing their salaries. They ended up with standard government base salaries in the range of $30,000 to $75,000 a year, plus a 25 percent foreign differential, another 25 percent for a workplace "in imminent danger," and overtime pay. In the end, almost everyone was making the equivalent of six-figure salaries.

The group's primary responsibility was to hand out money. Each month, it sent out authorizations for the release of several hundred million dollars for government employees' salaries, reconstruction projects and sundry other expenses.

But they were also involved in higher-level policy decisions -- revising the 2004 budget, shifting around money as priorities changed and formulating plans for replacing the food baskets Iraqi families got each month with cash payments...

Brad Jackson, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve who worked with the CPA, said the budget team regularly asked other ministries at the last minute to produce information that would take hundreds of people half a year to gather.

"There were a lot of people who, being political science majors, didn't know what an income statement was, who were asking the impossible. . . . That was giving us ulcers, quite frankly," he said...

This is un-flippin'-believable. We knew we were dealing with a Wilsonian, but Bush is FDR reincarnated, dishing out political favors to right-wing hacks?

I was never a big fan of the "the administration didn't do enough planning" line of attack, because I'm a libertarian and I believe that there's never enough central planning to actually fix a problem. But to put these kids IN CHARGE OF AN ENTIRE COUNTRY'S FINANCES is just beyond my comprehension. It's unbelievable.

And get a load of one of their vacation photos:

From an article one of them posted on Townhall:

We did get to bed eventually, and our accommodations were palatial. Literally. We have been billeted in the Republican palace’s north wing for the past week, and although everyone is aspiring to become part of the bustling trailer park (Camp Arkansas) which is spreading around the palace, we have nothing to complain about. Our beds are in the A/C (not that anyone sleeps much), the food is shockingly good (we had surf and turf Sunday night), and as the new kids on the block everyone has gone out of their way to welcome us.

Pletka Likens the CPA to Saddam, Rubin Says We're Failing in Iraq, and Hometown Legislators Get It Right

Pletka:

"I think the Coalition Provisional Authority has lost its grip on reality. The CPA has spent too much time in Saddam's palace, and they've caught a whiff of dictatorship. There were no charges against [Chalabi] - and they smashed up his house. Can you imagine if we did that to a member of Congress here? That's what he is.

At the end of the day, Ahmad Chalabi can take care of himself. This is a symptom of us having lost our way."

Rubin:

"Bremer has not learned, neither has the CIA, that humiliation of Iraqis backfires. We're fumbling big time."

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo):

"The people who've known him the longest said they wouldn't trust him with a quarter to get a cup of coffee."

In the Post-Dispatch.

And You Thought Clinton's Press Secretary Had It Rough...

From yesterday's WH press conference:

Q The raid on Chalabi's home, does the President feel betrayed by Chalabi, misled by the intelligence that he gave?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, in terms of the raid in Iraq, I think that the Coalition Provisional Authority briefed on that matter earlier, and they talked about how this was an Iraqi-led investigation, and an Iraqi-led raid. And it was the result of some arrest warrants issued by Iraqi officials. And they also pointed out that Mr. Chalabi was not someone that they were pursuing. So that's what I know about this incident.

Q But what about the prewar intelligence he gave?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, in terms of all the prewar intelligence, that's a matter that the commission -- the independent commission the President appointed -- will be looking into. But I would remind you of what the President talks about repeatedly, that the intelligence that we had was intelligence that was shared by the United Nations, it was shared by countries around the world, and it was shared by members of Congress, as well.

then later in the press conference:

Q Scott, on Chalabi -- you can't wiggle out of this that easily. I mean, you make it seem like the Iraqis have no coordination with the Americans. We still run the place, and they're conducting raids. So, the question is, is this figure, -- who is extremely close to this administration, is a driving force behind the ultimate goal of toppling Saddam Hussein -- in the President's mind, is he still a credible figure of Iraq's government? And does he have a role, in the President's estimation, in Iraq's future?

MR. McCLELLAN: He's a member of the Iraqi Governing Council. He has been working with the coalition in the past. In terms of -- in terms of -- in terms of going forward, it's going to be up to the Iraqi people to determine who it is that represents their country.

Q I want to know what the President thinks about this man's credibility. This man --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's what the Iraqi people think going forward, in terms of who is going to be overseeing their efforts.

Q Nobody buys that. Nobody buys that it's just up to the Iraqi people. Does the President of United States --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's the fact.

Q -- who has relied heavily, as have others who have served him, on the counsel of Ahmed Chalabi, believe his credibility is intact?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's up the Iraqi people to make determinations about who they want leading their country going forward and who they want involved -- who they want involved in the government.

