JustinLogan.com

Umm...

Typo?

"I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged.”

-Justice Antonin Scalia

Hat tip: Atrios.

Gmail

Evidently I have 6 Gmail accounts to give away. If you're interested in a gig of online storage and all the other bells and whistles, lemme know.

Reality Is Whatever I Say It Is

Yglesias is beating up on the President for not understanding that his policy is bad. And rightly so. I've been a believer in the "the Bushies aren't lying -- they really believe the lies" meme for a while. Apparently, so has Yglesias:

Mistakes happen, and perfection is not a reasonable standard for political leadership. The problem with this case for Bush, however, is precisely that it isn't Bush's case for Bush. Instead, the president wants us to re-elect him because he's a flawless leader whose mistake-free policies have created a lovely situation in Iraq, where freedom is blossoming and the war has made Americans safer.

Right. Though this interview with Sy Hersh in Salon does Matt one better. An excerpt:

Is there someone who is the Henry Kissinger in this administration?

Oh, believe me, I pray for one [clasps his hands and looks beseechingly upward]. Wouldn't it be great if the reality was that they were lying about WMD, and they really didn't believe that democracy would come when they invaded Iraq, and you could go to war with 5,000 troops, a few special forces, a few bombs and a lot of American flags, and Iraq would fold, Saddam would be driven out, a new Baath Party would emerge that's moderate? Democracy would flow like water out of a fountain. These guys believe it. They believe WMD. There's no fallback with these guys. These guys are utopians. They're like Trotskyites. They believe in permanent revolution. They really believe. They believe that they could go in with few forces. They believed that once they went in it would happen quick. Iran would get the message. What they call occupied Lebanon would get the lesson. Even the Saudis would change.

They thought it would happen quickly?

Very quickly. I don't have any empirical basis for it, but if I had to bet, the plan was to go right into Syria. That's why the fourth division was hanging for so long in the desert out there right on the border with Syria. In the early days of the war, before this government figured out how much trouble they were in -- which took them a long time -- they would drive practice runs, somebody told me. Again, I'm just saying what was told to me; this is not something I reported, but I was told pretty reliably, they were doing practice runs that amounted to the distance from the border to Damascus. It's my belief always -- again this is not empirical, it's sort of my heuristic view -- that the real reason [Paul] Wolfowitz and others were mad at [Gen. Eric] Shinseki when he testified before the war about [the need for] 200 or 300 troops -- it wasn't about the numbers -- was, "Didn't he get it? What had he been listening to in the tank? Didn't we explain to him in the tank what we told the chiefs? This is the way it's going to be. Didn't he understand what it's all about?" He didn't get it. He hadn't understood what they meant. This was all going to fall down. It was all going to be peaches and cream. And Shinseki just didn't get it! It wasn't about the numbers. He wasn't a member of the clan. He didn't join the utopia crowd.

You've answered one of my questions. Let's elaborate on it. Clearly there's very little that's, well, in touch with reality in these policies.

Ha, ha, ha. It's so easy for you to say that!

But it's not so clear actually. Many Americans...

I think I used actually ... I'll get you this word [grabs book from my lap and begins flipping through it] ... there was a "fantastical" quality to the White House's deliberations. Fantastical. That was the phrase I used.

Yes, I read that. And that was my next question. With Kissinger, there were lies, and he knew exactly what he was doing...

Yes, one of his aides was assigned -- literally assigned on one of the secret flights they made to China -- to keep track of the lies, who knew what. I think they used to describe it as keeping track of what statements were made, but essentially it was who was being told what, because so many different people were being told different things. But these guys, do you realize how much better off we would be if they really were cynical, and they really were lying about it, because, yes, behind the invasion would be something real, like support for Israel or oil. But it's not! It's not about oil. It's about utopia. I guess you could call it idealism. But it's idealism that's dead wrong. It's like one of the far-right Christian credos. It's a faith-based policy. Only it wasn't a religious faith. It was the faith that democracy would flourish.

So you don't think that this is some Machiavellian, cynical, manipulative...

I used to pray it was! We'd be in better shape. Is there anything worse than idealism that doesn't conform to reality? You have an unrealistic policy.

Bombing Yes, Reading No

In the Republicans' continued attempts to demonstrate that they're "grown-ups" who are better suited to handle the war on terrorism:

The FBI has failed to translate hundreds of thousands of hours of wiretap recordings from counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, despite steep increases in funding for new linguists and other translation services, according to a report released yesterday.

[...]

