The Fulcrum
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Giving Thanks
I'm thankful for my wonderful wife, my family, my home and my health. Anything beyond that is nice, but it's those things that make me happy.
At a time when American and coalition troops are patrolling, fighting and dying in Iraq for no good reason, we should all keep them in out thoughts. They will have their turkey amid the dust and cold of the Iraq desert. They will have to rotate through a chow line knowing they will have to go back out on patrol in the evening and knowing that their friends and comrades are in harms way. So as you sit down to your table for dinner or to your TV for parades or football, remember them.
If you stop by here today, thank you and I hope that you have at least one thing to be thankful for. Please leave a comment and let me know.
At a time when American and coalition troops are patrolling, fighting and dying in Iraq for no good reason, we should all keep them in out thoughts. They will have their turkey amid the dust and cold of the Iraq desert. They will have to rotate through a chow line knowing they will have to go back out on patrol in the evening and knowing that their friends and comrades are in harms way. So as you sit down to your table for dinner or to your TV for parades or football, remember them.
If you stop by here today, thank you and I hope that you have at least one thing to be thankful for. Please leave a comment and let me know.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Spewing Spending Spin
It's hard to believe that anyone would have the "gonadal fortitude" to say this, much less the miscreants who pushed this package. Says Joshua Bolten, director of the OMB:
With Congress's completion of its work on the 2005 budget this week, President Bush and Congressional leaders have achieved a significant victory in the battle for spending discipline in Washington.It is on the Wall Street Journal OpEd page, so you'd expect a little hyperbole.
I've Got a Bad Feeling About This
The Bush administration has had some really bad ideas in the past four years. And I had no doubt that we'd see plenty more in the next four. I just really didn't expect to see something this bad (WSJ; subscription) so quickly.
While spies and agents are reasons for diplomatic complaints and expulsions, isn't the presence of military operatives a casus belli?
Pentagon officials have drafted a secret order telling U.S. Special Forces to be prepared to conduct clandestine operations against terror groups, many with ties to al Qaeda in the Middle East and Asia, according to military and civilian officials.It's pretty much assumed that if you have disagreements with a country (and often, even if you don't), there will be spooks from your intelligence agencies trying to figure out what's going on. These professionals are trained and their agencies are set up so that the US maintains a level of diplomatic and legal deniability in these operations. It would seem to me to be an entirely different situation if you have members of the military snooping around, kidnapping or killing people in another country.
[snip]
If adopted, the Pentagon document would lay the groundwork for special-forces operations against terror groups in countries where the military hasn't been active, possibly including missions in nations friendly to the U.S., officials said. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top aides want special-operations troops to have greater involvement in jobs traditionally handled by the CIA. The missions under consideration range from intelligence gathering to apprehending individual terrorists to lethal attacks, people involved said.
While spies and agents are reasons for diplomatic complaints and expulsions, isn't the presence of military operatives a casus belli?
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Busy...
Today was nuts!
I hope you clicked through to some of those great blogs on the right.
More tomorrow.
I hope you clicked through to some of those great blogs on the right.
More tomorrow.
Monday, November 22, 2004
No Politics Here...
If you want a clear picture of how BushCo. politicized the situation in Iraq prior to the elections you only have to read this article on MSNBC carefully.
First, notice that now the election is over, it's okay to start talking about how more troops are needed on the ground. This discussion is couched in terms of continuing to press the "insurgents" now that the battle in Fallujah is over, but if comments about having "broken the back" of the insurgency could be taken at face value, then why would more troops be needed? Now that the election is safely past and Bush has no fear of being held responsible by voters for just how FUBAR Iraq has become, he is free to ramp up troop strength:
First, notice that now the election is over, it's okay to start talking about how more troops are needed on the ground. This discussion is couched in terms of continuing to press the "insurgents" now that the battle in Fallujah is over, but if comments about having "broken the back" of the insurgency could be taken at face value, then why would more troops be needed? Now that the election is safely past and Bush has no fear of being held responsible by voters for just how FUBAR Iraq has become, he is free to ramp up troop strength:
The officers said the exact number of extra troops needed is still being reviewed but estimated it at the equivalent of several battalions, or about 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers. The number of U.S. troops in Iraq fell to nearly 100,000 last spring before rising to 138,000, where it has stayed since the summer.Second, while it was perfectly okay to "telegraph" our intentions in Fallujah, but hold off from executing the attack - again so that no ugly pictures would interfere with the Bush campaign's rosy depiction of progress in Iraq - it is now not okay to do so.
To boost the current level, military commanders have considered extending the stay of more troops due to rotate out shortly, or accelerating the deployment of the 3rd Infantry Division, which is scheduled to start in January. But a third option—drawing all or part of a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division on emergency standby in the United States—has emerged as increasingly likely.
In discussing battle plans, commanders here did not want to telegraph the areas U.S. forces might be focusing on for their next offensives. But some of the potential targets can easily be discerned by mapping the locations of attacks on U.S. forces, including areas in or around the restive cities of Mosul, Ramadi, Baqubah, Samarra and Baghdad.Most disturbing of all in reading this article is that is seems that some key lessons that should have been learned are being ignored. The first is that drawing on the emergency reserves - that brigade of the 82d Airborne Division - could leave the military even more short-handed than it already is to deal with military flare-ups in another part of the world. The second is that it seems that BushCo. is not finished "misunderestimating" the insurgents:
At the same time, officers cautioned against expecting anything on the scale of Fallujah, which involved more than 10,000 U.S. troops and about 2,500 Iraqi forces.Not yet... not yet.
“They’re not going to be big operations like Fallujah, because there’s no place else in Iraq where the situation is like what it was there,” one commander said.
No Body Counts
Perhaps taking their cue from BushCo.'s operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, big businesses are unable to account for the number of jobs lost to outsourcing among the number of employees laid off in any quarter. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been attempting to provide a public count of jobs lost to outsourcing, but more and more, the answer they are getting from companies is "we don't know." From this morning's Wall Street Journal (subscription):
But is there really any incentive for the BLS, a part of the Bush Administration, don't forget, to get to the real numbers here? Is there any incentive for the businesses interviewed to give up the real answers? So long as more money flows to the bottom line, where it can be showered on obscenely paid executives and on pliant politicians, you can rest assured that the answers to both of those questions is "no."
In its latest report, published last week, the BLS could say only that 16,091 workers were laid off because of job relocations in the third quarter. It couldn't say how many jobs had shifted within the U.S. or were shipped overseas.There just is no doubt that these companies not only know this count, but they know - to the penny - how much they are saving by moving jobs offshore. There is nothing that businesses do - perhaps other than some mom & pop shops - that is not analyzed from every angle.
In 13 of the 95 cases involving job relocations during the third quarter, "the employer could not say anything beyond, 'I laid off 100 people in this layoff. I did move work, but I can't tell you how many of these 100 were due to the movement of work to X, Y and Z,' " says Lewis Siegel, who directs the BLS's mass-layoffs statistics program. The bureau concluded that that proportion was too high to provide a "meaningful" count.
But is there really any incentive for the BLS, a part of the Bush Administration, don't forget, to get to the real numbers here? Is there any incentive for the businesses interviewed to give up the real answers? So long as more money flows to the bottom line, where it can be showered on obscenely paid executives and on pliant politicians, you can rest assured that the answers to both of those questions is "no."