Q This man, who the United States taxpayers funded his movement, who delivered intelligence to the United States that was not borne out, in fact. You're saying that it's up to the Iraqi people, and the President has no opinion about whether he retains his credibility?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's not the President's place to weigh in on who's going to be the future -- future leaders of -- of Iraq.

Q The President's not accountable for somebody that we funded?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's for the Iraqi people -- that's for the Iraqi people to decide.

Q Hundreds of millions of dollars on an annual basis.

MR. McCLELLAN: He is someone that has been a member of the government --

Q You're going to dodge that. Your President is not going to weigh in on whether or not he thinks his credibility is intact?

MR. McCLELLAN: I pointed out that he has been someone that has served on the Iraqi Governing Council. That Governing Council is going to be coming to an end as we transfer sovereignty here, in a few weeks. That's where the focus is now. And Mr. Brahimi is working to name the members of that interim representative government. Then we will move forward to free elections, beginning next January, as the President talked about -- as the President talked about with members of Congress.

Q Do you think that's good enough for people, including Republicans, who have doubts about this war in Iraq --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the future of Iraq --

Q -- to point out he's part of the Governing Council?

MR. McCLELLAN: The future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people, and the President talked to members of Congress about this is -- we're now at a point where Iraqi leaders will be emerging and being able to take hold of their future.

Q You have no opinion on this man that the U.S. hitched its wagon to?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've addressed your question. Go ahead.

Then this happens.

I'm calling predictions on this one, and that's that Feith finds a sword and falls on it, posthaste.

Earth to Deroy, We're Over Here

Deroy Murdock on Scarborough Country, commenting on the Sarin-tainted shell that was found in Iraq:

"[W]hether there are massive stockpiles or not, let‘s just say there are only five of these shells. Let‘s say that these guys, bad guys, were able to lob these five shells into the Green Zone. That would be an absolute disaster. You would have the Coalition Provisional Authority dead. And that would be a total mess."

Umm, does anybody really believe that? 5 shells with traces of Sarin are going to bring down the entire CPA? Or better yet, any nation in possession of 5 chemical weapon shells from the '70s is fair game for regime change?

David Kay had a slightly different view:

"It doesn't strike me as a big deal."

Ahmed Chalabi Likens the US to Saddam...

...after we raided his offices. Could things get any more f**ked up?

Salem Chalabi, nephew of Ahmad Chalabi and head of the Iraqi war crimes tribunal, said his uncle told him by telephone that Iraqi and American authorities "entered his home and put the guns to his head in a very humiliating way that reminds everyone of the conduct of the former regime."

WTH.

A Glimmer of Hope for the Median Voter

Peggy Noonan interviewed an undecided, learning-towards-Kerry sixtysomething:

As for wars--Vietnam, Nicaragua, anything in Africa, the Mideast, whatever--she has come to believe one thing: None of them were really necessary. War is never good and usually not right. The communists invade Long Island, you have to fight. Otherwise--they rarely have to be fought. You can always sort of put it off. Talk, give a little here and there, make a deal. Don't have a war. Men have war not because they're brutal but because they're romantic, they get all excited. The flags and parades. And they take things very seriously, like oil and geopolitics.

Anna is not a pacifist, she just thinks man likes war too much, and when you look back you think: What was that about? Couldn't they avoided that?

She voted for Mr. Bush in 2000. She's by nature a Republican, which she thinks of as the more boring and mature party. Boring is good in government. Exciting is for "Ryan's Hope." But she likes Democrats too. They're more rascally. But Clinton--he was very smart and he had a great economy but he was a bum. Not just the sex but the money and the pardons and Hillary probably walked out of there with a couch on her head! Bush is a better person. He gets in and 9/11 comes and he handles it. He brought respect back. But he's always too eager to get involved in things. He pushes too much. He's pretty impetuous! It was good in Afghanistan, we got rid of those nuts. But Iraq--I don't know. Iraq is very--who knows? Maybe it was too much. Maybe it was the right thing--but now we've got this antiwar mess and it's 10 troops today and the Israelis and the Gaza strip and fighting and suicide and kids with backpacks and--what a big mess.

Hmm. Seems about right to me. It's in the WSJ, so I think you need a subscription, but the whole thing's here.

Why the Entire Left Still Sucks, Part 923

What the hell kind of leftist says that:

"[T]here are many good arguments to be made for reinstating the draft."

This kind.

Does the left give up so easily on its opposition to the War that it swings from opposition to the promotion of forced labor in an effort to fight it? How hard left is such a notion? As much animosity as I have for Ayn Rand, it seems to me like she got this one right.