"...despite the infusion of more than 620 additional linguists since September 11, 2001, the FBI reported that nearly 24 percent of ongoing . . . counterintelligence and counterterrorism intercepts are not being monitored."

[...]

The problems persist, [DoJ Inspector General Glenn] Fine's report found, despite a dramatic increase in funding for translation-related services within the FBI. The FBI now employs more than 1,200 linguists, compared with fewer than 900 three years ago. It spends $70 million annually on language services, compared with $21 million in fiscal 2001.

Fine also reported that the bureau lacks the computer storage capacity to keep up with the amount of recording it is conducting. The limitations mean that, in some cases, surveillance recordings may be deleted before they can be reviewed, the report said. Fine determined that although deleted recordings can be retrieved through archives, FBI translators generally have no way of knowing that material has been lost.

I mean, if this is how un-serious we are about the WoT, why bother fighting at all? The article says that there were 370,000 hours of tape in Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, Pashto, etc. that hadn't been translated. I mean, for God's sake, does nobody care about this? Is it really a matter of "they" hit us on 9/11, and now we're hitting "them" so this type of thing doesn't matter? Don't we at least want to know what they're saying?!?!

This is just massive incompetence of the highest order. It's putting our neck on the table for another 9/11, and nobody's going to be held accountable. Except some poor assholes in some crappy Arab dictatorship who're going to get bombed after the next terrorist attack.

For more on the administration's tunnel vision in the WoT, see Chuck's Open Democracy article, which I helped research.

You Know This Blog Thing Is Getting Incestuous When

Your friends/ideological fellow travelers blog -- well, your parties. Jim Henley has a pretty good rundown here, though I must say I don't lament having missed the discussion of Kinsey's sexuality spectrum. Nobody likes to feel un-erudite and hyper-straight all at once, do they?

Adrienne, who seems to be implying that people were drinking at the party, has her own retort to Jim here and a bit of her own rundown.

Somehow they both seem to have omitted the part where I suggested we all lambada, but I suppose that's for the better.

And for those who're interested, I had an interesting exchange with the security guard at my building the evening after.

Guard: Hey!

Me: Yes?

Guard: You should see the sign in sheet from last night!

Me: Oh? Did it take up a full sheet?

Guard: More than two full sheets. What was going on up there?

Me: *demurring* Oh, um, just had a few friends over for kind of a housewarming.

Guard: You have a lot of friends!

Me: (thinking, and out loud) Yeah, well, free booze helps.

Guard: I went up there a few times to see what was going on, but yous wasn't bein' loud.

Me: (doing best jedi mind trick) *Yes, that's right, the important thing to remember is that we weren't being loud.*

Update: Justin Logan Not Cynical Enough

Sunday's WaPo (here and here):

[S]ince the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Baghdad and three of the country's largest and most populous provinces -- Anbar in the west, Salahuddin to the north and Babil to the south -- have been the principal hotbeds of insurgent violence. And according to the Kroll reports, recent violence appears to have been widespread rather than limited. On Wednesday, for instance, attacks in Salahuddin province occurred in Taji, Balad, Tikrit, Samarra, Baiji, Thuliyah and Dujayl -- the seven largest population centers in the area.

Moreover, the security reports indicate that a majority of the hostile acts committed against U.S. and Iraqi security forces over the past two weeks have occurred outside those three provinces. For example, the cities of Amarah in the southern province of Maysan and Samawah in Muthanna province, also in the south, had long been relatively free of violence but are now experiencing frequent attacks, the reports indicate.

There also has been an unusual spike in the number of attacks to the north of the capital. More attacks have been reported in the northern cities of Mosul, Samarra and Tikrit over the past two weeks than in Fallujah and Ramadi, two areas of frequent fighting in Anbar.

Military officials contend, however, that does not mean the restive areas west of Baghdad -- the area known as the Sunni Triangle -- are no longer insurgent strongholds. The likely explanation, the officials said, is that U.S. Marines stationed in Anbar have sharply reduced their patrolling, making them less vulnerable to roadside attacks. But that strategy, officials say, has allowed insurgent cells to expand in the province.

"There are fewer attacks here because we're out on the road less," an officer at the Marine headquarters near Fallujah said on condition of anonymity. "But you shouldn't conclude from that that things are any safer."

So the idea is to hunker down to prevent a lot of U.S. casualties before the U.S. elections. But in the process things are going to get a lot worse. When you're entrenched on a heavily fortified military base out in the middle of the desert, only the nuttiest of nutballs is going to come barrelling towards a jersey barrier and attempt a suicide attack. But, of course, said nutballs can pretty much take over the cities. Ah, but not to worry:

The United States and Iraq are crafting a two-pronged plan to prepare for Iraq's first democratic election in January, combining a fall military offensive to evict insurgents from volatile areas with creative approaches to ensure that voters will participate in the historic poll, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.

[...]

The goal is to use U.S. military muscle decisively but briefly, and then leave to avoid becoming targets or fueling further anti-U.S. sentiment, say U.S. and Iraqi officials. While the United States is confident it can win a military battle, the bigger challenge is creating an Iraqi government presence to prevent key areas from reverting into chaos -- a problem after a U.S. offensive in Fallujah last spring.

[...]

The timing of stepped-up military operations will depend largely on how quickly Iraqi troops are trained and available, said officials, who insist a lag in preparing Iraqi forces -- and not the Nov. 2 U.S. election -- is the determining factor.

Okay, so now we know what we're doing. We're letting the insurgents run roughshod over large swaths of the country, in effect taking it over entirely. Then, once those pesky U.S. elections are over and things have gotten so bad that we're "justified" in bombing the holy shit out of the trouble spots, we're going to do so. Look for hundreds, if not thousands of Iraqi civilians dead before year's end. Our man in Iraq, Ayad Allawi, will nod solemnly in assent, and support this measure of ours.

Then, with civilian populations re-terrorized countrywide, we'll hold "elections" in Iraq. These elections will be neither free nor fair, but will bring to power an autocratic quasi-dictator. Then, with between 15-20,000 Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces, we'll declare that we've created a liberal democracy in Iraq and start pulling some forces out. Oh, and on the way out, we might just run into those pesky Syrians, whom we've been wanting a crack at since we went in. Of course, Iraq will remain a newly transformed terrorist haven until said autocrat can effectively consolidate power, which he will do via a cross between Putinism and Saddamism.

Get ready for that to be "success."

It's All Been a Lie!!!

Well, it now appears that Russian lesbian schoolgirl popsingers Tatu in fact aren't lesbians.

Tatu's Julia gave birth to a healthy baby girl, the newspaper Life (Zhizn) reports. A cute little girl weighs 3 kg 100 g, she is 51 centimeters tall. Doctors washed and swaddled the baby and gave her to her mother.

[...]

The baby girl's father, Pavel, was sitting in the corridor outside the maternity room during Julia's birth labor. The young man was very nervous: he kept on looking into the delivery room every now and then, willing to find out if the baby was born yet or not.

Doesn't sound like a detached sperm donor to a lesbian couple to me. Next thing you know they're going to tell me that we haven't found any WMD in Iraq.

Carb Rage

Tim Cavanaugh calls out all you anti-carb commies.

Dissent from the Ground in Iraq

NB: It has been brought to my attention by some who are Googling Spc. Swink and ending up at this page that my meaning in the original title of the post was unclear.  It was intended to caricature those who claim that opposition to the war means being anti-American  It would be curious to hear pro-war folks level such claims at troops in the field.  My position, for the record, is staunchly anti-war, vigorously pro-US troops.  Their service is the highest form of bravery, and their professionalism and discipline are deserving of all our respect.  I opposed deploying them to Iraq, and resent those who seek to keep them there indefinitely.  Even though I put a long disclaimer at the beginning of the old post, some people could not seem to figure out that it was a sarcastic post digging at hawks here in Washington who attack those who stop to question what we're doing in Iraq and why we're there.  Feel free to browse around the site to get a better feel for things, if you'd like.

"There's no clear definition of why we came here. First they said they have WMD and nuclear weapons, then it was to get Saddam Hussein out of office, and then to rebuild Iraq. I want to fight for my nation and for my family, to protect the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, not to protect Iraqi civilians or deal with Sadr's militia."

From a CSM piece on dissent on the ground in Iraq. WTH.

Whose Plan for Shrinking the Deficit?

This seems to be the conservative plan:

By several measures the largest civil action ever brought by the Justice Department, the lawsuit has already produced 645 court orders and 120 million pages of documents, and it has cost $135 million in taxpayer funds and untold more in industry legal fees.

The potential payoff for the government is enormous: The Justice Department is asking for $280 billion from the tobacco industry as repayment of its allegedly "ill-gotten" profits

[...]

Soon after taking office, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft spoke disparagingly about the government's case, and it was revealed that the government held talks with the industry about settling out of court. ***Bush administration flip-flop alert***

Oh yeah? Well John Kerry would extort tobacco companies TOO!

WTH.